Discussion
You are probably right on the 16mm/35mm thing, I'm going from memory from the 'look', I've probably over-egged the point.
Either way though, the film stock versus digital and the shot layout makes an absolutely huge difference.
If I can get almost blu-ray quality performance from a 2.5 meg feed, I'd suggest that a 4k source at 10 meg would be better than the average blu-ray and 15 meg should get me a 4K picture which would certainly eclipse blu-ray as it will be shot in a way which makes the most of the streaming format.
That's pretty exciting for streaming.
Either way though, the film stock versus digital and the shot layout makes an absolutely huge difference.
If I can get almost blu-ray quality performance from a 2.5 meg feed, I'd suggest that a 4k source at 10 meg would be better than the average blu-ray and 15 meg should get me a 4K picture which would certainly eclipse blu-ray as it will be shot in a way which makes the most of the streaming format.
That's pretty exciting for streaming.
Sky HD and similar can't reliably manage 1080 without masses of compression. To download something in 4k from Netflix will also be huge unless compressed right down. IMO 4kTV is for the foreseeable future a bit of a pipe dream. The new Xbox can't really do 1080p yet, relies on upscaling 720 content. So unless you compress the crap out of it so you can't really tell the difference between it and regular HD then you're going to need crazy amounts of bandwidth. It'll be like comparing a FLAC file to a 128kb/s MP3, yes technically they're delivering the same audio range but the difference is night and day.
Few people seemed interested in BD, they just wanted flat screens and were happy with DVD, so all I can see it really being used for is like the 'retina' screens you get on Macbooks; they use the higher resolution screen to provide anti-aliasing which improves the picture quality a lot, the screen real-estate is the same as normal.
Few people seemed interested in BD, they just wanted flat screens and were happy with DVD, so all I can see it really being used for is like the 'retina' screens you get on Macbooks; they use the higher resolution screen to provide anti-aliasing which improves the picture quality a lot, the screen real-estate is the same as normal.
Toma500 said:
I have a Panasonic 4k Tv and Virgin and it's hd picture isn't as good as my plasma downstairs however I have a blue ray player connected and it upscales DVDs to hd and bluerays to 4k and these are excellent I havnt tried 3d yet though as not really that bothered
I don't know how good LED/LCD stuff is today but I chose plasma largely for being in a completely different league in flattering substandard and SD pictures, which an awful lot of stuff is.As for sky, I can't see them offering more than a one-channel service like they do with 3D for the time being due a) to the massive bandwidth required and b) I can't see enough people wanting to pay for it. Many people were/are reluctant to pay the premium for HD sky, and even gear heads like me aren't getting excited over 4k. Maybe if I had a projector.
hornetrider said:
It's a bit misleading that graph, and it gets posed around the internet a lot.It makes it look like that it's impossible to see the difference between 4K and 1080p over a certain distance, and that is not true, and that is even admitted in that report, it merely suggests you won't see a 'major' difference.
If the same yardstick is used, you won't see a 'major' difference between different brands and models of TV at those distances.
The main thing to bear in mind is that going from 1080 HD to 4k isn't going to look as good to most viewers as when they went from SD to 1080 HD.
1080 HD to 8k is a different matter and that's why there is some debate as to whether 4k will catch on in the same way as HD did.
Also, just to add to what we were saying about film vs. digital, we should remember that modern digital camera sensors are only just now capable of offering better resolution than the popular motion picture film/TV formats. A 35mm frame (motion picture format) of film can contain more information than a 6K digital image. It's difficult to say what the effective resolution of film is in digital terms, because it depends how you measure it and what film you use but Super 35mm film is certainly comparable with 4K TV in terms of overall quality.
If you end up watching something shot on film on your HD TV via broadcast or Blu-Ray, the viewing quality will be dependent on lots of variables in the process of getting it there, including the quality/speed of the film stock, the lenses used, the transfer from film to digital, the grading, any compression used in producing the final files and the quality of the broadcast medium or playback device and of course the TV you view it on.
Even an old motion picture can look stunning if the scan/grade/master have all been done well and with some films, 4K still won't be enough resolution to see everything the film-makers intended you to see originally on 'the big screen'. This is why it really is worth buying the latest Blu-Rays of your favorite old films, because the digitizing process is getting better all the time and you really do see the difference.
I hope that one day '2001:A Space Odyssey' will be properly mastered to 8K, because although the Blu-Ray version is fantastic, it must still be lacking some detail and depth when viewed on an HD screen. Only 8K will be able to show the true potential of movies like 2001 now it's difficult to view them at a theatre.
Even now, with RED and Arri bringing out some very nice digital cameras, we still have films such as 'Interstellar' being shot on film for very good reasons. Film's not dead (quite) yet.
1080 HD to 8k is a different matter and that's why there is some debate as to whether 4k will catch on in the same way as HD did.
Also, just to add to what we were saying about film vs. digital, we should remember that modern digital camera sensors are only just now capable of offering better resolution than the popular motion picture film/TV formats. A 35mm frame (motion picture format) of film can contain more information than a 6K digital image. It's difficult to say what the effective resolution of film is in digital terms, because it depends how you measure it and what film you use but Super 35mm film is certainly comparable with 4K TV in terms of overall quality.
If you end up watching something shot on film on your HD TV via broadcast or Blu-Ray, the viewing quality will be dependent on lots of variables in the process of getting it there, including the quality/speed of the film stock, the lenses used, the transfer from film to digital, the grading, any compression used in producing the final files and the quality of the broadcast medium or playback device and of course the TV you view it on.
Even an old motion picture can look stunning if the scan/grade/master have all been done well and with some films, 4K still won't be enough resolution to see everything the film-makers intended you to see originally on 'the big screen'. This is why it really is worth buying the latest Blu-Rays of your favorite old films, because the digitizing process is getting better all the time and you really do see the difference.
I hope that one day '2001:A Space Odyssey' will be properly mastered to 8K, because although the Blu-Ray version is fantastic, it must still be lacking some detail and depth when viewed on an HD screen. Only 8K will be able to show the true potential of movies like 2001 now it's difficult to view them at a theatre.
Even now, with RED and Arri bringing out some very nice digital cameras, we still have films such as 'Interstellar' being shot on film for very good reasons. Film's not dead (quite) yet.
4K is just a huge white elephant in the room at this point imo. Its being used to sell lots of TVs to the unsuspecting public the same as the big 'HD ready' scam of a few years ago.
As has been said already in this thread, if you want genuine 4K like you see in the shop where there is an incredible bit of footage of a tomato bobbing around in a bowl of water (yes I gawped at it too, looks amazing!) then there is going to be more of a wait.
All the figures I have seen at work are around 15gbps to pass a true 4K signal with the correct resolution and frame rate.
Has anyone in the know heard anymore about HDMI 2.0 yet and when its likely to be available? Its certainly disruptive for those selling AV in the corporate world as the people making decisions on solutions keep hearing about 4K or have seen it in John Lewis and want to hold off buying until they can have 4K.
As has been said already in this thread, if you want genuine 4K like you see in the shop where there is an incredible bit of footage of a tomato bobbing around in a bowl of water (yes I gawped at it too, looks amazing!) then there is going to be more of a wait.
All the figures I have seen at work are around 15gbps to pass a true 4K signal with the correct resolution and frame rate.
Has anyone in the know heard anymore about HDMI 2.0 yet and when its likely to be available? Its certainly disruptive for those selling AV in the corporate world as the people making decisions on solutions keep hearing about 4K or have seen it in John Lewis and want to hold off buying until they can have 4K.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff