dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
167

Camelot One
MVM
join:2001-11-21
Bloomington, IN

Camelot One

MVM

Very few will care about 4k......

Even if you launched a massive advertising campaign to let these 70% know about 4k, very few are going to care until there is readily available 4k content. And for those who are a bit oldschool, that is going to mean 4k content on some sort of media they can buy/collect/hold in their hands, not just streaming from a website.

Kasoah
join:2013-08-20
Merced, CA

2 recommendations

Kasoah

Member

the exact same could have been said for 1080p/720p
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

1 recommendation

InvalidError

Member

Going from 480i to 1080p is a very noticeable step up. From 1080p to 2160p on the other hand is a whole lot more subtle unless you sit unusually close to the screen or have a large one. At 6' from a 40" TV, most people won't really be able to tell 1080p from 2160p.

Unless/until 4k drops close to 1080p's price and becomes a "why not" item, I do not expect much of that "28% very interested" to convert into actual sales.

MovieLover76
join:2009-09-11
Cherry Hill, NJ
(Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66

1 recommendation

MovieLover76 to Kasoah

Member

to Kasoah
I think your wrong, people can tell the difference, even non technical people like my fiance. She called me one day and said their was something wrong with the tv, she said it was fuzzy. when I got home it turns out she was on one of the SD channels on FiOS instead of the HD version and she has no idea what 480p, 720p or 1080p mean.

4K however will be much less noticeable, unless you have an enormous tv and you sit really close. Just take a look at any of the guides that tell you how far you have to sit to notice quality differences at different resolutions.
MovieLover76

MovieLover76 to InvalidError

Member

to InvalidError
Agreed, while I have a faint curiosity in 4k, it's not something that I'm itching to upgrade to. If my 1080p display were to die and I could get a 4k tv for only a little more than 1080p of similar quality I miight grab one, but right now I have no plans to upgrade just to get 4k.

Besides so much content that's called HD these days is over compressed, and doesn't hold up against blu-ray and I seriously doubt a successor to blu-ray is going to have much success as people migrate to streaming. Why buy 4k to get an even more compressed 4k stream and still can't match a good blu-ray.

anon_anon
@comcast.net

anon_anon to Kasoah

Anon

to Kasoah
Ever hear of the Super Audio CD, or DVD-Audio? Consumers didn't care and those formats forever remain niche except for audiophiles. Unless you are talking about an absurdly large screen, paying for 4K is a waste of money. Even the DLP projectors in cinema's are just 2K. If there is any place where 4K may have a perceptible benefit, it would be in a commercial movie theater.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError

Member

I think you are getting 2k and 2160p mixed up here... 2k/4k/8k are approximate horizontal resolution (1920-2048 / 3840-4096 / 7680-8192) not vertical resolutions as most people have been used to see so much fussing about during the HD (1080i/p) transition.

When the industry says 4k, they mean resolutions in the neighborhood of 3840-4096 x 2048-2160p.

I wonder how the digital video industry picked those oddball resolutions. Digital algorithms are usually simpler and more efficient when everything is neatly aligned on power-of-two boundaries.
zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC

zod5000 to InvalidError

Member

to InvalidError
I complete agree. I still run into a great number people that have HD screens and only use SD content on them.

I was all over 1080p came out. It sort of went hand in hand with buying a new flatscreen TV (it's timing was right.. new format for new tv's.. the tube to to flatscreen transition).

4k needs large tv's (unless you sit unusually close to the TV) to have an advantage. For most people it's around 80".

I don't think we're close as a society to having an average tv size of 80" in the living room.

I would agree that as 4k tv prices come down, it'll probably come standard in all tv's. I'm not sure how much the demand for content would be.

Most cable companies don't even do 1080p yet. Streaming/Online services still highly compress their HD feeds.

I don't think the world is ready for 4k yet. A small percentage is, but I don't think that's going to cause it take off.
46436203 (banned)
join:2013-01-03

46436203 (banned) to Camelot One

Member

to Camelot One
There is a shitload of available 4K content already.

How about every PC game ever? How about most console games ever via the power of emulation?

Movies and TV shows are far from being the only form of media available.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError to zod5000

Member

to zod5000
said by zod5000:

Most cable companies don't even do 1080p yet.

That is largely due to earlier generations of digital SD/HD STBs still used the same MPEG2 compression used on DVDs because h264 decoding was too expensive at the time. Most shipping STBs today have 1080p/h264 decode built in for practically free by virtue of practically all SoCs having h264 built into their IGP.

But it will probably take another 7-10 years for most MPEG2 STBs to die so cablecos can pull the plug on that and go all-h264/h265.
firedrakes
join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL

firedrakes to InvalidError

Member

to InvalidError
yes. i seen 4k and 8k set ups correctly but their for big ass screens. more then 100 inches
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman to InvalidError

Premium Member

to InvalidError
The movie guys want to be different than the TV guys. Otherwise why go to the movies. Notice how many movies are made in ratios too wide for most 16:9 HDTV screens. You end up with black bars at the top and bottom, if you show those movies in the correct aspect ratio. The digital movie cameras had to be different in order to duplicate the way old technology film cameras could produce very wide aspect ratios. If the new digital equipment could not do that, existing movie directors would not have been persuaded to use them. For television directors, matching the 16:9 ratio was good enough for the cameras they use.
betam4x
join:2002-10-12
Nashville, TN

betam4x to InvalidError

Member

to InvalidError
I disagree. I have 2x 1080p monitors. I can easily see the pixels on both. On my macbook retina display however...now that's a damn display. My eyes orgasm looking at that display.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to davidhoffman

Premium Member

to davidhoffman
movie theater screens also are setup for the wider format which would mean altering them too. Theaters have enough issues affording the 4k and 8k cinema projectors.(keep in mind theater projectors are miles above the crap sold for homes)
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman

Premium Member

Yes, it is odd when people say DLP is dead. I tell them it is dead for RPTV for home use, but has lived on in many front projector systems, including those used in movie theaters, such as the Christie systems which use 3 DLP chips.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError to betam4x

Member

to betam4x
said by betam4x:

I disagree. I have 2x 1080p monitors. I can easily see the pixels on both.

