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 :)

The Next Video Format War Coming To a Home Theater Near You: 4K vs FauxK

Jay Birch said:
Quad HD will win as it is MUCH easier to market to joe public.

I've seen the term 4K confuse people even on film/video forums. (people who think 1080p = 1K, for instance)
Click to expand...

Funny you say this because I remember hearing the same argument in the whole Bluray vs HD DVD. People thought that HD DVD was going to win because people would understand the name of the format a little easier. I got my money on 4K.
 
According to the Scarlet specs, you can shoot 4KQHD at 16x9 FF (1.78) and 4k at 16x9 1.90, which is slightly wider than the cinema standard of 1.85.

The difference is negligible really, but people are used to HD that 'fills the screen' so to get rid of the matte lines on current HD displays, you would have to scale and crop your 4K in post.

So, if I'm thinking correctly (which I often don't), Scarlet owners should shoot 4KQHD for delivery to HDTV and 4K for cinema delivery.
 
Andrew Walker said:
Funny you say this because I remember hearing the same argument in the whole Bluray vs HD DVD. People thought that HD DVD was going to win because people would understand the name of the format a little easier. I got my money on 4K.
Click to expand...

I still think HD-DVD won. I have 50+ HD-DVDs and 4 Blu-Rays. :D

$2 firesales! Lots of great films that play perfectly fine on obsolete format that until recently still had the best transfers and compression haha.
 
Great discussion. So how many of you spent the last 40 + years watching Standard Def?

My good friend Spencer Brown laughs at the last 4 years, because he was working with HD in the 1980's!!!. At that time, people called him insane. He marveled at the incredible image quality with greater lines of resolution. He fought hard to get it adopted and was shot down for the cost to deploy. Also at that time, (pre 2001) 1000 horizontal lines was considered the holy grail on a Monitor in the CRT world. Soon it may be 4000 to 16000 lines by projection or display-
Perhaps even "Realler than Real!" a Registered Trademark Of Cyberdyne Systems.

Spencer gave up on the "unaffordably best" high def format battle by 88 or 89 and it sat for how long? and now people want 4K when the HD move was INSANELY late... Red is arguing that there is "no reason to stop at 1080 when 4K is only an incremental X cost and a HUGE payoff". That's just SMART SMART SMART imho>

Spencer Brown BTW. went on to build the largest direct response TV (infomercials) market in the world at $400M in sales and sold TYEE to Euro RSCG MCM at the peak for (undisclosed amount)
TYEE was known for.... Nordic track anyone? among dozens of household brands. Briliant strategy to buy ALL THE LATE NIGHT PROGRAMMING slots... and then packaged that time at 10X to his
informercial clients, plus shared in their succes if they broke out. GENIUS and now the norm.

Now he laughs at how "right" he was when I tell him about RED.... while he winces about how early he was... in the end, we both agreed. "Consumers are fickle bitches" - I'm one of them.
A 4K world is ONLY going to work when Laser Projectors are $10 to $40K. (for now) and Exisiting LCD and Plasma plants can build 4K panels with minimal disruption to the 1080P production line.

UNKNOWNS about 4K and others developing 4K.

1. How much does a 4K panel circuitry cost? If its only $200 to $2000 more than LCD... It can work.
a. Can it use existing LCD and PLASMA panel tech and just require more boards and software? That would assure its rapid adoption

These are CRITICAl barriers to entry. Note: I spent $2500 in 2008 for a 1080P 40" Sony Bravia XBR.

2. Will theaters be able to afford $10K to $100K for their venues? yes.
a. Will theaters be able to afford Red Ray? yes.
b. Can RED assure that content sent from the distrib to exhib is safe and secure? (unknown) if yes. = GAME OVER.

4K is awesome, but Hollywood is a late adopting cunt, in the british sense of the word. Hollywood is among the latest adopters in the world, despite the same history lesson, over and over and over.
 
Jay Birch said:
Quad HD will win as it is MUCH easier to market to joe public.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately Asian CE manufacturers seem set on describing Quad HD as "4K x 2K" which may succeed in confusing everyone.

However I think the key point of the article was there is real "4K" resolution content and there is "4K" content up-converted from 1080p - the latter if originating from 8-bit MPEG-2 or H.264 content delivery platforms has the potential to look pretty nasty ...
 
Jay Birch said:
Quad HD will win as it is MUCH easier to market to joe public.

I've seen the term 4K confuse people even on film/video forums. (people who think 1080p = 1K, for instance)
Click to expand...

