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

AnthonyFlores said:
In fact, does anyone know the cheapest decent 4k monitor or TV (at least 30+ inches) that's available now ... OR ... that has been announced and is on the horizon for release in the next 6-12 mos?
Click to expand...

There are none announced that are affordable. My (hopeful) bet is on Apple's next desktop displays - to go with an August Mac Pro release?

Seriously - the next iPad is gonna be 2048x1536. The next Samsung tablet is gonna be 2560x1600. Surely desktop resolutions have to improve soon? I really don't think there's much of a real manufacturing cost difference between making a big 1920x1080 screen and a big 4096x2048 screen once you get into mass quantities. Heck you may get fewer returns for dead pixels because folks won't notice them as easily :)

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/23...artwork-in-lion-for-possible-retina-displays/
They found gigantic icons in Lion. Also backgrounds measuring 3200x2000.
Also there's that "4K" setting for FCP X. My hunch is that they want to sell you a 4K screen to go with it :)

Of course, hey maybe they'll only be 3K and 30" or something stupid. Maybe I'm over-optimistic. But Apple has a history of pushing the display envelope (though them not having a 1080p 15" MacBook Pro when Dell had those displays since 2003 is lame).

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Bruce Allen said:
There are none announced that are affordable. My (hopeful) bet is on Apple's next desktop displays - to go with an August Mac Pro release?
Click to expand...

Well, I think this is slightly wishful thinking at this point ... but yah, this would be amazing news. If they released a 30" "pro" monitor to replace their former one, and it was in the $5,000-10,000 range it would be incredible.

Like you said, the technology and supply is certainly there. And if anyone can get the cost down into a reasonable range (by sheer virtue of their purchasing power) it's Apple.

Wow, a 4k monitor at sub $10,000 ... Redusers would be jumping for joy everywhere. And triple wow, if they had killer new Mac Pros, FCPX is fixed and grows well, and 4k monitors -- it will do a lot to repair their rep with pros. Certainly here :)
 
AnthonyFlores said:
Well, I think this is slightly wishful thinking at this point ... but yah, this would be amazing news. If they released a 30" "pro" monitor to replace their former one, and it was in the $5,000-10,000 range it would be incredible.

Like you said, the technology and supply is certainly there. And if anyone can get the cost down into a reasonable range (by sheer virtue of their purchasing power) it's Apple.

Wow, a 4k monitor at sub $10,000 ... Redusers would be jumping for joy everywhere. And triple wow, if they had killer new Mac Pros, FCPX is fixed and grows well, and 4k monitors -- it will do a lot to repair their rep with pros. Certainly here :)
Click to expand...

Yes you're right - likely wishful thinking. I certainly was guilty of that with FCP X (though in my defense, what other pro app in the history of computer software can't load projects from its previous version?).

But seriously, if they're ramping up to sell entire tablet computers with 2K resolutions for $600 or so... I am utterly mystified as to why a 4K 30" monitor should even cost more than $2000.

Gavin Greenwalt said:
Make a 40" 4k All-In-One and people would be required to buy a macPro in the process. ;)

Come for the monitor, get OSX.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why I bought a 27" iMac back in early 2010. Got a refurb for around $1650. Dell's 2560x1440 monitor cost $1100 alone. So I bought $1100 worth of monitor - with a quad-core i7 Mac built in for $550! Okay, I would have preferred the Dell's matte screen, but that was the only compromise :)

Come on Apple, REDEEM YOURSELF! I may not use your editing software in the future, but your hardware is still nicely designed. Show those PC manufacturers how to make a true-next generation workstation. 4K has got to be part of the plan. We're all waiting to throw money at you.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Make a 40" 4k All-In-One and people would be required to buy a macPro in the process. ;)

Come for the monitor, get OSX.
Click to expand...

Actually not a bad idea! :) I mean ... start with a base Mac Pro and 4k monitor for $10k, and then upgrades to the tower that push it to $15-20k.

Not bad at all considering the price of 4k monitors now. And in terms of the Mac Pro, a fully loaded one costs around $10k+ anyway ... and would definitely help adoption. I agree with Bruce, come on Apple DO IT!!!!!!
 
Red announced a 4k projector capable of 30' screen size under $10k, correct? Any news on that front?

That will create a cinema renaissance. Being able to set up a dailies room 'anywhere', screen a cut the way film rushes were screened in all their glory, and get a sense of what the dream will feel like at the theater... I live for this.
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
Red announced a 4k projector capable of 30' screen size under $10k, correct? Any news on that front?

That will create a cinema renaissance. Being able to set up a dailies room 'anywhere', screen a cut the way film rushes were screened in all their glory, and get a sense of what the dream will feel like at the theater... I live for this.
Click to expand...

Oh ... that would be EXCITING.

