dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
32
share rss forum feed
« Bein SportsQAM tuners switching channels »
page: 1 · 2 · next
This is a sub-selection from Ultra HD at CES


Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to fishacura

Re: Ultra HD at CES

Yes I could discern PQ if I walked up to the screen. People aren't watching that closely like they would on a computer screen. They are 10 feet away. At that distance the PQ difference is far less. The more important measure is true bandwidth of the video. I'd rather have regular HD which is uncompressed and free of macroblocking, stuttering, pixelation, etc. UHD will only confound that, because the bandwidth is not there. Even Verizon IP - VOD - stutters and pixelates.

PQ is not a gimmick; however, I agree. But to an extent. We still have tons of SD-only programming on FIOS, the supposed HD leader. There's barely any 3D channels. Now you expect to transition to UHD??? Don't be insulted when I chuckle. Not towards you, but towards Verizon and other providers. You mention wireless, I have a 4G phone through VZ, and watching Youtube is not good with their bandwidth, unless I'm at home on the router. To assume that bandwidth is limitless is not right, because it is. FIOS roll out has stopped. Nobody wants to spend the money here.

PS: Horse Power is somewhat of a gimmick, because these days cars have far more than you need. People care more about the gas mileage.

fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA
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.
--
People who don't get good service on average tell 10 others while people who do get good service on average tell 1.


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO

1 edit
reply to Greg2600
said by Greg2600:

Yes I could discern PQ if I walked up to the screen. People aren't watching that closely like they would on a computer screen.

Exactly. SD to HD was one thing. SD was glaringly insufficient for 50"+ TVs. Most people just don't have room for the 70"+ inch TV that will be necessary to see the difference at a typical viewing distances.

People had trouble seeing the difference between 480p and 720p at standard viewing distances on 42" plasma TVs, back when that was an option. I'm not even really itching to replace my 720p 50" set. I'm actually more interested in that OLED set for black level and color reproduction characteristics than I am the pixel density.

You know what I *CAN* see on my 720p set watching typical broadcast channels? Compression artifacts galore! Why are we talking about 4k when we can't even get the most out of a 720p set?

I anticipate 4k to get filed in the same bin as DVD-Audio and SACD. Better audio quality exists, but CD audio is good enough for most people's ears. Consumers became more interested in actually losing some quality for improved convenience and portability. Along the same lines, I would not be surprised to find that the average population finds HD quality video to be all they need for home viewing.

U-verse TV is mighty popular in my neighborhood, despite the HDpicture quality being noticeably worse than cable or DirecTV. People love the multiroom and wireless set top features. People love their satellite radio, despite the sound quality being trash. I saw a poll a while back and some ridiculous 50% of the responders thought XM audio was the same as CD quality. Some even thought it was better.

I will be happy to be wrong, if I am wrong. I would love to have the best quality possible. I just don't think consumers care enough about quality for it to ever take off.

--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
said by djrobx :
Exactly. SD to HD was one thing. SD was glaringly insufficient for 50"+ TVs. Most people just don't have room for the 70"+ inch TV that will be necessary to see the difference at a typical viewing distances.

You need to consult an optometrist if you think 1080p is even remotely sufficient for current HDTV screen sizes.

quote:
People had trouble seeing the difference between 480p and 720p at standard viewing distances on 42" plasma TVs, back when that was an option. I'm not even really itching to replace my 720p 50" set. I'm actually more interested in that OLED set for black level and color reproduction characteristics than I am the pixel density.

You need to consult an optometrist if you think 720p is even remotely sufficient for current HDTV screen sizes.

quote:
You know what I *CAN* see on my 720p set watching typical broadcast channels? Compression artifacts galore! Why are we talking about 4k when we can't even get the most out of a 720p set?

There are already numerous sources available that can 'get the most' out of a 1080p set.

quote:
I anticipate 4k to get filed in the same bin as DVD-Audio and SACD. Better audio quality exists, but CD audio is good enough for most people's ears. Consumers became more interested in actually losing some quality for improved convenience and portability. Along the same lines, I would not be surprised to find that the average population finds HD quality video to be all they need for home viewing.

U-verse TV is mighty popular in my neighborhood, despite the HDpicture quality being noticeably worse than cable or DirecTV. People love the multiroom and wireless set top features. People love their satellite radio, despite the sound quality being trash. I saw a poll a while back and some ridiculous 50% of the responders thought XM audio was the same as CD quality. Some even thought it was better.

I will be happy to be wrong, if I am wrong. I would love to have the best quality possible. I just don't think consumers care enough about quality for it to ever take off.

