Cinematography.com Naysayers: "4K display won't catch on for 25 years"

[Tom Lowe]

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=38322&view=findpost&p=283415

Sometimes at c.com I feel like a guy at a horse-and-buggy convention in 1909 trying to tell everyone that cars are the way of the future. "Why would people need cars? Horses can run 40mph....blah blah blah."

Even as the molehill of evidence showing the ascendance of 4K as a display format has turned into a mountain of evidence right before their eyes, a lot these guys are still claiming that 4K is "not needed." David, as usual, takes a reasoned, conservative approach, but a lot of the other guys there seem to be resisting 4K at all cost.

Of course many of them are the exact same guys who told us that 4K cameras would never sell, were not "needed," and would never be built anytime soon. :couch:

Anyway, I thought it was a fun debate and am wondering what you guys here think?

[Sanjin Jukic]

A bunch of "IDIOTS!"!!

[Craig Ryan]

Tom,

I think it all depends on the availability of affordable 4k displays and content.

DVD became the most successful home theater format because everyone already had a TV that could play the content, and it was a HUGE difference from VHS. It was like unlocking a secret resolution boost on your TV just by purchasing the player.

HDTV, on the other hand, meant everyone had to go out and buy a new set to see the difference, plus upgrade their cable package. Then a few years later, you even had to upgrade AGAIN to get 1080p Blu Ray capability.

So for home theater content, I'm actually in agreement with the more conservative crowd in that it's going to be a while before it becomes common place in the household. I think 1080 BluRay is more than enough for most cinephiles; most of them actually are more worried about their set's black level than resolution. Spend some time over on avsforum.com and see what i mean. Most don't even know what 4k is.

I think you are right though , Tom, in predicting that 4k sized screens will indeed catch on much quicker for the high end gaming market. But actually, most of the people I know who are constantly upgrading their PCs for the latest and greatest DON'T have 30" monitors; in fact, most of them aren't even capable of displaying 1080p.

I'ts really just a tough thing to predict at this time; I think everyone would love to see 4k become commonplace ASAP, but let's just not act like 1080p is already obsolete.

[Deanan]

4k RED Ray source will look great on HD screens also. Meaning RED Ray will look fantastic at 2k as well.

It's easy to be a naysayer but alot harder to actually push the envelope.

[Michael Bravin]

4k RED Ray source will look great on HD screens also. Meaning RED Ray will look fantastic at 2k as well.

It's easy to be a naysayer but alot harder to actually push the envelope.
Its licking the envelope that can be a challenge :-)

[Graeme Nattress]

4k and beyond displays are inevitable.

Graeme

[David Mullen ASC]

I just don't see 4K becoming a common household entertainment source, not for several more years at least and beyond that, who can say what will happen. It's not because I want to be a naysayer or because I think it's "easy" being a naysayer, it's simply a reasoned and cautious guess based on looking at current trends. We have something like 30% of U.S. households watching HDTV I believe, 720P & 1080i. Of course, that is rising dramatically. But I see the next five years as being taken up by ordinary HDTV becoming commonplace in the household; if 4K in the home happens at all during that time, it will be for a very specialized niche audience.

"Pushing the envelope" is a completely different activity than guessing trends -- that's a form of activism. It's one thing to say that 4K should be a household viewing trend and actively pushing for it to happen... and another to try and guess whether it is likely to happen. So it's an apples and oranges thing to say that someone who analyzes an upcoming trend is not "pushing the envelope". That's like saying that a pollster or census taker should be out there "pushing the envelope".

But clearly this is the wrong crowd to be saying that 4K isn't going to take off for home entertainment in the near future. Personally, I rather the effort be made to get 4K to take off for theatrical presentations and then work on the home video front. We're still fighting the 2K vs. 4K battle for theatrical movies for large screen presentations. It's a bit early to declare a victory and "move on" to putting 4K in homes.

