dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7204
share rss forum feed


bull3964

@verizon.net
reply to MURICA

Re: Ultra HD at CES

said by MURICA:

As it stands now everything shot on 35mm film is 4k ready and everything on 70mm is 8k ready.

It isn't really true though because a lot of the intermediate and post work is done in 2k or even 1080p due to cost.

For example, your previous linked list of Sony 4k movies lists Spiderman 2. Yes, Spiderman 2 was mastered in 4k, but nearly ALL of the special effects work was rendered in 2k and upscaled to 4k for the final master.

There are hundreds of movies that have used a digital intermediate for some if not all of the movie and 4k for the whole process is still exceedingly rare. The final mastering is usually done in 4k so they can strike a good 35mm print, but a good chunk of the process can (and often is) done at lower resolutions and upscaled.

We're basically going to have the same problem we have now with TV series that were edited on SD video in the 80's and 90's. The source elements could be rescanned at the higher resolutions, but to get the final product at that resolution the whole work would have to be re-edited with special effects re-created when necessary. There will be a few things here and there that will warrant and get that treatment, but a good chunk will not.

Older movies with significant cultural importance will likely get the full 4k treatement since they didn't use any sort of digital intermediate and indeed some are already ready (such as Blade Runnner.) But there are going to be a LOT of post 2000 era movies that will be struck from the 4k master and will offer some improvement over 1080p, but they will not be TRUE 4k products through and through.

Basically, the workflow is going to have to change to mastering in 8k and keeping all steps in-between at a minimum of 4k in order to have a real 4k movie and we are a ways away from that.


Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to MURICA
said by MURICA:

They already have a 4K channel broadcasting on European FTA satellite.

It can be done. The bandwidth is there. It's all about using it in an intelligent manner. It shouldn't cost that much to upgrade equipment to utilize the existing spectrum.

They are called FTA for a reason, they are free! European television business is completely different than US. In the US, almost everything is pay to receive, where again, costs make a big difference. Their model will never be accepted here. I again refer FIOS. Verizon gave up touting the range of HD channels years ago now, when they stopped increasing their offerings. If the service with the most bandwidth barely does enough to give us HD offerings, and almost no 3D, how can we expect UHD? We cannot. Would I like to see everything in UHD in 5 years time? Yes. Do I expect it? No. I appreciate your enthusiasm for this, but the reason I am speaking so pessimistically is because I have reason to. I'm not going to get pumped up over a technology I likely won't experience for half a decade or longer.

SilentMan

join:2002-07-15
New York, NY
reply to fishacura
said by fishacura:

said by Greg2600:

To assume that bandwidth is limitless is not right,

Really? Look at the IBM PS2 which was thought to have more computing power than an individual would ever need.

said by Greg2600:

And definitely not for the money that will have to be spent to get there

VCR in 1980 - $1200
VCR in 1990 - $99
VCR now - Obsolete

Not only will we get there, prices will fall and something ELSE will come along. Always happens, always will. Just a matter of time.

As far as horsepower, gas mileage, it's the tomAto, tomato argument.....whatever the variable, clearly PQ is critical.

And also remember that 40"+ plasma cost $9000+ during the first few years of this century.

As it's always the case, the 8K flat screen will have a high price tag so that the company can recover most of the money invested in that technology, but the price will eventually come down to acceptable levels.

And then just when you thought that you bought the ultimate 8K UHD TV for $2600, along comes the announcement at CES2035 of the new 20K, 100" flat screen And that would be the entry level. The 1% will be excited watching sports and movies on their 600" flat

SilentMan

join:2002-07-15
New York, NY
reply to MURICA
said by MURICA:

:
:
:

This has never been about catering to the lowest common denominator. We do not care about the lowest common denominator. We drag the lowest common denominator, kicking and screaming, along with us. As the minority of elite video fidelity lovers, it is our job to push and support new video formats like 4K regardless of what the general public cares about.

