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 :)

New Canon 4K monitor and 2/3" sensor size camera prototype

David Rasberry said:
At this point there is only about 30% penetration of 1080P HD in homes. Except for high end tweeks I don't see 4k (actually quad HD) being mainstream for quite a few years yet. A lot has to happen for that to become reality. First we have have a standardized delivery codec capable of 4k broadcast in the same bandwidth as 1080p.
Click to expand...

... and then we also have to wait for the human eye to evolve to the point where the average person (not just image aficionados) care about the difference in resolution on an average-home 40" screen. I'd give it 500-700 more years...

Either that, or... the economy takes off and the price of technology falls to the point that every low to middle class family can afford a 70-100" inch screen for their living room. Again, it'll probably happen, but "a couple years" is ludicrously generous. Unless by "a couple" you mean 20-50.

The predictions on sports bar are probably right though. I think 4k will start showing up in bars in 2-5 years on 100" monitors and then maybe "sports theaters"? Are those real yet?
 
My name is Blair and I am a high resolution-aholic. I am VERY interested in owning a 4K display. What are my options?

I demoed a Sony L-560 4K LCD display (thanks Band Pro) and its a badass panel. Unfortunately its north of $50K to buy one (as are the Astro and TV Logic models).

I have had several opportunities (thanks IGI) to work with the big Sony SXRD projectors and they are amazing, but huge and even more expensive.

Christie is showing 4K DLP based on the bigger TI chip that is cheaper than the Sony SXRDs but still pushing $100K US with lens.

Epson is supposed to be bringing a 4K projector to market at a more attractive price point with presumably less lumens but AFAIK they are not yet shipping, nor have I heard what they will cost.

Bottom line: I am ready to spend up to $20K for a solid 4K (or QHD) display for doing 4K DI work (and hopefully field monitoring), be it plasma, LCD of DreamColor quality or projection (DLP or SXRD). Are there enough people with similar needs to provide the kind of customer base to offset bringing such a beast to market?

I still think that the next generation of Apple displays might be the magic bullet where we could get a 32" to 60" QHD (3840 x 2160) display designed for the next generation living room. Apple has plenty of skin in the game for still photogs that augments the motion media market on the professional side. In the consumer space it seems they would be well served by selling you the monster display that could show multiple 1080 images and other picture in picture windows all at once, OR, show you 1080 or 720 material without computationally intensive scaling.

Apple is the one company that has the potential to sell enough units across the spectrum of computer and video and convergence users to achieve the economies of scale necessary to get the price point low enough to actually market an affordable (in relative terms) 4K display. They also have the financial strength to take such a gamble. Perhaps I am still laboring under the illusion that Steve Jobs wants to lead the way with insanely great products that dust the competition the way Apple used to...

Does anyone have much info about the 4K display Canon is showing? Is it just a concept item like the 4K/60P camera? Or will I be able to order one from B&H next month?

Cheers - #19
 
Bryce O said:
middle class family can afford a 70-100" inch screen for their living room
Click to expand...

That's already true today. Once someone goes with a front projector, they don't go back, and good projectors are cheap! Having a big screen with Blu-rays makes movies at home completely awesome. 40" is crap. You can start out by just projecting onto a wall, and the women love it, because it doesn't hurt the aesthetics of the room while it's off.

Big, huge screens are infectious, and they spread throughout social groups. At least that's what happened in the circles I run in. I've had numerous friends tell me that the grand or so they spent on a high-quality front projector is the best $1K they've spent in YEARS.
 
Front projectors rock, unless there are lights on or daylight coming through the windows. The big glass panels eat resources but until someone can create a projection screen that rejects more than 95% of off axis light while allowing a 140° plus viewing cone they will remain a specialty item. Just MHO.

Cheers - #19
 
Stuart English said:
Agreed, bandwidth consumption is critical.

But if we take ATSC 1080i as a reference, we (RED) already have a codec in RED RAY that uses fewer Mb/s to deliver 4K.

Of course that's a point product and 4K displays are expensive at this point in time, but I suggest the big technical issues are already solved.
Click to expand...

I think Red's compression technology is potentially its most valuable IP long term. Getting adopted as a universal standard is a different matter from just being able to do it. There is a lot of "not invented here" resistance to overcome from the big dogs.
 
Bryce O said:
... and then we also have to wait for the human eye to evolve to the point where the average person (not just image aficionados) care about the difference in resolution on an average-home 40" screen. I'd give it 500-700 more years...

Either that, or... the economy takes off and the price of technology falls to the point that every low to middle class family can afford a 70-100" inch screen for their living room. Again, it'll probably happen, but "a couple years" is ludicrously generous. Unless by "a couple" you mean 20-50.
Click to expand...

