Is 4K a game changer?

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Oh, I mind. This is one of a few reasons why I haven't been to movie theaters in years.

Occasionally I get a free ticket to a movie through a promotion or something and I still don't want to go even if it's free, for this very reason. Half the time I don't even use free tickets even if it's for something that's actually good. I had a free ticket for Frozen I just let expire so I could watch the 3D Blu-ray on my 3DTV instead. I'm glad I waited.

The last time I've been to the theater was so I could watch The Hobbit @ 48 FPS as it's not going to be released ....

How was that? I didn't see it, and was just wondering.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by 42041

It's all a matter of viewing distance. Fun fact: most movie theaters have 2K projection (and the ones with 4K projection mostly show 2K movies). No one seems to mind.

dumb argument. Do people have a choice (can you go to the theatre and demand that they have a better presentation)? that would be the same as arguing no one should ever have a raise since they are accepting of what their employer is paying them now And to be more precise (since your argument was not all but most) no one should be paid more a bit more than the national average since "most people" don't seem to mind what they are paid.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

dumb argument. Do people have a choice (can you go to the theatre and demand that they have a better presentation)?

Sure. They could insist on going to screens with 4K projectors. They could boycott digital IMAX. They could write long-winded letters to whoever runs the theaters about how dissatisfied they are with the 2K presentation quality, they could write letters to the studios about how unhappy they are with the continued widespread use of 2K mastering.
But they don't. I've never heard anyone bring up the matter outside these forums. Every time I go to a digital IMAX or a 2K->70mm blowup IMAX show it's packed. Because 2K looks just fine for 99% of the movie-watching population.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by 42041

Sure. They could insist on going to screens with 4K projectors. They could boycott digital IMAX. They could write long-winded letters to whoever runs the theaters about how dissatisfied they are with the 2K presentation quality, they could write letters to the studios about how unhappy they are with the continued widespread use of 2K mastering.
But they don't. I've never heard anyone bring up the matter outside these forums. Every time I go to a digital IMAX or a 2K->70mm blowup IMAX show it's packed. Because 2K looks just fine for 99% of the movie-watching population.

No doubt people were just fine with the horse and carriage. Doesn't mean we shouldn't progress.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by 42041

Sure. They could insist on going to screens with 4K projectors. They could boycott digital IMAX. They could write long-winded letters to whoever runs the theaters about how dissatisfied they are with the 2K presentation quality, they could write letters to the studios about how unhappy they are with the continued widespread use of 2K mastering.
But they don't. I've never heard anyone bring up the matter outside these forums. Every time I go to a digital IMAX or a 2K->70mm blowup IMAX show it's packed. Because 2K looks just fine for 99% of the movie-watching population.

again, this makes no sense.

1) There might be a choice (4k) and the person might know it exists, but the choice is not everywhere and not obvious even when available

2) even if someone knows and cares, if he is the only one in his group and all his friends want to go see film X at place Y that is not 4K the person won't have the choice to go along (unless that person is Sheldon)

3) people that want quality don't go to the theatre for quality, they build an HT (like myself). Every time I go to the theatre (for a none kid movie) the majority of people are teens more interested in kissing the person they are with than watching a movie, they are looking for a relatively cheap dark place to be with their GF/BF.

4) the last paragraph is the most ridiculous part, why would you hear complaining at the theatres, obviously the person going there has made a conscious decision to go there and had already decided he was willing to live with what is there. There would be little use to them to complain to you about it. The last movie I went to see at the theater we really tried to get D-box seats (especially since one of my friends has never tried them) but they were sold out so we bought different tickets, did we spend the whole evening complaining about it? no we just tried to enjoy the movie (then you go on a forum and ***** about it).

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Firecrackker

Are we going to be seeing everything released in 4K? Is there really a huge difference for 50" TVs? I haven't really tried out 4K yet so I was wondering what some of you thought.