Well, man, I agree with you. First I was saying "wow" about the 4K resolution, but now with the 8Ks out, I could wait a few more years until the prices get more reasonable. I hope that happens before my time is up on this earth


Webcobbler

@verizon.net
reply to SilentMan
SilentMan,

I agree with you that 10 years ago a 50 inch Plasma was about $12,000 dollars. It was a new technology back then.

Now if we take in to consideration that the price fell over the next few years after the Plasma's introduction, could we Assume the same would imply for the new OLED technology in TVs today?

I believe Yes, because for example: Samsung's 55" OLED is $12,000 dollars. It is a brand new technology, as Plasma's were 10 years ago. Over the next few years, OLED TVs will decrease in price, as Plasma's did. You all can see where I am going with this.

So, they say that OLED it the best technology in TVs in the past 10 years, and I can believe that. Given one knows about OLED, and the benefits of it, etc.

In conclusion, like TVs of the past, in this case Plasma's vs OLED and how Plasma's declined in price over the next few years after they were introduced, I can see that OLED TVs will do the same in the same time frame, or even a quicker pace because there are HDTV channels and Media that were not widespread 10 years ago when Plasma's were introduced.


Webcobler

@verizon.net
reply to SilentMan
I also agree with you that I wish all this good stuff will come before my time is up on this Earth, as well.

I sometimes wish that if I could be cryogenically frozen, then just wake me up when i can get a Ultra HD tv with several UHD channels to watch, Native 4k Bluray's to buy etc. And wake me when 8k TVs are at a price reasonable with Native media out there , so it is worth getting.

But I can probably wait until 1Gbps is available for our homes, because i believe, since it was just announced, that it will be available within 3-5 years



Nezmo
The name's Bond. James Bond.
Premium,MVM
join:2004-11-10
Coppell, TX
kudos:1
said by Webcobler :

...

I sometimes wish that if I could be cryogenically frozen, then just wake me up when i can get a Ultra HD tv with several UHD channels to watch, Native 4k Bluray's to buy etc....

Personally I'd be more excited about seeing a cure for cancer or a huge reduction in poverty levels or eradication of cruelty to kids, or seeing my great great grand kids... etc. The next thing in TV is fun, sure but not something I'd want to be frozen so I could eventually see, lol. But hey, each to their own.

I don't think there's any argument that the new tech will come down in price. It's when, not if. But there are some limiting factors and diminishing returns at play as others have mentioned. Again, not everyone can physically accommodate a 100" screen (where this really comes in to it's own) but it is true that those that early adopt and overpay for the privilege will spur on price drops for those regular folks who want the higher tech even though they probably really don't need it. That's just how it works.
--
My Gallery
Formerly Nezmo


TitusTroy

join:2009-06-18
New York, NY
reply to fishacura
the people clammoring for huge screens (65"+) need to invest in a projector over any plasma or LED

as far as 4k vs OLED...most people that have seen 4k up close say that the leap in picture quality is not as substantial as the leap from standard def to 1080p HD...the people that have seen OLED are all still picking their jaws up off the floor


danclan

join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA
To add to the confusion:

»www.avsforum.com/t/1451171/why-u···s-not-4k

enjoy....


aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
reply to bull3964
said by bull3964 :

said by MURICA:

As it stands now everything shot on 35mm film is 4k ready and everything on 70mm is 8k ready.

It isn't really true though because a lot of the intermediate and post work is done in 2k or even 1080p due to cost.

................................

1080P (1920x1080P) is considered 2K. Even though it's not quite at 2000 and only 1920. Just like the 3840x2160 resolution of UHD is considered 4K even though it's only 3840 lines of resolution.


Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to fishacura
Right it's just the aspect ratio difference between film theaters and your home TV's.

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
reply to Webcobbler
Yes, prices come down over time, and when much of this technology first comes out, it's very pricey. I remember seeing my first DBS dish at a department store some 18 years ago. I just remember my jaw hitting the floor at the price tag for it. It was something like $1000 for the dish/receiver, and didn't include installation. It was naturally a single LNB dish (multi-LNBs didn't exist at the time) with a single receiver.

