HD TV > 1080p?

[ilya]

A bit technical but a great read if you really want to better understand the difference between "real" or "true" Cinema 4K and what is being pushed right now as a consumer product. In Cinema ,4K does not refer to simply a pixel count. And pixel count and resolution is not the same thing... though it is used and sold that way in consumer products. Cinema 4K is a complete standard that involves far more than I would care to go into in a post. This article goes more into the technicalities of pixels and related technology, but it also helps explain why there is so much more to what 4K is or can be, as opposed to what will be sold to the consumer.
Very educational and insightful article by an industry veteran and expert:
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels

 

[Arshad]

Re: Consumer Electronics Industry Announces Ultra High-Definition

So, about 7 feet.

One of the prototypes we have is only 55" and the difference playing back 1080p content vs 4k content is obvious even when standing 10-12 feet away. Doesn't jive with that chart. Depends entirely on the content too of course...

 

[Arshad]

A bit technical but a great read if you really want to better understand the difference between "real" or "true" Cinema 4K and what is being pushed right now as a consumer product. In Cinema ,4K does not refer to simply a pixel count. And pixel count and resolution is not the same thing... though it is used and sold that way in consumer products. Cinema 4K is a complete standard that involves far more than I would care to go into in a post. This article goes more into the technicalities of pixels and related technology, but it also helps explain why there is so much more to what 4K is or can be, as opposed to what will be sold to the consumer.
Very educational and insightful article by an industry veteran and expert:
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels

I'm not sure what the the author is trying to get at. That panavision cameras that can capture without chroma subsampling like the RED cameras are better for blue-screen/green-screen rotoscoping? DUH. This is not a consumer discussion anyways -- consumer cameras have always been 4:1:1 or 4:2:0, or 4:2:2 at best.

Anyhow, none of that is relevant for the discussion of 4k TV's. He's talking about the capture side of things. At the end of the day, even if you're capturing on a 4:4:4 camera, it's going to be subsampled down to 4:2:0 for h.264 or h.265 going to your TV. As long as the TV is using a traditional RGB pattern and not something lame like Pentile, you've got true 4k on the output regardless of source.

 

[flaminio]

A bit technical but a great read [...]
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels

This bit struck me as interesting:

I don't like the frame rate. I saw Gorillas in the Mist and the gorilla were flying across the forest floor. Every frame they seemed to travel like 3 feet. [laughs]. It's really annoying. I mean I loved Showscan: 70mm running at 60 fps. In terms of a sense of reality, I think it was far superior to IMAX.

That's why I subscribe to Jim Cameron's argument, which is we would get much better image quality by doubling the frame rate than by adding more pixel resolution.

We'll all get to see this when the first Hobbit movie comes out, as it was filmed (and hopefully projected) at 48 fps. Early opinions are very divided; some like the realism; others complain that it doesn't look like "film".

 

[myw]

One of the prototypes we have is only 55" and the difference playing back 1080p content vs 4k content is obvious even when standing 10-12 feet away. Doesn't jive with that chart. Depends entirely on the content too of course...

But that's another very important factor; was the material small sensor video based stuffs where everything is sharp or large/35mm sensor film Based material??

The video stuffs will yield tons of detail all around but will have that cheap video feel. For movies, where the majority of the shots have very selective focus and/or have a short lifespan the notice of ultra resolution at normal viewing distances is not as noticeable

 

[Juice]

One of the prototypes we have is only 55" and the difference playing back 1080p content vs 4k content is obvious even when standing 10-12 feet away. Doesn't jive with that chart. Depends entirely on the content too of course...

This is actually easily explainable. The 7 foot distance is relative to the viewer's ability to extrapolate out the finite differences in pixel density; that is, one should be able to clearly define the difference in subject material when viewing. The lines are smoother, less moire, screen door effect, stair stepping, etc. But it does not mean that a difference will not be noted at greater distances! All the the inherent "pluses" of 4k will still be there, just not necessarily definable by the viewer. Even a 50" image at 20' should yield a superior impression upon the viewer, even if they may not be able to say, "Pixelation is less defined here." Instead, "This one just looks better."

 

[Arshad]

This is actually easily explainable. The 7 foot distance is relative to the viewer's ability to extrapolate out the finite differences in pixel density; that is, one should be able to clearly define the difference in subject material when viewing. The lines are smoother, less moire, screen door effect, stair stepping, etc. But it does not mean that a difference will not be noted at greater distances! All the the inherent "pluses" of 4k will still be there, just not necessarily definable by the viewer. Even a 50" image at 20' should yield a superior impression upon the viewer, even if they may not be able to say, "Pixelation is less defined here." Instead, "This one just looks better."

Well that's an important metric is it not? It's not a question of whether I can discern each individual pixel -- it's whether the higher resolution display looks better. The argument being made is that it's pointless to go to 4k at reasonable viewing distances and reasonable sized displays (<60") because you cannot tell ANY difference between a 1080p and a 4k signal. That certainly becomes true with enough distance... and that chart supposedly shows both ends of that spectrum.

