Cinematography.com Naysayers: "4K display won't catch on for 25 years"

[Tom Lowe]

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=38322&view=findpost&p=283415

Sometimes at c.com I feel like a guy at a horse-and-buggy convention in 1909 trying to tell everyone that cars are the way of the future. "Why would people need cars? Horses can run 40mph....blah blah blah."

Even as the molehill of evidence showing the ascendance of 4K as a display format has turned into a mountain of evidence right before their eyes, a lot these guys are still claiming that 4K is "not needed." David, as usual, takes a reasoned, conservative approach, but a lot of the other guys there seem to be resisting 4K at all cost.

Of course many of them are the exact same guys who told us that 4K cameras would never sell, were not "needed," and would never be built anytime soon. :couch:

Anyway, I thought it was a fun debate and am wondering what you guys here think?

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

A bunch of "IDIOTS!"!!

 

[Craig Ryan]

Tom,

I think it all depends on the availability of affordable 4k displays and content.

DVD became the most successful home theater format because everyone already had a TV that could play the content, and it was a HUGE difference from VHS. It was like unlocking a secret resolution boost on your TV just by purchasing the player.

HDTV, on the other hand, meant everyone had to go out and buy a new set to see the difference, plus upgrade their cable package. Then a few years later, you even had to upgrade AGAIN to get 1080p Blu Ray capability.

So for home theater content, I'm actually in agreement with the more conservative crowd in that it's going to be a while before it becomes common place in the household. I think 1080 BluRay is more than enough for most cinephiles; most of them actually are more worried about their set's black level than resolution. Spend some time over on avsforum.com and see what i mean. Most don't even know what 4k is.

I think you are right though , Tom, in predicting that 4k sized screens will indeed catch on much quicker for the high end gaming market. But actually, most of the people I know who are constantly upgrading their PCs for the latest and greatest DON'T have 30" monitors; in fact, most of them aren't even capable of displaying 1080p.

I'ts really just a tough thing to predict at this time; I think everyone would love to see 4k become commonplace ASAP, but let's just not act like 1080p is already obsolete.

 

[Deanan]

4k RED Ray source will look great on HD screens also. Meaning RED Ray will look fantastic at 2k as well.

It's easy to be a naysayer but alot harder to actually push the envelope.

 

[Michael Bravin]

4k RED Ray source will look great on HD screens also. Meaning RED Ray will look fantastic at 2k as well.

It's easy to be a naysayer but alot harder to actually push the envelope.

Its licking the envelope that can be a challenge

 

[Graeme Nattress]

4k and beyond displays are inevitable.

Graeme

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I just don't see 4K becoming a common household entertainment source, not for several more years at least and beyond that, who can say what will happen. It's not because I want to be a naysayer or because I think it's "easy" being a naysayer, it's simply a reasoned and cautious guess based on looking at current trends. We have something like 30% of U.S. households watching HDTV I believe, 720P & 1080i. Of course, that is rising dramatically. But I see the next five years as being taken up by ordinary HDTV becoming commonplace in the household; if 4K in the home happens at all during that time, it will be for a very specialized niche audience.

"Pushing the envelope" is a completely different activity than guessing trends -- that's a form of activism. It's one thing to say that 4K should be a household viewing trend and actively pushing for it to happen... and another to try and guess whether it is likely to happen. So it's an apples and oranges thing to say that someone who analyzes an upcoming trend is not "pushing the envelope". That's like saying that a pollster or census taker should be out there "pushing the envelope".

But clearly this is the wrong crowd to be saying that 4K isn't going to take off for home entertainment in the near future. Personally, I rather the effort be made to get 4K to take off for theatrical presentations and then work on the home video front. We're still fighting the 2K vs. 4K battle for theatrical movies for large screen presentations. It's a bit early to declare a victory and "move on" to putting 4K in homes.

 

[Tom Lowe]

BTW, I am not predicting a rapid shift to 4K cable or 4K screens for average viewers. I think it will start with gamers, 4K video producers like us, 4K projection at movie theaters, and high-end AV aficionados who always are willing to pay big bucks for the latest thing.

I think it will take quite some time (a long time!) for the average joe or soccer mom to upgrade their living-room TV to 4K.

As I mentioned on that c.com thread, it was only a couple years ago that barely anyone was able to display any kind of 1080p of any kind at their house. The only 1080p around were Apple trailers on PCs that could handle it. Now all my friends have 1080p TV screens, or are watching 1080p movies on their computers. Same thing will happen with 4K.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

It might need 4k to show a real, easily visible difference to the viewer at home. Most don't seem to be able to see a real benefit with HD, which is hardly surprising with small screens / long viewing distances, and broadcast delivery.

Before long I think we'll see whole walls as your view into the world. Think Asimov's "The Naked Sun".

Graeme

 

[David Mullen ASC]

4k and beyond displays are inevitable.

Graeme

The displays may become inevitable, and products to watch on them... but considering how paranoid the studios have been about releasing movies in 1080P, not to mention that many of them don't even finish movies to 4K... I don't see a rush on their part to start giving the public 4K versions of their movies.

