4k and UHD

[ajz20]

How many years before the networks will actually start producing regular content in 4k?

Does it make any sense at all to buy a 4k tv right now?

 

[theSTEREO.]

Everything is gonna be 4k or higher within the next 5-7 years. It'll be an adoption process just like HD was, so I'd plan your purchases accordingly. Take it from me, I work in media production and clients already are asking for stuff to be mastered in 4K. We have all been shooting in it (4k, 5k, sometimes 6k) more often than not for years, but not a lot of people actually master the final version at that high of a resolution until recently.

We are a long way off from broadcasts being in 4K. Prob in a year or two we will have a block of 10 channels, like HD used to have. But you'll need a cable box or other device capable of outputting the signal, and a TV capable of displaying it.

Netflix already has a bunch of 4K content, including Breaking Bad and House of Cards.

So if you can get a TV a really good price right now, heck yeah go for it. But don't break the bank just yet since the content is still sparse at the moment.

If you're really concerned about the best picture though, don't worry about UHD/4K right now unless you're planning to buy and 80" TV. You'll be MUCH MUCH better off getting a TV with a superior contrast ratio, color accuracy and ability to handle motion blur and artifacting properly.

Or better yet, get an OLED TV! That is a beautiful picture if you can afford it. They should be down in price now, and it will make every bit of content currently available look so much nicer than what you have now.

 

[Remi]

Everything is gonna be 4k or higher within the next 5-7 years. It'll be an adoption process just like HD was, so I'd plan your purchases accordingly. Take it from me, I work in media production and clients already are asking for stuff to be mastered in 4K. We have all been shooting in it (4k, 5k, sometimes 6k) more often than not for years, but not a lot of people actually master the final version at that high of a resolution until recently.

We are a long way off from broadcasts being in 4K. Prob in a year or two we will have a block of 10 channels, like HD used to have. But you'll need a cable box or other device capable of outputting the signal, and a TV capable of displaying it.

Netflix already has a bunch of 4K content, including Breaking Bad and House of Cards.

So if you can get a TV a really good price right now, heck yeah go for it. But don't break the bank just yet since the content is still sparse at the moment.

If you're really concerned about the best picture though, don't worry about UHD/4K right now unless you're planning to buy and 80" TV. You'll be MUCH MUCH better off getting a TV with a superior contrast ratio, color accuracy and ability to handle motion blur and artifacting properly.

Or better yet, get an OLED TV! That is a beautiful picture if you can afford it. They should be down in price now, and it will make every bit of content currently available look so much nicer than what you have now.

This is a topic I'm highly intrigued with. I'm not in the market now, but this is definitely helpful Stereo. My major reason for waiting a bit longer on 4k is in the article below. This is something I was not aware of and would concern me if I were getting one now. Stereo, can you provide any insight on the connectivity issue with 4k currently? It seems crazy to me that some of these tvs have connections that aren't capable of even handling the screen technology/output? By the way, I found the full article linked below was very helpful for me.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc...u-should-buy-one-and-9-more-why-you-shouldnt/

4. 4K connectivity is a mess
So it turns out that HDMI isn’t a particularly great connection for next-gen video. Having already confused everyone with its problems handling 3D when that came along, HDMI is proving even more of a disaster where 4K is concerned.

The main issue is that the HDMI v1.4 standard you got with almost all 4K TVs last year and a disappointing number of 4K TVs this year isn’t really fit for 4K purpose, as it can’t handle 4K at faster frame rates than 30Hz. So the 60Hz/50Hz playback you’re used to with most of your viewing (bar Blu-ray movies) will be a bust.

You’ll need an HDMI 2.0 socket to handle 4K at 60Hz – though it’s not always clear which TVs have these and which don’t, or how many of a 4K TV’s HDMI ports are built to the HDMI 2.0 spec (very few TVs offer HDMI 2.0 on ALL their ports).

Another complication is that not all 4K TV connections support the HDCP 2.2 copy protection system developed for the 4K era. Also, some TVs’ HDMI 2.0 sockets can handle more colour information than others, and to top it all there’s a whole different connection option – the DisplayPort – that seems better equipped to handle 4K than HDMI. Panasonic already includes a DisplayPort socket on its top-end 4K TVs, and there are growing clamours for such ports to usurp HDMI as the AV world’s connector of choice.

The Panasonic 65AX900′s connections, complete with DisplayPort interface.