 

[NetViper]

Does blu ray have enough space to fit 4k movies?

 

[myw]

Does blu ray have enough space to fit 4k movies?

With current compression codecs no.

 

[NSXrebel]

Does blu ray have enough space to fit 4k movies?

Nope, you need hundreds of GB's for 4K. I have no idea how they would distribute 4K movies. My guess is they would sell them in hard drives, or you would go somewhere to have the file transferred. Forget about downloading/streaming, at least with current broadband speeds.

 

[NetViper]

Nope, you need hundreds of GB's for 4K. I have no idea how they would distribute 4K movies. My guess is they would sell them in hard drives, or you would go somewhere to have the file transferred. Forget about downloading/streaming, at least with current broadband speeds.

Maybe we need laser disc sized blu ray discs :biggrin:

 

[NSXrebel]

Maybe we need laser disc sized blu ray discs :biggrin:

Anyone care to do some math and calculate how much storage we could get out of such a thing? Single layer, Dual layer, Double sided, Double sided/layered.

 

[Arshad]

I'm not sure if they'll need to come up with a new optical standard.

Think of it this way. BD spec allows for up to 40Mbps video @ 1080p, but most content is encoded between 15-25Mbps. The 1080p content streamed over satellite or over the net (iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, etc) is typically much lower. Anywhere from about 3-10Mbps... so it's possible to go much lower.

4k content using h.264 is typically encoded at 30-50Mbps. But by the time 4k displays become prevalent, the new h.265/HEVC codec will be widely deployed which allows for about a 50% bitrate savings. So realistically we'll probably see 20-35Mbps, which will still allow for a full length movie on an existing dual-layer BD disc (50GB).

It's also possible to create triple and quadruple layer discs, so I don't see the need to go with a new optical format even with high bitrate 4k content.

 

[BD]

http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/st...551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&identifier=S_4KTV

 

[flaminio]

Nope, you need hundreds of GB's for 4K. I have no idea how they would distribute 4K movies.

Something like this, maybe:

By the time 4K becomes sufficiently mainstream, these will be cheap enough in quantity to sell movies on.

Of course, there's always downloading via iTunes or Amazon. Assuming bandwidth speeds get up to fibre level (which, if you live in Kansas City, they already are), and no ridiculous caps are in place, this is a viable distribution. It probably won't be streamable, but still faster than receiving a disk in the mail from Netflix or Amazon.

 

[nsxtasy]

Does blu ray have enough space to fit 4k movies?

Of course not. The idea behind upgrading standards is to force everyone to buy new televisions, new disc players, new everything. :biggrin:

 

[ilya]

The link to the John Galt interview is relevant in that it educates and elevates the 4K discussion beyond pixels and viewing distance. And while his focus may have been on the cinematography, a discussion can also be had for the display of content. So whenever there is a 4K discussion and all that is discussed is the pixel count, I like to ask... why is that so?

Partly because it's called 4K so it's natural to gravitate to the pixel count as it's definition. But 4K in digital cinema is much more than a pixel count. It starts with the cinematography and technology, continues through the post production process,
and ultimately ends up displayed on technology that is designed to properly display EvERYTHING that encompassed the entire process from start to finish. And when it is done properly it can be breathtaking as displayed back in 2011 at a Barco demonstration:
http://www.barco.com/en/News/Press-...-1570mm-film-at-digital-cinema-symposium.aspx

Understandeably, a consumer product can not encompass the level of performance from that demonstration equipment. What it can do however, is attempt to recreate a true 4K experience at home, even if at a lower performance level. And by true 4K experience, I mean the ability to display all aspects, to some degree, of the filming and post production process that the artists intended us to experience while watching. What we are going to get, at least far as I can tell at this point, is the same inferior LCD sets with higher pixel counts and slightly improved brightness levels. And if anyone is ready to argue that our current consumer technology isn't inferior, be prepared to explain why my 7 year old 720P Pioneer Elite Kuro Plasma is still leaps and bounds superior to every flatscreen on the market today (that includes the new Elite LCD panels). Our pixel counts and brightness levels are increasing, while just about every other measure of performance is regressing and has been for several years now.


So this is an opportunity for some consumers to demand better. To understand that what Hollywood now considers the digital cinema standard, of which 4K is a major player, is NOT what the major TV manufacturers intend on peddling us as their 4K TVs. They will spout the usual nonsense of 1,000,000:1 contrast ratios, Ultra HD resolutions, and super high MHZ ratings to compensate for their poor motion and scaling technology. The new displays will NOT convey the leap in gresycale and color depth offered by these new recording technologies. Nor will they convey the increased resolution and detail (not pixel count, resolution) that is provided by higher framerates during filming
like Peter Jackson is doing or that the Avatar sequels will most certainly take advantage. My first linked article has a good section on increased frame rates and perceived resolution. They can capture magic, but will we see any of it?


