Now 4K can take over the world?

[rfdesigner]

hmmm 4k?

Where I live (UK, ~13 miles from Southampton, rural but hardly isolated) I get about 6Mbit on ADSL.. on a good day.. sub 1M on a bad one, I can just about stream BBC iplayer on low bandwidth setting. There is no optical fibre, there is no cable, just ADSL on a phone line. Sure central London has good bandwidth but rrural areas are often served very badly. In the UK the most wealthy often live outside the cities so people have enough money for manufacturers to aim products for them, but no one seems willing to pay to put a cable of any sort in.

Thank goodness for recorded media.. that doesn't drop out every five minutes.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

hmmm 4k?

Where I live (UK, ~13 miles from Southampton, rural but hardly isolated) I get about 6Mbit on ADSL.. on a good day.. sub 1M on a bad one, I can just about stream BBC iplayer on low bandwidth setting. There is no optical fibre, there is no cable, just ADSL on a phone line. Sure central London has good bandwidth but rrural areas are often served very badly. In the UK the most wealthy often live outside the cities so people have enough money for manufacturers to aim products for them, but no one seems willing to pay to put a cable of any sort in.

Thank goodness for recorded media.. that doesn't drop out every five minutes.

Here in Brazil, broadband is also concentrated in urban centers, and some cities with 1 million inhabitants do not have fast internet enough to watch 1080P video streaming.

Some people in CanonRumors speak as if the planet had at its disposal all innovative technologies. That's why some visitors of this site consider that members of CanonRumors are just rich snobs.

 

[rfdesigner]

hmmm 4k?

Where I live (UK, ~13 miles from Southampton, rural but hardly isolated) I get about 6Mbit on ADSL.. on a good day.. sub 1M on a bad one, I can just about stream BBC iplayer on low bandwidth setting. There is no optical fibre, there is no cable, just ADSL on a phone line. Sure central London has good bandwidth but rrural areas are often served very badly. In the UK the most wealthy often live outside the cities so people have enough money for manufacturers to aim products for them, but no one seems willing to pay to put a cable of any sort in.

Thank goodness for recorded media.. that doesn't drop out every five minutes.

Here in Brazil, broadband is also concentrated in urban centers, and some cities with 1 million inhabitants do not have fast internet enough to watch 1080P video streaming.

Some people in CanonRumors speak as if the planet had at its disposal all innovative technologies. That's why some visitors of this site consider that members of CanonRumors are just rich snobs.

I think that's just people being like people everywhere.. they look around themselves and think they and their surrounds are normal.. At least here in the UK we generally have a pretty broad world view (which I'm sure is still biased), and realise some parts of the world are miles ahead some are miles behind, The US is rather unusual in being so sparsely populated generally and so concentrated in cities, very different to the UK or many other countries I've been to.

 

[RunAndGun]

I'd skip 3D. That Samsung I returned was top of the line 3D.

Curved OLED TV screens sound interesting, but they still command a high price. They cost no more to make, but billions of dollars went into their development.

I agree on 3D. My 92" Mitsubishi can do 3D. I have a pair of glasses and I've watched TWO whole 3D movies on it(it doesn't help that it's a PITA to do it because my receiver won't pass the 3D signal). I can see the effect, just like at the theater, but it's not that special. I've even shot it and watched it in a production environment and it's still meh…

Curved screens are a gimmick. They provide zero benefit to the viewer at the sizes and viewing distances in a home environment and it's actually a detriment(in my opinion, anyway).

OLED, though, can't get here fast enough on the large screen, mass produced, widely available, consumer front. I have two professional OLED monitors(one 17" and one 7.7") and two OLED VF's(an aftermarket for my C300 and the native Sony one on my F55). OLED eats LCD's lunch(there are no "LED Displays". LED is being used as the backlight source on TV's/monitors that call themselves "LED", but the display tech is still an LCD panel).

BTW, my Sony F55 is a native 4K camera, but I don't have any way to monitor it's 4K signal/image. 4K production quality monitors are still $$$.

