Sharp Demos 4K TV [Archive]

Jeff Kilgroe

01-15-2007, 12:15 PM

Samsung demonstrated a 4K panel several months ago... They are releasing it into production sometime this year at 46" panel size. A 32" 4K panel is also planned, but no timeframe is known and it will be one of the first introductory products to their high-density TFT product line that pushes current TFT panels from ~100ppi to over 220ppi.

Some vendors, including Sharp, Samsung and LG were championing the new UDI interface standard at CES. Look to see more 4K stuff as well as a bigger UDI movement this year at NAB. :D

By this time next year I should have my RED One and hopefully a monitor that can let me see all of those pixels in a 4K frame. Ooooooooh, please let it be so....

Justin Anderson

01-15-2007, 01:48 PM

I think that the problem that the film industry would have with something like this is that if consumers can view a movie at the same quality at home as they would in the theaters, then they're more likely to stay at home. This was why movies opted for the wide screen format after TV came into existence.

Also I think it's possible that TV viewing of this quality will make it less likely for independent films to be brought to the theatres and instead just be put straight to "ultraDef" Blu-Ray.

just my thoughts...although that is really cool.

Justin Anderson

01-15-2007, 01:49 PM

Of course, I guess that would mean that we as filmmakers would have to work that much harder in order for quality work to make it into the cinemas. :D

Jeff Kilgroe

01-15-2007, 02:08 PM

I don't buy into all those arguments about Hollywood and the home theatre eating away at theatrical attendence. A lot of people go to the movies because they enjoy seeing a new film on a huge screen along with 150 other people sitting around them. I don't think that's going to change anytime soon... We heard all these same arguments with the release of TV, the VCR, then DVD, then HDTV, etc..

Just like any other industry, Hollywood will also continue to adapt and evolve. I would say innovate, but that's not Hollywood's strongest ability... However, they have been known to do just that when the need arises.

garageman

01-15-2007, 02:21 PM

I don't know many people with huge cinema screens at home, 46-50 inch screens are no match for a night out at the flicks.

Holosynthetic

01-15-2007, 02:32 PM

Does anyone have an idea how much those 4k monitors will cost?

Graeme Nattress

01-15-2007, 02:55 PM

With DVD and a decent projector, you can already enjoy movies at home to a much greater extent than in the cinema.

Graeme

Jeff Kilgroe

01-15-2007, 03:44 PM

Well, I have a pretty big house compared to many. And no walls here facilitate a projected image as large as the local cineplex - not even close. :D

But I do agree, with a good projector and sound system in the home, the experience can be excellent. So I don't have to deal with the screaming infant 4 rows behind me and all that stuff... Instead I can just deal with the screaming children at home. Hehe Oh, and my chairs are a lot more comfortable and my popcorn doesn't suck. It doesn't cost $12 to fill a large bowl and have a soda with it either.

I'm going to finish out my basement sometime in the next year or so and would like to build a theatre room with a projector. I'm really hoping that 4K projection will become somewhat affordable in the next few years so I can have a screening room for what I shoot with RED. Ooooh, the possibilities.

Graeme Nattress

01-15-2007, 03:48 PM

You don't need it to be that big - you just sit closer to the screen. You can make the angle of view similar in even quite a small room.

Graeme

Rick Darge

01-15-2007, 04:13 PM

Nothing compares to going to the movies and nothing ever will - It would be like saying, "This great new ipod9000 player sounds so good, I will never go to another concert again." There's something exciting when you see a movie with a packed house of total strangers - I think thats why theaters will always be around and people will always go to them. Hollywood should model their approach for the 21st century to follow along the lines of what Soderbergh did for his last flick, Bubble - Almost simultaneous releases for the DVD, online and theater.

Eugene

01-15-2007, 04:17 PM

You don't need it to be that big - you just sit closer to the screen.
What? We all need big 4K screens. This is America. I need a big 4K screen and Big Gulp the size of my head.

http://www.geocities.com/fightin_squirrels_21/biggulp.JPG

In the year 2010, you’ll be watching 4k video.

You’ll be able to watch footage shot with the mystical Red One camera natively in your living room
Sharp and RED making my dreams come true, and Seven Eleven.