The bottom line is that 4K connectivity is currently at best a work in progress, at worst an absolute car crash.
/QUOTE]

 

[ajz20]

Everything is gonna be 4k or higher within the next 5-7 years. It'll be an adoption process just like HD was, so I'd plan your purchases accordingly. Take it from me, I work in media production and clients already are asking for stuff to be mastered in 4K. We have all been shooting in it (4k, 5k, sometimes 6k) more often than not for years, but not a lot of people actually master the final version at that high of a resolution until recently.

We are a long way off from broadcasts being in 4K. Prob in a year or two we will have a block of 10 channels, like HD used to have. But you'll need a cable box or other device capable of outputting the signal, and a TV capable of displaying it.

Netflix already has a bunch of 4K content, including Breaking Bad and House of Cards.

So if you can get a TV a really good price right now, heck yeah go for it. But don't break the bank just yet since the content is still sparse at the moment.

If you're really concerned about the best picture though, don't worry about UHD/4K right now unless you're planning to buy and 80" TV. You'll be MUCH MUCH better off getting a TV with a superior contrast ratio, color accuracy and ability to handle motion blur and artifacting properly.

Or better yet, get an OLED TV! That is a beautiful picture if you can afford it. They should be down in price now, and it will make every bit of content currently available look so much nicer than what you have now.

I feel like the networks are going to drag their feet to invest in the switch. It seems like it may take longer than 5-7 years for programing to make the switch for 4k. Plus 8k has already been invented and could be developed to fit a 75 inch screen by 2020 right? That is what I heard. Could the 4k TV's fail to make a mark due the TV industry dragging its feet until 8k hits the market 7-10 years from now?

It seems like investing in a 4k tv right now is 2-3 years too yearly from he info I am getting.
HD was actually in TV newsroom's in 1997, but most people did not own an HD screen until 2007. Are you sure about the 2-3 year switch, it seems that is really optimistic.

 

[theSTEREO.]

You're both on the right track. Like I mentioned, if you can get a 4K TV now at a really good price (as in, what you would pay for a regular 1080P TV), then go for it. But, the more important specs are always gonna be contrast ratio and black level/color reproduction. I'll get to that in a second.

4K / UHD

As for viewing 4K+ on your TV, there is a diminishing return. Human vision resolution is finite. Basically at a certain point, from a certain distance and size, your eye can't tell the difference between 1080P, 4K, 8K, or higher. (The go-to example is to sit on a beach. See how many individual grains of sand you can count right next to you. Then down by your feet. Then 20 feet away, etc. Now imagine those are pixels) So there are only two realistic applications now and in the future that 4K actually makes sense for:

1) Putting a 75-80" TV in your living room or home theater. Which is doable. Most people won't want that behemoth in their main living room, but if you've got a basement or your own place where you've got all the space in the world and that's where you watch basketball and movies and play Xbox, then 4K could be nice there, if you're sitting close enough and your TV is big enough.

2) Sitting really close to your screen, like a computer or a tablet. This also makes sense. A lot of people are watching TV, movies, and playing games on computers and personal devices, and you're usually only about 1 or 2 feet away. So a 27" 4K display on your computer that you sit directly in front of is a pretty decent picture too.

As for 8K, there's literally no advantage for you as the viewer because unless you put your nose on the screen, you'd never tell the difference between 4K, 6K, or 8K. Shooting in resolutions higher than 4K makes a lot of sense on the production end because it gives you more real estate to crop in, reframe, do roto and matte painting, etc. But in the end, you'd just down rez to 2K or 4K for the master. From a viewers perspective, if anyone ever starts marketing 8K to you as something worth buying, they are ripping you off. 4K is already pushing that boundary.

BETTER PICTURE QUALITY

If you really wanna see an improvement in your picture, you'll be much better off putting it toward picture quality over picture quantity.

The most important things to look for in your TV are contrast ratio and how it handles black levels and color reproduction, and Dynamic Range.

This could be a whole other thread, but think of it this way. Imagine you're watching a widescreen movie on BluRay. One that has the letterbox black bars above and below. Basically, on your cheaper TVs, those black bars are gonna be kind of a muddy gray. On a really nice TV, they will be pitch black.

Now extrapolate that idea to the actual movie or TV show or game itself that you are watching. The best TV's show the deepest, richest blacks and the brightest whites (and here's the important part) without losing any detail in the picture whatsoever. That sounds like a simple concept, but most TV's aren't good enough to do this.

It's easy for TV manufacturers to cheat this, and they do this in every Best Buy or Walmart you've ever been in. They put TV's in a mode called Torch Mode, where they crank up the contrast settings, crank up the saturation settings, and make everything look a little more blue. So to your quick eye, they look all bright and poppy. But what they really did is crush out 25% of the picture detail.

