4K Video, Why do we even need Blu-ray or HD DVD?

[Antus]

i am not saying things like this will happen in a year or 2. I would say more like 10 years or so.

the technology is really closer than we think. right now an average graphic card can output dual-link dvi at 2560X1600 at refresh rate of 60Hz. that's 3K already, and even a $2000 computer can play it smoothly without any problem. Resolutoin-wise, a 4K movie can fit into a 200GB disk. although 200GB disk is not yet available, but it is only 4 times the capacity of current Blue-Ray. Don't you think someone would come up with something that can hold 4 times the capacity in the next 10 years? I certainly believe it will happen and we might not need to wait for 10 years.

these technologies are already commecially available (of course, otherwise, how are those studios going to view those 4K scans video) all we need is wait for the price to come down.

when Sony first release 1080P SXRD 3 years ago, a projector cost $30K. and just recently, sony release a new model also 1080P, and cost $3K. that's 1/10th of the price in 3 years. if $100K can get u a 4K projector today. perhaps we will see $10K in 3 years, and giving it another 3 years, it will become affordable for average people.

i think strgitic maping require more processing power to rander those images. the buttlenack was the randering power instead of displaying techonlogy. When we have super high resolution movie, there is no randering required.

i think human's eyes are better than what we believe to have. for example, the current 1920X1080 "only" has 2MP resolution. if you have a A4 size pics at 2MP and 8MP viewing at normal distance. are u saying human can't tell the difference between those two? and now u are talking that people can't tell the difference between a 2MP to a 8MP image on a 60 or even 80inch display? i feel that our eyes are better than that.

You are incorrect. Not that you are completely 'wrong', but technologies take years to develop, and often many more years to bring to market. Blu-ray took about 3 years to bring to market after being bantered about for several years prior to that. It is actually a product about 5 years into itself, yet is still struggling against a competitor (HD DVD). So, we run into huge issued with new formats, like "Can we make money on this?" - That's the biggest one of all. If there really isn't a huge lot of consumer demand, then it goes to the specialty arena, and it will be devloped, but not at mass consumer levels.

FYI: 4K resolution is already used in digital cinema with projectors available that are 4086 x 2160 - they are in use. UHD more likely will be 4x 1080p - or 3840x2160 as you noted above.

This is what 100 grand will get you...
http://www.projectorcentral.com/Sony-SRX-R110.htm


This, on the other hand, is just incorrect. The human eye is only capable of actually resolving a certain amount of resolution. But, the fact that you believe that the impossible is possible, I guess it would sell.

Just not likely anytime soon.

FYI: I did work on a project utlizing 3200x2400 resolution which used video wall processing technologies and four headed video cards with four displays for strategic mapping - it was pretty nifty, but slow as heck. The processing power simply isn't there yet - and this room ran about a million bucks.

 

[mtrycrafts]

i think human's eyes are better than what we believe to have. for example, the current 1920X1080 "only" has 2MP resolution. if you have a A4 size pics at 2MP and 8MP viewing at normal distance. are u saying human can't tell the difference between those two? and now u are talking that people can't tell the difference between a 2MP to a 8MP image on a 60 or even 80inch display? i feel that our eyes are better than that.

I am sorry, but feelings do not enter the field of science, hard facts do.
And, someone have researched resolution capacity of the eye at various picture sizes and distances. Links of existing charts have been posted. The data that makes up those wasn't pulled from thin air, feelings or guesses but experimentation.

I would trust such charts more than feelings, a lot more.

 

[AdrianMills]

hmmm.... http://gizmodo.com/342997/concept-samsung-82+inch-lcd-worlds-largest-ultra-high+definition

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

hmmm.... http://gizmodo.com/342997/concept-samsung-82+inch-lcd-worlds-largest-ultra-high+definition

Exactly what I'm talking about!

5 or 10 yrs from now, who's to say that 4K TVs won't be everywhere?

Note to self: Must save a lot of $$ to buy 82" LCD 4K TV in 5 years.

 

[Antus]

ya, it is kinda interesting that a week ago, someone said it can't be done or human eyes couldn't tell the difference, or the technology is still not available.

and guess what? it is available today and right in front of us.

it cost $50K each though.

 

[obscbyclouds]

Note to self: Must save a lot of $$ to buy 82" LCD 4K TV in 5 years.

Yes, But you will also have to save lots of money to buy a Holographic Versitile Disc player. No doubt there will be competing Ultra-HiDef formats by then, so you may even need to buy two players! Oh, and HDMI 2.5will require retnal scanning to ensure you didn't pirate the movie.

 

[mtrycrafts]

ya, it is kinda interesting that a week ago, someone said it can't be done or human eyes couldn't tell the difference, or the technology is still not available.

and guess what? it is available today and right in front of us.

it cost $50K each though.

