4K HDTV's? Do you need one or or do you care?

Discussion in 'Displays' started by RolandL, Jun 28, 2012.

  1. RolandL

    RolandL Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,440
    Likes Received:
    819
    Location:
    Cromwell, CT
    Real Name:
    Roland Lataille
    According to the chart, you would need to sit 4 feet from a 55 inch TV or for those of us with front projectors 8 feet from a 120 inch screen to see the full benefit of 2160p.
     
  2. Douglas Monce

    Douglas Monce Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,514
    Likes Received:
    12
    I think there will be little to no consumer interest in 4k television. The benefit is nonexistent for anyone with a standard sized (50 inches or under) TV. Is a family of five all going to sit 4 feet or less from their TV? I don't think so.
    Doug
     
  3. Steve Tannehill

    Steve Tannehill Ambassador

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 1997
    Messages:
    5,547
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    DFW
    Real Name:
    Steve Tannehill
    I just bought a 73-inch 3D TV last year. I'm done for the decade.
     
  4. Joseph Bolus

    Joseph Bolus Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 1999
    Messages:
    2,412
    Likes Received:
    143
    I view Blu-ray discs 8' back from a 96" screen via my front projection system. If the BD is properly mastered the rendered image seems extremely detailed with good vibrancy. I'm sure that Blu-ray starts to "fall apart" a little past 120", but very few average consumers are going to want to deal with images above that size -- even via a portable projection system.
    IMO, the only way a Blu-ray size disc could support 4K (Isn't that what they're talking about doing?) is with even more modern video codecs. But in trying to cram 4K movies onto 50GB discs -- even with better video codecs -- we're probably going to be back to the days of more visible compression artifacts in the transfer. What good does it do to have 4K resolution if the image is marred by EE and/or digital noise? (I know: Many BD's still exhibit these anomalies now, but there's no reason for them to since the existing codecs and the 50GB capacity should provide more than ample space to avoid compression artifacts at 2K resolution..)
    No --- To do 4K right is going to require a whole new format. And the consumer-on-the-street is just not in a mood for that right now. It's a "non-starter" until roll-up 200" OLED screens and 100GB flash memory sticks become the norm. We're probably talking 2020.
     
  5. kenkraly20212

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    1
    I already have a good 60-inch 3D DLP HDTV and a sony ps3 as my main Blu-Ray player. For me a 4K HDTV is still years away because their is not enough content for 4K. And 4K will cost more money to make content for the format on top of the cost of the 4K sets themselves.
     
  6. Douglas Monce

    Douglas Monce Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,514
    Likes Received:
    12
    Considering that films shot on 1920x1080 cameras such as the Panavision GENESIS, don't "fall apart" on screens as large as 65 feet, (the largest I've seen projected) I have serious doubts that any screen size you have at home is going to present that resolution with any difficulties.
    Doug
     
  7. Robin9

    Robin9 Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,873
    Likes Received:
    885
    Real Name:
    Robin
    I have a 120" screen and well-produced BRDs do not fall apart at that size image. They look even better and they are even more enjoyable!
     
  8. Everett Stallings

    Everett Stallings Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 1998
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    97
    Location:
    Wilmington,De
    Real Name:
    Everett
    I have a 136" screen, and the picture looks great with a well made BD. Also from my Comcast DVR. The WB's 1930 movies on Demand TV also look great! (The R. Twenty's) is one that looks like if was filmed today.:D
     
  9. GeorgeAB

    GeorgeAB Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2001
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Real Name:
    G. Alan Brown
    Resolution, screen size, viewing distance, are all interdependent in determining actual viewing quality, and each item really has little to no meaning without quantifying the companion elements. Screen size and viewing distance are actually only contributing components to define how much of the observer's field of view the image occupies (viewing angle). Most consumers have a low saturation threshold, or interest, when it comes to the capacity to comprehend such technical realities. I have seen plenty of poorly designed home theater systems in my career, with projection screens that were too large. I have also noticed plenty of audience members in commercial cinemas sitting in the front half of the auditorium. Current cinema images won't support such viewing distances without compromises to picture quality, with the exception of programs shot with 65mm cameras and projected in 70mm systems, or IMAX cameras and projected in IMAX systems (both scenarios are relatively rare).
    With 2K or 1080p, any viewing distance much closer than 3 screen heights (at 1.78:1) will be too close for average 20/20 visual acuity. A 30 degree field of view retains maximum image sharpness and detail for those formats (2K digital cinema allows for somewhat closer viewing than 1080p due to additional resolution). These are all theoretical generalities used by the movie and HD video industries, and based upon imaging science and human perceptual factors studies. There are always exceptions, but these recommendations fit for most humans.
    The 4K format was developed for the movie industry and certain higher quality applications such as digital graphics, flight simulators, etc. Of course, television manufacturers are always looking for a way to stimulate consumers with bigger numbers. Marketing types fully understand that the bigger numbers don't really have to translate into genuine improvement.
    "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste [or intelligence] of the American public." H.L. Mencken
    Best regards and beautiful pictures,
    G. Alan Brown, President
    CinemaQuest, Inc.
    A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate
    "Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"
     
  10. ronlw

    ronlw Auditioning

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2012
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not at all sure where the "point of diminishing returns" sets in but I think we are really close. 4K might be nice but how many people will notice. I have always striven for a better picture with my "holy grail" being the quality of a 35mm release print. For me, that point has arrived with blu-ray. I project a 20 foot (240") diagonal scope picture and sit eighteen feet away. A good blu-ray looks every bit as good as a 35mm release print. Excellent. Would I like 70mm print quality...well, yes, but I'm not sure it's worth the extra cost. I'm extremely happy now....but that's me.
     
