4K display

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Alexander - I kinda understand what you are saying (to prove your point ... people like "us" are the only ones bitching that 1080P looks really "bad" and is terribly deficient, I've never heard that from a layman.)

However, and this is a big distinction, just as our eye has been trained to tell the difference ... I think that the public will be the same way. It just may take a little longer, since much of the public is still working their way up to 1080P.

Also, this is obvious but should be stated - as screen size increases beyond the typical 60" max range I think 4k will become far more meaningful. The only problem with that is honestly how far away are we from an affordable 80" or 100" 4k display? Trust me, I wish we were there now ....

Thank you, but my concern is that it won't be that easy.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I think it's a bit of a mistake to look for 100" 4K LCDs to be the first vanguards of 4K into the home. Rather, it seems much more likely to me that 35" or 40" 4K monitors for the computer will be the first real 4K entries in the home. Think of gamers. Think of Red Epic editors. Think of photographers who want to look at their photos at 4K in Photoshop. Sitting 3 feet from a 4K monitor is a mind-blowing experience.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

I agree Tom, but you're still speaking about very specialized niche markets ... my only point about screen size was that for the mass public to tell the difference between 1080P and 4k, seeing it on a bigger screen will help them appreciate it much more easily.

I have no doubt you're right in that 4k will be pioneered by those like us, gamers, photographers (regular DSLR's like the 5D will probably begin approaching and crossing over 30mp next year), gadget nerds and others.

In other words, you are right about pros and certain niches - they will eat 4k up the moment it's within their budget (I know I will) ... yet I believe Alexander is right about mass market adoption - it will take some time for them to fully notice and appreciate it. Though I have absolutely no doubt the Epic (with all the huge features being shot on it) can and will speed up the general public's appreciation of resolution beyond HD.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Certainly, there needs to be some great 4K material to fuel these 4K LCDs and projectors for the home. That's what I'm out trying to do every day with my Epic! You know, it only takes a couple great shows to drive a new resolution. The Matrix helped to drive DVD. Avatar drove 3D. Planet Earth helped to drive Bluray. And so on. If just a few great movies or BBC shows finish at 4K, that will be enough to get the 4K ball rolling, I think.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

seeing a difference and articulating a difference are two entirely different things.

Sure that's why my test asked specific questions.

i would wager average people can easily tell the difference between SD and HD (and more so today than in the past... people learn) as your testing suggests (the difference between 720 & 1080 is comparatively slim). and HD isn't even 2.5 times the resolution of SD, whereas 4K increases by 4x the resolution. not that it would keep scaling up like that, there is an observable limit... but we're not past it yet.

You are factually incorrect.

NTSC is 720x486 or 349920 pixels.

1280x720p is 921600 pixels. That is 2.63 times the resolution of NTSC.

1920x1080p is 2073600 pixels. This is 5.92 times the resolution of NTSC.

Its actually worse than that ... because NTSC is really 720x243 interlaced at 59.94 to create 720x486 29.97fps

4K 16:9 is about 4 times the resolution of 1080p ... so we are looking at less of a difference compared to 1080p than 1080p is to NTSC.

Furthermore, I think you've drawn the wrong conclusions from my study.

Even after "training" the test subjects, 1080p was very hard for them to differentiate from 720p. Before training the difference between upscaled DVD, 720p and 1080p was well within error boundaries.

You should be very worried by these results, not encouraged that the 4K future is inevitable.

I know I am.

at the end of the day i really don't care for this kind of subjectivity.

Subjectivity? I think I am the only one pushing for objective science on this question ... it looks like I am the only one who's done ay kind of investigation at all.

That resulted in data, which is the ONLY basis for objective reasoning.

4k is in the future, we'll see how long it takes before it's in the average home, but eventually it will happen. it's just a price and content thing right now. eventually, that won't be a factor. i don't see how you can argue with any of that, except by subjective argument.

Uhm ... by trying to collect facts?

I'm sorry Paul, but scientists have handled a lot of more complex questions with research. I mean, where do you think the fundamental ideas behind chroma subsampling, visual compression, and digital colorspaces came from?

there isn't an especially good or easy way to test this objectively. but when all the major companies are pouring billions of dollars into the technology, and visionaries in the industry are gearing up for it, i feel it would be foolish not to prepare at this point. do what you will, but at least make some kind of an effort. believe me, you don't want to be 'that guy'.

Again Paul ... and everyone else reading, I'm not "that guy."

Is there some basic flaw in reading comprehension on the Internet? Or do people just enjoy creating straw man arguments?

