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 :)

4K display

Eric Ulbrich

Eric Ulbrich

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
425
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Eric Ulbrich said:
not if you demand total viewing control of your footage while finishing/grading. Actually seems kinda cheap to me when other displays are around 75K for the something similar.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...ms_DM_3410_DM_3410_56_4K_2K_Professional.html
Click to expand...

Oh no I totally agree with you there, I was reffering to 1080p "going bye bye" as you put it, which wont happen till consumers can afford 4k TVs at the least. But yeah for monitoring footage, that is cheap compared to other products. Either way I agree with your point, its only a matter of time!
 
I remain dubious.

I had an argument with Jim Jannard, the upshot being I don't see evidence for the notion that ordinary people (i.e. not image making professionals and enthusiasts) can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p in motion images - and I am dubious that they can appreciate 2K vs 4K delivery unless we are looking at IMAX size displays. (and I mean "real" IMAX screens, not the IMAX certified screens.)

In fact, I'm dubious that a 36" 4K display will make a difference even to professionals for motion imaging. Perhaps if we pause and pixel peep. I certainly know how much more I see on a 50" plasma at 1080p than I see on my computer monitor at 1920x1200. (Yes they are positioned to have approximately the same perspective size from my working seat. )

Making matters worse (from both my perspective and Red's), my anecdotal evidence is that older people are much less likely to note resolution differences. You know the same older people with the affluence to be "early adopters."

I want to believe that its just "training" at issue, and that once 4K is a diffused display resolution that people will become "trained" just by exposure ... but I want evidence to support that position.

OK ... so my point here is that if consumers don't buy into 4K displays, then displays like this EIZO are going to stay expensive as only niche users (i.e. US) will want them.

I believe we'll get consumer push back on three fronts. First, I think a lot of people "just" upgraded to HDTV's. "Just" being a relative term as people were used to decade long investments in a CRT TV. Then there is the resolution perception issue I question. Finally, there is the simple question of finances - we are in a global recession, and people are increasingly reserved with their spending.
 
This EIZO monitor was at both CES and NAB... So not really news. Sony had their 4K OLED desktop display at NAB and it was even better, I don't recall the price, but it was super expensive too.

I'm ready to buy, as soon as the prices take a 90% reduction. I like being an early adopter, but some things are best left alone in the very beginning.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
I remain dubious.

I had an argument with Jim Jannard, the upshot being I don't see evidence for the notion that ordinary people (i.e. not image making professionals and enthusiasts) can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p in motion images - and I am dubious that they can appreciate 2K vs 4K delivery unless we are looking at IMAX size displays. (and I mean "real" IMAX screens, not the IMAX certified screens.)
Click to expand...

I've used a 56" 4k monitor as a desktop and it's f**king amazing.
When you're working you get a huge workspace and when you want to watch
a finished piece, just push back a foot or two and it's like you're only personal imax.
I almost cried when they took at away.
 
alexander, you clearly have not seen 4k yourself. stop by red studios. i'm sure they'll welcome you.

65mm...
 
paulherrin said:
alexander, you clearly have not seen 4k yourself. stop by red studios. i'm sure they'll welcome you.

65mm...
Click to expand...

I don't know why you'd make that assumption. He's talking about home size displays, not huge theater screens. I've seen quite a bit of 4K imaging, and quite frankly, I kind of agree with him.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
This EIZO monitor was at both CES and NAB... So not really news.
Click to expand...
Yeah saw em too, just popped up on one of my fav blogs today and it reminded me.

Alex I agree with you to a certain extent but also you have to remember that there will always be a progression to bigger and better, manufacturers will always be looking and pushing "the next big thing" for the masses. I dont think that 1080P is going to die in the next year hell it might last for 10 years but eventually something bigger and better will come around and people will buy it, even if they cant tell a major difference (have you heard the stuff some salespeople say at electronic stores like best buy to make a sale?) So I guess in thought I shall revise my statement. If this panel is already on the market is an inevitable step in a progression to larger displays and larger resolutions on those displays, If people buy them great, if not thats ok too. Who knows what the future holds? All I know is that no matter what happens the images I shoot today will be of a superior resolution for a long time, and that my friends is a bankable asset...
 
I agree with Jeff, give me a decent sized one for under $10k and I'm sold. Right now, I'd rather put that $30-40k toward an Epic :)
 
Flanders and tv logic make a great panel. HP's dreamcolor is great too,
For my money however I just picked up a penta studio 32" grading monitor super sexy with 16 bit engine. its the same panel as the cinetal and you can load LUTS directly into it without the need for a LUT box.
 
Yeah ... I've been watching and shooting 4K since 2008, like a lot of us here.

As I stated elsewhere when arguing with Jim, I specifically don't trust "us" to make this decision. You don't have to sell me on 4K being better, but I'm also not the ultimate client.

So, once again ... can an ordinary person not trained in image evaluation (you know like ALL OF US) see the difference?

There are an awful lot of people that think an HVX200 at 720/24pN with a 35mm adaptor looks as good as 35mm or Red One when displayed on typical home HDTV or projector.

Am I the only one who has seen this in my clients/audience?

Remember I'm almost certainly not talking about what any user here can see ... I expect you all to be able to tell a 1080p image from a Red apart a 1080p image from a CineAlta in a very modest home theater. i.e. I think all of you can discern fairly subtle differences.

Regular folks ... what do regular folks think? Why do they think that? Can we train them to "see" better?

I want answers ... doesn't anyone have them?
 
Last edited:
Deanan said:
I've used a 56" 4k monitor as a desktop and it's f**king amazing.
When you're working you get a huge workspace and when you want to watch
a finished piece, just push back a foot or two and it's like you're only personal imax.
I almost cried when they took at away.
Click to expand...

I almost cried when I read that they took it from you!

And, I'm more than a little envious!
 
Eric Ulbrich said:
Flanders and tv logic make a great panel. HP's dreamcolor is great too,
For my money however I just picked up a penta studio 32" grading monitor super sexy with 16 bit engine. its the same panel as the cinetal and you can load LUTS directly into it without the need for a LUT box.
Click to expand...

The Penta sounded cool. so I looked it up.

The manufacturer's site claims its an 8 bit display panel. Is that correct?
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
I remain dubious.

I had an argument with Jim Jannard, the upshot being I don't see evidence for the notion that ordinary people (i.e. not image making professionals and enthusiasts) can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p in motion images - and I am dubious that they can appreciate 2K vs 4K delivery unless we are looking at IMAX size displays. (and I mean "real" IMAX screens, not the IMAX certified screens.)

In fact, I'm dubious that a 36" 4K display will make a difference even to professionals for motion imaging. Perhaps if we pause and pixel peep. I certainly know how much more I see on a 50" plasma at 1080p than I see on my computer monitor at 1920x1200. (Yes they are positioned to have approximately the same perspective size from my working seat. )
Click to expand...


??? Did you happen to see the Sony 4K OLED monitor at NAB?? In fact, it is MUCH, MUCH easier to spot the difference between 1080p and 4K on a 36" monitor than it is on a huge movie screen. It's not even close. Sitting 3 feet from a 4K LCD is a massive game changer. 4K LCDs are the way of the future, IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top