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 is super awesome

Petr Dvorak

Petr Dvorak

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
1,880
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Look how this dude is raving about 4K picture at CES JVC booth. At first it looks bit funny but then he nails it, all that 3D hype compared to this amazing 4K picture is just nothing. I am all the same, and I even never saw 4K footage in real. :biggrin5:
Jim can add another 4K addict to his camp. It will be interesting how young consumers will react on real 4K picture?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__3hIM-HqWw

Wonder what he will be doing when he will see full RED or Epic picture or even 3D in 4K :biggrin5:

beware: althoug there is "certain camcorder" in video this post is just about how 4K is super awesome. :party:
 
Wasn't Ted at CES with the scarlet? Shame this kid didn't bump into Ted, imagine what he'd be raving on then..

Given why is it 4K2K?

On a side note: How long would it have taken for every other cam to go 4K if RED didn't come along?
 
Yep Ted was there.

4K horizontal x 2k vertical ... but whatever

Verrrrrrrrrry looooooong, we wiill be still pixel peeping some HDV and AVCHD footages :))
 
I couldn't seem to find much information on the sensor, size execution etc.
It is interesting to see the direction they seem to be moving in where we have some moving towards large sensors and interchangeable lenses but sticking with 1080p and this one seems to be staying with fixed lens, maybe a smaller sensor and a higher resolution.
 
That guy should really be pointed in Red's direction - he SO wants 4K in a camera!

Having said that - that's a 4K monitor? Like the guy says why don't they release it, rather than just show it at trade shows?!
 
JVC "4K x 2K" is actually Quad HD..

JVC "4K x 2K" is actually Quad HD..

It's good to see greater than 1080p resolution systems starting to be promoted, but one nit pick on the description.

The phrase "4K x 2K" as being used by JVC and some other CES exhibitors does NOT imply 4096 x 2048 (RED 4K 2:1), nor 4096 x 2160 (DCI 4K container) frame size... They mean 3840 x 2160, which is better referred to as QuadHD, 'cause that's what it is....
 
"4k 2k awesomeness" "I'd pay $10 to watch a movie at home"

...and there you have it.
 
So these are all marketed as 4K but are really just below the bar?

Wouldn't they just be better off hitting the 4K mark and competing with RED? cause 3840 x 2160 isn't far from that 4K mark
 
4K x 2K is Quad HD..

4K x 2K is Quad HD..

Imran Farouk said:
So these are all marketed as 4K but are really just below the bar?

Wouldn't they just be better off hitting the 4K mark and competing with RED? cause 3840 x 2160 isn't far from that 4K mark
Click to expand...

Yes it would be nice to be using common terms to describe the frame size - best to avoid yet more customer confusion.

However this is the CE industry :-)
 
Imran Farouk said:
Wouldn't they just be better off hitting the 4K mark and competing with RED? cause 3840 x 2160 isn't far from that 4K mark
Click to expand...

Won't happen.

4k2k!!! let's create another standard!!! This industry is great in creating standards that bugs every one.

Remember 29.97 instead of 30 and 23.97 instead of 24... 1920 instead of 2048 etc...

Wasn't RED who invented this standard under the name QuadHD?

Pat
 
Patrick Tresch said:
Won't happen.

4k2k!!! let's create another standard!!! This industry is great in creating standards that bugs every one.

Remember 29.97 instead of 30 and 23.97 instead of 24... 1920 instead of 2048 etc...

Wasn't RED who invented this standard under the name QuadHD?

Pat
Click to expand...

I thought 29.97 was about backwards compatibility with Black and white and 23.97 was about compatibility with NTSC more then industry creating crazy standards.
 
Craig W. Bickerstaff said:
I thought 29.97 was about backwards compatibility with Black and white and 23.97 was about compatibility with NTSC more then industry creating crazy standards.
Click to expand...

Well, those ARE standards, they just aren't necessarily "crazy", there were some good reasons behind them originally.

And I don't think 2048 was an older established format that was turned into 1920 by some standards committee, but I could be wrong. I think that 1080 active lines were first established for HDTV, and then the 16:9 ratio, which gave them the 1920 width once everything went digital.
 
4K x 2K is Quad HD..

4K x 2K is Quad HD..

Agreed David, no argument here that these are all valid frame rate and frame size standards.

Just a comment from me that 4K x 2K should not be used to describe 3840 x 2160 - as 2K and 4K originated as digital cinema terms, they more obviously relate to the 2K or 4K resolution DCI container - which are defined to be 2048 x 1080 and 4096 x 2160 respectively.

1920 x 1080 is NOT the same as "2K", it's "1080 HD", and 3840 x 2160 is NOT the same as "4K", it's "Quad HD"
 
Why oh why do CE insist on creating this confusing terminology? If anything, QuadHD sounds more impressive than 4K2K! But eh, whatever. Just happy that things are moving forward.
 
Yep 3840 is not 4K, its 3,7K
... and even prefix for 1024 should not be used SI decimal 1k - 1kilo but rather IEC binary prefix 1 kibi like 1 kibibyte ie 1 KiB = 1024. :smile5:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibibyte
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top