[Tom Lowe]

BTW, I am not predicting a rapid shift to 4K cable or 4K screens for average viewers. I think it will start with gamers, 4K video producers like us, 4K projection at movie theaters, and high-end AV aficionados who always are willing to pay big bucks for the latest thing.

I think it will take quite some time (a long time!) for the average joe or soccer mom to upgrade their living-room TV to 4K.

As I mentioned on that c.com thread, it was only a couple years ago that barely anyone was able to display any kind of 1080p of any kind at their house. The only 1080p around were Apple trailers on PCs that could handle it. Now all my friends have 1080p TV screens, or are watching 1080p movies on their computers. Same thing will happen with 4K.

[Graeme Nattress]

It might need 4k to show a real, easily visible difference to the viewer at home. Most don't seem to be able to see a real benefit with HD, which is hardly surprising with small screens / long viewing distances, and broadcast delivery.

Before long I think we'll see whole walls as your view into the world. Think Asimov's "The Naked Sun".

Graeme

[David Mullen ASC]

4k and beyond displays are inevitable.

Graeme

The displays may become inevitable, and products to watch on them... but considering how paranoid the studios have been about releasing movies in 1080P, not to mention that many of them don't even finish movies to 4K... I don't see a rush on their part to start giving the public 4K versions of their movies.

But eventually, when everything you watch on home is downloaded or streamed in some way, and there is no longer any difference between a TV set and a computer monitor, then I can see a variety of resolutions being offered to the consumer. Of course, we see that future creeping towards us day by day, but on the other hand, it's also not the way that most households are set-up. I'm visiting my father-in-law's house this weekend and he's got an old 12" monitor and rabbit ears and only watches over-the-air programs. And everyday you also hear that the internet is starting to run into bandwidth problems. So 4K may become inevitable but it also may become a small niche market.

[Tom Lowe]

It might need 4k to show a real, easily visible difference to the viewer at home. Most don't seem to be able to see a real benefit with HD, which is hardly surprising with small screens / long viewing distances, and broadcast delivery.

Before long I think we'll see whole walls as your view into the world. Think Asimov's "The Naked Sun".

Graeme

Right. :thumbsup:

Like those wall screens in Total Recall. ;)

[David Mullen ASC]

These discussions always reminds me of this old article from "The Onion":
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29815



Stupid, inane commericals will also look amazingly deep and dimensional when viewed in the new format. The digital sound system will also greatly enhance their intrusive, overloud quality.

"That kid with the Southern accent on the grape-juice ad will look like you can almost reach out and strangle him," Rowell said.

In addition, recent big-budget movies like Independence Day and Eraser will soon be available in HDTV digital-cassette format, which manufacturers promise will offer an experience comparable to shaking your head and thinking, "This sucks," in an actual movie theater.

[Graeme Nattress]

Just as HD has been a selling point to get people to buy new TVs, new players, and to get people to watch content, I can see 4k doing the same. I don't think 4k is enough resolution, but it's a good start :-)

Just as plasmas started at SD at silly prices, and now it seems "everyone" has a 1080p plasma, I don't see it stopping there.

Another way I look at it is to think, I'd never bet on "things will stay the same", but bet on "change" instead. It's still a gamble, in that things could get worse. We could see Laserdisc replace DVD, but I doubt it.... Let's come back to this thread in 5yrs and 10yrs and see...

Graeme

[Tom Lowe]

Graeme, you are much needed at c.com! :thumbsup:

But I notice that you only frequent the more mature forums, like LL, which is probably wise on your part. :sifone:

[Casey Green]

The displays may become inevitable, and products to watch on them... but considering how paranoid the studios have been about releasing movies in 1080P, not to mention that many of them don't even finish movies to 4K... I don't see a rush on their part to start giving the public 4K versions of their movies...