Your first question has been answered numerous times on other threads in the forum. Pretty much same thing for the second, but the following post links to an outside test involving 50 unbiased participants and should give you an overall handle on the complete situation….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...st#post8868563

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Firecrackker

Is 4K a game changer?

Can we set the bar higher, please? ‘Game changer’ seems a bit too low , don’t you think?

How ‘bout will 4K be as great as the pickup truck ….or the PC revolution - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...pc#post9130347

[Canada]

Originally Posted by Firecrackker

Are we going to be seeing everything released in 4K? Is there really a huge difference for 50" TVs? I haven't really tried out 4K yet so I was wondering what some of you thought.

Is 4K a game changer, I think it will be being able to get a lot of films shown in the resolution that they were shown in theaters. But 1920x1080 (1080p) is did a lot more to change the game than 3840x2160p (consumer 4K) will.

You won't notice much if any difference on a 50" screen. To see a difference from 8 ft away you would have to get a projector and about 120" screen. That being said I still want 4K Blu ray.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Firecrackker

Are we going to be seeing everything released in 4K? Is there really a huge difference for 50" TVs?

For sports, you’ll probably want a larger size in order to take advantage of what 4K capture and delivery can offer…other than solely the increased detail it can provide to the imagery.

Meaning, the combination of a larger panel size along with the greater picture real estate of 4K acquisition for when the cameramen/women shoot at more than a short depth of field will provide a *double wow-ee* effect, like so…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ine#post914611

I have a friend who attended the FIFA World Cup in Brazil this past summer where he and others (public viewing) watched a match on two 80-ish sized 4K TVs which were set up close to each other. One received the 4K feed whereas the other received the local Globus HD broadcast feed.

The 4K broadcast showed much more picture real estate than the HD broadcast due to a conscious decision by the cameramen to use a wider lens than for the HD capture. Sooo, as viewers, it was easier and much more pleasing to follow the ball and movement of the players over a greater expanse of the field (with the additional plus of greater detail) than for the HD delivered version.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

For sports, you’ll probably want a larger size in order to take advantage of what 4K capture and delivery can offer…other than solely the increased detail it can provide to the imagery.

Meaning, the combination of a larger panel size along with the greater picture real estate of 4K acquisition for when the cameramen/women shoot at more than a short depth of field will provide a *double wow-ee* effect, like so…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ine#post914611

I have a friend who attended the FIFA World Cup in Brazil this past summer where he and others (public viewing) watched a match on two 80-ish sized 4K TVs which were set up close to each other. One received the 4K feed whereas the other received the local Globus HD broadcast feed.

The 4K broadcast showed much more picture real estate than the HD broadcast due to a conscious decision by the cameramen to use a wider lens than for the HD capture. Sooo, as viewers, it was easier and much more pleasing to follow the ball and movement of the players over a greater expanse of the field (with the additional plus of greater detail) than for the HD delivered version.

I want more movies to be shot like this too. More picture, not just the same picture in extra detail. Studio bosses please take note and thank you for reading.

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

For sports, you’ll probably want a larger size in order to take advantage of what 4K capture and delivery can offer…other than solely the increased detail it can provide to the imagery.

Meaning, the combination of a larger panel size along with the greater picture real estate of 4K acquisition for when the cameramen/women shoot at more than a short depth of field will provide a *double wow-ee* effect, like so…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ine#post914611

I have a friend who attended the FIFA World Cup in Brazil this past summer where he and others (public viewing) watched a match on two 80-ish sized 4K TVs which were set up close to each other. One received the 4K feed whereas the other received the local Globus HD broadcast feed.

The 4K broadcast showed much more picture real estate than the HD broadcast due to a conscious decision by the cameramen to use a wider lens than for the HD capture. Sooo, as viewers, it was easier and much more pleasing to follow the ball and movement of the players over a greater expanse of the field (with the additional plus of greater detail) than for the HD delivered version.

All I see when comparing those images is that the 1080p version is cropped with black borders. How exactly does this show the advantages of 4k?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

All I see when comparing those images is that the 1080p version is cropped with black borders. How exactly does this show the advantages of 4k?