I'm using a 50" Plasma for "big" monitoring right now ... and the first order of business for me after an Epic and some lenses (I've sort of mentally settled on the Illuminas) is a projector.

So ... +1 for the Red projector.
 
Jannard said:
You guys kill me... is it about just today or are we thinking about tomorrow? 4K display and delivery are coming. Trust me. And at prices that will equal what you are paying for 1080P now. What matters is if you are future-proof. I am a fan of "Game of Thrones". I have a 12' screen at home and it looks soft. I can see it NOW. When wall projection is the norm... what will you wish your content was shot on? I am amazed every day at the short sighted thinking here. This stuff is easy to see...

Jim
Click to expand...

I'm with you, I want 4K as well and I see the difference. Thing is though that regular people might not or do not care, they care about other things then resolution. This is why I think 4K will have a hard time getting into people's homes. Even as of today most people don't view 1080p content at home. I have no objection to the 4K future, I see even further as I believe resolution will become floating point at some time in the future, a kind of organic digital imaging, back to almost how film works but in digital form with a kind of scalability more like vector graphics. It's easy to see, pixels isn't a technology written in stone either.

But at the moment, even as we want these displays I am not so sure people outside our realm really care or see 4K in the way we do. They need to be convinced for it to explode on the market.
That is my analysis of this future anyway.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
But at the moment, even as we want these displays I am not so sure people outside our realm really care or see 4K in the way we do. They need to be convinced for it to explode on the market.
That is my analysis of this future anyway.
Click to expand...

Yesterday I went to someone's house and they had an SD rear projection TV in their living room. In 2011! When this TV conks out, they'll be thrilled with 1080p, and if by some chance they could tell 1080p and 4K apart, I doubt they'd care. People like us can take our own visual acuity for granted and assume that everyone cares as much about quality as we do. VHS to DVD was a clear jump in quality for the average viewer, so it spread quickly. Blu-Ray had a tougher time because even though it too has double the resolution of its predecessor, many couldn't tell the difference. For the people fine with upscaled DVDs that feel no burning desire to upgrade to Blu-Ray, the difference between 1080p and 4K will be even less discernible.

I think the average consumer will go for convenience over quality. Streaming is on the rise, so people would watch streaming movies in sub-Blu-Ray quality for a while before they would clamor for 4K.
 
Ravi Kiran said:
Yesterday I went to someone's house and they had an SD rear projection TV in their living room. In 2011!
Click to expand...

And that's ignoring all of the HDTVs with dynamic contrast and low quality local dimming. My brother in law's TV has dynamic contrast that can't be turned off. So any time there is a dark scene all of the "white" lights in the scene go murky gray. Cutting between dark and light shots results in odd exposure ramps.

Nobody can tell what I'm complaining about. There are a lot of things in my TV I would like done better: Contrast ratios, response rates, light bleed in the edges, daylight brightness... and I'm picky. I don't have any non-industry friends who notice any of my complaints. My faith in the general public to push for improved displays is pretty close to 0. I think you could sell them on better blacks... maybe (anyone taken a gander at Plasma sales figures lately?)
 
I still prefer 1080p with 10-bit perfect picture quality to a 4K highly compressed image. When consumer 4K arrives it needs to have top notch quality other then just more pixels.

Thinking about how hard you push for perfect images, perfect colormatch etc. when working with post production, I'm stunned that there's so much shit out there.

Think about having a low compressed 10-bit format on consumer shelves, with a TV calibration standard that all companies who make televisions agrees upon. An agreement that is about keeping the same color levels and calibration the same so that filmmakers and broadcasters know that what they finish stays in that way.

I still think there's alot of stuff that's not getting fixed because resolution over shadows it. It's like the debate on shallow depth of focus. People rant on that it's so important that they rather shoot with DSLR's to get it instead of shooting with cameras with better colors, compression and production workflow.

So, I rather have a 1080p superimage then a compressed 4k.
I'm sure the evolution of digital cinema will allow for both quality and resolution to grow mature together but the focus in this discussion about the future of cinema is in my opinion a little too focused on higher resolution then image quality.
 
As with stock market geniuses ... who can seem wrong before they are finally right ... Jim is pretty far ahead of his time.

The real difference between everyone's perspective in this debate is simple - WHEN. We all pretty much agree 4k will come at some point and dominate, it's just a question of when.

Jim's contention is that it's sooner than we think, while others believe we are further away from that becoming a reality. Personally, I hope he's right :)

Also, we need to look at it from Red's perspective. Because it's only a matter of when 4k becomes the standard - it makes the most sense to shoot in 4k+ now, and be future proof.

I know this is obviously "preaching to the choir" but once you believe 4k is coming, then it doesn't matter as much what consumers see now. That can and will change, and it's better to be ready.
 
Because it's only a matter of when 4k becomes the standard
Click to expand...