  11. Wayne A. Pflughaupt

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 1999
    Messages:
    6,044
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Katy, TX
    Real Name:
    Wayne
    I don’t hold out much hope for 4K, at least in the near future. I mean, we’re not even getting the most of 720p/1080i high-def TV as it is. I recently recorded a Forensic Factor show, and the detail during the interview segments (“talking heads”) was simply jaw-dropping, much more so than I had ever seen from a TV show, or even a blu ray. And it was only 720p, as I’m using component video cables between my DVR and 50” Pioneer Kuro plasma.
    I’ve noticed for quite some time an annoying anomaly with many HD TV shows: The detail in the establishing shots is awesome, but when they cut to the actors everything goes soft. IOW, for a good many shows we’re only getting mid-def, not high def.
    So if we’re not getting anything near the full potential of even 720p/1080i HD with TV programming, what’s 4K going to get us? I expect that if content providers took full advantage of the current HD format, no one would see a need for anything better.
    But on the other hand, maybe that’s the idea...
    Regards,
    Wayne A. Pflughaupt
     
  12. Jim Mcc

    Jim Mcc Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    38
    Location:
    Oconomowoc, WI.
    Real Name:
    Jim
    I think it will be a flop, just like 3D will AGAIN.
     
  13. RolandL

    RolandL Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,440
    Likes Received:
    819
    Location:
    Cromwell, CT
    Real Name:
    Roland Lataille
    Yeah, 3D will flop. Just like the 1950s where it lasted two years 1952-54 and 1980s where again it lasted only two years 1982-84. And of course recently where in 2008 we only had 5 3d films, 22 in 2009, 37 in 2010, 55 in 2011, and probably more this year. Yeah, its a flop. :D
     
  14. Wayne A. Pflughaupt

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 1999
    Messages:
    6,044
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Katy, TX
    Real Name:
    Wayne
    Sad but true...
    Regards,
    Wayne A. Pflughaupt
     
  15. RolandL

    RolandL Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,440
    Likes Received:
    819
    Location:
    Cromwell, CT
    Real Name:
    Roland Lataille
    How far do you sit from the screen?
     
  16. ronlw

    ronlw Auditioning

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2012
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    One of the not so great things about better resolution is the focus problem with original acquisition.
    Wayne mentions, "I’ve noticed for quite some time an annoying anomaly with many HD TV shows: The detail in the establishing shots is awesome, but when they cut to the actors everything goes soft. IOW, for a good many shows we’re only getting mid-def, not high def."
    With everyone going for extremely shallow depth of field, more often then not I will see the focal plain across the ears leaving the eyes (where we normally make contact) somewhat soft. Focus pullers need to pay more attention.
     
  17. SolidSignal

    SolidSignal Auditioning

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    With the permission of the staff, I'd like to suggest this article: http://forums.solidsignal.com/content.php/437-4kTV-vs-QuadHD-why-do-you-care ... Not only is 4K an issue but there is a potential format war on the horizon if there are some people who would prefer QuadHD.
     
  18. RolandL

    RolandL Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,440
    Likes Received:
    819
    Location:
    Cromwell, CT
    Real Name:
    Roland Lataille
    With my Sanyo 720p projector I sit about 13 1/2 feet from the wall and the Sanyo projects an image that is about 8 1/2 feet wide and 58 inches high. That's 1.6 the screen width which is fine. If I buy the Panasonic PT-AE7000 for 2.35:1 it would be 11 ft 4 inches wide and 58 inches high, that would be about 1.2 screen width. If that's acceptable I should get it as I'm also interest in 3D.
     
  19. Dave Moritz

    Dave Moritz Producer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    5,322
    Likes Received:
    446
    Location:
    California
    Real Name:
    Dave Moritz
    From what I heard Japan is already broadcasting in 8K! But anyway back to the topic at hand, because I have a Sony LCD that is a native 720p 3 chip LCD that will take 1080i input. If I had the money I would consider a 4K projector and a 120" Stewart Screen. If I was to get a flat panel 4K display it would have to be 60" minimum. No matter if I went with a 1080p or 4K display it sure wouldn't be an LG!
    [​IMG]
    Would love to have a 120" screen between these Altec A-7's!
     
  20. Joseph Bolus

    Joseph Bolus Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 1999
    Messages:
    2,412
    Likes Received:
    143

Share This Page