Perhaps the Studios won't be the ones who make these decisions in the future... ;-)

[Tom Lowe]

The Studios are clueless. As David himself pointed out, they only went along with 1080p/Bluray because they could not afford to hold out any longer, the $$$ was there.

The studios will have little to do with 4K's rise.

[Joel Kaye]

Anyway, I thought it was a fun debate and am wondering what you guys here think?

Considering 1080P is just barely happening it's hard to see 4K having 10s of millions of viewing systems sold anytime time soon... like 5-10 years.

If it does begin to happen sooner it will be due to digital delivery to PCTV's and not new set top players IMHO.

I'd love to see a 4K vs. 2K "view off" down at the local theater or on the big screen 4K TV. There is a point when it's hard for human vision to perceive the difference on a particular screen size at a given distance.

I've never taken that test so I'm not going to presume 4k is a significant increase. 720P properly upscaled to 1080P is tough to tell the difference from straight 1080P. Hell, a good DVD to HD uprez is pretty amazing for that matter.

I'd have to do a serious side by side before I declare anything. My guess is 1080P at 10 feet on a 50" screen is pretty tough to tell from 4K.

[David Mullen ASC]

Change may be inevitable but the rate of change is not constant or always exponential.

Think back to 1927 -- sound movies became an overnight success, the industry went through a major technological changeover, and most people assumed that there would be an equal revolution in the image itself. People invested heavily in new color processes, and studios invested in designing new cameras, larger format, widescreen, etc. 65mm and anamorphic (CinemaScope) was invented during this time. A few movies were shot by 1930 in these new formats, like "The Big Trail".

But by then, the Great Depression was at its height and the studios decided to adopt the much simpler Academy Aperture format for sound prints, and full color, when it finally appeared as 3-strip Technicolor, was relegated to a few of the biggest productions. And the industry stayed like this more or less until after WW2 when widescreen, large formats, and color finally took off.

But then after the large formats of the 1950's, interest dwindled through the 1960's, as well as box office attendance, until we saw the end, more or less, of 65mm origination and 35mm Technicolor dye transfer printing by the mid 1970's.

Also remember that HDTV dates back to this time as well and it's only now thirty or more years later, that it is taking off for home entertainment.

So change is inevitable... but it doesn't always follow predictable and constant rates or obvious or logical paths.

I also remember reading the 1953 issues of "American Cinematographer" where the January issue said "Is the Future of Movies 3D?" and the December issue said "Is 3D Dead?"

[Joel Kaye]

I also remember reading the 1953 issues of "American Cinematographer" where the January issue said "Is the Future of Movies 3D?" and the December issue said "Is 3D Dead?"

To me 3D is like a bad zombie movie. In 3D.

[Casey Green]

I think 3D will eventually have it's niche, such as a couple of dedicated cable and satellite TV channels, but there will not be enough content for some time.

I don't think a lot of the examples from years past are as applicable in today's world. The recent paradigm shift in technology offers too much change in a much shorter amount of time, and it effects things across the board (acquisition, post, distribution (methods and ease of global reach), viewing formats, and even marketing strategies.)

We'll see what happens. I'm just happy to be living during this exciting time. :-)

[XiaoSu Han]

I definitely support the naysayers on 4K in regards of cinematography, why?

"Cinematography (from Greek: kinesis κινησις (movement) and grapho γραφω (to record)), is the making of lighting and camera choices when recording photographic images for the cinema."

"Films are cultural artifacts created by specific cultures, which reflect those cultures, and, in turn, affect them. Film is considered to be an important art form, a source of popular entertainment and a powerful method for educating — or indoctrinating — citizens. The visual elements of cinema gives motion pictures a universal power of communication. Some films have become popular worldwide attractions by using dubbing or subtitles that translate the dialogue."

I don't care if the film is shot in SD, HD, 35mm, 16mm, 8mm, VHS, SVHS, you name it.
I almost cried while watching a film shot in consumer SD last year. I laughed at a film shot in RED last week because the story was ridiculous. Both happens with films shot in 35mm.

