# 4K



## tazman (Feb 23, 2011)

Tazman here:Is this(4k) technology gonna replace/displace 3D?


----------



## rab-byte (Feb 1, 2011)

tazman said:


> Tazman here:Is this(4k) technology gonna replace/displace 3D?


IMHO 4K will make passive 3D a much better option as the big issue with passive till now has been the drop in resolution. With that problem eliminated passive will be poised to take the reins as king of 3D. 

Beyond that no it will simply be another feature available and another thing consumers will focus on instead of the important things like black level, peek white, dynamics, spacial uniformity, accuracy of color, pixel response time, gaming lag, input placement, mat vs gloss screen, and other factors. 

I think the added resolution could be amazing but if we don't see a boost in all aspects of PQ then it will likely not usher in another HD revolution.

[edit] also not all 4K will be 4K, just like 240Hz isn't always 240Hz


----------



## tazman (Feb 23, 2011)

Thanks rab-byte, that makes good sense!


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

The big problem with 4K is that cable companies as well as other TV providers just spent millions upgrading to simply support 2K (1080p) BluRay as well will need to change formats. I suspect the industry is going to resist this for quite some time as the infrastructure in place now can not support much more. 

With the rise in the popularity of downloads and internet streaming compression is already a big issue and looks awful in most cases, 4K will just be compressed even more in order to make it possible to download or stream.


----------



## Tonto (Jun 30, 2007)

Yes, but for those of us with HT's, the pictures will be stunning. Just like DVD's were before 1080p, then as time marched on...wide spread. We will enjoy the bedifits of 4K long before it is mainstream.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Tonto said:


> We will enjoy the bedifits of 4K long before it is mainstream.


Do you really think the studios will start producing Blurays with not only 1080p and 3D but now another format up to 4K I am willing to bet it will be at least 3 years before we will see it available in players. Look how long its taken for 3D to catch on and all accounts its a failure as far as percentage of people who want it.
I would love a 4K projector but at what cost and who is going to support it as far as material. 4K upconversion is not true 4K dont fool yourself.


----------



## jdent02 (Jan 13, 2012)

I don't think 4k is a guarantee in any case. Many people can't notice a difference between 720 and 1080 resolution, so they are going to see any benefit from 4k. Not too mention the other problems: No current delivery method and an almost complete lack of native content. Most movies, even these days, are still finished at 2k resolution, even if originally shot at 4k. The consumer electronics industry has been experiencing diminished returns on most of the latest innovations: Blu-Ray still hasn't hit the market penetration of DVD (because many think DVD is good enough), and 3D has been adopted at even lower levels. I think 4k would be almost completely ignored and a huge waste of time.


----------



## tripplej (Oct 23, 2011)

I suspect the cable channels like showtime, HBO, etc. will have the 4k content only available for demand (pay per view). This will help offset any infrastructure costs they would have for 4k.. Also, I don't think it will appear anytime soon. After all, you need to hardware (TV and Receiver as well as what ever player is needed to hold 4k).


----------



## jdent02 (Jan 13, 2012)

tripplej said:


> I suspect the cable channels like showtime, HBO, etc. will have the 4k content only available for demand (pay per view). This will help offset any infrastructure costs they would have for 4k.. Also, I don't think it will appear anytime soon. After all, you need to hardware (TV and Receiver as well as what ever player is needed to hold 4k).


In my opinion that still doesn't solve the problem of limited native content. Older movies that were finished on film could be released in 4k versions, but that would require the expense of rescanning film negatives, again. Virtually all movies these days go through the DI process, where the film negatives (if they even shoot on film) are scanned at 2k, edited and color corrected digitally, and the final 'print' is a 2k digital file. Short of completely rescanning, re-editing and re-rendering thousands of visual effects shots, none of these films are ever going to be available in native 4k. Even movies that were filmed digitally were all shot at 2k until the last few years, and so can never actually exist at real 4k.

Usually I'm all for new toys in the home theater market, but for some reason this whole 4k thing really bothers me and seems so misguided. When I have to stick my face within an inch or two of my 55" screen to see any pixel structure, I just know I would receive no benefit at all from 4k


----------



## tripplej (Oct 23, 2011)

jdent02 said:


> In my opinion that still doesn't solve the problem of limited native content. Older movies that were finished on film could be released in 4k versions, but that would require the expense of rescanning film negatives, again. Virtually all movies these days go through the DI process, where the film negatives (if they even shoot on film) are scanned at 2k, edited and color corrected digitally, and the final 'print' is a 2k digital file. Short of completely rescanning, re-editing and re-rendering thousands of visual effects shots, none of these films are ever going to be available in native 4k. Even movies that were filmed digitally were all shot at 2k until the last few years, and so can never actually exist at real 4k.
> 
> Usually I'm all for new toys in the home theater market, but for some reason this whole 4k thing really bothers me and seems so misguided. When I have to stick my face within an inch or two of my 55" screen to see any pixel structure, I just know I would receive no benefit at all from 4k



jdent02, you bring a good point about the trouble of upgrading all the older movies to 2K/4K, etc. A lot of time and money will be needed also most will not be able to go to 4K as well.. 

