Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

ESPN 4K

I think it's better to stay away from personal attacks and "adjectivising " members of a forum. I never do that. I prefer to keep my personal opinions about individuals to myself.
It's better for everyone this way- trust me ;)
And just to make myself clear I went to the Red 4K fest downtown to see 4K
Wasn't all that impressed with the detail of the images. I did enjoy some of the shorts- they had interesting stories.
The best image quality I've seen so far was the Great Gatsby- in 2K mind you...
Mark if Best Buy TV demos are where you see the 4K will go- I'd venture to say that your 2-3 years prediction for main stream UHDTV is a little far fetched ;)
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
Well ... I do not believe for one second - that the majority of content consumed in peoples homes in the US in 2-3 years will be MPEG2. And for good reason.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree, but probably for different reasons. The only way what you say would be true is if the majority of content is not being delivered from either a broadcast or cable entity. And that is possible. But the reason for the change, even in that case, would be because other codecs are more efficient, thus allowing reliable delivery in the currently unpredictable world of broadband, which in 2-3 years might be just as unpredictable, at least in the US. Quality is likely not the determinant for the larger audience outside of Reduser. I don't think most people can see the difference, nor do they care, between MPEG2, AC3, H.264, H.265, wavelet based codecs, Redray, or anything else. They just care whether the picture they see looks pretty good, and doesn't suffer glitches or buffering. It never really has been about pure image quality, and I don't see that changing. That won't stop them from buying 4K monitors, though - primarily because in 2-3 years that might be all they'll be able to buy. That's how the consumer electronics industry sold HD, and it's how they're likely to sell its successor (although it didn't work with 3D, did it?).
 
M Most said:
I don't necessarily disagree, but probably for different reasons.
Click to expand...

I don't really care what reasons drive the change - so long as it happens. And sure, some people don't care about image fidelity - and some are content watching movies on their phones and tablets - but others would like a "cinematic" experience. Others don't know what they want until they see it. And don't need it until they get it. Like who really "needed" a retina display, right?

But once you have it .... hard to go back to lower quality.

Broadband is the future of television.
 
We're going to see a bit of chaos in 4K delivery at first as things get closer to "hammered" down. I wouldn't freak out. Most have a plan of some sort.

I have seen some 4K Tennis and 4K clips from Football game. It's somewhat unbelievable. It will certainly be one of the driving forces behind "acceptance" and desire for 4K content. Just like it was for 1080p actually.

4K happened in theaters first, and there's many out here in LA that support that. More content is being captured to be finished in 4K right at this moment.

Kudos to ESPN.
 
Well I'm ready for broadband 4K delivery with my FIOS TV but the sets need to come down - to about $1K for 80+" sets to really see the 4K
And I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment....
 
In this last 6 months - we've been involved in several 4K broadcast tests - ranging from cable systems to satellite delivery - still in the early stages but the major players are working on it - worldwide.
 
I think we'll see some interesting 4K displays in the $500-$3000 range at various sizes fairly soon. Dell's going to be an interesting part of that at probably around $1000-$1500. Apple too. I don't know about $1k 80"ers, but we'll certainly see a good amount of 30-55"ers in affordable realms soon. Sony and Samsung just cut about $1k off the sales price of their 55" models and $1.5K off their bigger ones.

It's all coming. Lots of the tech demoed at CES this year is still on it's way too.
 
I can't tell the difference between 2K and 4k at normal viewing distance on a 55- 60" screen so it's a no go.
IMO the smallest screen to see the difference clearly would be about 80" at 10-15ft viewing distance.
LCD or plasma tech can't meet the price point.
OLED certainly can.
I'd say 5-8 years....
 
The image quality goes way beyond resolution numbers.
The number of pixels is probably 3rd or 4th on the priority list for image quality.
1. Luma
2. Contrast
3. Chroma depth and rendition
4. number of pixels
or something like that....
The cheap "4K" TVs may have the #4 but certainly lack quite a bit on the first 3
And they have ways to go considering the current tech....
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
APPLE is gonna drop the hammer and kick the 4K TV panel biz in the ass. Soon.
Click to expand...

Well, that would probably be more innovative than anything they're doing with phones or tablets these days (although I think the new MacPro design is pretty damned innovative, even if others don't....).
 
In the current landscape, particularly in the US, there are significant challenges to be surmounted before UHD or 4K content accessibility reaches meaningful thresholds. The only entity I see positioned to shorten that timetable significantly is Apple. If UHD is part of their agenda to deal themselves into the new OTT distribution infrastructure then all of us 4K wonks just might have a very merry christmas.