In the end, cinema is about the story. Not about resolution. It will never be. And cinematography.com implies in its name that it's mostly about cinema, so people there have the right to say nay to 4K I guess. So if you shoot anything for video output where resolution is important (yeah nowadays we definitely need 4K for a musicvideo which is going to be watched on MTV, which is something like 30% SD TVs and 20% 1080p TV's, and 50% low-res streams like youtube), be my guest to love RED and 4K and be a prophet and predict the future of 4K and sharp high resolution images, but if you talk about cinema, I wouldn't dare to say things like "the people at cinematography.com are idiots" if I am just shooting corporate crap myself.

It will NEVER matter what a film is shot on as long as the story and the film is whole as a film and works as a film.

So give yourself and the HD vs. Film discussion a break and concentrate on story and impact if you're talking about cinematography, not pixels or resolution or latitude.

In the end I am always going to be inspired what David has to say because he really tries to see the big picture as a whole and objectively discusses things without being biased at all. Really very much appreciated!

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I don't see what's so wrong with 25 years, its not like the idea of even HD is selling like hot cakes and to suddenly ram 4k displays at them less than a few years after telling them how amazing 1080p is would be a mistake it will backfire.
Not to mention that perhaps the majority of the films in the past 20 years are 2k or less!
4k just isn't making a whole lot of sense at this stage and I think TVs have more important advances to think about like say black levels in LCD? Lower power consumption stuff like this.

As for 3D, it's a gimmick it hardly works in the cinema it won't work in the home.

[Stuart English]

TVs have more important advances to think about like say black levels in LCD? Lower power consumption stuff like this.

O.K so give them one more year to achieve the blacks, the power issue is already solved.

[Jason Murphy]

It will NEVER matter what a film is shot on as long as the story and the film is whole as a film and works as a film.

Even assuming that this is true (which I'm not entirely convinced of, since it's nearly impossible to entirely separate the originating format technology from the form of a film and often its content), we're not talking about what a movie is shot on, but how the film is seen. And it's VERY important how a film is seen. In many ways much more important than how it was shot.

It's completely different to experience a movie projected on 35mm in a theater (or 4K or whatever) than on a DVD on a 27" TV. Many a great movie simply doesn't work terribly well when viewed on DVD (especially those that are more aesthetically adventurous or extreme in their treatment of cinematic time and space). The more faithfully that you can replicate the original film for home/personal viewing, the better a chance that it will affect the audience as intended.

Blu-ray is a great leap from DVD, but on a large display, even 1080P can break down, particularly if you're sitting close to it. Now, I doubt that 4K is going to take off anytime even remotely soon as far as home viewing goes, but I'll certainly welcome it when it does.

[jpp]

Without getting too insulting -- in an ideal world everyone would be watching 4K movies on 4K displays -- this community is a very narrow one.

I know accomplished DPs who own 13" TV sets, and at least one world-famous classical pianist/educator with a cheap and poor speaker system, despite his encyclopedic knowledge of recordings.

The values of their disciplines are not reproduced in the home, and there's no urgency (for them) to do so, despite high levels of accomplishment. Whether the average consumer is any more demanding, or discerning enough to know the difference (how many people can tell 720p from1080p, for example?), only the market-place will reveal. But there's nothing inevitable about 4K, unless that standard becomes so cheap that it's the prevailing system being manufactured.

In that sense only, is 4K inevitable.

[Deanan]

The displays may become inevitable, and products to watch on them... but considering how paranoid the studios have been about releasing movies in 1080P, not to mention that many of them don't even finish movies to 4K... I don't see a rush on their part to start giving the public 4K versions of their movies.


The studios didn't drive the push to 1080P, the computer manufacturers did by driving down the cost of LCD panel production. Very soon producing a 4k panel at various sizes will be just as cheap as producing a 2k one. When indies will be able to shoot, post, and distribute 4K (and simultaneous 2K) content, consumers will be asking why the studios are stuck at 1080P.

