PDA

View Full Version : Just in case anyone was in doubt that the 4K revolution is happening...



Surrealist.
01-08-2013, 09:01 PM
Just in case anyone was in doubt that the 4K revolution is happening, Nvidia has just announced that its much anticipated Tegra 4 mobile chipset will include "4K Ultra-High-Def video support"

http://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/344-nvidia-announces-tegra-4-4k-video-comes-to-android

Silkrooster
01-08-2013, 11:12 PM
According to the news. Some of the TV makers introduced a 4K TV at the CES show. Smallest TV sells for around $2000.00 US.

- - - Updated - - -

If I recall, they are calling it Ultra HD.

fablefox
01-09-2013, 12:19 AM
Anyone in Kuala Lumpur can go to Sony at KLCC to see a 4K TV in action. It was mentioned that there is only ten of it in Malaysia. Awesome. But content is important too.

Darth Mole
01-09-2013, 07:07 AM
Is it happening the same way the 3D revolution 'happened'?

probiner
01-09-2013, 07:09 AM
Looking forward for the 4K Ipads :D

Dexter2999
01-09-2013, 08:27 AM
4K is neat, but I still throw the BS flag based on bandwidth. The infrastructure isn't there unless there are some huge leaps in regards to compression. I'm sure the systems in place could accomodate limited users but I don't see how they could hold up with everyone using it.

And who needs 4K on a phone? (I only throw the "phone" card because of the mention of Android but apparently they are currently #2 in tablets.)

It all seems like a desperate attempt to get consumers to plunk down ludicrous amounts of cash to keep their industry pumping. I can't fault them for that, jobs are important.

I guess I'm just getting old in that I don't see where they think things are going. The industry is jumping on a bandwagon that we have been debating here already. Is the cost justification there in going 4K if you are still doing standard frame rates? Motion blur largely eliminates any advantages of higher resolution. Is 4K motion blur superior to 2K motion blur?

James Cameron and Peter Jackson opted for higher frame rates over higher resolution (48FPS over 4K.) A less blurred more defined image won over a higher definition blurred one.

And the jury is still out over the success over the higher frame rate. Already they are re-thinking things to perhaps a variable frame rate.

I don't think the industry has a clear goal in mind.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow-

"I shot an arrow into the air,
It fell to earth, I knew not where;
For, so swiftly it flew, the sight
Could not follow it in its flight. "

This is what I think the industry is doing now. They don't know where they are going so they are shooting blindly into the future. But maybe this will be a piece of what is to come.

Surrealist.
01-09-2013, 12:17 PM
Personally, I think that the technical people will always be headed in the direction of better quality delivery. And that is good. They should be. It follows a consistent pattern.

It is pretty simple. The more information you throw at a capture/delivery system the better it will look and sound. This has been true since at least the days of analog tape heads (size of tape, speed of roll, gap between record head = more available data)

It is even true with film. The more particles there are to excite by the rays of light the better the image. A 16 mm frame can not capture the same detail as a 35mm frame.

Now a days with sound we can just about capture enough data to reproduce something that more closely resembles analog tape.

On the visual side we are way behind. 4K is nothing, really. I think we'd probably have to get up to something like 16 K (just a wild uneducated guess) or higher to capture enough information on the source material to match the wonder of film. And hopefully there will be artists around who still know how.

After these various phases blow by we'll be left with delivery and capture systems that at the end of the day can hold more data. What we do with that will be up to us.

That part of it is opinion - art and all of that. On the technical side it is simply a continued quest to have more data available.

m.d.
01-09-2013, 08:24 PM
4K is neat, but I still throw the BS flag based on bandwidth. The infrastructure isn't there unless there are some huge leaps in regards to compression.

its here
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?90306-REDRAY

4k at 2.5mb/sec
they are installing these in theaters and streaming video over 802.11n

I have personally seen this codec at 4k and it was the nicest image i have seen on any screen...
panasonic is using the player to demo their 4k tv's

distribution is already being worked out by these guys
http://odemax.com/

deals are coming in a very big way....the pricing system gives the producer 50% and the theater 20% with ODEmax taking 30%
the entire distribution world is getting turned on it's head...with Netflix doing there own movies, and 2 major hollywood productions this year going digital delivery the same day as in the theater....(Arbitrage with Richard Gere was one of them)

red and ODEmax have the 4k content delivery market cornered....you can stream 4k movies over internet with some of the highest digital copyright security there is...

whats more a license for this codec (to render to) costs like $30 for life

this is not the .r3d codec...it is .RED
very high efficiency...encoding times are crazy long....think like 30-50 times real time on a powerful machine

m.d.
01-09-2013, 08:44 PM
On the visual side we are way behind. 4K is nothing, really. I think we'd probably have to get up to something like 16 K (just a wild uneducated guess) or higher to capture enough information on the source material to match the wonder of film. And hopefully there will be artists around who still know how.



Not a bad guess...
the theoretical limit of fine grained 35mm film is 8k....