Craig Ryan

01-15-2007, 05:11 PM

Wow, didn't realize 4k would be introduced to television so soon...heh suprise suprise huh? And at 220 ppi...with that, 8k is definitely a viable future cinema standard. Think about it; the screen would look incredible from the first row and the back row...the best seats in the house would be in the front! I sit about 24 inches from my 17 incher with 72ppi, and that displays 720p, so if you shrunk those pixels down to 220ppi, youd be able to view 4k at nice size with incredible detail right? Correct me if im wrong but according to my inept math skills, that sounds right.

Mark B.

01-15-2007, 05:15 PM

Blu-Ray won't be the format of choice for home-viewing... that'll go to holographic storage.

Blaine Golden

01-15-2007, 05:51 PM

For many people, going to the movies is: getting out of the house. Going out, having fun. I don't see that ending any time soon.

Steve Sherrick

01-15-2007, 06:03 PM

Seems to me Hollywood is making a little bit of a push to get 3D out there. I don't think traditional cinema is going away, but there may be a move to get additional revenue streams going. 3D and IMAX are ways of doing that. Bottom line is, we'll have many options to watch all of this entertainment and eventually we'll have no need to interact with fellow human beings. :)

Steve

Billy Summers

01-15-2007, 06:11 PM

Screen size is important, but it's amazing how much great AUDIO can enhance one's media watching experience.

Steve Sherrick

01-15-2007, 06:13 PM

Amen!

Blaine Golden

01-15-2007, 08:25 PM

I don't even want to think what these babies are going to cost.

Jeremy Hughes

01-16-2007, 05:21 AM

I can't wait untill NHK gives us a 4320p TV.

Wasn't this 4K TV already posted at DVXuser (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=73572)? Only it was at 2160 not 2048.

Rob Lohman

01-16-2007, 07:39 AM

http://www.hdforindies.com/2006/12/when-does-1080p-make-difference.html

Martin Drew

01-16-2007, 07:49 AM

I generally prefer to watch movies on my projector at home. The local cinemas are not a pleasant experience.

M

Martin Drew

01-16-2007, 07:56 AM

I think that the problem that the film industry would have with something like this is that if consumers can view a movie at the same quality at home as they would in the theaters, then they're more likely to stay at home. This was why movies opted for the wide screen format after TV came into existence.

The film production industry doesn't care where we watch movies as long as we watch them, they are just as happy to sell on dvd. The theatre owners would be concerned of course, but they don't control the film production industry.

M

beatniq

01-16-2007, 08:10 AM

http://www.hdforindies.com/2006/12/when-does-1080p-make-difference.html

Every Sunday I go to a local bar to watch football. This bar has many TV's, HD and SD. They are all over, so inevitably wherever I choose to sit, some will be close and some will be far.

After reading this article, I realized that I am a good test case for whether or not this is true. I will try to pay more attention to it this Sunday, but I will tell you this: Last week I sat at the bar. Above the bar, directly in front of me, there were two flat screen SD TV's, not more than 4 feet from the tip of my nose. About 20 feet from where I was sitting, at an angle which forced me to turn my head, beyond a group of people who could, at any point in time, walk in and/or out of my plane of view thereby disturbing my viewing enjoyment, was a plasma TV.

I watched the plasma.

Jeff Kilgroe

01-16-2007, 11:18 AM

You don't need it to be that big - you just sit closer to the screen. You can make the angle of view similar in even quite a small room.

Yeah, but there's still that issue of perception, and environment and the experience factor. Because I can make my iPod fill 90% of my field of view too, but belive me it ain't the same. ;)

I have a 71" screen at home and it's a thing of beauty. I love it, but there's still a lot to be said for going to the movies and their big projected images.

Jeff Kilgroe

01-16-2007, 11:21 AM

Blu-Ray won't be the format of choice for home-viewing... that'll go to holographic storage.

That would sure be nice... I would be happy as can be if we could finally dump that spinning disc approach too. I want near-indestructable cubes of polycarbonate with 3D holographic data storage inside of them -- a few TBytes in a 1.5" cube would suit me just fine. I think we're still a few years off though.