HD, and Ultra HD, has never been about catering to the lowest common denominator. They are irrelevant.


jawhip

@verizon.net
I have seen the new 84" 4k sets and I must say, I was unimpressed. Sure, it you sit really close, you can't see the pixels, maybe 5 or 6 feet away. However, I don't sit that close and never would want to. I like to sit 9 or 10 feet away and at that distance, the increased resolution is barely noticeable, if at all. You need a screen size of 100 inches or more, which is why 4k works so well in a theater and would be great in the home for a front projector set up. IT also does have some application at smaller sizes for passive 3D. Other than that, it is more marketing hype. The real exciting stuff is OLED with its fantastic blacks and color. That is what the eye really pics up. Resolution is not as significant as those factors.

fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA
reply to djrobx
said by djrobx:

People had trouble seeing the difference between 480p and 720p at standard viewing distances on 42" plasma TVs, back when that was an option.

I understand your perspective but on this point, are you kidding? I'd love to meet that person and see their corrective lenses perscription. Seriously, there's no comparrison here...
--
People who don't get good service on average tell 10 others while people who do get good service on average tell 1.

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


Webcobbler

@verizon.net
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.

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

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.

kes601

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

Chances are, if they really wanted to offer a 4K channel, they'd use a fiber link to ingest it.

But I believe the point being made is that several channels on a few providers aren't even really being sent up to what we would consider HD quality, so which provider would step up and provide a 4k signal?


danclan

join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA
Pretty much any of today's major players could provide you with a 4K feed tomorrow if they so wished.

You don't get uncompressed 1080i or 720p today, you wont tomorrow. Bandwidth is not an issue codecs are that allow for clean & clear picture transmission to the STB from provider to customer.

MPEG-2 wont cut it, MPEG-4 could carry 4K today if it so wanted to.

There is no installed base to compel them to deliver 4K broadcasts, regardless of content. The same was true for HD till it reached critical mass, 3D at the current adoption rate will hit critical mass in about 15 years....if ever.....currently the only way it will reach mass is if its built in to TV's by default.


bull3964

@stargate.net
reply to UnnDunn
said by UnnDunn:

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.

There's more involved than simply re-re-rendering the job at a higher target resolution. For example, are the textures used sufficient enough resolution to make it worthwhile?

Then you have to re-edit the movie to re-composite the SFX with the live action shots.

Can it be done? Absolutely. Will it be done? Only in some select cases, yes. Don't expect it to be done across the board.

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

There's more involved than simply re-re-rendering the job at a higher target resolution. For example, are the textures used sufficient enough resolution to make it worthwhile?

If not, the SFX house that did them should never have gotten the contract.

Then you have to re-edit the movie to re-composite the SFX with the live action shots.

Can it be done? Absolutely. Will it be done? Only in some select cases, yes. Don't expect it to be done across the board.

I don't expect that, but it isn't nearly as difficult as it may seem.


bull3964

@verizon.net
said by UnnDunn:

If not, the SFX house that did them should never have gotten the contract.

Corners get cut, it's the nature of the business where everything is pushed to come in on time and under budget.

I would like to point to Star Trek:TMP as an example. Only this time is has to do with SD vs HD. The director's cut of TMP had many new SFX inserts done completely in CGI. They were really well done. They captured the look of the models perfectly and you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the CGI and model work which is exactly what you want when blending old and new special effects.

However, the renders were only done in SD for the DVD. This was released in 2001. HD was already on the horizon. But the time and the money wasn't there to render for a resolution that wasn't going to be seen at the time so it wasn't done. The source files were allegedly lost so in order to get the director's cut on blu-ray those scenes would have to be recreated from scratch or upscaled.

The irony is, they are going to far more work converting ST:TNG to blu-ray, but that's also a much more profitable venture than a single movie.

Firefly ran in 2002, again right when HD was starting up, but all CGI was rendered in SD as a cost cutting measure. This show has about a rabid and devoted fanbase as you could possibly imagine

This happens all the time. A modern sfx movie could have the effects farmed out to half dozen or more firms. Who's to say 15 years down the line that these firms will be able to locate all the source files for a scene, have software that can even re-render from those files, or even still be in business.

I leave you with a blog quote from someone that works in the field on the subject.

»darthmojo.wordpress.com/2008/12/···ent-1492

When I was working on Serenity, there was a lot of arguing between the Lightwave and Maya artists about texture resolution. The Maya folks, who had worked on a lot of big movies, swore up and down that, for a movie, your texture maps had to be AT LEAST 4k or else the models would look like crap.

The Lightwave artists, who had mostly come from TV projects, said that was bull**** and lower res maps would hold up just fine.