I support 4k delivery reservation specifically because I like it. I see the difference, and I want to see media in 4K.

So how do we make certain that happens? We have to make certain consumers will buy in.

An awful lot of people are just getting their first HDTV's.

I'm not answering that one again ... if you don't know my stance I'm going to suggest you retake 4th grade.

[EDIT: That bit offended some. I want to note that this is the third time I've stated my position as a 4K supporter.]

So, what will happen? Maybe we should stop screwing around with 5K and go straight for 8K+? I don't think so, I think its an education issue. I think we need to figure out the details, because I don't think we can just wait for our audiences to figure it out themselves.

We know 4K is better ... let's make sure our audience can see it too!

Before we can do that, we need to understand the problem.

 

[paulherrin]

if you don't know my stance I'm going to suggest you retake 4th grade.

and... that is the reason i will discontinue this conversation. i'm sorry i don't have the patience to put up with it. thank you for your time. can't thank you for your continuous argumentative attitude and lack of respect for your fellows. that sucks because some of the points you hit on are legit, but you're coming across as... that guy.

 

[Tom Lowe]

...if you don't know my stance I'm going to suggest you retake 4th grade.

This is uncalled for, in my opinion. This forum is a place for friendly conversation about cameras and movies.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

and... that is the reason i will discontinue this conversation. i'm sorry i don't have the patience to put up with it. thank you for your time. can't thank you for your continuous argumentative attitude and lack of respect for your fellows. that sucks because some of the points you hit on are legit, but you're coming across as... that guy.

This is uncalled for, in my opinion. This forum is a place for friendly conversation about cameras and movies.

So the fact that that was the third time I had to say it in this thread alone wouldn't frustrate anyone?

Sorry, if you want to have a discussion like this its your responsibility to read, understand and remember what others write.

Its frustrating, and frankly a bit angering, to have to keep repeating the same points because people aren't reading.

 

[Tom Lowe]

In all fairness, some of your posts are like 9 paragraphs long. People on the internet do not have a "responsibility" to read long posts. In any case, it's always best to be friendly here, even if you are frustrated, which all of us can understand.

With that, I will also politely bow out of this conversation.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

In all fairness, some of your posts are like 9 paragraphs long. People on the internet do not have a "responsibility" to read long posts.

I'll try harder to be brief ... but seriously its important to understand what you are replying to.

Let me put it differently, if I can't be bothered to read what someone writes ... why reply? If something just "has to be answered" then I read what I'm replying to before I write my post.

I feel I owe the person I'm replying to that much respect. If I can't be bothered, then my reply was probably not worth writing.

In any case, it's always best to be friendly here, even if you are frustrated, which all of us can understand.

Well, fair enough.

And thanks for understanding.

With that, I will also politely bow out of this conversation.

And I'll genuinely miss you and Paul's voice - and that of everyone else I've pissed off. Just because you frustrated me doesn't mean you aren't smart guys with good things to say. Even if I did essentially resort to name calling.

 

[Jon Thomasberg]

In my unscientific findings, the majority of people that I have encountered do not seem all that concerned over the differences between DVD, upres DVD, 720p native, or 1080p. Moreover, often times I have a hard time myself viewing their, by most consumer standards 'impressive' 50"-65" displays due to them being uncalibrated and overly contrasty and over sharpened. Fact is, I have a hard time watching other than a couple dozen channels on FIOS, the rest of the SD channels. While in contrast those same others think that their SD FIOS or satellite looks wonderful on their big screens.

That said, in my opinion, as with most other disruptive tech it will be the entusiasts that will pay the early-adopter/R&D tax, then once you see such 4k displays price drop and being widely available in the 'big box' stores and the like, and once many of the popular review pubs rave about them, then they will be widely adopted. It will not be as a result of the demand of the masses.

The other, and even larger problem that I see, is that of content delivery. It seems clear to me that many will expect for on-demand digital download once these display become commonplace. There will need to be bandwidth to feed the bit-rate, whether by digital delivery over the internet to an Apple TV, boxee, or Red Ray-esque device, or HTPC of another kind. Those boxes will also have to have a large buffer queue so as to mitigate dropped frames, thus ruining the experience. As for fixed media consumption, vis-a-vis Redbox kiosk, a new media type will have to emerge as the Blu-Ray disc is only capable of storing ~50GB of data. Unless, that is, there is another codec better than H.264 to lay off to capable of producing a 120+ minute feature at 4k in >50GB without compressing all its goodness out.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

In my unscientific findings, the majority of people that I have encountered do not seem all that concerned over the differences between DVD, upres DVD, 720p native, or 1080p. Moreover, often times I have a hard time myself viewing their, by most consumer standards 'impressive' 50"-65" displays due to them being uncalibrated and overly contrasty and over sharpened. Fact is, I have a hard time watching other than a couple dozen channels on FIOS, the rest of the SD channels. While in contrast those same others think that their SD FIOS or satellite looks wonderful on their big screens.