The question is - what drives down the price? Companies like this spend alot on R&D. To offset that cost, they need to move alot of product. That's why initial offerings of new technology are so fricking expensive. Eventually you're just basically making copies of the same product, and the cost for R&D is gone. You're now just paying for labor and material, and probably shipping. But to get there a company has to move product. It's a virtuous cycle - as the product moves, prices come down, and as prices come down, it creates more demand, which in turn brings down prices more. But again, you HAVE to have at least some modicum of acceptance of a product (that 'least common demoninator' nonsense) - consumer electronics companies don't stay in business by making a product that no one buys.

Eventually the price point will get low enough that you'll see demand get created for 4k and 8k. But I really don't see it happening anytime soon. There's just not enough of a benefit, over existing technology, to justify it the minds of most consumers.

Also, in terms of bandwidth limitations, realize it's not just the bandwidth from cable company to your house that's an issue. You can lay all the fiber you want, getting you a ridiculous amount of bandwidth to your home. But the content providers have to get the programming to the cable companies in order for it to be distributed. That's an even bigger roadblock to getting UHD into the home. Heck, look at what they're doing to the Rainbow suite of channels. That over-compression isn't Verizon's doing. It's coming to them overcompressed because there's a bandwidth crunch coming from the source.

I think 4k and 8k will happen. But not yet. It's not going to explode on the scene. Lest anyone doubts how slow things can move if the market doesn't crave a product - just look at 3D. Heck, even pricing hasn't moved that market - you can now get 3D TVs for a real good price, and you're still not seeing a major movement.

fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA
I recall my dad paying over $1k for a VCR circa 1980 lol

SilentMan

join:2002-07-15
New York, NY
reply to danclan
said by danclan:

To add to the confusion:

»www.avsforum.com/t/1451171/why-u···s-not-4k

enjoy....

Yes! 4K is deceptive and there should be a law forcing TV, Bluray manufacturers, cable operators, TV broadcasters to tell the truth in big letters about their equipment capabilities so that you know what benefit you will get after spending a large amount of money on your equipment, but I doubt the whorehouse in Washington would do anything to protect consumers from deceiving practices.


aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
said by SilentMan:

said by danclan:

To add to the confusion:

»www.avsforum.com/t/1451171/why-u···s-not-4k

enjoy....

Yes! 4K is deceptive and there should be a law forcing TV, Bluray manufacturers, cable operators, TV broadcasters to tell the truth in big letters about their equipment capabilities so that you know what benefit you will get after spending a large amount of money on your equipment, but I doubt the whorehouse in Washington would do anything to protect consumers from deceiving practices.

it's not really deceiving. A consumer just needs to do the proper research before making any purchase.


bull3964

@stargate.net
reply to aaronwt
said by aaronwt:

1080P (1920x1080P) is considered 2K. Even though it's not quite at 2000 and only 1920. Just like the 3840x2160 resolution of UHD is considered 4K even though it's only 3840 lines of resolution.

I was making the differentiation on aspect ratio, but yes, 1080p is technically 2k.

The point still stands though. Most feature films since around 2000 have been using 2k digital intermediates (especially when special effects are involved) and the practice continues even today depending on budget. Those movies, even with a 4k master, are never going to benefit fully from a 4k display unless the movie goes back to the source 35mm footage and is re-edited and gets re-created special effects (if there are any.) They will be barely better than the 1080p blu-ray copy otherwise.

Older movies that were edited on film can be easily re-scanned at 4k, but there's the question of how many are going to be done.

Let's face it, the only reason why we have blu-ray copies for some movies is that they did an HD master when they did the original DVD release. It's very unlikely that the studios are going to see the value in doing a 4k rescan of their back catalog for anything other than their top gems. It's just not going to be economically viable.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to JPL
said by JPL:

Also, in terms of bandwidth limitations, realize it's not just the bandwidth from cable company to your house that's an issue. You can lay all the fiber you want, getting you a ridiculous amount of bandwidth to your home. But the content providers have to get the programming to the cable companies in order for it to be distributed. That's an even bigger roadblock to getting UHD into the home. Heck, look at what they're doing to the Rainbow suite of channels. That over-compression isn't Verizon's doing. It's coming to them overcompressed because there's a bandwidth crunch coming from the source.