Graeme Nattress

01-16-2007, 11:23 AM

Sure, there's a lot of factors. Of course, you can put the iPod near your face, but it doesn't really have the rez or comfort factor to stand up to that :-)

I also think there's a difference between a projected image and a TV like image. I think a projected image works so much better, but that could be just me. We have a 80" screen here, and we sit quite close and it's a great experience.

The movie experience in a cinema can be fun, but you never know what you're going to get!

Graeme

Martin Drew

01-16-2007, 12:04 PM

I remember seeing some research by the BBC a while back. They put an individual in a room with a display device and a chair and asked them to move the chair around until they felt they were at a comfortable viewing distance. The result (after observing a lot of individuals with a lot of different display sizes) was that the larger the display the closer the individual will sit to the screen in proportion to the screen size.

I have a 100" screen viewed from 12 feet and it certainly doesn't feel too big.

M

Tom Lowe

01-16-2007, 05:35 PM

I have been saying for about a year that 4K will be the new gold standard for home theaters and computer LCD displays within 5-10 years.

People who think they are safe shooting 1080p now are wrong. 1080p will be the new DVD. And 4K will be the new 1080p. 4K home displays are the future and it will be coming much sooner than people think.

That is why I will not shoot on anything less than 4K HD... that is the only future-proof res right now, aside from 35.

Steve Sherrick

01-16-2007, 06:25 PM

I think you are right about future proofing with 4K, when it's practical to do so.

I have been surprised though how long it has taken HD to make it's way into the average homeowners living room. Seems to me that 1080P may be around for a while. I think we will see more aquisition happen in 4K, and then eventually you'll see it make its way into the homes, but if current trends are any indication, that might be a little while.

Tom Lowe

01-16-2007, 08:40 PM

content won't be driven by broadcast standards in the future, it will be driven by downloads. people also do not realize the power of modern bandwidth or that fiber is already being installed in many neighborhoods. the future is downloads and 4K. i bet my life on it.

Craig Ryan

01-16-2007, 09:21 PM

I forsee holographic stoage as an elite form of video-media in the future; very similar to the Superbit DVDs which were popular amongst videophiles, but were the least concern of your average consumer.

I think technology is finally reaching that exponential growth period where we can't even predict where it will be within the next year (RED point in case!) I'll bet there will be several formats of television and video media in the next few years, like ETV and the varius HD formats. The catch is we probably won't see anyting greater than 1080p being broadcasted anytime soon, but that doesn't mean there won't be holographic media players that are capable of 4k+ resolution.

And I probably wouldn't count on seeing every single feature being released on every format; Blu Ray and HD DVD will be the new standard in a few years, while the Cult features like Star Wars, LOTR and the like will have ultra holographic versions. If there was a market for superbit DVDs, im sure there will be market (even though marginal) for 4k media in the immediate future.

Tom Lowe

01-16-2007, 09:27 PM

am i wrong in stating that RED is talking about a 4K codec that will play a full feature on a 50GB disc?

Jeff Kilgroe

01-16-2007, 09:27 PM

The slow adoption of HDTV has been a catch-22 of sorts... No content so people don't spend the money to buy the expensive HDTV set. HDTVs were expensive until very recently and not many were buying, hence no real reason to produce the content... The hope was that HD-DVD/BluRay would give people reason to buy, yet now everyone is still playing it slow due to the pointlessly stupid format war. Sales are picking up though and I have to believe that pro sports in HD are a huge driving factor and the fact that HDTVs now are in-line with what big screen SD TVs were just a couple years ago.

HD should be able to progress from 1080i to 1080p and even beyond to 2K and eventually 4K as the standards evolve. The ATSC and most governing forces behind HDTV standards allow for this sort of progression, but I think it will indeed be slow. In a few years, once 1080p has just about caught on, we'll probably start seeing 4K capable TVs becoming common at the local electronics store for a premium price and we'll probably start hearing about BlueRay 2.0 or some nonsense that promises to deliver. It's all coming, but still a ways off. Shooting 4K just future-proofs our work. And when the day finally comes that we can deliver full 4K to the viewer, we'll be ready.... And hopefully we'll also be able to send in our RED Ones for an upgrade to 8K. Hehe...

Craig Ryan

01-16-2007, 09:33 PM

Good points about the pace of adoption. It's definitely an issue of money as is everything these days.