Think of it like this. Say you're watching The Dark Knight on Blu Ray, and you're watching a scene with him in the batcave. On a crappy TV on torch mode, the blacks will be real black, the whites will be real white, but the cave walls will just be totally black, the computer screens and ceiling lights will be mostly pure white. On a good TV with a good contrast ratio, black levels, and dynamic range, the cave walls will be as black as they need to be, but you'll still the water trickling down them, and his black capes hanging on the wall. You'll see all the detail in the computer screens. You'll see the light fixtures and bulbs around the lights, etc.

Here are a few examples that kind of get the point across. First, on the left is a TV with bad contrast ratio and low dynamic range. On the right is a TV with good dynamic range and contrast ratio. See how the blacks are rich and dark, but you can stilll see the details in the shadows on the stripes, in the whiskers on his nose, etc.

Here's some more that kinda get the point across. It's best to see it in person. If you want a low pressure way to see nice TVs in action, go to a Best Buy with a Magnolia Home Theater section. I know the one in Fairlawn has one. All those TV's will be higher end and tuned right.

Also, here's a really great article about filmmakers and creative pros who are way more excited about improvements to Dynamic Range way more than 4K.

http://variety.com/2014/digital/new...tv-but-more-to-high-dynamic-range-1201154367/

So basically, look for a TV with a great quality picture rather than one that outputs the most pixels. At least for now. In 5 years, every TV will be 4K. But until that's necessary, just get the best looking picture you can afford.

 

[theSTEREO.]

Actually, that article linked to above is relevant enough to this thread that'll post it here and bold the highlights.

At NAB Show, Hollywood Says ‘Meh’ to 4K TV But ‘More!’ to High Dynamic Range

APRIL 9, 2014 | 12:39PM PT
Improved contrast, color and brightness has creative community excited
David S. Cohen
Senior Editor, Features@Variety_DSCohen

LAS VEGAS — The age of ultra high-definition TV is clearly upon us. The exhibit halls at the National Assn. of Broadcasters’ annual convention and trade show are festooned with banners for 4K capture and post solutions.

But there’s not much excitement about it. In fact, there’s still quite a bit of skepticism about whether consumers will care about all those extra pixels.

There is excitement, though, about a related advance in television that is just dawning: high dynamic range TV. Cinematographers, designers and directors have long been frustrated at the limitations of television screens, film stocks, digital cameras and cinema projectors. HDR opens the door for them to bring the full vibrancy of the images they shoot to viewers. While HDR for cinema projectors is still at the experimental stage, HDR TV is nosing out of the lab into public view — and it may prove the killer app for UHD that gets consumers to upgrade their TVs.

There has been plenty of buzz at the NAB Show about HDR. It was a recurring theme of the Technology Summit on Cinema over the weekend, where cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki said in a panel that “Gravity” has already been color-graded for HDR and he’s looking forward to seeing it released that way. During the NAB Show proper, in a panel devoted to what UHD content will excite consumers, Vubiquity CEO Darcy Antonellis said, “It’s not just the number of pixels it’s the quality of pixels. Those of you who have seen high dynamic range, have really have seen a color palette you’ve never seen before It is stunning.”

Howard Lukk, standards director for the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) and VP of production technology for Walt Disney Studios, told Variety at the NAB Show that filmmakers are tepid about 4K TV.

“There’s a feeling in Hollywood, and even at the Walt Disney Studios, in order to change over the complete marketplace to a new format, we really need more than just more pixels,” Lukk said . “Adding more dynamic range and more contrast really makes a big difference. … This really looks like it is the compelling thing that would make consumers make that transition to a new format.”

The problem with 4K is that it’s hard to even see the extra pixels of 4K UHD television unless you are very close to the screen, he said. “And resolution isn’t everything, you need contrast as well.”

High dynamic range screens, however, offer that contrast. The highlights are brighter, the blacks are richer, and images captured with an HDR camera can keep details in both highlights and shadows. Also, HDR images show more colors, because bright colors don’t wash out to white. HDR doesn’t change the feel of a filmed image the way high frame rates do and it doesn’t come with the headaches — both literally and figuratively — of 3D. On the brightest prototypes, the picture improvement is as dramatic as the shift from standard definition to HD.

Lukk described seeing a scene from the Coen brothers’ “True Grit” that had been re-color-graded for HDR. “When you looked at James Brolin in the creek, and you saw the highlights off the creek, it really felt like you were really outside, looking at this creek,” said Lukk. “It still looked like a film, still looked like cinema, but it really gave you that impression. That stuff is really compelling.”