 

[jeffa4444]

Cinematography cameras like the 6K Red Dragon or the Alexa 65 with 6.5K open gate will all be down sampled to 4K (in fact most editing etc is done in 2K still) so oversampling is very much the order of the day in high end cinematography going forwards. Im not convinced about 8K display let me explain why. In the average European multiplex the screen diagonal is 55/56 feet, the ONLY place to see true 4K is in the front three rows any further back it become 2K resolution. The industry is not going to re-build hundreds of multiplexes and 8K viewing would put you in no mans land between the front row & the screen. The same principle applies to TVs our homes didnt suddenly become larger to accomodate larger screens to retain the same viewing distance. Without this a 65" 8K TV would require you to sit closer to the screen which becomes more uncomfortable for general viewing.

8K will help with compression artefacts when down sampling to 4K and in any concantination errors, it will support a wider color gamut and be great for cleaner VFX pulls etc and for IMAX.

 

[jefflinde]

has there been any discussion of the actual media that is used? I would like to see i large capacity disc released that could be used as a hard copy back up. Currently the M-Disc is 25GB but i need so many to create a hard copy of my photo library. hopefully they can get a 100gb format or something even larger.

 

[Tugela]

Cinematography cameras like the 6K Red Dragon or the Alexa 65 with 6.5K open gate will all be down sampled to 4K (in fact most editing etc is done in 2K still) so oversampling is very much the order of the day in high end cinematography going forwards. Im not convinced about 8K display let me explain why. In the average European multiplex the screen diagonal is 55/56 feet, the ONLY place to see true 4K is in the front three rows any further back it become 2K resolution. The industry is not going to re-build hundreds of multiplexes and 8K viewing would put you in no mans land between the front row & the screen. The same principle applies to TVs our homes didnt suddenly become larger to accomodate larger screens to retain the same viewing distance. Without this a 65" 8K TV would require you to sit closer to the screen which becomes more uncomfortable for general viewing.

8K will help with compression artefacts when down sampling to 4K and in any concantination errors, it will support a wider color gamut and be great for cleaner VFX pulls etc and for IMAX.

Those theoretical viewing distance arguments are nonsense and only apply to large scale objects. Higher resolution makes a difference when small scale detail is the object of attention.

People make these arguments so they can resist upgrading their work output to higher quality products where the need to be rigorous in attention to detail is critical and shoddy work is obvious. It is more about protecting their backsides and enabling laziness than doing what is good for the consumer.

 

[jrista]

Cinematography cameras like the 6K Red Dragon or the Alexa 65 with 6.5K open gate will all be down sampled to 4K (in fact most editing etc is done in 2K still) so oversampling is very much the order of the day in high end cinematography going forwards. Im not convinced about 8K display let me explain why. In the average European multiplex the screen diagonal is 55/56 feet, the ONLY place to see true 4K is in the front three rows any further back it become 2K resolution. The industry is not going to re-build hundreds of multiplexes and 8K viewing would put you in no mans land between the front row & the screen. The same principle applies to TVs our homes didnt suddenly become larger to accomodate larger screens to retain the same viewing distance. Without this a 65" 8K TV would require you to sit closer to the screen which becomes more uncomfortable for general viewing.

8K will help with compression artefacts when down sampling to 4K and in any concantination errors, it will support a wider color gamut and be great for cleaner VFX pulls etc and for IMAX.

Those theoretical viewing distance arguments are nonsense and only apply to large scale objects. Higher resolution makes a difference when small scale detail is the object of attention.

People make these arguments so they can resist upgrading their work output to higher quality products where the need to be rigorous in attention to detail is critical and shoddy work is obvious. It is more about protecting their backsides and enabling laziness than doing what is good for the consumer.

Small scale detail is only visible if your close enough for your eyes to resolve it. Visual acuity is affected by distance, since it is a matter of angular resolving power. In the case of human visual acuity, our acuity is about 1/60th of a degree on average, maybe about 1/80th of a degree at best. Get closer, and finer details are more visible, get farther and finder details can no longer be resolved independently. Sitting a few feet from even a moderately large TV (say 55") isn't exactly the most comfortable viewing circumstance.

