Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

New Canon 4K monitor and 2/3" sensor size camera prototype

Stuart English said:
That may prove to be true from the perspective of digital cinema projection - if only because of the cost of upgrading the installed base.

But I'd suggest that 4K displays will be common way before that timeframe, driven by other applications.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah! I was watching 15mp signage displays at Infocomm this year. Also saw at least one 50" quad HD medical imaging display. Surprised me to be able to see a pretty big difference in observable detail and resolution over HD even at that size.
 
Tom Lowe said:
for home theater buffs, gamers, etc.
Click to expand...

...who make up what percentage of the consumer market?

Tom Lowe said:
How are all of these people going to view their 4K clips? And with Epic coming soon, the drive to display 5K RAW material finished at 4K RGB will be massive.
Click to expand...

...the same way most of them are doing now... 2K and 1080.
 
Still hoping that the huge market for high resolution still photography justifies the marketing of 4K (or more likely QHD 3,840 x 2,160) monitors sooner than later.

There is also the "master screen" movement to put "picture in picture" on a large screen that might have a couple of HD video feeds, your Facebook page, etc all up at the same time. We have been talking about the convergence of computers and television for years and there is mounting evidence that the wait is just about over.

Just MHO, I could be wrong :out:

Cheers - #19
 
I think the main problem with 4k displays will be the quality of the stream, or compression applied to the 4k picture. Nowadays it is still rare to see a good picture of an HD stream on a full HD monitor. Usually it's a mess of blocking and othre compression artefacts.

Pat.
 
Patrick Tresch said:
I think the main problem with 4k displays will be the quality of the stream, or compression applied to the 4k picture. Nowadays it is still rare to see a good picture of an HD stream on a full HD monitor. Usually it's a mess of blocking and othre compression artefacts.
Pat.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear. I keep wondering when some kind of hybrid will emerge. The cable and satellite delivery companies must want to stay in business. Image and sound quality is the one thing that Hulu and their ilk are still lagging in, though the display limitations of the average laptop or LCD monitor hides much of what you might notice on a larger screen designed for motion media (regular TV).

Over the years the cable and satellite companies have polled their customers and consistently found that the number of channels was more important than picture quality by a wide margin, so they squeezed bandwidth per channel even though it hurt picture qualilty - presumably counting on the generally mediocre displays in many homes and the physical fact that people sit 8 to 12 feet away so can't see detail well anyway, to cover their tracks. Now that the internet can provide a thousand times more options than even a 200 channel provider I am hoping they start committing to picture quality as the best marketing "claim" they still have.

I have to hope.

Cheers - #19
 
Stu got his finger on the pulse of things as usual...
 
4K delivery and displays

4K delivery and displays

I think the main problem with 4k displays will be the quality of the stream, or compression applied to the 4k picture. Nowadays it is still rare to see a good picture of an HD stream on a full HD monitor. Usually it's a mess of blocking and othre compression artifacts.
Click to expand...

May I suggest that we have anticipated that problem - REDRAY ? :thumbsup:

Still hoping that the huge market for high resolution still photography justifies the marketing of 4K (or more likely QHD 3,840 x 2,160) monitors sooner than later.
Click to expand...

Interesting point, are the "4K" monitors on display at the Canon show QHD or true 4K ?
 
David Mullen ASC said:
...I personally have yet to convince any producer to finish any movie I've shot at 4K, whether I originated on film or on the Red One. The 35mm movie I just shot will be posted at 2K at Tunnel Post. It's hard to convince any producer to spend the extra money on doing the work in 4K.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but in all fairness, neither Red One nor standard 35mm film resolve to a 4K RGB finish. You need an Epic or anamorphic 35mm to make a 4K finish mandatory, in visual terms.

Of course there is a separate issue in terms of arguing to finish R1 or 35mm film at 4K to "future-proof it."
 
4K delivery and displays

4K delivery and displays

Yeah, but in all fairness, neither Red One nor standard 35mm film resolve to a 4K RGB finish. You need an Epic or anamorphic 35mm to make a 4K finish mandatory, in visual terms.
Click to expand...

I'll grant EPIC will make a difference, but it's already clear a RED ONE image presented from 4K RGB v's 2K RGB is substantially different.

