"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Steedeel]

I thought there was going to be a major announcement about Sony's plans for IPTV at the CES this year. Or have i missed something? Great to hear about the 4k bluray player (well up scaler) though.

Penton-Man, is there any news when/if a 4k still images function will be added to the ps3 via update, or was that just rumor? Thanks.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

I live near resolution starved Albuquerque NM and there's not a single commercial IMAX theater to be found in the entire state!!! Anyway, the wife and I are going on a cruise out of Galveston TX where, for the first time in my life, I'm looking forward to an IMAX 3D experience.

Let me know how that goes. When you're staring at that enormous screen and its 2K digitally projected image!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I thought there was going to be a major announcement about Sony's plans for IPTV at the CES this year. Or have i missed something? Great to hear about the 4k bluray player (well up scaler) though.

Penton-Man, is there any news when/if a 4k still images function will be added to the ps3 via update, or was that just rumor? Thanks.

It’s not a rumor, and it works, as I believe some PlayStation store in Japan has the PlayView update which supports 4k stills installed and on display for people to see. It’s still coming to all in a future update this year. Remember….
Soon Only Not Yet.

The big (unconfirmed by the parties involved) rumor of the tradeshow (and don’t shoot the messenger ) circulated among the press in attendance was that WB was the studio that made the deal with Amazon to get a sorely needed retailer onboard and give UV a boost -

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Amazon-F...ews-13859.html

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, I don't know about most people but, I think it will at least benefit you, especially when you hear back from independent audiovideo enthusiasts when they get back from CES, as there should be testimonials from people who viewed the Sharp demo….
http://www.digitaltrends.com/ces-vid...k-at-ces-2012/

completely disagreeing with your size assessment needed to appreciate even well done upsampled 2k -> 4k video – which really is just a stepping stone to true 4k exhibited on a 4k x 2k panel, the merits of which should be easily appreciated on displays even smaller than those seen in the Sharp demo.

Well in the very near future I'll have both the JVC e-shift 4K projector to play around with and the new Sony 1000ES to view, so I'll get an idea of what I might be missing. But during the demos of both projectors that I attended at CEDIA last year, I wasn't seeing anything that led me to believe it was making much of a difference with anything I looked at. That opinion could change if there was a proliferation of 4K content to look at, but I think we have a long way to go.

I will be sure to view as much high resolution footage as possible, including material captured at 4K and converted to 1080p to see if I notice any benefit to the upscaling. I will even run a split image against my lowly 1080p JVC RS35 and see how it goes.

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

No offense intended, but you sound to me a little ignorant about it for one who would profess something like this.

No offense taken. I'm not a AV engineer, but I know my way around a AV showroom. If you've spent as much time and money as I have over the years on this stuff you quickly learn it's the practical side of balancing resolution against the family budget that trumps a specification sheet every time. To put it more bluntly, let you eyes do the deciding on PQ and not your brain.

I would pose that this attitude is a product of your acknowledged inexperience with it. I know a lot of people who didn't think things could really get better than their VHS decks until they saw DVDs for themselves. It's hard to miss what you don't know you're missing.

Exactly. Ask any consumer what they think about the benefits of 4:4:4 Vs 4:2:2 sampling and they're more likely to say...."what the hell you talking about"?

Perhaps this is an area where the buying public needs to be "educated" about these differences but I wouldn't recommend it.

Ask any consumer which has better PQ between VHS and DVD as per your example and you're going to get a different response... hence the reason for my championing 4K going forward over turning about and implementing any retro 1080p 4:4:4 technology.

[Kris Deering]

In addition to Amazon's hopeful solution, Samsung said on Wednesday that certain 2012 Blu-ray players will feature Disc-To-Digital which will essentially unlock the UltraViolet version of every DVD and Blu-ray movie the user registers with the device. This was the direction the UltraViolet consortium had in mind in the first place: allowing consumers to register their current and future DVDs and Blu-ray discs to unlock a digital version that is theirs to keep forever and ever.

This is where they should have started. Since all of the new players are BD-Live enabled and UV is a internet format, they should have just had an app that links your UV account to your player. It reads the disc when you put it in, you enter your UV code, and presto you have a UV copy online for any of your devices. Instead you have a fragmented system that requires you to sign up for various studio accounts PLUS a UV account and then depending on the studio you may or may not end up with a movie you can actually watch. I love it when products launch when they are not even ready for beta yet, it just makes it so much better for consumer adoption.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

If you've spent as much time and money as I have over the years on this stuff you quickly learn it's the practical side of balancing resolution against the family budget that trumps a specification sheet every time.

Yeah, but it's that same specification sheet that's given you the absolutist impression that resolution is a limitless pursuit, in the first place.

You're absolutely correct that there's a finer art involved than simply making the numbers 'bigger'.

Originally Posted by ole geezer

Perhaps this is an area where the buying public needs to be "educated" about these differences but I wouldn't recommend it.

They don't necessarily so much need to be educated as simply shown the visible performance/quality improvements.

Originally Posted by ole geezer

retro 1080p 4:4:4 technology.