Yes, exactly.

That said, in my opinion, as with most other disruptive tech it will be the entusiasts that will pay the early-adopter/R&D tax, then once you see such 4k displays price drop and being widely available in the 'big box' stores and the like, and once many of the popular review pubs rave about them, then they will be widely adopted. It will not be as a result of the demand of the masses.

I agreed with you until that last sentence.

See, most of that stuff, but especially the rave reviews, is really aimed at creating demand in the masses.

Only that demand drives economies of scale.

So ... unless "Joe Sixpack" wants a 4K display, this 4K revolution won't get off the runway.

I wasn't kidding when I proffered 8K as "the future." It may be that between a limited ability to see the difference between 4K and 1080p and the economy that 4K gets passed over in the home as consumers save their pennies.

Remember, it isn't just the 4K Display, its the 4K media to drive it that has to be purchased AGAIN ... I'm having a hard time updating just my favorite movies to BluRay from DVD - and I really hate DVD as a medium. The bulk of my DVD collection will just not be replaced as I am preferring services like NetFlix, HBO GO (which is really SD) and other on demand services.

The other, and even larger problem that I see, is that of content delivery. It seems clear to me that many will expect for on-demand digital download once these display become commonplace. There will need to be bandwidth to feed the bit-rate, whether by digital delivery over the internet to an Apple TV, boxee, or Red Ray-esque device, or HTPC of another kind. Those boxes will also have to have a large buffer queue so as to mitigate dropped frames, thus ruining the experience. As for fixed media consumption, vis-a-vis Redbox kiosk, a new media type will have to emerge as the Blu-Ray disc is only capable of storing ~50GB of data. Unless, that is, there is another codec better than H.264 to lay off to capable of producing a 120+ minute feature at 4k in >50GB without compressing all its goodness out.

On this front I think our good friends at Red have an answer: RedRay is supposed to be able to deliver 4K in the same bandwidth that BluRay uses for 1080p.

I'm dubious ... but that is because I haven't seen RedRay in person, nor do I know its details. I'm hopeful because its Red.

Assuming that they have to double the bandwidth though ... there are 100GB versions of BluRay out there and even bigger capacities on the drawing board.

So, we won't really need new media, at worst we'll need updated versions of our existing media.

Also, Internet bandwidth is increasing dramatically. Its entirely possible that your internet connection will outpace Firewire 800 before 4K displays are affordable to most people.

 

[Jon Thomasberg]

RedRay is more than capable of producing this reality. Question comes down to pricepoint and economies of scale for market penetration, as you stated.

I agree with you completely, that the review pubs/blogs act as a catalyst in creating the buzz, which in turn creates the perceived need by consumers to adopt.

I wasn't aware of the 100GB BluRays -- nice. A step in the right direction.

I agree with you on the FW800 vs 4k displays. I think the availability of the bandwidth will reduce the barriers to entry to make 4k internet playback a reality. Hmm, that would require Gigabit Ethernet to the house. Given that ISPs are running on OC-192 or 10Gig backbones currently, you might see a burstable rate at Gig to the house by then, but I doubt as a CIR, and surely not synchronous. Especially, in a residential application. As far as being able to achieve those speeds over coaxial HFC cable plants, as of DOCSIS3 spec, it is theoretically possible. E-line (data over powerlines) hasn't taken off. Unicast streams over satellite, not even close + the massive latency; as a multicast TV station -- yes. Given that there is a ~8-10 timeline for those speeds to become reality, it will be an interesting race to see which is first. But things do look promising on that front.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Ok, let me give you my prediction of the market for 4K. There isn't any. Not in terms of consumers wanting it. There are people not seeing any difference between DVD and bluray, yes, they truly don't when watching a movie. So how can you ever make a market out of the few people who care about resolution and so on, not counting professionals using pro-monitors?
The truth is that it won't happen, not in the same way as between DVD and 1080p. FullHD is a resolution used at many theaters with digital distribution and people can't see the difference between that and the 35mm print, so what is really the market?

