The 4K "Apple Problem"

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Is this the first time that consumer televisions / devices have "out-rezed" computer displays? I'm wondering why graphics cards and the display standard for us editing this stuff isn't 4K and up.

Well, not really... 4K displays have been available for some time, although very expensive. LG has had a 37" 4K panel for a few years now, Eizo has been selling it in a desktop display -- primarily aimed at high resolution applications like mapping, medical imaging, that sort of stuff. It's had a very steep price tag and it's not the only such offering out there.

This is all about to change though. To reference LG again, they have shown a 5120x2880 27". I think one of the many good things we're starting to see here is convergence. TV's and computer displays are going to start sharing interfaces and will effectively be the same thing. While TV's will have targeted resolutions like 1080p, UHD, 4K, desktop and smaller displays are mostly focusing on pixel density. The important thing, more so than actual pixel count, when a screen is in your face, is to have the pixels small enough they're not readily visible. The target range seems to be about 260 to 350 ppi. We're seeing it from smartphones and tablets, starting to see it on notebook PC's, soon on desktop displays.

 

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

[/COLOR]Come on man, Apple's been selling (along with just about every other monitor manufacturer on the planet) 2560x1600 since 2004! The only difference Retina makes is pixel density. We can now stuff that resolution into a 13" monitor (instead of 30). We're still nowhere near 4K with Apple and there's been zero movement in that direction, Retina or not.

How the hell can you not see the Retina screens as a direction towards higher resolutions and eventually 4k?

 

[L. Langer]

4K displays have been available for the better part of a decade on the professional side but they have almost always been above 50K for the most part. Once we get HDMI 2.0, GPUs have HEVC decoding in their on-chip hardware decoders and more set-top 4K HEVC decoders are available, and studios have a solid pile of 4K catalog titles to offer consumers in addition to new 4K material, we'll see a push to 4K on the consumer side in desktops and TVs. All of that happens in 2014. Right now, it's just early adopter tech because all the pieces are not in place.

 

[paulherrin]

Sure. Being that I'm in Vegas, how about we bet on it?

i'll bet you a 4k screen from apple that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Luke Kokinos]

Another problem I see is 2K. Even the pictures shot on RED are getting 2K finishes. Most film is done at 2K. The Alexa is only 2K. The only film I can think of that was scanned and mastered at 4K was Django Unchained. I may be wrong, but to me, from what I know now, 4K is useless until everyone realizes that 2K isn't good enough.

 

[Bob Gundu]

Apple is fully aware that Sony will have 4K capabilities in the Playstation this year. If they are are making displays I'm pretty sure they will be 4K.

 

[L. Langer]

Another problem I see is 2K. Even the pictures shot on RED are getting 2K finishes. Most film is done at 2K. The Alexa is only 2K. The only film I can think of that was scanned and mastered at 4K was Django Unchained. I may be wrong, but to me, from what I know now, 4K is useless until everyone realizes that 2K isn't good enough.

Indeed. Every side of the 4K puzzle has it's pieces. 4K or higher cinema cameras are almost the norm. Displays are getting there. Post production facilities and VFX houses are not 4K ready outside of the big boys in Hollywood and elsewhere, with 4K finishes being few and far between. 4K content for consumers isn't really there yet and the studios have 4K scan and re-master projects for older film-based titles going 24/7 right now. 4K pro-grade camcorders are coming out. 4K digital projection systems are all over the place in cinemas with entire chains being 4K-friendly now. 4K-friendly HDMI is right around the corner. Huge difference from five years ago.

 

[Les Dittert]

4K monitors are on ebay all the time.

OLD viewsonic , IBM $525

http://www.ebay.com/itm/IBM-T221-95...6857?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item416fd334e9

--sidetrack --
I believe that 4K is amazing and I love it, but I also think that it will be a sales 'flop' for the general public, selling about the same as 3d TV sets.
They just don't see enough of a difference watching their krap TV shows from 10 feet away. And they are broke. I wish it wasn't this way, truly.
The public wants a good story and titillation, and 1920 is plenty for that purpose.
My favorite true 4K presentation was Samsara, absolutely amazing, but the public couldn't give a shit. Sad.