4:4:4 is anything but retro in the home video market; it's just a different direction in which to pursue improvement.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

No offense taken. I'm not a AV engineer, but I know my way around a AV showroom. If you've spent as much time and money as I have over the years on this stuff you quickly learn it's the practical side of balancing resolution against the family budget that trumps a specification sheet every time. To put it more bluntly, let you eyes do the deciding on PQ and not your brain.
Exactly. Ask any consumer what they think about the benefits of 4:4:4 Vs 4:2:2 sampling and they're more likely to say...."what the hell you talking about"?

Perhaps this is an area where the buying public needs to be "educated" about these differences but I wouldn't recommend it.

Ask any consumer which has better PQ between VHS and DVD as per your example and you're going to get a different response... hence the reason for my championing 4K going forward over turning about and implementing any retro 1080p 4:4:4 technology.

Oh I've spent plenty of time and money, there is no doubt there. And the average consumer probably knows about as much about the real benefits of 4K as they do the benefits of 4:4:4 vs 4:2:0, they just think they know the benefit because it seems simple enough. Kind of the same way they think that new TV that does 480Hz refresh rate must obviously be better than the one with the 120Hz refresh rate.

I trust my eyes fine when it comes to judging picture quality, but I just happen to be an engineer and find that if you know the science behind the picture it helps you figure out a whole lot more as to why a picture does or doesn't look good. And the lack of 4K isn't why pictures don't look as good as they could right now.

[Steedeel]

Kris, are you confident there will always be a demand for large screen tvs, no matter how small? I worry about the obsessions with movies on mobile phones and tablets taking over in the future!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

It’s not a rumor, and it works, as I believe some PlayStation store in Japan has the PlayView update which supports 4k stills installed and on display for people to see. It’s still coming to all in a future update this year. Remember….
Soon Only Not Yet.

The big (unconfirmed by the parties involved) rumor of the tradeshow (and don’t shoot the messenger ) circulated among the press in attendance was that WB was the studio that made the deal with Amazon to get a sorely needed retailer onboard and give UV a boost -

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Amazon-F...ews-13859.html

Thanks, that Amazon deal is massive for Ultraviolet isn't it? do you think amazon may offer HD quality films for download? (obviously wont be buying, just curious)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

They don't necessarily so much need to be educated as simply shown the visible performance/quality improvements.

I already addressed that. If nitpicking RAH (i.e.‘online archivist’) fails to appreciate banding (see last paragraph in the below link), which is thee most significant disadvantage of 10 bit -> 8 bit, do you really think that the vast majority of other people will?
https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-te...ml#post5633785

And if people can’t visually identify the cyan/teal tint and the undisputably reduced white level alterations of FOTR extended edition Blu-ray when comparing it to the theatrical edition or the other movies in the extended edition set, then getting 10 bit color depth isn’t going to do them a whole lot of good either.

And even if you completely disagree based on personal experience of having compared 10 bit source fed into a true 10 bit panel vs. the current 8 bit incarnation of physical media on a typical consumer-sized monitor, at typical consumer viewing distances, then don’t you think that if it were at all practical at this time to develop a consumer 10 bit color depth spec. for Blu-ray movies and companies could make even a marginal profit by doing so, that studios and the consumer electronics companies wouldn’t jump at the opportunity of this new growth potential?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Thanks, that Amazon deal is massive for Ultraviolet isn't it?...

Massive. It’s a watershed event for the UltraViolet consortium.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

And even if you completely disagree based on personal experience of having compared 10 bit source fed into a true 10 bit panel vs. the current 8 bit incarnation of physical media on a typical consumer-sized monitor, at typical consumer viewing distances, then don’t you think that if it were at all practical at this time to develop a consumer 10 bit color depth spec. for Blu-ray movies and companies could make even a marginal profit by doing so, that studios and the consumer electronics companies wouldn’t jump at the opportunity of this new growth potential?

I don't see 4:4:4 and 10bit as market-viable improvements on their own. I don't think a new packaged media format of any kind is really a good idea right now, weighing diminishing returns against consumer upgrade fatigue.

[Doctorossi]

I should mention that, with gritted teeth and terror in my heart, I saw Tintin the other night and I absolutely loved it. All my fears were assuaged and it forced me to add an extension onto my smallish Spielberg shelf.

I hope the international business can save its skin enough to give us at least one more entry. Why does it have to be the one in forever that I like that under-performs?

Anyway... pitch-perfect stuff, though at times I wanted to climb into the screen and give the backgrounds a swift kick to bump the z-depth back a few more degrees.

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Let me know how that goes. When you're staring at that enormous screen and its 2K digitally projected image!

Hummmmmm...your comment got me a little concerned so I checked out the specific IMAX theater I will be attending and it's an AMC theater. Further research presents a new dilemma. It so happens that AMC uses SONY 4K 3D projectors for their Real3D presentations.

http://www.amctheatres.com/Sony4K/
http://www.hometheater.com/content/amc-etx-3d-rio

I have a question for anyone familiar with AMC and has seen both an IMAX 3D and Real3D presentation at this movie chain? Which format (technically speaking) has the most potential to blow my socks off???