Cheers - #19
 
My last comment to this matter is that despite the full understanding of how things are right now and were they are, could be headed, what matters is the facts world wide, which are leading towards a massive expansion to 4k on all formats and media alike, with that said, 4k needs to be agreed upon that it is not 3D, and that despite any challenges it represents, it is and should not ever be compared to 3D, for obvious reasons...

Now...


Let's just hope that the Hollywood machine and vendors, Cinemas etc. alike do NOT try to do as they did with 3D, which was take a very good thing, and cripple it form the start, with inadequate showings, luck of focus and Lumens, and increase in ticket prices.

They should not be able to make the first F&%$UPS but they should cloud thing to rase tickets as well as BluRay/DVD prices... Just let's hope they do not go there, and that the push stays honest.

While they experiment in solving the Distribution issues via Broadband or what ever other means...

We, Filmmakers, especially those in this community, should only be concerned in the main issue at hand... Produce actual 4K material, and spend less time arguing about it... ;)


Oh... Funny thing about me posting here, besides been about 4K which I completely DIG, is that I never did nor do I care to ever watch sports... ;)
 
The guys in the Labs at ESPN Florida have tons of test beds of 4K and the media services providing them.
Sports will always be the lure for resolution and broadcasters. Having been doing sports and action cinema/broadcast for a long time this is just something that has been planned for a while with ESPN, NFL,NBA,MLS, MLB and NASCAR.
For the consumer this will take a little bit more adoption just like 1080 but this will be a faster adoption then 1080 the bottleneck with be delivery via broadband,cable and satellite without a sound compression scheme and quality.
Im along for the ride already working on some test projects for 4K broadcast soft launches.
 
The case can be made that from a Reduser point of view 4K Acquisition and broadcast by a network like ESPN doesn't actually change a lot. Live sports won't be using RED cameras and infrastructure, and action/adventure sports that aren't live records but are already shooting on RED cameras due to frame rate options as much as resolution will likely be asked to deliver at 4K without a significant increase in budget to accomodate increased post cost. A few early adopters might find a way to further monetize already completed projects - but by and large this sort of change to the landscape isn't going to advantage anyone, just add more expenses to existing infrastructure.

I guess some promo shooters might end up going with RED over Alexa occassionally, but other than the satisfaction over the idea that HD isn't enough, I don't imagine a 4K ESPN channel shaking things up dramatically, unless it is delivered entirely over broadband. That would be a paradigm shift.
 
Again, I do not care nor watch sports, nor care to work in filming any... SkydiveDubai 2012 was the first and most likely last exception to that, and only because I had full control over it, and could make it a not only about sports.

However I see this move from ESPN to 4K, as a major step forward for all of us, either or not any one will actually benefit of any real work in their projects, what counts is their push to 4K.
 
It's still good news IMO

It's still good news IMO

I get where Craig is coming from, but even if RED cameras are not widely used in sports acquisition (arguable) that doesn't mean that ESPN going UHD/4K is not going to have a significant effect on RedUsers. IF the money tree that is sports programming can speed up the timetable for getting UHD propagated over whatever flavor of delivery system, then the opportunity for non sports UHD outlets to manifest gets here that much sooner. I would also argue that for the wider world to "get" what UHD/4K is all about they need to see it with their own eyes, if watching sports creates that opportunity, that helps RedUsers looking to deliver at UHD/4K.

FWIW, despite very real bandwidth issues, UHD/4K might offer yet another way for OTT delivery to promote their value proposition - stop paying that cable/satellite bill and get better picture quality. Yes, its likely that over compression will make early iterations of UHD/4K over broadband sketchy, but when have facts ever gotten in the way of marketing ;-) - which brings me to what I consider the biggest risk to UHD/4K ubiquity in the near term - severe over compression yields images so compromised that the audience doesn't see the point.

I wonder if ODEMAX and real time RRencode hardware could ever support live (less than 1 second latency) UHD/4K programming over LambdaRail?

Cheers - #19
 
Btw,

even if no Epic cameras were used to shoot the actual games, it is not all that they will ned 4K acquisition for, as they will most certainly also need 4K Spots ext. to show during the 4K Broadcasts... So some of us could actually get some work ot shoot some of those Spots, I know I could do a nice sexy one for them... Or two... ;)
 
I've seen RED cameras all over the place shooting sports stuff. The Rolex Three Day Event in KY had quite a few shooting interviews and BTS footage that got spliced into the edited broadcast. I've seen them at race tracks shooting footage of racing clubs among other places.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top