But eventually, when everything you watch on home is downloaded or streamed in some way, and there is no longer any difference between a TV set and a computer monitor, then I can see a variety of resolutions being offered to the consumer. Of course, we see that future creeping towards us day by day, but on the other hand, it's also not the way that most households are set-up. I'm visiting my father-in-law's house this weekend and he's got an old 12" monitor and rabbit ears and only watches over-the-air programs. And everyday you also hear that the internet is starting to run into bandwidth problems. So 4K may become inevitable but it also may become a small niche market.

 

[Tom Lowe]

It might need 4k to show a real, easily visible difference to the viewer at home. Most don't seem to be able to see a real benefit with HD, which is hardly surprising with small screens / long viewing distances, and broadcast delivery.

Before long I think we'll see whole walls as your view into the world. Think Asimov's "The Naked Sun".

Graeme

Right. :thumbsup:

Like those wall screens in Total Recall.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

These discussions always reminds me of this old article from "The Onion":
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29815

Stupid, inane commericals will also look amazingly deep and dimensional when viewed in the new format. The digital sound system will also greatly enhance their intrusive, overloud quality.

"That kid with the Southern accent on the grape-juice ad will look like you can almost reach out and strangle him," Rowell said.

In addition, recent big-budget movies like Independence Day and Eraser will soon be available in HDTV digital-cassette format, which manufacturers promise will offer an experience comparable to shaking your head and thinking, "This sucks," in an actual movie theater.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Just as HD has been a selling point to get people to buy new TVs, new players, and to get people to watch content, I can see 4k doing the same. I don't think 4k is enough resolution, but it's a good start

Just as plasmas started at SD at silly prices, and now it seems "everyone" has a 1080p plasma, I don't see it stopping there.

Another way I look at it is to think, I'd never bet on "things will stay the same", but bet on "change" instead. It's still a gamble, in that things could get worse. We could see Laserdisc replace DVD, but I doubt it.... Let's come back to this thread in 5yrs and 10yrs and see...

Graeme

 

[Tom Lowe]

Graeme, you are much needed at c.com! :thumbsup:

But I notice that you only frequent the more mature forums, like LL, which is probably wise on your part. :sifone:

 

[Casey Green]

The displays may become inevitable, and products to watch on them... but considering how paranoid the studios have been about releasing movies in 1080P, not to mention that many of them don't even finish movies to 4K... I don't see a rush on their part to start giving the public 4K versions of their movies...

Perhaps the Studios won't be the ones who make these decisions in the future... ;-)

 

[Tom Lowe]

The Studios are clueless. As David himself pointed out, they only went along with 1080p/Bluray because they could not afford to hold out any longer, the $$$ was there.

The studios will have little to do with 4K's rise.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Anyway, I thought it was a fun debate and am wondering what you guys here think?

Considering 1080P is just barely happening it's hard to see 4K having 10s of millions of viewing systems sold anytime time soon... like 5-10 years.

If it does begin to happen sooner it will be due to digital delivery to PCTV's and not new set top players IMHO.

I'd love to see a 4K vs. 2K "view off" down at the local theater or on the big screen 4K TV. There is a point when it's hard for human vision to perceive the difference on a particular screen size at a given distance.

I've never taken that test so I'm not going to presume 4k is a significant increase. 720P properly upscaled to 1080P is tough to tell the difference from straight 1080P. Hell, a good DVD to HD uprez is pretty amazing for that matter.

I'd have to do a serious side by side before I declare anything. My guess is 1080P at 10 feet on a 50" screen is pretty tough to tell from 4K.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Change may be inevitable but the rate of change is not constant or always exponential.

Think back to 1927 -- sound movies became an overnight success, the industry went through a major technological changeover, and most people assumed that there would be an equal revolution in the image itself. People invested heavily in new color processes, and studios invested in designing new cameras, larger format, widescreen, etc. 65mm and anamorphic (CinemaScope) was invented during this time. A few movies were shot by 1930 in these new formats, like "The Big Trail".

But by then, the Great Depression was at its height and the studios decided to adopt the much simpler Academy Aperture format for sound prints, and full color, when it finally appeared as 3-strip Technicolor, was relegated to a few of the biggest productions. And the industry stayed like this more or less until after WW2 when widescreen, large formats, and color finally took off.

But then after the large formats of the 1950's, interest dwindled through the 1960's, as well as box office attendance, until we saw the end, more or less, of 65mm origination and 35mm Technicolor dye transfer printing by the mid 1970's.

Also remember that HDTV dates back to this time as well and it's only now thirty or more years later, that it is taking off for home entertainment.

So change is inevitable... but it doesn't always follow predictable and constant rates or obvious or logical paths.

I also remember reading the 1953 issues of "American Cinematographer" where the January issue said "Is the Future of Movies 3D?" and the December issue said "Is 3D Dead?"

 

[Joel Kaye]

I also remember reading the 1953 issues of "American Cinematographer" where the January issue said "Is the Future of Movies 3D?" and the December issue said "Is 3D Dead?"

To me 3D is like a bad zombie movie. In 3D.

 

[Casey Green]

I think 3D will eventually have it's niche, such as a couple of dedicated cable and satellite TV channels, but there will not be enough content for some time.

I don't think a lot of the examples from years past are as applicable in today's world. The recent paradigm shift in technology offers too much change in a much shorter amount of time, and it effects things across the board (acquisition, post, distribution (methods and ease of global reach), viewing formats, and even marketing strategies.)

We'll see what happens. I'm just happy to be living during this exciting time.