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 :)

2560x1440 standard?

4K applications

4K applications

M Most said:
Sorry, but I don't see how 4096x2160 has any fit to HD, at least not without cropping. 3840x2160 (Red's 4KHD format, designed for the purpose) fits perfectly, though.

4096x2160 is a mathematical match for the current digital cinema package, but I really don't see a market for solid state panels for a theatrical exhibition format - unless, of course, you're talking about not having to reformat for a theoretical home targeted 4K product. Doh! Sorry, it's still relatively early and my brain isn't quite working yet...
Click to expand...

Yes to both of those thoughts Mike, a little letter boxing works wonders on such a panel. 16:9 TV or theatrical release both fit nicely.
 
1920*1080 and 1280*720 evenly divide into 3840 without interpolation problems (a bit moot these days). It is the lowest resolution this happens.

2K, 4K is slightly wider, we should have just gone with the same basic format across the board. But do you go wider for wide screen, or narrower. TV's don't tend to widen much, but the depth of the picture can be shrunk

SHD TV is planned, as well as other formats.
 
I have been promoting 3840 by 2160 as the most straightforward way to transition from the current 1920 by 1080 or 1280 by 720 formats. Easy integer upscaling, the ability to drive 4x 1080 quadrants or 9x 720 ninths with the proper upstream electronics, etc.

4096 by 2160 would be great but it would require more "clean sheet" design, fabrication and manufacturing effort/cost. Since I would like to see displays sooner than later and at prices more people can afford I advocate 3840 by 2160 (SHD/QHD). It could be argued that the DCI spec was deliberately chosen to maintain separation from "home" formats. IMHO the more important difference than a few more pixels is the far superior P3 color space vs rec 709, but that's another thread.

The cost and difficulty of the transition is a critical factor, just look at the SD to HD upgrade experience and the 4:3 to 16:9 issues. Is 2560 by 1440 enough of an improvement? My money says no, in fact I was just tracking on a group buy of a 2560 by 1440 Projection Design projector and decided it was way too much investment for a short term solution. YMMV.

Cheers - #19
 
2560

2560

The cost and difficulty of the transition is a critical factor, just look at the SD to HD upgrade experience and the 4:3 to 16:9 issues. Is 2560 by 1440 enough of an improvement? My money says no, in fact I was just tracking on a group buy of a 2560 by 1440 Projection Design projector and decided it was way too much investment for a short term solution.
Click to expand...

I think we agree 2560 x 1440 is a dead end. Shall we agree to disagree on 4096 v's 3840? Cost is primarily driven by volume not complexity.
 
All of this is moot when the consumer accepts 5 mbps garbage as "HD". There is no way to deliver decent 1080p to the end user, let alone 4K. The ATSC standard (in addition to failing to define "HD") doesn't account for anything beyond 1080i, allows interlacing (WTF), and failed utterly to require updateable firmware. So our bold new digital-TV standard is stuck forever with MPEG-2. Brilliant.

And 2K digital projection is rampant in theaters. All of this calls Red's (laudable) pursuit of ever-higher image quality into question. The consumers have proven time and again that they don't give a rat's ass.
 
Most theaters will have shifted to 4k within 3 to 5 years. 4k systems will replace most of the first and second gen 2k systems by then. Unlike a film projector, the service life of a video projector is typically 5 to 7 years tops.
 
Consumer preferences.

Consumer preferences.

Palmer Woodrow said:
All of this is moot when the consumer accepts 5 mbps garbage as "HD". There is no way to deliver decent 1080p to the end user, let alone 4K.

And 2K digital projection is rampant in theaters. All of this calls Red's (laudable) pursuit of ever-higher image quality into question. The consumers have proven time and again that they don't give a rat's ass.
Click to expand...

I disagree. This type of argument is raised every time an advance is offered to the consumer. There is no such monolithic thing as "the consumer", instead we have a marketplace of consumers, each with a different set of values and needs. If it were not that way, we would not see extremely successful companies like Apple and Oakley - as just two well known examples.

What prevents the delivery of high quality HD to consumers is the financial interest of the companies that own the last 100ft of your internet pipe and inefficient HD codecs. So don't put the blame on crap HD image quality and 2K movie theaters on consumer dis-interest; high quality HD is doable, 4K is doable both in the theatre and the home too. Some customers will want this service and some won't. That's fine, but we will strive to let them make that choice.

This is why the Mbps number of RED RAY 4K is such a breakthrough - both technically and especially economically.
 
I could care less what the lowest common denominator audience is willing to put up with. I want to work with the highest quality acquisition system I can afford to own as a creative tool. One can always dumb down the output to whatever release format is appropriate. But one can't necessarily realize an artistic vision with inferior tools.
 
All of this is moot when the consumer accepts 5 mbps garbage as "HD". There is no way to deliver decent 1080p to the end user, let alone 4K.
Click to expand...

720p is part of ATSC, so it is considered HD. It is easy to deliver 720p at 4 - 6 Mbps. 1080p can look really good at 10 Mbps. If you want to see a good example of Netflix HD, watch an episode of Better Off Ted. Its impressive. I only wish more of the Netflix catalog looked that good. Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is a different beast. It is pretty soft and I would consider it decent SD. :)

Some food for thought. The studios allow Microsoft to stream 1080p to the Xbox. The don't allow 1080p to the PC or Zune HD. Those devices are restricted to 720p by the studios.
 