Lmao, 20 years? 50? Try 5.

BTW, when you are sitting 3 feet from a 4K LCD hooked up to your computer, you will see the difference.

In terms of home theaters, does it matter whether only high-end users are the first to adopt 4K display for home? Isn't that the way it always works? In this case, you will have the added consumer market of PC gamers driving 4K LCD adoption. Gamers have always been known to drive technology -- high-end PCs, displays, graphics cards, etc. And they will play at least some role in the forthcoming 4K consumer market.

Wait until the first super-epic 4K film or TV series drops -- think "Planet Earth" -- then you will see high-end consumers becoming extremely interested in 4K.

When 1080p plasmas first hit, they were $10,000. Now you can get one at Walmart for $800.

Anyone who thinks 4K at home is decades away is in for a huge shock.
 
4K delivery and displays

4K delivery and displays

re encoding 4K at less than 1080i bit rate

Unless you can do it in real-time, it makes no difference.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but let's think about that... what do you watch that is live - outside of sports events?

When 1080p plasmas first hit, they were $10,000. Now you can get one at Walmart for $800.

Anyone who thinks 4K at home is decades away is in for a huge shock.
Click to expand...

Agree with you there Tom.
 
4K output module

4K output module

Any hope for a 4K output module for Epic that would allow for 4K I-mag or live feed for closed circuit (and someday broadcast)? Perhaps a fiber tap to send the data stream to a black box on the truck that would decode in under 1 second (keep in mind that most event coverage, like sports, have delays already to bleep obscenities)?

I think 4K I-mag for big concerts would be great as many venues are so large that the action on stage is essentially a rumor :willy_nilly:

Cheers - #19
 
Great job reporting for RedCentre, Jim!
 
Er, just a quick question concerning the original post here...

p_2592_1936_3B8E7FC0-B90B-4DE6-973C-29CFF8001869.jpeg


An f-stop (or should that be T-stop?) range of 1.8 to 3.8? Do I read that right? That's, er, not much of a range. Do you get shallow focus at 1.8, and infinite DOF at 3.8? Am I missing something?
 
That's the lens variable max aperture in f-stops: f/1.8 at 7mm and f/3.8 at 140mm. If you open up fully at 7mm the image will get darker as you zoom in towards 140mm...
 
Images are produced for global audiances and whilst the US may have around 30% take up of HD TV panels its higher in some other countries and generally higher across the EU. So taken on global terms 1080 TVs is a huge global market. Sky in the UK has over 10M subscribers (60M UK population) and at least 40% subscribe to HD services. Then there is freeview HD services via a set-top box and also HD services from Virgin Media & BT. This picture is similar in France, Germany & Italy.
Sky has also rolled out 3D TV which is a HD service albeit small at the moment but definately set to increase.
4K screens will be a reality in homes ONLY if compression can be improved throught the broadcast chain not just in production or post because currently even 2K is compromised dependent on subject matter with some HD content being put out at only 8Mbs. In the UK digital terrestial broadcast is flakey to say the least with analogue progressively being switched off to get a decent signal you need to have a premium cable service but no one route is perfect or without fault.
4K and above is a great theory but until we can get good broadcast 2K images then we are deluding ourselves that 4K over the internet, cable etc will be any better unless massive progress is made with compression which based on current evidence is a long way off.
 
Bandwidth.

Bandwidth.

Nova Invicta said:
4K screens will be a reality in homes ONLY if compression can be improved throught the broadcast chain not just in production or post because currently even 2K is compromised dependent on subject matter with some HD content being put out at only 8Mbs. In the UK digital terrestial broadcast is flakey to say the least with analogue progressively being switched off to get a decent signal you need to have a premium cable service but no one route is perfect or without fault.

4K and above is a great theory but until we can get good broadcast 2K images then we are deluding ourselves that 4K over the internet, cable etc will be any better unless massive progress is made with compression which based on current evidence is a long way off.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't really one of compression efficiency, it's more about consumer behavior and the economic incentives to the cable / satellite companies. The ATSC recommended data rate for HD is 19.3Mb/s not 8Mb/s, it's just that there has been the technical possibility to keep lowering the data rate (at the expense of quality) to squeeze a few more channels into the available bandwidth.

So 4K and 1080p HD may be a premium or subscription service to pay for the "extra" bandwidth...

For example in the US, HBO demand a full bandwidth pass through of their compressed video data from the cable companies.
 
Image Quality

Image Quality

If that's true, then that's a shame. But we're not going to play that game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top