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

[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 but a lot of them

[Stephen Williams]

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

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.