Palmer Woodrow said:
So our bold new digital-TV standard is stuck forever with MPEG-2. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

That is not the case. ATSC 2.0, which is likely to be finished and adopted within the next 2 years, allows for other codecs (H.264/AVC is the most prominent), non-real time delivery, and a number of other things. Not to mention that it's still in flux, so other things could easily be added - like higher resolutions.

Nothing is forever.
 
ATSC

ATSC

Presumably ATSC 2.0 maintains the max bit rate for a 6MHz channel at about 19.4 Mbps Mike ?
 
Stuart English said:
Presumably ATSC 2.0 maintains the max bit rate for a 6MHz channel at about 19.4 Mbps Mike ?
Click to expand...

I get the impression that everything is still in flux. Bandwidth allocations are based on legacy, as you know, and with broadcasting as we know it changing, that could conceivably be re-thought. What is clear is that they, along with some federal regulatory agencies, seem to be embracing (or at least acknowledging) the multiple delivery systems that are fast becoming a reality in terms of how people get their information. If you are interested in where this all might be going, you might want to look at the FCC's AllVid proposal, which is essentially a plan to replace the CableCard initiative (that never really panned out) with something that would embrace all forms of information delivery, including broadcast, cable, and broadband, regardless of the source. Think Google TV, but without a corporate owner (Google is, in fact, a supporter of the AllVid proposal). In such a scenario, at least in theory the limitations we've had since the introduction of digital terrestrial broadcast in the 90's would largely go away. The adoption of AllVid or something like it is seen as very likely within the next 2 years or so, so this is not generations away.
 
Stacey Spears said:
Are they still promoting Frame Compatible or are they planning to adopt MVC, as an option, for Steroscopic content?
Click to expand...

I would think it would be quite a bit of a technical leap to do MVC encoding in real time, which is what would be required for live broadcast. I could be wrong about that, but as far as I know we're not there yet. Maybe Lucas has some insights into that...
 
Palmer Woodrow said:
...There is no way to deliver decent 1080p to the end user, let alone 4K.
Click to expand...

Define "decent," One of the companies I am very close to is Telairity. (www.telairity.com) They can do absolutely amazing things with 6mbps, and even down to 4mbps, the 1080 signal is damned impressive.

I have a fairly critical eye, and what Blockbuster Online delivers via Time Warner -> Cisco Home Router -> WiFi -> Samsung BluRay -> HDMI -> Samsung HDTV is amazing. I am consistently impressed by the color definition, smooth gradients, fine motion detail, etc.

I had a fun night (well, fun by geek standards) comparing a BluRay I have of The Kingdom to Blockbuster Online's data delivery and damned if I didn't have a really hard time telling the difference. Compression is really coming of age.

Palmer Woodrow said:
The ATSC standard (in addition to failing to define "HD") doesn't account for anything beyond 1080i, allows interlacing (WTF), and failed utterly to require updateable firmware. So our bold new digital-TV standard is stuck forever with MPEG-2. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

Considering that I am about to toss all my Time Warner Digital Cable service in favor of faster internet and good HMPCs driven by XBMC 10.0, I care less and less about the ATSC standard and "digital-TV."

Palmer Woodrow said:
And 2K digital projection is rampant in theaters. All of this calls Red's (laudable) pursuit of ever-higher image quality into question. The consumers have proven time and again that they don't give a rat's ass.
Click to expand...

No... Consumers prove time and again that they will buy what is cheap and easy. If what you say was true, everybody out there would be scouring Craigslist and Freecycle searching for CRTs to watch NTSC and PAL programming.

Lucas

Lucas Wilson
------------
VP of ATSC Eradication
3ality Digital
 
I would think it would be quite a bit of a technical leap to do MVC encoding in real time, which is what would be required for live broadcast. I could be wrong about that, but as far as I know we're not there yet.
Click to expand...

Good point, no MVC in real-time today, but you can do frame interleaving in real-time, which offers similar quality.

I had a fun night (well, fun by geek standards) comparing a BluRay I have of The Kingdom to Blockbuster Online's data delivery and damned if I didn't have a really hard time telling the difference. Compression is really coming of age.
Click to expand...

There are other possibilites:
1. You had too much to drink.
2. You need to check your prescription.
3. You own an SD display.

Just kidding. :)
 
I've been shooting 2560x1440 for about half a year now on the Phantom Flex. When Epic rolls out that will make matching that much easier to do.
 
Lucas Wilson said:
No... Consumers prove time and again that they will buy what is cheap and easy. If what you say was true, everybody out there would be scouring Craigslist and Freecycle searching for CRTs to watch NTSC and PAL programming.

Lucas

Lucas Wilson
------------
VP of ATSC Eradication
3ality Digital
Click to expand...

True...
 
The real cost in the ATSC transition was shifting from analog to digital transmission. Upgrading codecs to higher standards within the same bandwidth allotment is trivial by comparison. We already have the bit pipe.
 
The quality of digital TV transmissions is mostly poor. I have thought about lobbying the government over here for minimal quality standards for digital standards. The quality needs to be at least Bluray quality. The idea would be to have minimal data rates for each sub channel, 19mb/s+ for 1080p/720p50, 13mb/s 720p, 6mb/s H264 for SD (7mb/s SD and 12mb/s 720p mpeg2 as a compromise). We needed too have dual physical channel stations, but H264 will largely mitigate this, and redray could possibly answer it. We have just 15 stations, and half of the viewing is rubbish or repeats. When I was young we had 2 stations, and the commercial one was full of good programming from three commercial networks, the national one was mostly as well. When they introduced the 4 missing networks I watched TV less. Reducing the number of sub channels in half might help the bottom line of stations and reduce the amount of rubbish content on TV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top