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

Hummmmmm...your comment got me a little concerned so I checked out the specific IMAX theater I will be attending and it's an AMC theater. Further research presents a new dilemma. It so happens that AMC uses SONY 4K 3D projectors for their Real3D presentations.

http://www.amctheatres.com/Sony4K/
http://www.hometheater.com/content/amc-etx-3d-rio

I have a question for anyone familiar with AMC and has seen both an IMAX 3D and Real3D presentation at this movie chain? Which format (technically speaking) has the most potential to blow my socks off???

Many of chimed in on the Transformers: Dark of the Moon thread, and after having seen the movie on both screens, the consensus was Real3D was better. Again that was just people weighing in on that particular movie.
Personally I think your proverbial "socks" will be blown off during either film experience: IMAX 3D / Real3D

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Oh I've spent plenty of time and money, there is no doubt there. And the average consumer probably knows about as much about the real benefits of 4K as they do the benefits of 4:4:4 vs 4:2:0, they just think they know the benefit because it seems simple enough. Kind of the same way they think that new TV that does 480Hz refresh rate must obviously be better than the one with the 120Hz refresh rate.

I trust my eyes fine when it comes to judging picture quality, but I just happen to be an engineer and find that if you know the science behind the picture it helps you figure out a whole lot more as to why a picture does or doesn't look good. And the lack of 4K isn't why pictures don't look as good as they could right now.

Well....I'm ole school when it comes to AV improvements particularly when it involves PQ. If memory serves and beginning with the BetaMax, there has never been any commercial failure of any innovation involving improving the PQ for home entertainment consumers. So...spanning the past 35 years or so...each time those engineers got it right wouldn't you say? As an engineer, yourself, I'm sure you can appreciate that kind of track record. If it's not such a hot success...blame it on the marketing people.

Anyway, my attitude has been and always will be..."never look a gift horse in the mouth".

If SONY, JVC and other CE manufacturers spend millions on researching and developing 4k technology and products...be appreciative.

It's always up to the consumer to walk home or decide which horse to ride home on.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

Anyway, my attitude has been and always will be..."never look a gift horse in the mouth".

If SONY, JVC and other CE manufacturers spend millions on researching and developing 4k technology and products...be appreciative.

It's always up to the consumer to walk home or decide which horse to ride home on.

agree

plus in this case it is a bit funny that they want 4:4:4 1080p instead of 4:2:0 4k. In essence 4:2:0 4k will have 4:4:4 1080p

For those that don't know what 4:2:0 and 4:4:4 mean, back when TV first started researchers discovered we are better at determining differences in brilliance (darker or lighter) than colours (blue or red) and so they used lower resolutions in colour (Cb, Cr) to save on transmission and higher in luminance (Y) to keep sharpness and fill up the screen. 4:4:4 means for every luminance portion of a pixel there is also a chrominance portion while 4:2:0 means for every pixel there is luminance but chroma is only defined for every 2x2 matrix of pixels. What I pointed out is the simple fact that with 4k being both twice the horizontal and vertical resolution of 2k you end up with the full 2k of pixels having chroma with the added benefit of 4k of pixels having luminance (also if DC to a 2k display by removing every second row/column you have a 4:4:4)

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

Hummmmmm...your comment got me a little concerned so I checked out the specific IMAX theater I will be attending and it's an AMC theater. Further research presents a new dilemma. It so happens that AMC uses SONY 4K 3D projectors for their Real3D presentations.

http://www.amctheatres.com/Sony4K/
http://www.hometheater.com/content/amc-etx-3d-rio

I have a question for anyone familiar with AMC and has seen both an IMAX 3D and Real3D presentation at this movie chain? Which format (technically speaking) has the most potential to blow my socks off???

All AMC digital is Sony 4K as far as I know, with the exception of IMAX, which uses 2 Christie 2K projectors overlapped for extra brightness. The IMAX theater will have a larger screen and bigger audio presentation, but if the regular screen is still a decent size, I doubt you'll be disappointed with the Sony presentation. The local AMC near me is the same way, though I am always pissed when they show a 2D movie on one of their screens and leave the Sony setup for 3D. Not only does this cut down on brightness, it also makes the image less than 2K in resolution. But somehow the powers that be thought this was good enough. Imagine that, huge screen and a resolution lower than 2K still fits the bill.

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Well in the very near future I'll have both the JVC e-shift 4K projector to play around with and the new Sony 1000ES to view, so I'll get an idea of what I might be missing. But during the demos of both projectors that I attended at CEDIA last year, I wasn't seeing anything that led me to believe it was making much of a difference with anything I looked at. That opinion could change if there was a proliferation of 4K content to look at, but I think we have a long way to go.

I will be sure to view as much high resolution footage as possible, including material captured at 4K and converted to 1080p to see if I notice any benefit to the upscaling. I will even run a split image against my lowly 1080p JVC RS35 and see how it goes.

Looking forward to your review.

I remember these two CE giants competing against each other with rival technologies during the old BetaMax Vs VHS recording war. In retrospect, that was fascinating historical stuff.