I’m at a loss in the ability to better describe or visually illustrate the implication of optical image size and depth of field to allow for a wider angle of view.

Perhaps if you listen to some of the people involved in another project ( ~ the 2:30 sec. timestamp of the following clip), the concept of larger format (4K) camera using long depth of field lensing will make more sense with the way in which they briefly describe its advantage over HD sensor acquisition and display, without your having had the opportunity to view something like side-by-side 4K and HD feeds like my friend did at the last World Cup, who claimed even with an ~ 25% wider frame, you could still see more detail in the players on the pitch with the 4K delivery pipeline (if one sat close enough to the screen) -

Sony Professional: Bringing live rugby to IBC 2013 in 4K - YouTube

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’m at a loss in the ability to better describe or visually illustrate the implication of optical image size and depth of field to allow for a wider angle of view.

Perhaps if you listen to some of the people involved in another project ( ~ the 2:30 sec. timestamp of the following clip), the concept of larger format (4K) camera using long depth of field lensing will make more sense with the way in which they briefly describe its advantage over HD sensor acquisition and display, without your having had the opportunity to view something like side-by-side 4K and HD feeds like my friend did at the last World Cup, who claimed even with an ~ 25% wider frame, you could still see more detail in the players on the pitch with the 4K delivery pipeline (if one sat close enough to the screen) -

Sony Professional: Bringing live rugby to IBC 2013 in 4K - YouTube

That's an excellent article there.

It seems to bear outmy thoughts as regards 4K, don't think of it as home cinema, think of it as home Imax. Buy a bigger screen (I did) in preparation.

Given it was BT trialling this, I wonder if they are going to beat Sky in starting 4Kin the UK? Hope so... If so then this may be one less customer for Sky.

[tronotized22]

I am very curious to see if 4K will catch on or not. I also am very questioning of the idea that the majority of people seeing 4K will be seeing it in a physical format. No doubt that physical will still exist, but I have doubts that many people will be watching 4K content by putting a disc in a player.

[kristoffer]

I am way more excited for HDR, 10 bit and better colours.

[Canada]

Originally Posted by kristoffer

I am way more excited for HDR, 10 bit and better colours.

Absolutely!

[Alan A]

Interesting article by John C. Dvorak
I think he has a point with the general public, will they even notice or care about HDR?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2496390,00.asp

[richieb1971]

Originally Posted by Alan A

Interesting article by John C. Dvorak
I think he has a point with the general public, will they even notice or care about HDR?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2496390,00.asp

This article very much applies to most people that go into electronic stores. Most people don't even change the picture settings on the TV so all this HDR is just nonsense to them.

Although I do think its about time factories actually calibrated TV's to the standards that HDTVtest.co.uk use. I mean, why make a TV that does not conform to a standard?

Going OLED 4K is probably a bigger game changer than HDR on its own.

As for 4K being a game changer, no its not going to be a game changer. As long as there is choice nobody in their right mind will buy only 4k material. Just like videogames with myself, the graphics are far far beyond what I would call acceptable even though there is this group of PC craving lunatics that want better than Pixar animation at 120fps.

Most people buying TV's in 2016 will upscale to 4k, by 2020 you might see some up take on the native format.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

Although I do think its about time factories actually calibrated TV's to the standards that HDTVtest.co.uk use. I mean, why make a TV that does not conform to a standard?

for obvious reasons, when you walk into a store with bright awful lighting a properly calibrated TV looks like complete crap and so people would buy the TV next to it that has improper grey scale and is in torch mode.

We don't see what is actually there but we see what we think should be there because our brain filters the information, that is why illusions like


work so well, your brain is saying it is a checker board and the apple is casting a shadow so even though box 1 and 2 are the same colour 1 should be light and 2 dark because the shadow is making 2 look darker.

[JayEmm]

If Joe Public had even a modicum of taste or knowledge when it came to TV picture quality, all these dynamic image modes would never have come into being. They're vile