4000K - What benefits will this technology likely provide to still photography

[JerryReed]

Given current and future developments of 4K technology for video, and the necessary parallel support likely to arise in monitors, graphic cards for computers and color technology, are there likely to be benefits to still photography?

Will still photographers want 4K color monitors for instance.

Jerry Reed

http://jerryreed.net

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

One benefit is that we will be able to show 8MP resolution on screen instead of 2MP.

With 4K standards the colour gamut of the screens is also extended.

So we get better resolution with better colour. It will be more viable to present images on display as an alternative to print.

Personally, I present my images mostly as slide shows and I am looking forward to have a display using 20-30% of the capability of my cameras instead if one showing 5-12%.

Best regards
Erik

Given current and future developments of 4K technology for video, and the necessary parallel support likely to arise in monitors, graphic cards for computers and color technology, are there likely to be benefits to still photography?

Will still photographers want 4K color monitors for instance.

Jerry Reed

http://jerryreed.net

[JerryReed]

Eric,

How will 4K widen the color gamut?  Isn't the chip technology the limited factor?  Color graphic cards are still using 8bit color, as far as I know.

Will ADOBE make changes to PS that will provide the basis to write to the 4K screens?

Does this mean that video projector and EPSON still projectors will have to match projected densities to the 4K standard?

I am puzzled by the apparent silence of what will be required to make this move, have just missed what is happening, or is it just not ready to be talked about?

Thank you for your response.

Jerry

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Jerry,

It has very little to do with chip technology and very much to do with standards. Electrons don't have colour, colour is added in 'post'.

In the sixties the vacum tubes head three electron beems aimed at pixels consisting of three different "phosphors" emitting red, green and blue light. The colour gamut was based on these 'phosphors'.

With LCD/DLP technology we replaced the light emitting phosphors by light transmitting filters, but the colour gamut was still about the same, similar to sRGB. With modern technology a wider gamut was made possible but the standards did not keep up with technology.

With 4K comes a new standard, called rec 2020 which defines a much larger gamut than the old rec 709 for HD, see below:



Best regards
Erik

Eric,

How will 4K widen the color gamut?  Isn't the chip technology the limited factor?  Color graphic cards are still using 8bit color, as far as I know.

Will ADOBE make changes to PS that will provide the basis to write to the 4K screens?

Does this mean that video projector and EPSON still projectors will have to match projected densities to the 4K standard?

I am puzzled by the apparent silence of what will be required to make this move, have just missed what is happening, or is it just not ready to be talked about?

Thank you for your response.

Jerry

[Ken R]

Yeah. Video quality depends a LOT on the codec used. Specifically the color space and chroma subsampling used really affect the quality of the image. Think of it as lossy compression, like a JPG. Some cameras do record in RAW "lossless" format but at some point the data needs to be transcoded to a format (codec) that can be distributed and displayed efficiently.

[JerryReed]

Erik,

Looking at the graph you provided in your previous response, I did not realize what a poor job was being done rendering GREEN.  When looking at a GreTag color checker, in in the "Soft Proofing" mode, it was always the saturated blue that popped out of gamut at the lowest brightness level.  I could never get above a 50% "B" in HSB value with a saturated blue without getting out of gamut.  So, to see that GREEN was the more deficient hue, was a surprise to me.

Thanks for the information.

Jerry

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Getting back to Photoshop, it should be able to handle any colour space. I normally use PS with Prophoto RGB which is a very large colour space. So the only thing we in PS is a rec 2020 colour space.

We also need an operating system supporting the rec 2020 colour space and handling colour profiles correctly, that may be a major issue. Also it is possible that the OS renders stills correctly but not motion. I don't understand why colour management is such a mess 20 years after it has been developed.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,

Looking at the graph you provided in your previous response, I did not realize what a poor job was being done rendering GREEN.  When looking at a GreTag color checker, in in the "Soft Proofing" mode, it was always the saturated blue that popped out of gamut at the lowest brightness level.  I could never get above a 50% "B" in HSB value with a saturated blue without getting out of gamut.  So, to see that GREEN was the more deficient hue, was a surprise to me.

Thanks for the information.

Jerry

[Telecaster]

Personally, I present my images mostly as slide shows and I am looking forward to have a display using 20-30% of the capability of my cameras instead if one showing 5-12%.

I've moved strongly in this direction too. A large (55"+) 4k TV display has a lot of appeal to me, as does editing with a monitor capable of displaying 4k output at full resolution. Also, since getting Sony's A7r I've had a blast framing pics in 16:9 aspect ratio. It's not only friendly to many "legacy" lenses, it's causing me to see differently in a way I'm enjoying.   