Existing TV contrast and brightness standards are based on the limitations of old tube TVs. Flatscreens have long since exceeded those capabilities. Dolby Vision, Dolby’s HDR transmission format, can handle highlights up to 100 times the current standard, though consumer TVs probably won’t be that bright anytime soon. At Dolby’s NAB booth, the company is showing an advanced TV prototype with 20 times the peak brightness of the current standard. Technicolor is showing an HDR demo on a monitor that can reach peaks twice as bright as Dolby’s.

Richard Welsh, who is on the board of SMPTE and is co-founder and CEO of Sundog Media Toolkit, said creatives aren’t craving more resolution, but can spot the HDR difference right away.

Welsh said today’s digital cameras already capture at such high resolutions that pixel count isn’t an issue for most creatives. “But high dynamic range is something that gives (creatives) a big creative difference they didn’t have access to. Once you get to the point of displaying that content in the cinema or the home, you can present what you actually captured in the scene. I think that’s a game-changer from creatives’ point of view.”

However, Welsh said, HDR is difficult to explain and hard for people envision until they’ve seen it. Welsh said there’s scientific evidence that 4K by itself doesn’t add much to the viewing experience, but with HDR and a wider color gamut it’s “a massive step change.”

“The problem is in order to sell that, consumers need a good story, they need a number they can understand, and they all understand pixel count. We know that from the camera industry, where they go for megapixels. But the number for HDR aren’t the sort of numbers you can throw out to consumers to tell that story. The engineering and creative side of the industry understand (HDR) but it’s hard to sell.”

Also, while the pixel count for 4K images is standardized, there are likely to be many models of televisions, with different brightness, all able to call themselves “HDR.” Consumers will have to learn how to gauge what they’re looking at in showrooms.

Happily for the many creatives who are excited about them, HDR displays are coming out from the labs. Some major electronics manufacturers, eager to sell the current generation of UHD TVs, are not entirely on board with the HDR push, but Sharp, TCL and Vizio have announced HDR TVs that incorporate Dolby Vision technology. Dolby has one HDR TV in its booth, while Technicolor, in its suite at the Wynn, is showing its proposed approach to an HDR standard, which it hopes will be incorporated into the new High Efficiency Video Codec, an essential tool for UHD TV.

Technicolor is also showing its proprietary tech for expanding the dynamic range of library content. Its solution would be built into set-top boxes, so films and TV shows that were color-graded to the old standard would be able to take some advantage of HDR technology, even if the improvement isn’t as great as that on content that’s been color graded for the extra brightness and contrast.

Welsh said he believed that despite the difficulties pitching HDR to the public, when they see it, they’ll understand it — and want it. “The first time I saw an HDR TV, which is seven years go, I thought straightaway, ‘If that was the TV in the story, that is the TV I’d pick and I can’t imagine anyone feeling any different.’ Not because I’m an engineer; it just looks amazing.”

 

[gourimoko]

Nice posts Stereo, I pretty much agree with your conclusion.

I'm in the market for a new set, and I've always went with the a top 5 high-end enthusiast set usually based around cost/performance when I could.

This go round, I think I'm skipping 4K. Saying that, I've always been one for new tech. I still have my old minidisc player, I had DVD players when they were still in their infancy, burners, DTS home theatre, etc etc...

I like to stay on the bleeding edge.

But for 4K, having viewed it at length; I just can't see why I would want it for television viewing at 60" or less... Maybe if the screen were much larger, but in that range 47-60, I don't see the point.

Maybe my vision is going, but on two sets with similar specs, I don't see the difference in resolution at the distance of sitting on a couch.

Now, for a computer display; sure, then it makes perfect sense (5K iMacs look great up close, obvious difference).

 

[Mdog1]

My cable company doesn't even have 1080p content yet...

So for me, 4k is a complete waste of money at this point.

Besides that, i don't suspect video games will hit 4k (on consoles) for quite some time. I'm talking like ps6, xb3, at the earliest, and that of course depends completely depends on the gpu markets progression in the next decade.

That all said, my next tv will be a 4k tv. Just bought a tv this year, don't expect to need one for at least 6 years (it has a 5 year warranty), just in time for the content to hopefully be caught up to the technology.

Another barrier for 4k is, we need a new disc. BR is great tech, but alot of games are already coming dangerously close to the 50gb limit, with 4k, we will definitely need new discs. Don't know what movies are like in that regard.