As I see it, 4K will be used to create retina display footage, applications and so on, on large screens. It will be used to blend reality with a screen, making images so sharp you can't see the pixels.
Even gamers won't benefit due to the fact that most games get developed according to the current consoles, which still make games in 720p.

So even when these displays get down to a more realistic price, how will they work out on the market? I don't think they will do. People are looking for other stuff then higher then FullHD resolution, they look for emotion, art, stories and entertainment.

And to go wild, I think that the future holds a more virtual reality way of entertainment and media. Plug in your brain, a dreambased platform for online social networks games and interactive movies.
The future doesn't keep to where we are today, look back 15 years and how things were back then, how much has changed since then?
15 years from now we won't be seeing the same things as today, there's nothing futureproof and buying a TV like this is a serious waste of money... if you are made of money, yes, then there's no problem.

 

[Matthias Hutter]

Damn I'd love a 4K OLED
... added to the list if things I'll buy if I win a lottery

 

[Eric Ulbrich]

I think were all trying to predict the future here, which is kinda like nailing jello to a tree. I agree with Tom in that all it takes is a good couple of 4K releases for it to pick up. But other than that, who knows? All I know is that its good to see panels showing up on the market that are 4K and are getting cheaper in price. That was the whole point of this thread, 1080P 4K honestly to paraphrase sanjins sig if the story is fuzzy it doesn't matter how sharp the resolution is.

With that I leave you all to it...

 

[Jon Thomasberg]

Ok, the same argument could be made about any technical gizmos. Case in point: what a difference 20 years makes:

On the left, my first mobile (non-car tethered) phone--The Motorola 8000, aptly called the "Brick"..... 1989 $500 (final price after 1yr contract). Talktime ~40 minutes on a charge, but that's ok because airtime was $1.00/min [lest we account for inflation from 1989 til now @ roughly 2-3x]

On the right, iphone 3gs: 2009 $300, 32GB of memory; camera rivaling many standalone point-and-shoots; full-color touchscreen LCD rivaling pixels from a multi-thousand dollar TV/monitor from 1989; literally hundreds of thousands of apps to choose from to install, which can be downloaded and installed over your unlimited wireless internet plan.

Need another example?:
My daughter's 13" MBP with 8GB RAM and a 240GB (6Gbps Sata3) OCZ SSD (~$2000) kicks the crap out of the computing power found in an entire enterprise LAN from 20 years ago.


As for Jannard's original comment about 1080, while a bit ahead of the curve, I agree with caveats. In support, when was the last time any average Joe used a 56k dial-up modem (except as a contingency plan to gain dial-back remote console access)?

 

[Stuart English]

RedRay is supposed to be able to deliver 4K in the same bandwidth that BluRay uses for 1080p.

I'm dubious ... but that is because I haven't seen RedRay in person, nor do I know its details. I'm hopeful because its Red.

Assuming that they have to double the bandwidth though ... there are 100GB versions of BluRay out there and even bigger capacities on the drawing board.

Well, RED RAY will use less bandwidth to deliver cinema quality 4K than Blue-Ray uses to deliver a pretty mediocre 1080p actually.

So the remaining challenges are in content availability and display availability, it's not in bandwidth or storage.

 

[paul engstrom]

And we can all help with the content availability

 

[Peter Chang]

Interesting. As a gadget geek and early adopter, I'll be first in line to get a 4K monitor and 4K projector (hell, I already picked up a 4K projection screen recently).

The difference between 1080p and 4K on a projector is not as pronounced, IMO, as the difference between 1080p and 4K on a 35" OLED or LDC monitor. Ask anyone who saw the Sony OLED at NAB. They will tell you. In fact, sitting 3 feet from a 4K monitor is a much more dramatic difference than seeing 4K projected, in my experience.

At one point IMAX considered using Sony 4K projectors for 4K 2D and 3D, but after test screenings where few noticed any difference, they went with 2K Christies for their digital theaters.

It's the viewing distance + quality of source material and display. Sit close (1.0x screen width or less) and projected 4K is just as dramatic. That would be the first 3-4 rows in your average commercial theater. One has to sit 1.0-1.2x screen width in order to reap the full benefit of 4K. For a 1.78 40" screen (34.9" wide), that's about a 3ft viewing distance. 65" = 5ft. 4K necessitates larger displays and/or closer viewing distances, especially in the living room. Just as 1080p did.

So for a 50" TV, the difference between 1080p vs 720p is only fully apparent at 6.5ft. How many people do you know with 50" TVs sit that close?
And as the resolution goes up, the closer you'll need to sit to get the full benefit of that resolution.