-Dave-

[bcooter]

I've moved strongly in this direction too. A large (55"+) 4k TV display has a lot of appeal to me, as does editing with a monitor capable of displaying 4k output at full resolution. Also, since getting Sony's A7r I've had a blast framing pics in 16:9 aspect ratio. It's not only friendly to many "legacy" lenses, it's causing me to see differently in a way I'm enjoying.  

-Dave-

I think 4k tv monitors is a hail mary pass, from Sony and Panasonic, trying to find ways to get back to profitability in tv.

Samys on Fairfax has a 4k sony monitor always playing some soccer (uh . . . football) game in 4k and it's ok, always looks over sharpened and very video, put I'm sure that's the source material.

I mean 4k is fine with me, though honestly I'd rather see more depth and beauty than detail.

I know when we go to a movie theatre in London, compared to Los Angles, the LA screens are larger and they project edge to edge, where most of the screens are smaller and they don't seem to project from corner to corner.

The difference though is striking, as the London projections are rich and deep, really beautiful, where the LA projects are ok, but look a little thin.

Maybe it's the projection systems, (the odeon in London uses their own system, maybe they all us it), maybe it's just the image is not  going so large, but there is a difference that is noticeable.

I know when Roger Deakins shot Skyfall he was told it was going to imax.   He kind of sweated it, knowing he was shooting it on an Arri 2k (actually 2.5 k capture downsampled to 2k).

They did a test using Imax's profiles and conversion system and the footage looked flat, so he went to his own color house and used their profiles/conversion and the movie looked great on the Imax screen.

I personally think that 4k tv is a ways off, just because the bandwidth for mobile and in home transmission is high and people don't run out and buy new TV's everytime there is a change.    Sony found that out with their investment in 3d.

I do think capturing in 4k vs. 2k makes a difference i.e. my REDs vs. the 2k cameras I own, though I have done very little 4k editing and conforming, nearly always 2k and even a 4k file processed out in cinex at 2k holds up better when you enlarge it in the non linear editor than a 2k file, but that is probably because the RED's shoot 444 at 14 bit rather than most 422, or 420 motion cameras at 8 or 10 bit.

In fact I'm almost positive that the better looks comes from bit depth and color response, because if you've ever dropped a still into a video from the same scene, it takes some work to degrade the still to match the video file.



IMO

BC

[MrSmith]

Roger Deakins is an anal perfectionist (in a good way) a friend of mine worked on the set design for skyfall and she had to source various fabrics from around the world and have them dyed different shades for the Manilla lanterns on the water, any other DOP would just say 'get some lanterns with room inside for the lights' but these went back and forth until the light transmission and colour was just right.
I managed to have a look at the set on the big tank at pinewood, you never would have guessed that scene with the hotel and bay was just a big puddle outside London, they used the back curve of the tank to form the harbour wall and promontory of land. I love all that old school filmmaking not just hours of render time and computer trickery. I watched it in the odeon Leicester square and thought it looked great (unlike Lincoln which had odd grainy faces yet clean blacks which I think I read was down to having to heavily grade 400asa film)

As for 4K? For instore and advertising motion maybe but I think it will take a long time to penetrate into the home, most people are happy with 720 and probably would not know the difference if shown true HD

[Ken R]

It is undeniable that 4k (and obviously 8k) look amazing with the right content and it kinda makes 3D unnecessary and makes it look gimmicky due to the fact that 3D, no matter how advanced, still requires each viewer to wear glasses. (yes, I think someone was showing a 3D display that did not require glasses at NAB 2013 in Las Vegas but I have not found much info on this) 3D struggled not only with selling the TV/Monitors but also having enough 3D content and have it available in many cable/isp markets.  The same thing happens with 4K now and will for a while.

In regards to photography it would be cool to edit images on a 4K screen. I do not know if the current panels are good enough for critical color correction but I'm sure there will be some available at some point. Something like THIS in 4K would sure be very nice

[Alan Klein]

I've been shopping for a new HDTV, figuring 3D since my wife and I liked it in the theaters.  So we went to Best Buy to check some out and there was a Sony 4K 65" 3D that was spectacular.  We only saw the 4K part without 3D, a movie obviously made for 4K, but it was really sharp.  So we began to compare prioces.  We could get a Samsung 4K 3D 65" or a Samsung 75" 3D 2K either for $4500.


I really liked the 4K and already show "slides" on my 52" 2K so a 4K with 4 times the data seems very attractive to me.  The guy at Best Buy when I asked him about content and delivery said that is kind of thin right now.  Also, the industry is suppose to come out with some sort of a standard for transmission that will effect the internet companies and ISP's.  I think I'll wait until the whole thing is resolved before committing.