The same pattern has repeated itself in publishing, then music, and next film. The main difference between the three is bandwidth and processing power.

[Joseph Ward]

I don't think 4k is enough resolution, but it's a good start :-)

Graeme

What is the optimal? The eyes and brain can only see/interpret so much.

[Tom Lowe]

The studios didn't drive the push to 1080P, the computer manufacturers did by driving down the cost of LCD panel production. Very soon producing a 4k panel at various sizes will be just as cheap as producing a 2k one. When indies will be able to shoot, post, and distribute 4K (and simultaneous 2K) content, consumers will be asking why the studios are stuck at 1080P.

The same pattern has repeated itself in publishing, then music, and next film. The main difference between the three is bandwidth and processing power.

right, it's the same thing. 4K won't be pushed by the studios, it will be accepted by them.

[Deanan]

I know accomplished DPs who own 13" TV sets, and at least one world-famous classical pianist/educator with a speaker system which is cringe-inducing, despite his encyclopedic knowledge of recordings.


I don't own a TV but that doesn't mean anything.

I've been watching 4k digital content for the last 4.5 years and doing post/vfx at 4k for about 12 years. Sure HD looks fine but so did SD. I'm not sure why HD is good enough for an industry that is all about 200M budgets and shooting Imax for Batman.

If anything, every single one of our products about the status quo (HD) being inadequate and driving the adoption by increasing accessibility. REDray and REDrocket more specifically so.

[Deanan]

What is the optimal? The eyes and brain can only see/interpret so much.

Resolving power isn't everything. When you have more pixels to work with you can represent edge transitions more smoothly or more sharply. Higher resolution on both acquisition or display gives you the choice. Lower resolution doesn't.

The optimal resolution a function of ppi, viewer/screen distance, and screen size.

[Chris Kenny]

The computer industry will certainly push for higher resolution panels, mostly because ~200 dpi allows for vastly better text rendering. I tend to think that the technology will be in place for reasonably priced consumer 4K within the next four years or so, but that there really won't just be much consumer demand. You have to sit almost comically close to a 50" TV before you start wishing you had more detail than 1080p provides. Consumer 4K stands a good chance of ending up like SACD and DVD Audio; most people thought CDs were more than good enough, so these formats went nowhere. In fact, the formats that eventually did largely replace the CD -- MP3 and AAC -- were lower quality, but more convenient.

Maybe if TVs keep getting bigger... but I think they may already be large enough that most people don't really want something bigger in their living rooms, so there might have to be some big change in technology for that to happen. ("Screen paint" that turns walls into screens or something. Give it 20 years.)

Maybe I'm wrong about all this, and consumer 4K will be the big summer hit of 2014. But I suspect if Red wants to make a play for the mainstream consumer distribution market, what they should do is develop a version of the RedRay codec optimized for 1080p Internet streaming. If what happened with music is any guide, Blu-ray won't be replaced by a higher quality physical media format, but by a substantially more convenient (and possibly somewhat lower quality) downloadable and streamable format.

[Craig Ryan]

*Didn't see Chris' post above - he nailed what I was trying to say about audio.*

I wouldn't bring music in as a comparison to this argument as a means to support the idea that there is an acceptance of better quality media; I'm no audiophile, but I do know that the majority of music being listened to everyday is nowhere near as good as it's supposed to sound. For music, the analogy to video would be that people are watching over sharpened, over processed low resolution movies on their phones in favor of Blu Ray 1080p....which for a lot of people is true.

It's ALL about convenience; once you get sub $1000 4k screens (you can get a 1080p screen for less that 300$) and streamed content (easily done with RED RAY I'd say), you'll have 4k mainstream in a snap. That's a given. It's all about affordability and availability. Of course, not trying to condescend as we all know this.