Whether your client has seen the difference, is willing to pay for a 4k finish, or cares that there is a quality difference are different issues.

Personally I think the change over will come relatively quickly.
 
Stuart English said:
I'll grant EPIC will make a difference, but it's already clear a RED ONE image presented from 4K RGB v's 2K RGB is substantially different.

Whether your client has seen the difference, is willing to pay for a 4k finish, or cares there is a quality difference are different issues.
Click to expand...

Also, RED 4k makes the sharpest 1080/2k I've seen so far.

Actually, when we get 5k I guess the oversamling to 1080/2k will start to close in to the niceness of film softness.

OTOH, comming from a small country that is going all DCP and is changing course from 2k to 4k DCP projection in theatres, I think 4k+ is going tobe an important factor.
 
Stuart English said:
I'll grant EPIC will make a difference, but it's already clear a RED ONE image presented from 4K RGB v's 2K RGB is substantially different.

Whether your client has seen the difference, is willing to pay for a 4k finish, or cares that there is a quality difference are different issues.

Personally I think the change over will come relatively quickly.
Click to expand...

I understand your point about Red One 4K being better than 2K, but my point to David was that, mathematically, you don't really reach TRUE 4K until you hit 5K Bayer. That's when you can really demand a 4K finish. Right now, 35mm and R1 4K are closer to 3K RGB. I'm sure people can nitpick and say 3.2K, etc, but generally speaking, once people shoot 5K+ Bayer, there will be a massive increase in demand for 4K RGB finishes, 4K LCDs, etc.

And I agree with you, of course, that this change to 4K will happen much faster than most people realize now.
 
4k delivery and displays

4k delivery and displays

Arguments can certainly be made about whether any media truly resolves 4K, but I suggest the key point is you CAN see a major difference already when projecting 4K from RED ONE source footage (especially MX), and if you are a producer you probably don't care much about this math anyway; you just care that screen tests show your movie - or new product presentation - looks significantly better at the higher display resolution.

Then the discussion becomes one of value - i.e. do you want to pay for that quality difference.

(and of course where RED RAY fits into this, is that it eliminates the cost penalty to deliver 4K resolution v's HD resolution to the display)
 
Last edited:
I've said it a couple of times on here. The driving force behind 4K in the home wont be from movie buffs, gamers or biggest loser fans..... it will be driven by the sports networks... When they think they can sell/market 4K rather than HD, they will broadcast some big events and the TV manufacturers will be prepared for mass sales.

So when you hear about the next superbowl or world cup in all it's 4K glory... expect 4k to become more commonplace in the home over the space of the following 2-3 years.
 
At this point there is only about 30% penetration of 1080P HD in homes. Except for high end tweeks I don't see 4k (actually quad HD) being mainstream for quite a few years yet. A lot has to happen for that to become reality. First we have have a standardized delivery codec capable of 4k broadcast in the same bandwidth as 1080p.
 
4k delivery and displays

4k delivery and displays

Fun discussion eh?

At this point there is only about 30% penetration of 1080P HD in homes.
Click to expand...

But that's a lot of homes, and a pretty quick market penetration given the relatively short amount of time 1080p panels have been available.

I suggest that the key issue as always is price point. When it's affordable, consumers buy.
 
4K display panels

4K display panels

Except for high end tweeks I don't see 4k (actually quad HD) being mainstream for quite a few years yet. A lot has to happen for that to become reality. First we have have a standardized delivery codec capable of 4k broadcast in the same bandwidth as 1080p.
Click to expand...

Agreed, bandwidth consumption is critical.

But if we take ATSC 1080i as a reference, we (RED) already have a codec in RED RAY that uses fewer Mb/s to deliver 4K.

Of course that's a point product and 4K displays are expensive at this point in time, but I suggest the big technical issues are already solved.
 
Stuart English said:
Agreed, bandwidth consumption is critical.

But if we take ATSC 1080i as a reference, we (RED) already have a codec in RED RAY that uses fewer Mb/s to deliver 4K.

Of course that's a point product and 4K displays are expensive at this point in time, but I suggest the big technical issues are already solved.
Click to expand...
Unless you can do it in real-time, it makes no difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top