Tom; i think the issue of Blu-Ray wouldn't be necessarily the space (they can support of up 200GB currently) but more along the lines that the format only supports up to 1080p when played in a Blu Ray player which is why we couldn't put short 1080p clip on a DVD and expect it to play...but I could be totally wrong there.

Tom Lowe

01-16-2007, 09:33 PM

Shooting 4K just future-proofs our work. And when the day finally comes that we can deliver full 4K to the viewer, we'll be ready....

This is correct. i caught some flack on DVXUser for saying 4K would be coming to homes in 5-10 years, so i want some damn apologies... hehe.

John Allardice

01-16-2007, 10:06 PM

am i wrong in stating that RED is talking about a 4K codec that will play a full feature on a 50GB disc?

YES!

:)

It actually works out at about 1.8Gb per min, so around 200Gb for a feature, but that's at the compression level of raw capture. Once you're looking at an 8-bit, color corrected, final image I'm sure the compression could be pushed way further. Remember wavelet doesn't artifact the way most codecs do, it just softens slightly.

J

Jeff Kilgroe

01-16-2007, 10:39 PM

i think the issue of Blu-Ray wouldn't be necessarily the space (they can support of up 200GB currently) but more along the lines that the format only supports up to 1080p when played in a Blu Ray player which is why we couldn't put short 1080p clip on a DVD and expect it to play...but I could be totally wrong there.

Oooh... BluRay currently only supports up to 50GB. Sony has demonstrated 4-layer BluRay devices and media (100GB) in the lab, but don't expect those on the market for several more months, possibly not even within the next year. Ultimately, BluRay is supposed to scale to 12 layers and 250~300GB. 1080p60 is supported by BluRay and the bandwidth is there to deliver it -- most current 1080p24 titles encoded via VC1 or H.264 require about 12Mbps or so. 50GB dual-layer BDs usually have a lot of extra space on them, even with extras and whatnot, but 25GB single-layer BDs aren't big enough. We'll need the quad-layer BDs to deliver feature-length content at 1080p60 and/or features at full 2K res with better quality than what we're getting now. Anything byeond that, like 4K will require at least 4 layers to start - more like 8 layers or all 12 (if that ever happens) and will also require additional bandwidth via spinning the discs faster and/or multiple laser pickups. One of the Sony BluRay seminars I attended last summer actually mentioned 4K video as a progression of the BluRay video standard within 10 years. ...Then again, they also claimed they had already won the format war at that time because they had 80% of Hollywood backing the format and the PS3 was going to place a BluRay player into 15 million American homes overnight. ;) Obviously that all didn't happen...

As for 1080p on a standard DVD, yes it works. Kinda. Both BluRay and HD-DVD players will play HD content from standard DVD media as long as the encoded file still fits within the 9Mbps max rate of DVD video spec. So you can put a 1080p24 clip on a DVD encoded with VC1 or H.264 and play it on an HD-DVD or BluRay player, but the quality would suffer a bit. Although not that much -- If you look at most current HD-DVD and BluRay titles, their bitrates aren't all that high -- nowhere near close to the max allowable by either video standard.

Craig Ryan

01-16-2007, 11:42 PM

Yeah, I guess I should of said 200GB was what was mentioned early on as a possible future spec with multiple layering; seems they haven't gotten that far yet.

I guess they could keep layering Blu Ray Discs over the next few years, but if holographic storage becomes available, it wouldn't make sense to me for them to keep Blu Ray as the next generation format because we would still need a new player for higher res capability correct?

I wonder why the studios aren't releasing the titles in a high enough bitrate to fill the entire 50GB disc?

Martin Drew

01-17-2007, 01:57 AM

This is correct. i caught some flack on DVXUser for saying 4K would be coming to homes in 5-10 years, so i want some damn apologies... hehe.

I see downloads as the likely future for content delivery too, but 4K to the home in 5 to 10 years? Quite possible but I think it is unlikely to be mainstream in that time frame. HDTV started in 1970 and it is not mainstream yet.