That's not a fault of bandwidth limitations. That is a fault of stupidity. Rainbow seems to be distributing their channels using the DVB-S standard; probably because they are too cheap to upgrade to DVB-S2 equipment. The bandwidth is there but they aren't using it wisely.

They could have double the amount of bandwidth for the same amount of money that it costs them to lease that transponder if they used DVB-S2 instead of DVB-S. They could distribute their channels as 18 Mbps MPEG-2 instead of 9 Mbps MPEG-2 if they wanted to and it would cost them nothing beyond the initial costs of upgrading to DVB-S2.

quote:
I think 4k and 8k will happen. But not yet. It's not going to explode on the scene. Lest anyone doubts how slow things can move if the market doesn't crave a product - just look at 3D. Heck, even pricing hasn't moved that market - you can now get 3D TVs for a real good price, and you're still not seeing a major movement.

Really? There are now hundreds of games available in 3D and hundreds of 3D Blu-rays. That anaglyph crap never caught on to this degree.

said by bull3964 :

Let's face it, the only reason why we have blu-ray copies for some movies is that they did an HD master when they did the original DVD release. It's very unlikely that the studios are going to see the value in doing a 4k rescan of their back catalog for anything other than their top gems. It's just not going to be economically viable.

Actually, they HAVE rescanned a lot of their back catalog in 4K so that the Blu-ray release would look better. This is why catalog shows like That '70s Show, Friends, and Star Trek look so good on Blu-ray. They've been scanned at 4K then downrezzed to 1080p for BD. Any catalog titles getting HD scans since the mid-2000's are being done at 4K. Lots of content is already available in 4K, sitting in studio vaults.

Scanning at 2K and then releasing on BD produces shit results. An example of a company that does this is Universal, with their catalog releases. They scanned in a lot of material in the late '90s/early 2000's at 2K for the DVD release. They have been incredibly lazy when it comes to releasing these titles on Blu-ray so they just put the old 2K transfer on them. Universal's catalog Blu-ray releases are widely panned for this reason.

Companies like Sony and Disney take more pride in their work and don't put out a crap release sourced from an early 2K master. The bulk of Sony and Disney's material that has been mastered for Blu-ray is coming from a re-done 4K scan, and it shows. They don't just use the old 2K scan that was done in the early 2000's.

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

1 edit
You're missing the basic point. Regardless of WHY Rainbow isn't upping their bandwidth, the stuff is coming compressed FROM Rainbow! Verizon could give everyone 1Gps fiber, switch to full up IPTV, and it wouldn't matter a hill of beans for improving the PQ of the stuff coming from Rainbow. The pipe going from Verizon to your house isn't the only one that needs to be expanded is my point. And the reason I made that point is because I kept reading postings on here that made the claim that if these service providers just upped their bandwidth, we could easily go 4k. No, we can't. Because the link from service provider to your house is only one link in the chain. And Rainbow isn't the only one doing that. They just seem to be the one that fosters the greatest number of complaints.

As for the 'explosion' of 3D... really?:

'Display Search analyst Paul Gagnon says that U.S. household penetration for 3D TVs is at about 3 percent. “To be fair, 3D TVs have only been available for sale in a significant way for about 18 months, so that’s why the penetration is so low,” Gagnon says. “That said, it’s still lower than what many in the industry had hoped for.”'