Yes, these new TVs will have a higher pixel count. Yes, they may be a bit brighter. But what else? That's it? How about all the negative aspects we have been watching on our small displays (small being less than 12-15ft wide) for the last several years. There will always be the cheap TVs, but we also want the great TVs back. 4K is an opportunity for that. The Pioneer Elites and Fujitsu displays when there existed a consumer base that knew the difference and wanted better, whether they could afford it or just dream about it. Were those displays as good as our current DLP projectors? Of course not. But they were the pinnacle of what was achievable in a consumer market.

We can't all afford Ferraris and Zondas, but they exist and they should. In the consumer market today, these display equivalents do not exist because not enough people expect and demand them to. The content playback will improve (next gen players, better compression), but the displays are not improving.
My intention was again to broaden the discourse of what 4K really is and can be with the link posted. I agree that this is a consumer discussion and all we have to discuss is pixel counts and viewing distance for these upcoming 4K TV sets. And that's the problem. We deserve better and it exists. If enough people demand it, something fantastic can exist for us in small format form (TV's) like it once did. Until then, we are still stuck with inferior LCD panels that now happen to have higher pixel counts to lure us back in.

 

[Arshad]

Ilya, I agree with you in principle but the issue is that with the current (and future) compression standards, you will ALWAYS have subsampled chroma to your display. The venting in his article was about the capture. He wasn't telling anyone anything new... people who are using RED cameras already know the downsides. But the upsides (cost and accessibility) GREATLY outweigh the downsides and open it up to a whole new category of film-makers. I don't see how that's a bad thing, particularly when at the end of the day, even the highest quality capture will still get subsampled down to 4:2:0. This is not a limitation of the display, but rather an evil necessity to get bit-rates down to reasonable levels.

I also agree on temporal resolution, but remember, that again is a limitation of the capture. The displays themselves can handle higher refresh rates, so if the film-makers can produce 48fps, the TV's and decoders will most certainly handle it.

 

[ilya]

Ilya, I agree with you in principle but the issue is that with the current (and future) compression standards, you will ALWAYS have subsampled chroma to your display. The venting in his article was about the capture. At the end of the day, even the highest quality capture will still get subsampled down to 4:2:0.... and this is not a limitation of the display, but rather an evil necessity to get bit-rates down to reasonable levels.

I also agree on temporal resolution, but remember, that again is a limitation of the capture. The displays themselves can handle higher refresh rates, so if the film-makers can produce 48fps, the TV's and decoders will most certainly handle it.

I don't think we are arguing on the same topic. You're correct in your statements. My intention was to use the article as an educational starting point into thinking about 4K as more than just pixel counts. And that does start during filming but extends to content display. My previous post explained it all. Until TV manufacturers improve the rest of the technology in their sets, simply being 4K in pixel count is missing a huge opportunity to create great looking TVs again. Many would like a manufacturer to step up and do that. They will not if we demand so little.

 

[ilya]

I'd like to add that my perspective on 4K TVs when it comes to home video is not the same as for commercial applications like video walls and digital signage. 4K should be absolutely huge in some of my markets and I'm really looking forward to using these TVs in those applications. For digital signage it may be a while, as many of those installations require the utmost accuracy in color reproduction. Wonder why some companies will pay double or triple the price for the exact same 50" monitor? Because that red in the Coca-Cola sign damn well better be the EXACT red it's supposed to be, and most consumer TVs can't get it just right. The added pixels will allow viewing from a greater distance while maintaining a sharper image or more information on a single screen while maintaining legibility. As a consumer example, your channel guide could easily have double the information on it, and as long as you have good eyes, that text will be sharp and not blurry as it would be on a 1080P set. For static detail and text, 4K+ is huge.

But the real gem will be with video walls. We've been doing more and more over the years. Large arrays of 50+" 2-4 High X 8+ Wide, all creating a single image or multiple overlay images. The higher the pixel count in a given space, the sharper text, graphs, and images can be. At some point things will get too small for the eye to see, but with 1920X1080 that hasn't been reached.
Even with 4 1080P TVs stacked atop each other, customers want to get even more info on there, but are limited because once it gets too small, the text gets blurry, even though they are close enough to have otherwise read it. Now from the same viewing distance, you can get much sharper text and legible graphs making things smaller and fitting more data on the wall.
And for those using projection for their walls, they can also get sharper images and smaller text onto the same surface area.

I'm very excited for the commercial applications of upcoming 4K sets once they become available. When it's not about image quality and motion, but completely about how small can I get it while keeping it sharp, or how much information you can fit into a given space, there is a serious need for more resolution in certain applications. I'm looking forward to it and also the extended profits it may bring. ; )
Anyway, I've dragged this too far off topic now, sorry.