I agree the push for 4k is to early to make at this point especially with TV's costing in the $20K arena. 

Most likely it is just a "marketing" thing. :huh:


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

It's a shame that with technology the way it is that they can't...

Make all movies in 4k and then put it on a DVD...

Take the DVD and have it usable on all DVD players by remove bits to make it 1080p, 720p or whatever format their set plays automatically (sorta like compression). 

So basically the manufacturers could release the highest rez format and work on everyones player..


----------



## tripplej (Oct 23, 2011)

4K maybe the future but at the moment with no native 4K content available and 4K TVs costing around $20K+ and receivers only having upscale capability for 4K, I will wait the long wait for 4K to 1) be more affordable and 2) more native content being available. Until then it is useless to get upscale 4K devices for a non 4K TV (present tv's that everybody owns already) and still not worth it for a 4K TV costing in the upper $20K range.


----------



## jdent02 (Jan 13, 2012)

Yeah, they are jumping the gun a bit. Now that more movies are being filmed in 4k there may be a legitimate source of content in a few years, but there will always be that 15 year hole of lower resolution visual FX and digital editing, where fancy upscaling would be the only way to turn them into 4k.


----------



## tripplej (Oct 23, 2011)

I think if they are not careful, this whole 4K thing will blow up in their faces like 3d did.


----------



## jdent02 (Jan 13, 2012)

I don't think 3d is a complete wash (i became a convert after rallying against it for two years). They just introduced it too soon after everybody upgraded from crt to lcd televisions, and 3d alone is not going to entice many to buy another tv in such a short timespan. 3d is a very noticeable thing, whereas 4k won't be.


----------



## rab-byte (Feb 1, 2011)

jdent02 said:


> I don't think 3d is a complete wash (i became a convert after rallying against it for two years). They just introduced it too soon after everybody upgraded from crt to lcd televisions, and 3d alone is not going to entice many to buy another tv in such a short timespan. 3d is a very noticeable thing, whereas 4k won't be.


The issues with 3D are headaches/crosstalk and the need for glasses. Eliminate these problems and 3D would be far better embraced. 

I expect 4k will become a feature-add in the higher end models but I don't expect to see much content for it for quite a while. Not to mention the big issue with QF from a broadcast/cable-sat/streaming standpoint isn't resolution, it's compression. I'd like to see the industry do something about that first.


----------



## WooferHound (Dec 8, 2010)

4k would just be an excuse to sell bigger TVs and more projectors. Then you would have such bragging rights playing the same files that the theaters are using on your 32ft x 18ft home theater screen.


----------



## jdent02 (Jan 13, 2012)

WooferHound said:


> 4k would just be an excuse to sell bigger TVs and more projectors. Then you would have such bragging rights playing the same files that the theaters are using on your 32ft x 18ft home theater screen.


Sure, but that's assuming there's a 4k theatrical print in the first place. I could be wrong, but I think most movies are still finished at 2k due to the scanning and storage costs for 4k, and all 4k theatrical projectors can do 2k without any problems. Goes back to the same issue of very little native 4k content out there.


----------



## tripplej (Oct 23, 2011)

The push right now is 4K as a new means of reenergizing the AV market by making consumers believe they need this now. Once the consumer is done "upgrading", the next push for new revenue stream will be 8K... also keep in mind for online viewing, data plans will be maxed and cell companies will add additional revenue due to this added push for those watching via smart phones. With no 4K content available, the push is too early. Also is there a standard now for 4K?


----------



## jdent02 (Jan 13, 2012)

tripplej said:


> The push right now is 4K as a new means of reenergizing the AV market by making consumers believe they need this now. Once the consumer is done "upgrading", the next push for new revenue stream will be 8K... also keep in mind for online viewing, data plans will be maxed and cell companies will add additional revenue due to this added push for those watching via smart phones. With no 4K content available, the push is too early. Also is there a standard now for 4K?


I don't think there is for home video. It would require either an expansion of the blu ray specs or a completely new disc format. I would image a 4k video stream would need some pretty high data rates (4x?) compared to 1080, so not only would the disc need to have enormous available space, but I don't know if hdmi can transmit that kind of bandwidth in its current version. Only other alternative is keeping existing video data rates, but that would require a lot more compression of the video.

Of course from what I've seen none of these concerns have been addressed by manufacturers. It's like the initial run out of 1080p tv's that couldn't even accept 1080p signals........


----------



## tripplej (Oct 23, 2011)

I think 4K is being pushed for the home market. After all, why LG and Sony selling 4K TV's and various receiver companies selling 4K upscaling receivers? 

Also, as was mentioned, some new type of disc or hard drive or whatever will be needed to hold the 4K content since it is bigger then any format available now.

There is a very good article in techradar on why 4K isn't ready to replace HD.


----------