At the distances I sit from my 4k screen in my home, which is actually shorter than the recommended distance for a 55" TV (my living room is long but narrow), I cannot see pixels. Detail is amazingly crisp. If the pixels were reduced in size by a factor of four, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. My visual acuity with my contacts in or glasses on is very good at 20/10, so it isn't like I'm incapable of resolving very fine detail.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Finally, the association responsible for the BluRay reached an agreement on an optical disc capable of displaying 4K video. :
This will be called Ultra HD BluRay. 8)

More information on the site

http://thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/051215_1230

I can't wait... as an audiophile and to some extent a videophile... if I'm going to spend my dollars to own or rent something, I want the absolute best source material and that comes from physical media (although you can download some lossless audio legally).

There will always be a market for it, as the vinyl market proves that you can make money in the niche game.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

The BluRay 1080P has not yet become hegemonic in most countries, and now we wait for the Ultra HD BluRay 4K ...

In another CR topic someone says clearly see the superiority of 4K (compared to 1080P) on the screen of a cell phone. It would be impossible for the visual acuity of a normal human being, but perhaps the extraterrestrials participate in Canonrumors also ... 8)

Nothing wrong to want to be always up to date by investing in the newest video standard. But there are cases that need to be explained pou Freud. ???

Maybe it's just a desire to show "superiority" over other normal beings.
It may be a need to flaunt personal wealth, to mask their personal weaknesses. :-X

Let's be honest:
Mega companies must invest in more advanced technology to display its market leadership. But some people here already say they will wait for video 8K (32 megapixel) as 4K is no longer enough for him.

I understand that someone who finds insufficient 4K video to watch in the living room, you can not settle for only 50 megapixel photos. He should look for cameras capable of taking photographs of at least 200 megapixel.

 

[unfocused]

The BluRay 1080P has not yet become hegemonic in most countries, and now we wait for the Ultra HD BluRay 4K ...

...Nothing wrong to want to be always up to date by investing in the newest video standard. But there are cases that need to be explained pou Freud. ???...

...Let's be honest:
Mega companies must invest in more advanced technology to display its market leadership...

...someone who finds insufficient 4K video to watch in the living room, you can not settle for only 50 megapixel photos.

I won't repeat your full comments, but I would give them a big "Plus 1."

I get that some people are videophiles who simply enjoy watching the highest resolution on the largest home screen possible. But, the subject matter here involved "taking over the world."

Blu-Ray has been around for more than a decade. Yet, it still remains a niche product. Go to any video rental store (if you can find one) and you'll see a lot more DVDs than Blu-Ray discs. Usually the Blu-Rays only get rented when all the DVDs in a popular title have been rented out. Most people won't even pay the extra dollar or so to rent a Blu-Ray if they can get a DVD.

I made the comment earlier that most people under 30 are watching videos on phones, tablets or laptops. Someone responded that "Yuppies" have big screen televisions. I'm sure they do. But that misses the point. The trend is with the 18 to 30-year-olds who stream everything on their personal devices and wouldn't even think of actually paying for access to network or cable television. I suspect that video being consumed on Facebook with iPhones is probably 100 or 200 times greater than all the video being watched on 4K televisions.

4K will no doubt become a standard for serious filmmakers. But, I suspect the bulk of video that will be consumed for the next decade or so will be viewed on small screens and very few consumers will care whether or not its 4K or HD or even "standard" definition.

Unless you are a professional filmmaker aiming for theatrical releases, the only reason to buy 4K is to entertain yourself.

 

[9VIII]

Visual acuity is affected by distance, since it is a matter of angular resolving power. In the case of human visual acuity, our acuity is about 1/60th of a degree on average, maybe about 1/80th of a degree at best. Get closer, and finer details are more visible, get farther and finder details can no longer be resolved independently...

Ahem...

