Is 4K a game changer?

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

It's not lame. But you do bring up a good point in that if cinemas felt that 2K was good enough for the cinema screens, at least for a period, it begs the question of how many ordinary consumers will begin to think that 2K isn't good enough for their homes.

I think the main reason for 2K projectors being so common in cinemas is because they were "digital" and therefore better than 35mm and didn't require threading film, hiring projectionists, etc. At the end of the day 99% of theaters don't give a crap about PQ and are solely concerned about money so it's no shock that they have stuck with 2K for so long.

[5150z]

First of all, I'd like to think 4K would prosper and would like to see it do just that. However, what some here need to keep in mind is that a lot has transpired between VHS > DVD days to now as to whether people will 'buy into' 4K technology. Such as:

The millions of people that have recently (last few years) purchased 1080p displays will unlikely buy a 4k set for VERY, VERY limited content. Not to mention a new BR 4k player and associated hardware. Even IF they wanted to upgrade to 4K and perhaps had the money to do so (most don't), why would they with so little content available and the fact they likely already have a version of the same film either on DVD or BR?

There is now a fracturing of how buyers prefer content. 2015 and beyond isn't like the VHS > DVD days when that's about all there was. Now, there's streaming and downloading for some, Blu-ray for some, and yes, DVD still exists for MANY households. Scores of people now view movies on laptops and tablets and phones, most all of them won't care about 4k content! 4k may not make even the slightest dent save for the enthusiasts like many of us. There IS a reason why You Tube is so popular, and it's not PQ.

People use their flat screens to watch DISH, DirectTV and cable too, don't forget that. Will these providers begrudgingly allocate the bandwidth to accommodate 4k shows, if ever? It's about the almighty dollar. They would have to change much of their infrastructure to accommodate 4k content at millions of dollars in expense. Which means, services would increase in price, or course. Heck, they haven't even done that for 1080p, what makes anyone think providers will do it for 4K!

One other thing: Bad/mediocre movies are bad/mediocre movies regardless of whether they are in 1080p or 4K.

We are still months and months away from any BR 4k content and a lot can change between now and then. It will be an uphill battle for 4K as something greater than niche.
As of this posting 1,217 people are viewing the 1080p BR movie thread, and 62 are viewing the 3D movie thread. That speaks volumes and I'm not sure if 4K would fare much better than 3D regarding its popularity? Time will tell, but I see 4K as a real struggle in the current marketplace...peace.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I think the main reason for 2K projectors being so common in cinemas is because they were "digital" and therefore better than 35mm and didn't require threading film, hiring projectionists, etc. At the end of the day 99% of theaters don't give a crap about PQ and are solely concerned about money so it's no shock that they have stuck with 2K for so long.

Actually, this is exactly the point I was trying to make: The customers were willing to buy enough movie tickets to watch movies from 2K projectors for the theaters not to care about providing a better picture. If 2K projectors were unacceptable to consumers, not enough of them would've paid to watch movies in the theaters and they would've pressured the theaters to stick with film until 4K projectors were available. So all of this does raise the question:

If 2K was good enough for people to watch in theaters, why wouldn't it be good enough to watch at home?

[SillySauce]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

It's not lame. But you do bring up a good point in that if cinemas felt that 2K was good enough for the cinema screens, at least for a period, it begs the question of how many ordinary consumers will begin to think that 2K isn't good enough for their homes.

Regal, AMC and Cinemark all use 4K projectors and those are the three biggest theater chains. Then there's a lot of small chains that use the Barco 4K projectors. It's much harder to find a Cinema 2k projector to buy for cinema use.


Arri just came out with there 6k Arri Alexa camera, which was long overdue, but I can't wait to see movies on it.

[bertal]

Originally Posted by 5150z

The millions of people that have recently (last few years) purchased 1080p displays will unlikely buy a 4k set for VERY, VERY limited content.

There won't be 1080p displays in 2015/2016. Just go into a store, there are more 4k tvs than 1080 tvs.

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

If 2K was good enough for people to watch in theaters, why wouldn't it be good enough to watch at home?

The problem with good enough is that it changes with time. For example silent movies were good enough for a while but than talkies came out and people expected movies to have sound. 2K was good enough to replace how film was projected in the average movie theater but with time that will change. Personally I am more interested in the other features of UHDTV but 4K resolution is useful when given a large enough viewing angle.