 

[Brian Merlen]

I think apple packing more pixels per inch actually caused this Rob. Once we started getting retina phones, pads, mobile macs...the writing is on the wall, more density will come to larger displays just as it already did for smaller displays. they clearly do have problems doing it, but beyond 2k monitors have been here for some time. i mean in either case whether adaption is slow or not is almost irrelevant.

the fact is peoples tvs break, monitors break, or people just want the new hyped thing. the adaption speed is irrelevant. if intel makes quad hd screens for all the haswell stuff like they claim they are, then us bleeding edge guys will have it soon enough. until then our 2.6k monitors are already beyond hd for almost ten years

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Another problem I see is 2K. Even the pictures shot on RED are getting 2K finishes. Most film is done at 2K. The Alexa is only 2K. The only film I can think of that was scanned and mastered at 4K was Django Unchained. I may be wrong, but to me, from what I know now, 4K is useless until everyone realizes that 2K isn't good enough.

As high DPI and 4K displays proliferate the market, that will obviate the whole issue of 2K not being good enough anymore.

While most films today are still getting 2K finishes, that doesn't mean it's not increasingly more economical to finish at 4K. In fact, a 4K finish today is more affordable than a 2K finish was only a few years ago.

Funny thing is that everything shot, cut and mastered on 35mm film to a high quality print, in the days before the DI process, will transition to 4K just fine. Most 35mm film can be scanned and re-mastered with resolved detail close to that of 4K resolution. Actually the best film stocks and scanning processes tend to yield about 3800 horizontal lines of resolution from an S35 sized area. Or right on par with the 3840 pixel width of QFHD/UHD consumer "4K". Sure, Alexa is only 2K and it looks good shooting 2K. Well, depends which model of Alexa and it's closer to a 3K camera in most configurations, but yeah, it spits out 1080p/2K for most people with onboard recording options. Anyway, Arri knows the resolution game as much as anyone -- they were pushing 4K film scanning and printing for years. Actually they never stopped pushing it. Their camera marketing department took up a stance of "2K is good enough" only because that is what they had to offer. Just wait until the 5K~6K Arri camera drops... Their marketing will change tune. I'll be shocked if we don't see a better than 4K version of the Alexa (or perhaps it will get a new name?) at NAB or just before.

At NAB my first stop is usually RED. There I can catch up with people I know and all that. This year, I may just have to make my first stop the Arri booth in case I can jump in line early to pre-order a new 4K+ camera from them. Honestly, I don't want the camera. But given how people went so nuts-o over the Alexa, I may as well buy 2 or 3 of whatever their new thing will be and rent the bejeezus out them.

 

[Rob Anderson]

i'll bet you a 4k screen from apple that you don't know what you're talking about.

Hey Paul, this is twice now. You're the only one that can't seem to post in this thread without being confrontational.

So here's my bet; if we ever meet in person, you're getting my foot up your ass. Come and collect any time.

 

[Rob Anderson]

How the hell can you not see the Retina screens as a direction towards higher resolutions and eventually 4k?

Because pixel density has been increasing every year; for decades now. Retina is a brand-name Apple has tacked onto their next flavor. It's not the heralding of a new age. It's a progression that's been ongoing for quite some time. And as it's already been said a few times, Apple doesn't make the panels. They source them. All of that said, everything -- not just Retina products -- have been marching towards 4K and of course we'll go beyond even that. The 'problem' I pitched here, and the issues everyone is discussing, is when 4K will happen and if Apple will be on that first train. Or even second.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Ok... Chill!

 

[Rob Anderson]

Apple is fully aware that Sony will have 4K capabilities in the Playstation this year. If they are are making displays I'm pretty sure they will be 4K.

That's 4K for BR playback, not gaming (unless you're counting upscaling). So it's not a matter of alienating the PlayStation gamers. I don't see this as an incentive for Apple -- they have never supported BR and openly expressed their belief it won't have a long enough foothold to warrant their attention.

Would love if that 4K was for gaming though...

I think apple packing more pixels per inch actually caused this Rob. Once we started getting retina phones, pads, mobile macs...the writing is on the wall, more density will come to larger displays just as it already did for smaller displays.

Monitors packing more density has been happening since the very beginning. Retina is only the latest generation, by one company, of that progression. I just don't see how you see it and that's not trying to be stubbornly anti-kudos to Apple about it. They chose to market their products in a way that offset the attention getting scooped up by larger screened mobile devices with more screen resolution. They didn't invent the tech or build the panels. They sourced and branded them. The writing has been on the wall, sure. But Retina's just one brick of it and I think Apple is getting too much praise for something a lot of people have contributed to and others are still pushing much farther forward.