The studios on the other hand...you won't be seeing a RED RAY release of The Big Lebowski...and even if it came out I wouldn't buy it even though I LOVE that film; there's just no point in seeing the Dude light a J in 4k...and I'd imagine it wouldn't look any better than a 1080p Blu Ray version. That goes for almost ALL movies up to date. There are only a few that would make a worth while benefit from 4k.

The truth is, and this is the way I see it, before 1080p, there was always a "It COULD look better". Now we're at the point where we can SEE everything we were meant to see in the movie theater. When the shots go wide, you can make out details that weren't there on the 720p broadcast. I've tested this. Of course The Dark Knight would look amazing in 4k...and there are other exceptions, but not enough to warrant every movie re-released in a 4k format. So it makes sense to think that there's really no need for anything beyond 1080p...but we can't deny the future of cinema.

For all the media that tops out at 2k...once you have a Blu Ray copy I'd say you can archive that baby for good. For the future of cinema, we will have 4k and beyond, it's inevitable as has been said. But that doesn't mean that everything made up til now is going to be dragged into these new formats.

Also the argument about quality of films related to format;it doesn't have any real relevance to this discussion. There are always going to be many bad movies on every format. Doesn't mean there won't be mind blowing accomplishments down the road. Who's to say a movie shot in SD wouldn't look better in HD or film? There is a point of diminishing returns, as I mentioned above with The Dude. But there is a happy place that we've discovered over the last 100 years, which is around 2k, 1080p. But again, there will be great films made in the future using the resolution and scope of 4k, it's just a matter of time and convenience before it becomes commonplace.

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

If it's cheap...

WHO F****** CARES?

:)

[Stephen Williams]

If it's cheap...

WHO F****** CARES?

:)

I think you nailed why DV was so sucessful, most people don't care what the picture looks like. Content Content Content.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I think you nailed why DV was so sucessful, most people don't care what the picture looks like. Content Content Content.

I sure cared, My picture looked like crap and sounded even worse!

I was also annoyed by how my nose always sounds blocked but thats hardly DVs fault.

[lubomir.zvolensky]

let me repeat some sentences from RED team members in this topic:

Deanan: "When indies will be able to shoot, post, and distribute 4K (and simultaneous 2K) content, consumers will be asking why the studios are stuck at 1080P."


oh yes, we all know what Red has done with 4K. Cameras, codecs, 10Mbit/s 4K indistinguishable from uncompressed right?





My understanding is that two years ago, RED said "well OK, we don't see affordable 4K, 5K and 6K camers on horizont = let's make one or two". They did.

... and now the root of my message:


Graeme : "4k and beyond displays are inevitable."
Deanan : "Very soon producing a 4k panel at various sizes will be just as cheap as producing a 2k one."
Graeme : "Before long I think we'll see whole walls as your view into the world"


TODAY they say "well we don't see 4K panel "whole wall big"...

OMG, THIS LOOKS LIKE NEXT YEAR RED WILL PRODUCE 200" 4K TV FOR $3999 :)

Jim, Graeme, please do. May I have the one with serial number #00000000004 please ? Make sure you have enough decimal places in serial number, this one is going to sell better than Scarlets :)

[Roberto B]

I think you nailed why DV was so sucessful, most people don't care what the picture looks like. Content Content Content.me loves stephen's posts.. :couch: well not all :biggrin5: but a lot of them :beer:

[Stephen Williams]

me loves stephen's posts.. :couch: well not all :biggrin5: but a lot of them :beer:

Anyone seen Jan recently? :couch:

[Joe G.]

"For all the media that tops out at 2k...once you have a Blu Ray copy I'd say you can archive that baby for good. For the future of cinema, we will have 4k and beyond, it's inevitable as has been said. But that doesn't mean that everything made up til now is going to be dragged into these new formats."

There is much complaining about the quality of specific BluRay discs on the web. Probably half of them look crappy.