[steve1971]

Is 4K a game changer? To the few yes to the majority of people such as the general consumer no. I read some posts in this thread where some are calling people idiots for their not so excited views on 4K. Really? To them I say who the hell are YOU to be calling people clueless or idiots? Just because some people are not buying into 4K dont makes them clueless or idiots, they just dont see the benefits of it and nor do I. The only benefit I see in 4K is if you veiw it on a 65inch screen or larger such as a projection system. And I dont buy into the "Oh you can tell the difference between 1080p and 4K on a 55inch screen." When I bought my Sony 55inch W900A they had it sitting next to a 55X900A 4K Sony tv and and my wife and I saw no difference at all, none, and even the sales rep said the same and he suggested if I was interested in 4K to go larger. Well since I have no interest in 4K I bought my W9 and I am glad I did. I am all for advancement in technology but I have to see the benfits of it and if I dont I move on to something else. Yes you see alot of 4K tvs at Best Buys and so fourth but how about Target, Walmart ect? No...you dont. 4K is all the rage right now due to the push of the manufacturers and I saw it with 3D as well and where did that all end up? People can call me an idiot or clueless for not drinking the 4K coolaide all they want but it dont bother me at all and it never will.

[KubrickKurasawa]

LOL! I think 4K haters/downplayers are simply people who overspent on their 1080p sets, and now have buyers remorse. Like the person above me a 55" Sony from 2011 probably cost 2,000+. Well we've all done it. Over payed for something and see it become out dated quickly, but you might want to man up and realize what you did. Instead of trying to spoil it for people who didn't over pay for their sets and want to upgrade to 4k. Trite and annoying.

[Dinoprada]

My main concern is if it will be even possible to extract 4k detail from a 35mm print ? It will be great for 65" plus screens and new films shot in 4k but for the large catalogue of titles we all own mehh

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by steve1971

Is 4K a game changer? To the few yes to the majority of people such as the general consumer no. I read some posts in this thread where some are calling people idiots for their not so excited views on 4K. Really? To them I say who the hell are YOU to be calling people clueless or idiots? Just because some people are not buying into 4K dont makes them clueless or idiots, they just dont see the benefits of it and nor do I. The only benefit I see in 4K is if you veiw it on a 65inch screen or larger such as a projection system. And I dont buy into the "Oh you can tell the difference between 1080p and 4K on a 55inch screen." When I bought my Sony 55inch W900A they had it sitting next to a 55X900A 4K Sony tv and and my wife and I saw no difference at all, none, and even the sales rep said the same and he suggested if I was interested in 4K to go larger. Well since I have no interest in 4K I bought my W9 and I am glad I did. I am all for advancement in technology but I have to see the benfits of it and if I dont I move on to something else. Yes you see alot of 4K tvs at Best Buys and so fourth but how about Target, Walmart ect? No...you dont. 4K is all the rage right now due to the push of the manufacturers and I saw it with 3D as well and where did that all end up? People can call me an idiot or clueless for not drinking the 4K coolaide all they want but it dont bother me at all and it never will.

lol, to the contrary, it really appears it does.

I guess the good thing is I no longer see you giving out ocular health advice in our Display Theory and Discussion forum.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Dinoprada

My main concern is if it will be even possible to extract 4k detail from a 35mm print ? It will be great for 65" plus screens and new films shot in 4k but for the large catalogue of titles we all own mehh

You shouldn’t be concerned about that...as you'll get more than 2K.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

If 2K was good enough for people to watch in theaters, why wouldn't it be good enough to watch at home?

this does not make any sense it is the same as saying

if minimum wage at a part time jobwas good enough for people while they were in school, why wouldn't making the same amount of money be good enough later in life.

good enough is not an immutable fact but a statement on the state in a given scenario. If someone really wanted to see a film on the big screen in the past and the only presentation was in 2K how would that tell you anything for home. It was good enough because it was the only option.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by steve1971

People can call me an idiot or clueless for not drinking the 4K coolaide all they want but it dont bother me at all and it never will.

You will change your mind if you move to a larger television screen. No one will call you an idiot for that.


55" televisions are a very small teapot in which to have an argument about 4K. If you can't use one larger than that, no problem. If you can, you may enjoy it.

[steve1971]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

You will change your mind if you move to a larger television screen. No one will call you an idiot for that.


55" televisions are a very small teapot in which to have an argument about 4K. If you can't use one larger than that, no problem. If you can, you may enjoy it.

Blu-Dog if I ever move to a larger tv then yes I may enjoy 4K but I aint moving to a larger tv anytime soon. A couple of years from now maybe but when that happens it will be an OLED tv.