1080p isn't a standard yet, even 720p isn't a standard. A standard is when everything is shown in it. How many TV stations show 1080p as their standard resolution? How many even have 720p as their standard?

I am not saying 4K isn't coming, but the thing is more complex then this. The world doesn't work in easy terms.
HD, even 720 is something that many people doesn't care about, they care more about if their TV is super slim then higher resolution. Then there's the issue of your ability to see the difference in resolution at a certain distance. Most people don't have super big television sets and even if they do they don't care that much about resolution. The market is driven by the demand and the demand for 4K is pretty low.

I am convinced that we will see 4K displays as professional tools, that is something else. It will also mean that these displays might not be cheap for a long time.
Then there's 3D and 4K. 1080p 3D at home haven't matured enough yet and the promotion for 3D is much bigger then for 4K. It will create a problem if 3D becomes more of a standard before 4K. Then people don't want to go back to 2D just to get 4K.

Understand that we do not think the way consumers think, we do not think like the market think. The future always holds technological advancements but it is mostly driven by what the consumers are asking for. Look at SSD's, they SHOULD have been much cheaper now, but the demand hasn't been that great, so the price is still very high.

It's good to be ready, to try and make stuff that holds into the future, but the thing is this... 4K isn't going to hold, it will become "old" someday too and that is sooner then we think as well.
We need to understand that technology is advancing faster, not just advancing forward. There might or will be a time when technology makes such leaps you cannot buy anything that's future proof even within 3 months from a purchase.

You just have to realize that nothing is future proof. How long until there's cheaper to animate photo realistic movies then shooting? How long before realtime graphics makes virtual reality games more interesting then watching a small screen? or even a large one?

As I said, this thing is more complicated then just "4K is the future". But as I see it, I rather first have a perfect image before anything else, don't promote or preach bad quality 4K, resolution, like DOF isn't everything to an image.
 
AnthonyFlores said:
As with stock market geniuses ... who can seem wrong before they are finally right ... Jim is pretty far ahead of his time.
Click to expand...

Ummm well then by that standard someone is going to say that the future is 10k retinal projectors. :P And they'll be even farther ahead of their time!

The problem with 4k being "the future" is that people are blind to the present so there is absolutely not reason to believe that they'll suddenly start caring about the future either. You could push 480p through 99% of HDTV customer's 1080p sets and they would be oblivious.
 
Somebody will always be the first to push for progress when new equipment are available.
Like this German guy, W.Meyer.

First to have a Sony 4K projector in his home theatre many years ago, but found it lacking and chucked it out for a 2K Barco DLP cinema projector.

Now in June he installed a Barco 4K DP4K-B32 DLP projector and thoroughly tested it, found it to be good, but wanted full 3D, preferably passive 3D, for his 3D stills photography.
Too impatient to wait a year for the processor boards for projectors to be able to display full 4K 3D to be ready, he bought one more Barco DP4K-B32.

So now he has 2x Barco DP4K-B32 with 6Kw Xenon lamps and passive Infitec 3D System in his home theatre.

Lots of pictures and some descriptions on the install.
Also some pictures of some small custom made mirror rigs for his 5DII and modified Leica M9 cameras.

Worth a look; http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1346057

:coolgleamA:​
 
Great. I have one customer for my 4K 3D movie. Not sure if he'll pony up for the 48fps version though.

My personal secret plan to spur 4K adoption is to just rely on Murphy's Law.

I'm going to buy a 1080 JVC 3D projector - and then the week after I place my order, Jim will announce that Red's 4K ones are shipping.

Don't say I never do anything for you guys.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Really? What do you consider a super 1080P image that is distributed? REDray has virtually no artifacts (something Blu-ray can't say) and 4K REDray is 5 times the resolution at 2/3 the data rate.

You are missing the real choice for the future... much more resolution, better quality at less bandwidth. There is no trade-off.

Jim

Christoffer Glans said:
I still prefer 1080p with 10-bit perfect picture quality to a 4K highly compressed image. When consumer 4K arrives it needs to have top notch quality other then just more pixels.

Thinking about how hard you push for perfect images, perfect colormatch etc. when working with post production, I'm stunned that there's so much shit out there.

Think about having a low compressed 10-bit format on consumer shelves, with a TV calibration standard that all companies who make televisions agrees upon. An agreement that is about keeping the same color levels and calibration the same so that filmmakers and broadcasters know that what they finish stays in that way.

I still think there's alot of stuff that's not getting fixed because resolution over shadows it. It's like the debate on shallow depth of focus. People rant on that it's so important that they rather shoot with DSLR's to get it instead of shooting with cameras with better colors, compression and production workflow.

So, I rather have a 1080p superimage then a compressed 4k.
I'm sure the evolution of digital cinema will allow for both quality and resolution to grow mature together but the focus in this discussion about the future of cinema is in my opinion a little too focused on higher resolution then image quality.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top