Does anyone know about this standards committee and what they're doing?

Another consideration is ancillary equipment.  Your current 5.1 audio system won't work with 4K (except the speakers).  Nor will your Playstation 3, current BlyRay players, etc.  So the price for the 4k HDTV is not the only thing you have to consider.

[LKaven]

With films being shot on 4K now, it would be great to be able to see them in their native format.  You could get the full theater experience. 

The tipping point will come when there is a standardized optical storage format (violet-ray?), an affordable under $200 player, and Netflix availability.  When that looks certain, cable and satellite providers will find a way to deliver the extra bandwidth. 

We'll see how much compression takes away from it.  It's almost impossible to watch HD on cable as it is.  Did you ever look at a flock of birds taking off in HD?  The picture degenerates into blocks.  Ever notice how the blacks suck?  These things need fixing in general.

[KevinA]

4K is going to happen in the home and when we all get our 4k TV and input devices and media, they will then sell us 8k. After that I'm not sure how they will mug our pockets.

[jerome_m]

Or we could just give our work away ;-)

Why do you say that? In which respect does 4K relate to the sentence?

[peterv]

Does anyone know about this standards committee and what they're doing?

I've found this article to be enlightening:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1496765/smpte-2013-uhd-symposium

The author went to an SMPTE symposium called "Next Generation Imaging Formats: More, Faster, and Better Pixels" and concludes at the end of his article:

"In any event, it's clear to me that high frame rates, high dynamic range, expanded color gamut, high color bit depth, and less-aggressive color subsampling all make more difference in the picture quality than higher resolution, yet resolution is the only settled issue. All the other improvements are still being discussed and will not be finalized for some time to come, which means the TV manufacturers have jumped the gun by introducing UHDTVs with 8-bit color, Rec.709 gamut, and the ability to accept a maximum frame rate of 30 or, in some cases, 60 fps. (Many UHDTVs can reproduce a larger gamut, but it is not well-defined, varying from one set to another.) Of course, they want to sell TVs, but the models they sell now will be obsolete in a couple of years as these other issues are settled and content is created using the new standards."

[MrSmith]

what is the deal with 4k monitors? is the pixel pitch the same? only i dont see an advantage for retouching as 24-27in is enough to see what you are working on and colour fidelity is more important than real estate, and if the pixel pitch comes down your 100% view is smaller.
 i see this when using the retina display on a MBP which is a very good panel that is fine for basic on-set retouching but you need a dithered 200% zoom to work at 100% i guess if 80-120mpixel image become the norm it's not such an issue.

great for display of images and cinema resolution but i'll not be buying a new 4k eizo just yet.
though a quick google reveals that the Eizo CG276 downscales on the fly
http://www.eizo.co.uk/EIZO-ColorEdge-CG276-to-Offer-Input-Support-for-4Kx2K.html

[Alan Klein]

I've found this article to be enlightening:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1496765/smpte-2013-uhd-symposium

The author went to an SMPTE symposium called "Next Generation Imaging Formats: More, Faster, and Better Pixels" and concludes at the end of his article:

"In any event, it's clear to me that high frame rates, high dynamic range, expanded color gamut, high color bit depth, and less-aggressive color subsampling all make more difference in the picture quality than higher resolution, yet resolution is the only settled issue. All the other improvements are still being discussed and will not be finalized for some time to come, which means the TV manufacturers have jumped the gun by introducing UHDTVs with 8-bit color, Rec.709 gamut, and the ability to accept a maximum frame rate of 30 or, in some cases, 60 fps. (Many UHDTVs can reproduce a larger gamut, but it is not well-defined, varying from one set to another.) Of course, they want to sell TVs, but the models they sell now will be obsolete in a couple of years as these other issues are settled and content is created using the new standards."

This is why I'm holding off on buying.  In the end I may go for the larger 2K model rather than the smaller 4K one.  In the meanwhile prices will go down.  We'll see.

[jerome_m]

I know virtually nothing about 4K but I would have thought that with the introduction of higher resolution monitors it will tempt folk to publish larger files online which in turn will allow those who use our files illegally to do so more effectively.

But as I said I know virtually nothing. Please feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

I am not saying that you are mistaken, I just wonder about the problem. People are already publishing files in high resolution today, even without 4K monitors available. I understand that professional photographers don't like the idea, but amateurs are not selling any pictures anyway.

[Alan Klein]

I would use larger files to display on a home 4K HDTV and continue to use smaller files on websites.  I don't see this as a problem for most people.