This may be the technology, the compression, the uncaring idiocy of those churning them out, I don't know.

But, if RedRay versions are significantly more appealing on the screen, then there is certainly a place for some competition against a format (BluRay) that has some obvious problems. We need to see how it plays out, but so far the reviews of RedRay are very positive. The reviews of BluRay have been quite mixed.

[Tom Lowe]

I think a lot of Bluray copies are probably getting churned out from crummy old masters done 10 years ago, before HD really took off.

If a studio was going to put out 4K REDrays, they would be forced to go back to the negative or best source material and really do a restoration and remaster, like what was recently done for Strangelove and Bladerunner.

[Craig Ryan]

I agree with you guys, most Blurays do looks like crap, unfortunately. You've seen my posts on this issue, I'm well aware of what's going on there.

Truth is it's not the format that's not holding up, but the studios. No matter what format its on, if a bluray release looked like crap, a REDray release won't look much better. I've seen amazing blurays; there are many out there that fully take advantage of the format. The ones that don't however, are just a lackluster effort on the studio's part.

I'm not as optimistic as some of you are about REDray becoming studio accepted anytime soon; we just went though that damn format war, there's no way the general public is going to tolerate another for at least 5-10 years, and frankly I'm MORE than satisfied with the Bluray releases that have been good. In many cases, they've all looked better than they did in the theater.

Now unless RED is secretly dealing with the studios as we speak and are setting up some kind of RED ray distribution for a minority of videophiles like us, I doubt we will be seeing Iron Man 2 in Red Ray. Or the Hobbitt, or Batman 3, etc. Just being realistic is all; there's been far too many times in the past where I've been disappointed for keeping up unrealistic hopes :)

[michael zaletel]

Remember that VHS beat out Beta in the most famous (or infamous) format battle ever. Politics, Power and Timing probably affect these things more than quality.

Seems sad to say but Red will probably have to spend as much on PR, political donations, lobbyists and fine dining as they spend on research and development if they hope to see Red Ray widely adopted.

-michael zaletel
(shooter)

[Chris Kenny]

Blu-ray can look great. Some individual discs don't, but this is often because they aren't being mastered correctly (poor scan, too much sharpening, too much grain reduction, etc.) or the original source material doesn't hold up at 1080p (particularly an issue for older films, especially if no pristine copy can be found).

The mastering issues will probably start to go away over time. If you go back and watch some of the very early DVD releases, they're often terrible compared with modern DVD releases; it took some time for the industry to develop software and best practices that produced decent looking results. The gains with Blu-ray won't be quite that large, because it's starting much further ahead, but we can, I think, be reasonably certain that things will improve in the coming years.

[Häakon]

I don't think 4k is enough resolution, but it's a good start :-)
This is why I love Graeme. :)

[Thom Steinhoff]

I think we'll see 4K displays and 4K projectors in the home long before there is mainstream 4K content available--it's the nature of the arms race. how much 120 hz content do we have? How much 1080p content was really available when the first HD sets shipped?

Right now a 60,000:1 1080p 1600 lumen Panasonic projector is available for $2500 which is a sweet spot for mainstream home theater projector purchases. What is going to be at that $2500 mark in 2 years? 4 years? Sure, within a few years they may move to 3D, but what about 6 years? 8 years? 10 years?

Also, I would bet that in a year of Red Ray's release we'll see a Red projector fast tracked. They did announce something last year but it has been back burnered. Knowing Jim, I wouldn't be surprised if he jumps right to a 5K or 6K projector to stun the competition.

But really, what sort of experience would Red need to develop a projector?


Sophisticated highspeed pipelines (Check)
High quality lenses (Check)
Big Money (Check)
Track Record of Partnerships(Check)
Transparent LCD experience(See 3 & 4)


Someone will do it--likely Red. And it won't be 25 years.

More like 2-5 Years.

[Zach Zoller]

Change, a never ending process.