But something had to be done, because 2 gigs of RAM was the maximum our machines could utilize at the time, and the shots were choking on all those hi-res image maps.

So, we all agreed to do a test. We rendered 4 versions of identical shots in which the models had image maps of 4k, 2k, 1k and 512 pixels. Then we went to a theater and screened them all to see what differences we could visually perceive.

My favorite moment was hearing the Maya guys in the back go “wow, I can’t even see the difference between the 4k and 512 versions!”

Yes, the Lightwave folks walked out of that test screening very smug.

We deciced to use 1k maps for everything, and if an object got REALLY close to camera, we’d up it to 2k.

I think we did render everything at 1080, but I’m sure, even for a movie, you could get away with 720 and upres it. No one
would know the difference.

These are comments from an industry expert and validated by peers in the industry. Even the guys who do nothing BUT visuals for a living thing anything over than 2k is mostly overkill.

The biggest advantage of 4k for a large format presentation is honestly to minimize screen door effect. Otherwise, the eye is just too poor at picking out detail during motion.

MURICA

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

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.

Well, we don't care about Rainbow. Rainbow is the lowest common denominator.

The point is that if you build it, they will come. Saying 4K will never catch on because one shitty, cheap company won't be the first to upgrade their equipment and hop aboard is ludicrous. There are plenty of others who will be interested. Discovery Communications in particular likes to be among the first to explore these new technologies. Discovery HD Theater was one of the first high definition channels launched. They did it again with 3DTV with the launch of 3net.

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a Discovery 4K Theater leading the forefront of 4K channels.

SONY will probably help with the launch of 4K channels.

You keep reading that the bandwidth is there because it's TRUE. I know far more about how television is distributed than you do. First of all, it's not a "pipe." All your cable television is distributed wirelessly via communications satellites. Verizon has a satellite farm in Florida and Illinois which pulls down these signals and sends them over fiber to you.

The transponder capacity on these satellites is there. That "link in the chain" is ready to be used. These communications satellites do not need additional capacity to deliver 4K video. They are already able to push out 70+ Mbps bitrate video on a single transponder with ease.

Take the way NBC is distributed for example. NBC has SIX 24/7 satellite transponders operating at 73 Mbps of bandwidth. They have EIGHTEEN variable bitrate 15-25 Mbps H.264 HD channels operating on these six DVB-S2 transponders simultaneously.

ABC has a similar operation. CBS is distributed as 36 Mbps MPEG-2 video to its affiliates. I have seen CBS backhauls with one 1080i channel going at a bitrate over 70 Mbps.

The point is, behind the scenes, there is tons of video being distributed at very high bitrates with whatever crazy codec scheme they want - the kinds of bitrates 4K video with HEVC would use. I've seen Dolby E. I've seen 70 Mbps 4:2:2 1080i MPEG-2 video. I've even seen 35 Mbps 4:2:2 1080i H.264 video. One of the nice things about not sending your signal directly to the customer and instead to a provider like Verizon who packages the signal and re-encodes it so it's all compatible with every end consumer's equipment is that you can use whatever bitrates and codecs you desire.

So behind the scenes, it's ready - it's all about the last mile providers like Verizon getting their shit together.

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.

That's very impressive. It's actually a lot higher than I thought. For a technology in its infancy after everyone just got done buying new HDTVs the fact 3D has already managed to capture several percentage points of the market shows that 3D is here to stay. When you say "3 percent" it sounds like a small number: but 3% of the American market is HUGE. The U.S. population is 320 million. What is that, 100 million households with an average of 3.2 people in them? So 3 million households, or nearly 10 million people, have access to a 3DTV within the first 18 months of the product's release.

What was HDTV's market penetration like in the 1990's after sets had been on the market for 18 months? Not any higher than 3% I'd bet. Did 10 million people have a HDTV in its first year?

It's January 2013 now, a year after that article was written. 3D has got to be at least 6% of American households now, or 20 million people. (You know, the same number of people who can subscribe to your precious FiOS service if they wanted to.) We're not all sitting here saying Verizon FiOS is a worthless technology because it's only available to 20 million people, are we?

As far as prices, good 3D sets still aren't in line with 2D sets. I just bought a new TV recently precisely because of its 3D capability even though it cost hundreds of dollars more than the equivalent 2D-only model. I don't regret it at all.

So your presumption that people aren't buying 3DTVs for the 3D is false as well because you still have to go and drop some extra scratch for the feature.

said by bull3964 :

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.

A selection of old movies which have 2K digital intermediates is your justification for why 4K will fail. Have you ever heard of NEW CONTENT? Anything new produced will be in 4K.