But good luck finding a lens that will resolve that high...most cinema lenses can barely resolve 6k at the high end....

one more thing to consider is MTF or multi-transfer-function

each time you pass through a lens you loose resolution

so for a film workflow.....

acquisition....1 lens...1st MTF loss
develop negative/laser scan...2cnd MTF loss (the highest rez Arri laser scanner is a 6k oversample scanner with a 4k final image....to overcome nyquist it should be 8k-4k)
after cgi ect ect ect
back to master print...3rd MTF loss
distribution prints....4rth MTF loss
projection lens...5th MTF loss

by this time they add up pretty big

Digital workflow
acquisition....1 lens...1st MTF loss
projection lens....2cnd MTF loss

we are actually at a point where 35mm sensors are exceeding the resolution of 35mm film....and in the next few months we are exceeding the dynamic range
as an analogue storage device film is pretty hard to beat...but we are on the verge right now


which is why kodak stopped making film....and a few months ago fuji as well.
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/09/15/sign-of-the-times-fujifilm-to-stop-making-film-for-the-cinema-industry/

jasonwestmas
01-09-2013, 09:09 PM
I was just getting warmed up to HD tv lol. For 3D animation people this kind of resolution is silly stupid. :D

shrox
01-09-2013, 09:26 PM
Now it's 16x the render time!

Surrealist.
01-09-2013, 10:04 PM
lol

@ M.D. Wow that article is interesting. It is a reality. The problem is that these companies have to make a profit. Their entire MO is on volume, and without it, it will cost more to produce than it can generate in sales. Look for cinephiles to be buying up used lab equipment and setting it up the garage. Certainly it is already happening. And well, been happening on the independent scene for a while to some degree. But with these companies auctioning off equipment, it should be interesting to see who buys it up.

m.d.
01-09-2013, 10:16 PM
Well there will always be film....
Christopher Nolan for one says he will never shoot digital...
You'll probably see IMAX as the legacy film of choice....

There's no doubt of films potential...but the advantages of digital in terms of cost speed ect are too much to overlook

In the LOTR trilogy PJ shot 7 million feet of film....
For the first Hobbit he already shot the equivalent of 20 million feet....

Just the ability to keep rolling and rolling and not have to worry about film is a major plus.

mikala
01-09-2013, 11:34 PM
According to the news. Some of the TV makers introduced a 4K TV at the CES show. Smallest TV sells for around $2000.00 US.

- - - Updated - - -

If I recall, they are calling it Ultra HD.
Yup Viewsonic

Surrealist.
01-09-2013, 11:37 PM
Well there will always be film....
Christopher Nolan for one says he will never shoot digital...
You'll probably see IMAX as the legacy film of choice....

There's no doubt of films potential...but the advantages of digital in terms of cost speed ect are too much to overlook

In the LOTR trilogy PJ shot 7 million feet of film....
For the first Hobbit he already shot the equivalent of 20 million feet....

Just the ability to keep rolling and rolling and not have to worry about film is a major plus.

Yeah true. Interesting stats on footage.

There are a lot of guys still shooting film. Spielberg also says he'll never switch.

There will be a day it will come to an end. It is inevitable. Fuji is getting out at the right time. If the other companies where smart, they'd start planning the switch. There will be a time soon when they won't even be making prints for theaters anymore. And just on a numbers alone, it won't matter if the top 10 -20 directors are shooting a film every 3 years. That is not enough to sustain an industry. Maybe one small lab in LA. International markets will hang on the longest, but soon that won't be cost effective because the supply with drop below the demand. It is just a matter of time.

But yeah, there will always be film, from someplace. Just like there will always be LPs, Beta tape and B&W stills being printed in home darkrooms.

But as a broad commodity, it will soon be dead.

Lewis
01-10-2013, 12:45 AM
Ok it's pretty cool and they call it 4K but what's up with resolution, there is already numerous of different resolutions they call 4K

1. 4096*2160 (Digital Cinema Native)
2. 3840*2160 (Ultra HD)
3. 4096*1714 (DCI 4K cropped)
4. 3996*2160 (DCI flat)
5. 3656*2664 (Academy 4K storage format)
6. 4096*3112 (Full Aperture)

Do they always need to make it complicated, can't they agree on one and call it done? Damn standards :)

Intuition
01-10-2013, 11:14 AM
So wait.... you are saying that..... just like in PIXAR's WALL-E that I should.....

....... GET RED.... its the NEW BLUE!

m.d.
01-10-2013, 11:25 AM
the TV standard is gonna be UltraHD.....or QuadHD
since it is exactly 4x 1080p things uprez and downrez a lot nicer...

its a lot better for a scaling algorithm to multiply/divide by 2 then 2.1333

SBowie
01-10-2013, 11:37 AM
My money is on this taking roughly a decade to happen in any meaningful (read 'bulk consumption') way.

shrox
01-10-2013, 11:39 AM
...its a lot better for a scaling algorithm to multiply/divide by 2 then 2.1333

ĦAy, caramba!

Titus
01-10-2013, 04:38 PM
4K? pffff!

8k is the future:

http://gizmodo.com/5911179/japan-successfully-broadcasts-an-8k-signal-over-the-air-prepare-to-upgrade-your-tvs-again