Didn't say it cannot be done. But, to take advantage of that res on an 82", you need to be at 5 ft from it. Enjoy

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/0602_tech_talk2_large.jpg

Then, your angle is too broad, well beyong standards, not even on the standards:

http://s3.carltonbale.com/distance_chart.html

These findings was not plucked out of thin air, so I would say that eyes have limits as well just as our hearing does.

 

[mtrycrafts]

hmmm.... http://gizmodo.com/342997/concept-samsung-82+inch-lcd-worlds-largest-ultra-high+definition

Yes, interesting but where will they get the bandwidth to transmit channels? That will take up 4 HD channels probably, if not more.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/0602_tech_talk2_large.jpg

 

[AdrianMills]

Yes, interesting but where will they get the bandwidth to transmit channels? That will take up 4 HD channels probably, if not more.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/0602_tech_talk2_large.jpg

I guess if they are marketing these to anyone at all at the moment it's to the studios.

And although your point about being able to appreciate this res is totally valid as is the point about the bandwidth requirements, people will still want it, just because.

As for me, I'm going to be chuffed as cheese with a 60" 1080p concept Kuro in 2009 and not even bothered by anything that may come along with a higher res.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yes, But you will also have to save lots of money to buy a Holographic Versitile Disc player. No doubt there will be competing Ultra-HiDef formats by then, so you may even need to buy two players! Oh, and HDMI 2.5will require retnal scanning to ensure you didn't pirate the movie.

Well, geez, thanks a lot for bursting my bubble!

You can't just let me enjoy this fantasy for at least one week?

Thanks a lot!

As if the $50K price tag were not bad enough?

 

[Soundman]

I think that the human eye does have limits, but I also believe it exceeds beyond 1080p. Here's an example: When viewing a picture that i took with my 2mp camera, and then a similar picture taken with my SLR camera, the SLR picture looks much better, much sharper then any HD movie I've ever seen. Now, I know this isn't a perfect example. Obviosly, the SLR camera is just a better camera then the 2MP camera, but I'm saying the possibility does exist. The resolution on my nice camera is much higher then 1080p and the detail in the pictures are so much higher then any HD content i've seen.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I think that the human eye does have limits, but I also believe it exceeds beyond 1080p.

That is the whole point of the resolution links provided:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/0602_tech_talk2_large.jpg

or

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

If your screen is a certain size and you are close enough, yes, you can differentiate much higher than 1080p, but, if you are far back, you will not see even that and in fact, less resolution will look the same.

eg. 50" at 5ft, you can see 1440p resolution. same screen at 20 ft, 480 is all you need. I didn't come up with these, someone much smarter did.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I guess if they are marketing these to anyone at all at the moment it's to the studios.

And although your point about being able to appreciate this res is totally valid as is the point about the bandwidth requirements, people will still want it, just because.

As for me, I'm going to be chuffed as cheese with a 60" 1080p concept Kuro in 2009 and not even bothered by anything that may come along with a higher res.

Well, yes, people will want them.
Do they even ask if they really need a 1080p TV? I do, but when I see people in the store and talk to them, they have no idea, just that 1080p is larger than 720p and it is newer, hence must be better and need that latest and greatest TV.

I will be upgrading my CRT when I get to building my built in in the family room but it will be only 37", 720p. We sit too far away to appreciate 1080p and for casual Tv viewing, it will be enough with what is sent over the cable or sat.

 

[Soundman]

That is the whole point of the resolution links provided:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/0602_tech_talk2_large.jpg

or

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

If your screen is a certain size and you are close enough, yes, you can differentiate much higher than 1080p, but, if you are far back, you will not see even that and in fact, less resolution will look the same.

eg. 50" at 5ft, you can see 1440p resolution. same screen at 20 ft, 480 is all you need. I didn't come up with these, someone much smarter did.

Interesting point. That's defintely something to look at when considering a new set.

 

[WmAx]

They say that 35mm Film approaches 3K-4K resolution.

Not even still photo color negatives can come near this. At best, a low ISO still photo color film might approach or slightly exceed a 2000 line/per picture height practical resolution with MTF>50 under ideal conditions(top quality lens, etc.), based on what I have seen in controlled comparisons against still digital photography systems. Color motion picture film, though, can not even come near this range, based upon careful study/analysis by highly credible 3rd party researchers. Color motion picture 35mm film has a substantially lower resolution typically, perhaps based on the requirement for the high shutter speeds(to fit at least 24 frames per second) requiring an overall higher ISO film (the higher the ISO sensitivity, the larger, more obvious the grain becomes, thereby limiting resolution). Under the best of conditions, careful analysis/study by a joint venture of CBS, CST and the Fondazione Ugo Bordoni Organization found that the negative slightly exceeded 1000 line/per picture height for color motion picture film. The best case scenario (which is rarely encountered) for the screening print(as seen in a theater) was under 900 lines/per picture height. Not even 1080 HDTV equivalent.

-Chris

 

[D.R. Payne]

I think we may see 2k in the home eventually. If nothing else, the CE manufacturers will want something new to get us to buy new displays.