As for the practical viewing limitations of 4K, it's basically interchangeable with HD.
You shouldn't have to change anything as far as seating and screen size when moving from an HDTV setup to 4K.

People like to throw around screen size and distance numbers based on receptor cell size in your eyes, but those tests are based on high frequency static images and not the low frequency moving images your eyes are designed for.
In other words, the limitations commonly stated apply only to fine repeating texture. Smooth sand and cement may look the same, but any patterns and shapes will be noticeably better, something like a person's eyes will look incredibly good in 4K.

Jrista the numbers you quoted are exactly what I was referring to.

You need to differentiate between the finest high frequency detail that a person can see and the finest low frequency detail.
The issue is that our eyes are designed to work by moving our receptors across the image, not holding steady.
Here, I'll quote the opening sentences of chapter 29 from "Principles of Neural Science: Fifth Edition" (Yes, Neuro used this book as a source in one of his posts once, I took him up on it, the book agreed with me; but more importantly it's chock-full of information relevant to the "4K Debate".)

VISION REQUIRES EYE MOVEMENTS. Small eye movements are essential for maintaining the contrast of objects that we are examining. Without these movements the perception of an object rapidly fades to a field of gray, a phenomenon correlated with the decreased response of neurons in area V1 (see chapter 25).

Previous chapters also detail how the receptor cells are excited most by movement.
Given that a cell basically requires that stimulus pass over it, and not linger on it, it follows that when people measure visual acuity using a consistent grid of lines the point at which one cell is going to pass over multiple lines in is going to come much sooner than the point at which it achieves its maximum potential for detecting detail.
I didn't just read this in a book, if you test your own two eyes for high contrast low frequency details, you will find that you can see fine adjustments in shape from quite a distance. My usual test is to draw diagonal lines in an old paint program that does not apply any smoothing, leaving lines nice and jagged ("Jaggies" are the stair stepping effect seen when an angle is drawn on a digital display). As long as the frequency of the jaggies themselves is low enough I can see these relatively fine details out to as far as nine feet on a 100DPI monitor (and sometimes farther depending on how long I look and how tired I am etc... but nine feet is a good number).

Using the exact same monitor, if I look at an image consisting of nothing but alternating black and white single pixel wide columns, the screen goes gray at three feet, just as the angle based calculations predict.

So the commonly quoted numbers are true, if you're looking at a perfectly even grid.
A picture of a person's eyes on the other hand is a perfect example of a shape that will take full advantage of 4K resolution. Actually as far as I can tell it is extremely rare to see something in any given image where details are sufficiently consistent and high frequency to actually blurr out.
As I said, I expect to see blurring on an image of a flat sandy beach, or a large flat concrete surface, but any irregularities will still "pop".
Based on my testing a 4K display as small as 44 inches will still provide extra detail as far as nine feet away.
Actually my primary concern in measuring that was to find the distance where jaggies go away, and an image becomes so detail packed that it should be almost indiscernible from the real thing.
So for my purposes a 44" 4K display should be viewed from further than nine feet away, and when viewing any closer, or using a display larger than 44", I want 8K.
But I'm a little weird like that, most people don't care if they can see jaggies and would prefer to see all the detail, flaws and all, rather than ensuring that their display out resolves their vision.
I also have slightly better than 20/20 vision so you need to grow the screen a bit to give useful viewing distances for the average person.

So if you have 20/20 vision and definitely want to see all the detail (not out resolve your eyes), you probably want a minimum of 50" when viewing at a maximum of nine feet away, or if my math is correct a 67" screen at twelve feet.

 

[sanj]

Finally, the association responsible for the BluRay reached an agreement on an optical disc capable of displaying 4K video. :
This will be called Ultra HD BluRay. 8)

More information on the site

http://thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/051215_1230

I can't wait... as an audiophile and to some extent a videophile... if I'm going to spend my dollars to own or rent something, I want the absolute best source material and that comes from physical media (although you can download some lossless audio legally).

There will always be a market for it, as the vinyl market proves that you can make money in the niche game.

Not all understand this. Unfortunately.