That should make 4K the easier marketing term.

The 1080 = 1K only reinforces the message that 4K = 4 times HDTV. Sure it isn't entirely accurate but that's really all joe public needs to or really cares to know.

I'd say what's more important is how easily something rolls off the tongue - 'quadHD' vs '4K' I'd take 4KTV over quadHDTV any day. Just look at how many acronyms prevail today, especially online typing quadHD vs 4K, what do you think people who are too lazy to spell out the word 'you' are going to lean toward using?
 
keep your eyes on the concept of "Ultra Defintiion" -- a "linguisitic battle" is happening around the world --

4K vs. UD (Ultra Definition)

a unification wil happen -- 4KUD

4K UD is the new 1080p HD

Samsung and LG are branding 4K UD
 
Jay Birch said:
Quad HD will win as it is MUCH easier to market to joe public. I've seen the term 4K confuse people even on film/video forums. (people who think 1080p = 1K, for instance)
Click to expand...
I dunno. I'm still waiting to see a really great source of uncompressed, full-bandwidth, 10-bit 1080 24p at home, especially with full dynamic range. There still isn't a consumer monitor and image source that can do all this for under $10,000, to my knowledge. I'm not convinced there will be a way to do this affordably at 4K, let alone anything higher.

I'm also still convinced that the bits are just as important as the K. Dynamic range, exposure range, digital compression, and freedom from motion artifacts are all major factors that are not easily solved.
 
Marc Wielage said:
I dunno. I'm still waiting to see a really great source of uncompressed, full-bandwidth, 10-bit 1080 24p at home, especially with full dynamic range. There still isn't a consumer monitor and image source that can do all this for under $10,000, to my knowledge. I'm not convinced there will be a way to do this affordably at 4K, let alone anything higher.

I'm also still convinced that the bits are just as important as the K. Dynamic range, exposure range, digital compression, and freedom from motion artifacts are all major factors that are not easily solved.
Click to expand...

All of the better quality HDMI 1.4 deep color major brand consumer TV's on the market now are true 10 bit displays. Reality is that under most viewing conditions with ambient room light 5-6 stops is about max viewable DR.
 
Andrew Walker said:
Funny you say this because I remember hearing the same argument in the whole Bluray vs HD DVD. People thought that HD DVD was going to win because people would understand the name of the format a little easier. I got my money on 4K.
Click to expand...

Same here. HD DVD didn't win out, partly (I think) precisely because it had 'DVD' in the name. If it's so new, why are they putting 'DVD' in the name? Also, Blu-Ray (or even BRD) is easier on the tongue. Branding is a powerful thing (and a useful thing) but it can be a bitch, too. Where is HDCD? Or SACD? Of course there are other reasons, though. Minipax, miniluv, minitru. I'm just saying...

Tim Whitcomb said:
My good friend Spencer Brown laughs at the last 4 years, because he was working with HD in the 1980's!!!.
Click to expand...
And here I was, thinking it began in the early '90s. I have a magazine from '92 with an article about it - if anyone's interested I can dig it up. I also saw a piece about it on a science/technology show here in Australia called Beyond 2000 (this was during the era of the very first e-books, Commodore's CDTV and such stuff). What we have now is apparently a dumbed-down 'HD'. The early Japanese HD broadcasts were analogue, right?

Then again people put up with VHS for decades. Sad, but true. I guess nobody was willing to give us high quality home cinema... these media conglomerates I think are holding up progress, even today - with the public's cooperation. ;-)

Tim Whitcomb said:
4K is awesome, but Hollywood is a late adopting cunt, in the british sense of the word. Hollywood is among the latest adopters in the world, despite the same history lesson, over and over and over.
Click to expand...
One more reason why I love Apple: they're never afraid to move forward. Serial ports? Parallel ports? Floppy disks? Not any more...

Jake Bastian said:
The 1080 = 1K only reinforces the message that 4K = 4 times HDTV. Sure it isn't entirely accurate but that's really all joe public needs to or really cares to know.

I'd say what's more important is how easily something rolls off the tongue - 'quadHD' vs '4K' I'd take 4KTV over quadHDTV any day. Just look at how many acronyms prevail today, especially online typing quadHD vs 4K, what do you think people who are too lazy to spell out the word 'you' are going to lean toward using?
Click to expand...

We have a winner. :-)
 
The war won't be QuadHD vs. 4096... both will work. The war will be what kind of compression and data rate will be acceptable for delivering either type of 4K.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top