[steve1971]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

lol, to the contrary, it really appears it does.

I guess the good thing is I no longer see you giving out ocular health advice in our Display Theory and Discussion forum.

When did I ever give out ocular health advise in our Display Theory and Discussion forum? If I did it was quite awhile ago.

[steve1971]

Originally Posted by KubrickKurasawa

LOL! I think 4K haters/downplayers are simply people who overspent on their 1080p sets, and now have buyers remorse. Like the person above me a 55" Sony from 2011 probably cost 2,000+. Well we've all done it. Over payed for something and see it become out dated quickly, but you might want to man up and realize what you did. Instead of trying to spoil it for people who didn't over pay for their sets and want to upgrade to 4k. Trite and annoying.

Buyers remorse? lol Thats funny because I have ZERO buyers remorse. My W9 aint from 2011 but 2013/2014. I dont have to man up for anything Kubrick and I aint looking to spoil it for anyone who buys a 4K tv because its their money and their choice so more power to them. I just dont like it when you have people calling other people "idiots" and so fourth for not spending money on a 4K tv. You may think its funny and all that crap but I dont and that I find Trite and annoying as you say!

[KubrickKurasawa]

One thing is for sure.

4K 3D is gonna blow my mind.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

this does not make any sense it is the same as saying

if minimum wage at a part time jobwas good enough for people while they were in school, why wouldn't making the same amount of money be good enough later in life.

good enough is not an immutable fact but a statement on the state in a given scenario. If someone really wanted to see a film on the big screen in the past and the only presentation was in 2K how would that tell you anything for home. It was good enough because it was the only option.

I repeat:

It was the only option because consumers allowed it to be the only option. It's not like there was one day, one certain date where ALL theatres went from 35mm film to digital 2K projectors. If the consumers weren't happy, they would've voted with their wallets and stuck with those theatres that played 35mm film in that transitional period. But 2K was good enough for them.

Your example with salary isn't relevant in this discussion. "Later in life"? What's "later"? Is 8 years enough? Because blu rays are over 8 years old now and DVDs are still outselling blu rays. It's laughable to think that the average consumer who doesn't see a difference between DVD and blu ray will suddenly see a difference big enough to cash out between blu ray and 4K blu ray - a difference that won't be nowhere as big as the one between DVD and blu ray.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by steve1971

Buyers remorse? lol Thats funny because I have ZERO buyers remorse. My W9 aint from 2011 but 2013/2014. I dont have to man up for anything Kubrick and I aint looking to spoil it for anyone who buys a 4K tv because its their money and their choice so more power to them. I just dont like it when you have people calling other people "idiots" and so fourth for not spending money on a 4K tv. You may think its funny and all that crap but I dont and that I find Trite and annoying as you say!

Just remember the person your responding to is using a logitech surround sound system.

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

I repeat:

It was the only option because consumers allowed it to be the only option. It's not like there was one day, one certain date where ALL theatres went from 35mm film to digital 2K projectors. If the consumers weren't happy, they would've voted with their wallets and stuck with those theatres that played 35mm film in that transitional period. But 2K was good enough for them.

Your example with salary isn't relevant in this discussion. "Later in life"? What's "later"? Is 8 years enough? Because blu rays are over 8 years old now and DVDs are still outselling blu rays. It's laughable to think that the average consumer who doesn't see a difference between DVD and blu ray will suddenly see a difference big enough to cash out between blu ray and 4K blu ray - a difference that won't be nowhere as big as the one between DVD and blu ray.

2k for DI was chosen on for many reasons. The biggest is the editing process. 4k is still a very hard thing to edit and requires huge infrastructure changes. Beyond that the slightest loss of focus with a projector in cinemas sees the difference between 4k and 2k reduce extremely quickly. I'm not entirely sure what your argument regarding "it is the only option is about", firstly as it isn't, many films have been shown in 720p and 1080p in cinemas as that is how they where shoot, but mostly as I don't think anyone decides to see a film or not based on it being a 2k presentation that used a 2k DI.

In any case 2k digital presentations are far more reliable and look far better then 35mm presentations.

Perfection like it or not, is simply not possible and never will be.

[NightAire]

Yes you see alot of 4K tvs at Best Buys and so fourth but how about Target, Walmart ect? No...you dont.

FWIW, my local Walmart Supercenter (Tulsa, Oklahoma) has a 4K TV prominently featured in their electronics department, and has since late summer.