I just wonder whether most people will be able to see the difference between these HD formats given the display sizes that people are comfortable with in their homes. The technology has been around for some years to deliver high definition audio to peoples homes, but no one is interested... CD is considered "good enough". Unless video walls become cheap and popular or everyone starts projecting on huge screens I think 1080p may well be considered "good enough" too. There will always be a market for higher quality but I don't think it will be the "Gold standard" to the home.

It it likely to make a lot of sense to aquire in 4K, if there isn't too great a transcode time hit in RedCine, but I can't see the sense in going 4K all the way through the pipeline if you don't need to deliver 4K now. There will be an overhead in working with 4K at the moment and it just isn't necessary if you have stored the 4K original. If in 5 to 10 years 4K is required, no problem.

M

Roberto B

01-17-2007, 02:00 AM

Prototype only, but then again, we all understand how quickly prototypes become tools of the trade. ;)

right.. good find

Graeme Nattress

01-17-2007, 06:52 AM

I personally think one of the reasons for slow HD adoption was it just wasn't good enough. We here are the lucky ones as we've probably edited some uncompressed HD footage, or seen footage straight off a pretty good HD camera, or coloured a 2k DI of some 35mm footage expertly telecined. But the viewers haven't. They're not seen what HD, or even SD for that matter, is capable of. A DVD is probably the best SD picture most viewers have ever seen.

4k, delivered direct, not broadcast, would be the equivalent to a home IMAX cinema for the average viewer. The difference would be noticible, and stunning, and they'd see the benefit. Home cinema would, finally be, cinema quality. It's a nice dream, and it's nice to share that dream with my fellow dreamers.

Graeme

Jeff Kilgroe

01-17-2007, 09:51 AM

I wonder why the studios aren't releasing the titles in a high enough bitrate to fill the entire 50GB disc?

I'm not really sure I know the answer to that one either, but I think a lot has to do with the codecs themselves. As the bitrate for VC-1 and H.264 increases, the gains in quality are minimal past a certain point. That combined with the current state of affairs with the format war and whatnot may have something to do with it. Since both HD-DVD and BluRay use the same codecs and can play back the same video files (only use different menu systems -- BD JAVA vs. XML), studios may also be catering to lesser standards to facilitate future transfer to either format with minimal effort. A 50GB BluRay disc has enough capacity to deliver a 2 hour feature at full bitrate and still leave 250MB for meunus and ROM features. Bitrate allowable for a 2 hour feature obviously must be sacrificed as they begin to put on other things like deleted scenes or outtakes, or other bonus content.

But if they're also making sure they can jump over to HD-DVD in a pinch with minimal effort, then suddenly they have 20GB less space to work with on a disc. Considering the actual usable space and if the same 250MB is reserved for bonus content and menus, that leaves roughly 28,000MB. Filling that entire space with a 2 hour feature would still allow for a 31Mbps data rate, which I have yet to see on any BluRay or HD-DVD disc. Hmmm...

...I'm kinda stumped.

Rob Lohman

01-17-2007, 01:50 PM

Same thing happened in the beginning (and I guess "end" of) DVD. Not all the players probably support the higher/maximum bitrates yet (it takes a lot out of drives and decode power [usually the higher the bitrate the more intensive to decode]).

There might be other reasons like familiarity with the encoders and best cases for the encoders and so on.

I have plenty of DVD's in my possession that do not fully utilize the 9 GB available. Heck, I have a couple of single layer ("full" length) features.

Also, depending on the length of the movie, number of (and type) audio channels, subtitles and other features it might be using the maximum alloted bandwidth but not fill the disc. That can happen for DVD, especially if the movie is not that long.

Obin Olson

01-17-2007, 02:04 PM

I sit at home most nights and watch films on my 720p native dlp projector, quality looks just as good as the DLP in theaters. DVD resolution sucks.

Elton

01-17-2007, 02:22 PM

Yesterday I demo'd a brand new, sub-$4K Panasonic 1080p LCD projector that was just flat-out stunning. Watched some good HD DVD and BluRay
clips on it. (King Kong, Superman Returns, etc.)

The quality from this easily surpasses traditional film projection in the cinema, but it depends on screen size to be of utmost benefit.

I project 720p onto a 12 ft 16x9 DIY screen at home, and view about 18 ft. back.

I am simply jonesin' for the 1080 however. The extra detail is noticeable.