That's from this article:

»www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/01/···hnology/

Wow... 3%. I wonder how the TV manufacturers keep up with THAT demand... Gaming, while big, is still VERY small compared to the amount of TV viewing that's done. How many 3D channels are there? How many cable companies even offer 3D? Why would that be? Could it be because NO ONE HAS A 3D TV? Why, yes, I think that's it. And why is that? Is it because prices are too high for 3D? Not really. To entice customers into believing that you HAVE to have 3D, they've lowered the price on such sets, so much that they're right in line with equivalent 2D sets. So, despite artificially depressing the price, the manufacturers still couldn't create a market for the product. Why? Because consumers don't want it. You may have disdain for the 'lowest common demonimator', but unless that person actually buys into a technology, such technology will go nowhere.

fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA
JPL you are right on re: 3D. I do actually have one but it really is a novelty and I only got it because I wanted smart features and they're often bundled. But you are right, it's being pushed a lot more than it's being requested. This is pretty much fact at this point. The above article is one of a thousand to that end.
--
People who don't get good service on average tell 10 others while people who do get good service on average tell 1.

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
said by fishacura:

JPL you are right on re: 3D. I do actually have one but it really is a novelty and I only got it because I wanted smart features and they're often bundled. But you are right, it's being pushed a lot more than it's being requested. This is pretty much fact at this point. The above article is one of a thousand to that end.

You make a very good point with this - one captured in that article. Many of the people who buy 3D sets aren't buying them because they're 3D. They want high end sets, and 3D is generally just included in such sets. That's like claiming that people really want seat warmers in their cars because high end cars just happen to have them. Besides, pricing, like I said, for 3D TVs has come way down. A year ago I bought a new TV. I looked at a 3D set, and came close to buying it. But not because I wanted 3D. But because I really liked what I saw of that TV. I ended up picking a different TV because, doing side-by-side viewing of the two TVs, the one I ended up buying (a Panasonic plasma) edged out the other TV (LG LED-lit LCD) in picture quality... ever so slightly. If I had gone for the LG, I would have been counted among the 3%, even though I had (and still have) no desire for 3D.

I don't doubt that 3D will eventually work its way into the market - you won't be able to help it. As prices for 3D drop, you'll see it just included in sets more and more (sort of like the fact that you can't really buy EDTVs anymore - HD became cheap enough that there really was no market for ED anymore). But without consumer craving it, the uptake will be slow. I think the same thing is going to happen to UHD. I just don't think there's a craving for it out there like there was for HD. Very similar to the move from VHS to DVD vs. the move from DVD to HD DVD (Blu Ray). The former was very fast. The latter... not so much. Why? Because people really noticed the difference between VHS and DVD... but the difference between DVD and Blu Ray (I don't want to start a war here... I'm going by what I see as public perception) as being far more subtle. Yes, Blu Ray is better than DVD, but not enough in people's minds to cause the format to catch on as fast as DVD did. I think you're going to see the same thing here. The difference between SD and HD was VERY noticeable. The difference between HD and UHD I don't think will be. Yes, it'll be better, but I don't know if the difference is stark enough to drive people into a UHD buying frenzy. To see the difference, such that it's noticeable to most consumers, you're going to have to go to a large TV set (that full immersion thing I was talking about) - probably something in the 85 - 100" range. Which is bigger than most people want, and even if they did want it, most dwellings can't accomodate it. I could be wrong about this - I've been wrong before. I'm just stating my view of things.


bull3964

@verizon.net
reply to MURICA
said by MURICA:

Actually, they HAVE rescanned a lot of their back catalog in 4K so that the Blu-ray release would look better. This is why catalog shows like That '70s Show, Friends, and Star Trek look so good on Blu-ray. They've been scanned at 4K then downrezzed to 1080p for BD. Any catalog titles getting HD scans since the mid-2000's are being done at 4K. Lots of content is already available in 4K, sitting in studio vaults.

Scanning at 2K and then releasing on BD produces shit results. An example of a company that does this is Universal, with their catalog releases. They scanned in a lot of material in the late '90s/early 2000's at 2K for the DVD release. They have been incredibly lazy when it comes to releasing these titles on Blu-ray so they just put the old 2K transfer on them. Universal's catalog Blu-ray releases are widely panned for this reason.