At what distance? 18"?

Normal people don't sit at 18" from their 40" living room TV.

Also, the average "Resting Point of Vergeance" (the distance at which people's eyes tend to focus when completely relaxed) is around 36" so average people will not feel comfortable staring at anything much closer than that for extended periods.

Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

Corehhi to anon_anon

Member

to anon_anon
Actually 4K is noticeable in theme parks like Universal Orlando, they have been upgrading to 4K projectors. Of course that involves huge screens and movement not what you will have in your living room.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned) to anon_anon

Member

to anon_anon
said by anon_anon :

Ever hear of the Super Audio CD, or DVD-Audio? Consumers didn't care and those formats forever remain niche except for audiophiles. Unless you are talking about an absurdly large screen, paying for 4K is a waste of money. Even the DLP projectors in cinema's are just 2K. If there is any place where 4K may have a perceptible benefit, it would be in a commercial movie theater.

Thats because most devices couldn't play the damn things. I loved DVD audio discs, but could only play them on my surround sound setup, no car I ever looked at could play them and IIRC no consumer MP3 ripping software supported it properly either.

With CDs it was universal, with MP3 you could get a car stereo with an aux in, a cd player that could read mp3s or use a tape deck and a line out tape so you had options.

Because of this convenience won out over quality.

Hell, I wish MiniDisc had won out, I'd prefer to have all of my discs in their own built in cases, but Sony where douches about licensing as per their usual and the format died due to convenience.
intok

intok (banned) to davidhoffman

Member

to davidhoffman
Which is why we now have these terrible resolution monitors like the 21:9 2560x1080...

The move people are assholes, they went 16:9 first and TV followed, but when TV followed they decided they had to make up arbitrary aspect ratios every movie because they know the theater can just adjust the curtains and the projector to fit whatever crap they come up with.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

1 recommendation

davidhoffman

Premium Member

Exactly. I think it was Jack Nicholson who said that the Academy Awards were a private party that allowed the TV cameras and reporters in as guests to be tolerated. If the TV guests did not like the way the party was run they were free to leave. The TV guys had their own awards show, The Emmy's, and could run that in as much of a family friendly and TV commercial friendly manner as they wanted. The two sides of Hollywood barely get along. Each regards the other as producing overpriced junk using lousy actors, actresses, scripts, and directors, among many other gripes. Nope, HBO does not count as movie making to the movie guys. The aspect ratio games are just one of many tit for tat conflicts between the two. The movie guys will tell you they cannot stand for people to watch movies on television sets. Movies are not designed to be watched on television sets. You are supposed to buy a projector, a screen, motorized curtains, a theater surround sound system, and proper movie watching seats. You should install them in the proper manner in a proper movie room. That is where and how you are to enjoy movies. Adjusting screen ratios by adjusting the curtains would be just another part of movie watching preparation for a family. Expense? How can you talk of expense when discussing viewing our continuous stream of epic visual stories? That is the movie guys talking, not me. I think some of them are ridiculous. Home theater projector systems have not grown in use much due to the expense and hassle of setting them up. The younger generation is used to today's HDTV aspect ratios being used for very popular content viewing from cable television content producers. They can use similar low cost technology to get started in the creation of their own content. The future feature films at the big screen theaters may end up all being in 16:9 format.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned)

Member

And is it any wonder why people see the movie types as overly pretentious douchebags?

I had a conversation with a guy that went to film school about how Tarintino hated movies shot using digital methods even when those methods produced video of far higher quality, even if you where going for the gritty look ad feel. Theres tons of tricks that can be used to achieve that same look and feel without having to track down what is now a far more expensive the digital 24FPS film camera and dozens of reels of filmstock.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

1 recommendation

davidhoffman

Premium Member

What is interesting is that some in the movie side of Hollywood are pushing for the use of what is called High Frame Rate movie making. You shoot in 48fps .

24fps was based on what the film sound recorders of the time would produce in the way of sound clarity and quality.

From Wikipedia: "Criticisms of the format include assertions that the "cinematic look" is lost with the use of high frame rates. Film critics have complained that 3D HFR looks like video games, HDTV, live theater or a cheap home movie."

Note that nothing satisfies the film people. Not real theater, which was and is part of the origin of their industry. Video games, or digital animation, are dismissed. I wonder what Pixar thinks of that. HDTV; par for the course with the movie people. Home movies; insulting your future camera operators must be forward thinking to them.

The film people are going to face an entire generation that will create content using rugged SSDs with excellent digital cameras at much higher frame rates than traditional film cameras. Post production reviews being very rapidly available will be the new normal. Not the next day, but in less than 10 minutes. Digital editing will be the normal, not cutting and splicing film stock. Showing on a 16:9 screen will probably be standard, as you will want distribution to be an easy transition from the movie theater
to the television set or tablet at home, if we even have movie theaters by then. No more statements prior to the TV showing, that the film has been edited to fit a television set's screen dimensions.

Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

Corehhi to intok

Member

to intok
I had a CL Acura that played DVD audio. 2001.