...the adaption speed is irrelevant. if intel makes quad hd screens for all the haswell stuff like they claim they are, then us bleeding edge guys will have it soon enough.

You may be right. I just hope the 4K-in-the-home era really did begin with CES 2013 and we're not going to be here years from now, standing around wondering when it will start.

Most 35mm film can be scanned and re-mastered with resolved detail close to that of 4K resolution. Actually the best film stocks and scanning processes tend to yield about 3800 horizontal lines of resolution from an S35 sized area. Or right on par with the 3840 pixel width of QFHD/UHD consumer "4K".

That's such a beautiful thing. When Jim [RED] posted his thoughts on 1080 being a "dead zone" that will leave a wake of content abandoned (because upscaling 1080 content does not yield anywhere near the result of rescanning film to 4K), I found that to be very profound. Something I think most of us were aware of but I hadn't, until that moment, put any extra consideration into. He is absolutely right and what you're saying in support of that is so true. Film will live on, 1080 will be looked back upon like the first generation of 3D/PlayStation games.

I can't seem to find the article now, but I know a few lists of films that have been re-scanned to 4K were beginning to build. One claimed over 250+ movies, having already completed this process. Good stuff.

 

[Jake Bastian]

How the hell can you not see the Retina screens as a direction towards higher resolutions and eventually 4k?

It's not the resolutions that I'm worried about Apple not being able to handle. As it stands my Apple TV will stream a rented movie from Apple's servers to my TV about 25% of the time (or purchased for that matter) - a little higher if I switch from 1080 to 720, but why should I? YouTube streaming is completely broken on Apple TV and it seems like they have no interest in fixing it. WiFi streaming on my iPhone is no different - I'll get 30 mb/s download speeds on my laptop while getting 0.5 mb/s on an iPhone streaming in the same room. (You can fix it by removing password protection from your network, but again, why should I?)

Until Apple shows they are ready to accept even 1080p by making it default on Apple TVs instead of 720. And make it so I can stream shows I've paid for to the device in a reasonable amount of time (i.e. no wait AT ALL), then what reason do I have to believe that video streaming in 4K is anywhere close to ready? Retina screens or not.

 

[paulherrin]

here's my bet; if we ever meet in person, you're getting my foot up your ass. Come and collect any time.

fair enough, i'll take your bet and call your bluff... do you want me to send you my address so you'll know where to ship my display when it's ready?

 

[Rob Anderson]

fair enough, i'll take your bet and call your bluff... do you want me to send you my address so you'll know where to ship my display when it's ready?

Paul, you misunderstand. Come on out any time, if you'd like to collect. If not, be on your merry trolling way. Thanks.

 

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

Because pixel density has been increasing every year; for decades now. Retina is a brand-name Apple has tacked onto their next flavor. It's not the heralding of a new age. It's a progression that's been ongoing for quite some time. And as it's already been said a few times, Apple doesn't make the panels. They source them. All of that said, everything -- not just Retina products -- have been marching towards 4K and of course we'll go beyond even that. The 'problem' I pitched here, and the issues everyone is discussing, is when 4K will happen and if Apple will be on that first train. Or even second.

I find arrogance and ignorance extremely frustrating in combination, however, just to clarify: Apple design their own hardware, they even design the CPU's of their mobile devices, but they are not a manufacturing company. They don't randomly pick up some displays that fit their Retina definition, they even invest in the companies that produce them to make the Retina leap possible over their product line. Apple started the resolution "revolution" on consumer electronics displays. First they doubled the resolution on their phone, then the tablet and now the laptops. It's a safe bet that desktops are next.

A large portion of Apple's customers are creative professionals and being able to edit digital images and print at 100% pixel size will soon become obvious.

A potential Apple TV will not be developed in vacuum from the rest of their strategies and products...

 

[Terry VerHaar]

This thread is a lost cause - starting with the title. :crazy:

 

[Jake Bastian]

...Ithey even design the CPU's of their mobile devices...

That's a bit of a leap. Apple altered the standard design of the ARM processor they are using in the iPhone 5. But that's a first for Apple, and it's still just alterations on a design created by ARM and licensed by Apple. It might be a step toward designing their own processors, but Apple aren't doing this all by themselves. They do source a lot of their products, and the competitive advantage doesn't come from the fact that they design and manufacture everything in their products themselves - it comes from the fact that they have the cash on hand to control the supply chain.

You and Rob are both only partially right.