Companies like Sony and Disney take more pride in their work and don't put out a crap release sourced from an early 2K master. The bulk of Sony and Disney's material that has been mastered for Blu-ray is coming from a re-done 4K scan, and it shows. They don't just use the old 2K scan that was done in the early 2000's.

You are completely missing the point that a LOT of stuff that was done since 2000 was done using 2k digital intermediates, especially for special effects. They can go back and do a 4k master, an 8k master, even a 16k master and the resolution of the final product is never going to get any better than 2k. NEVER. Take my Spiderman 2 example. Unless Sony decides to go back and re-render the majority of the special effects in the movie, Spiderman 2 will never be a full 4k title. It won't. They can go back and scan the 35mm print at any resolution they want to, the source elements they used to create that print were still resolution limited.

fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA
reply to JPL
The LG LED is the one I wound up with lol!

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
That's a damn nice TV - I came very close to buying it. Some of the reviews talked about how there was a halo effect during some scenes because of the LED lighting. I didn't see it. I must have stared at that screen for 15 minutes in the local Best Buy, and I never saw what some were complaining about. Like I said, the Panny plasma that I got edged it out in PQ (from my perspective) but only barely (the LG was a very close second choice, followed by an equivalently spec'd 2D Samsung LED/LCD). In the end, it came down to price and size more than anything (the PQ was close enough on both TVs that I would have been happy with either). Not only was the Panasonic slightly larger (50" vs. 47"), but I got a ridiculous deal on it (b2b deal through my employer), and I just couldn't pass up those kind of savings.

fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA
The only odd thing with it is that it supposedly has local dimming but it can only be enabled on the service menu. That and it's a 120hz tv but i cannot figure out how to get it to 120hz (so setting and it always shows as 60hz). My guess is that nothing is coming through cable at 120hz...could this be right?
--
People who don't get good service on average tell 10 others while people who do get good service on average tell 1.

UnnDunn
Premium
join:2005-12-21
Brooklyn, NY
reply to JPL
said by JPL:

The pipe going from Verizon to your house isn't the only one that needs to be expanded is my point. And the reason I made that point is because I kept reading postings on here that made the claim that if these service providers just upped their bandwidth, we could easily go 4k. No, we can't. Because the link from service provider to your house is only one link in the chain. And Rainbow isn't the only one doing that. They just seem to be the one that fosters the greatest number of complaints.

The link from the program provider to the service provider is relatively easy to upgrade; they do that all the time to meet the needs of different program providers. Some providers use satellite backhaul, others use fiber links. In either case, the TV service provider can, upgrade its gear and set up the link relatively easily.

UnnDunn
Premium
join:2005-12-21
Brooklyn, NY
reply to bull3964
said by bull3964 :

Take my Spiderman 2 example. Unless Sony decides to go back and re-render the majority of the special effects in the movie, Spiderman 2 will never be a full 4k title.

What makes you think they wouldn't do that? All the source material for the SFX is going to be on a storage NAS somewhere; there's nothing stopping them from re-running the render job at a higher target resolution.

kes601

join:2007-04-14
Virginia Beach, VA
kudos:2
reply to UnnDunn

The link from the program provider to the service provider is relatively easy to upgrade; they do that all the time to meet the needs of different program providers. Some providers use satellite backhaul, others use fiber links. In either case, the TV service provider can, upgrade its gear and set up the link relatively easily.

Yes, however program providers are compressing their signals so they can save money on the uplink transmissions -- see Comcast / NBC Universal merger -- Comcast now compresses their channels so they can save on the uplink and the quality has gone to crap.

UnnDunn
Premium
join:2005-12-21
Brooklyn, NY
How would that affect a fiber link?

kes601

join:2007-04-14
Virginia Beach, VA
kudos:2
said by UnnDunn:

How would that affect a fiber link?

It wouldn't, but not everything is sent to Vz via Fiber.

UnnDunn
Premium
join:2005-12-21
Brooklyn, NY
Chances are, if they really wanted to offer a 4K channel, they'd use a fiber link to ingest it.