Leslie, I got it.

You don't want people to be led astray, and you're doing this from a position of hard won experience and remain happy, as am I, with the HD setup to invoice on your work. However, seeing and experiencing what is new is always astonishing and provides a look not only into the Future but what is being delivered, for JC, right now.

G

"Look, we all know that 4K, like Pono, is utter snake oil"

I agree that Pono is overkill based on the capabilities of the human ear, however, I absolutely don't agree with your assessment of 4k, unless you have vision problems, it is visually MUCH better than 1080 video in every way. Like I said, people on this very forum were saying the same thing about HD when it first appeared. You want to stay behind the curve, you go right ahead, in fact, from a business standpoint, I prefer that you do.

grazie, i couldn't agree more....

i do see the advantages of 4k in reference to reframing, and would probably (given the need) have looked seriously at getting a 4k camera IF i could afford one that was of sufficient quality to match my ex1's pics (after cropping, say ms to cu). i'm not sure whether that's possible with the lower budget consumer models ($4K price range)?

as it is, i plan my shoots carefully and when necessary use my old z5 as second camera, so avoiding the necessity of reframing.

in the meantime i follow the trends and innovations, but am not that sold on the necessity of a great many of them, nor their long term value - 3d being a prime example.

still, if jc's got a market wanting, demanding, and more importantly, paying for 4k, i'd be just as happy as he is ;-)

> "I agree that Pono is overkill based on the capabilities of the human ear, however, I absolutely don't agree with your assessment of 4k, unless you have vision problems, it is visually MUCH better than 1080 video in every way."

+1

It's not that Pono is overkill... it's borderline fraud. They compared PCM audio to low quality MP3 recordings. Had they used high quality MP3 recordings there would have been no difference in sound quality. Blind tests conduced by independent parties have shown that iTunes AAC songs sound better than Pono in every test. So Pono "stacked the deck" so to speak and while they didn't lie because they did say the MP3 files were "low quality", they implied that all MP3 files are low quality and they are not. They also used remastered music which you can do with MP3 files as well and tell difference. So the whole Pono thing was pure snake oil. It does not sound better than high quality MP3's or iTunes AAC.

4K is not snake oil the way Pono is. You can definitely see the difference in 4K vs HD. There is no doubt about it in my mind. They don't even need to be side-by-side. 4K is noticeable shaper and more detailed than HD. My point was that 95% of the viewing public could care less. They are still happy with SD stretched on an HD TV. The other 5% are videophiles and content creators like us. If the viewing public was at a point where they were saying, "wow, how did we ever watch that SD stiff it looks so bad compared to HD" I would agree that 4K would do the same, but no one is saying that. They are still watching SD on their HD TV and are happy with it! I have yet to see a technology as dramatic as VHS vs DVD. That was huge.

If I were still actively shooting, I would definitely buy a 4K camera to future-proof my content just like I was one of the first to purchase the Sony HVR-Z1 HD camera (which I still have). I enjoyed reframing HD to SD just like people will enjoy reframing 4K to HD. There are definitely advantages to buying a 4K camera... the demand for delivering in 4K isn't one of them. ;-)

My point was that 4K is a solution looking for a problem. Does it look better? Absolutely! Does 95% of the viewing public care? Absolutely NOT! The majority will not pay more for 4K TV's just like only a few paid more for HD while the rest waiting for them to come down in price. Likewise, they will buy 4K TV's when they come down in price and that's all that the stores are selling. It will happen, just like HD happened. Sloooooowly. Not because it's better... but because it's what's available at the time.

~jr

I agree with JR. Recently, I have unfortunately had to spend a lot of time in hospital waiting areas and rooms. Most of these facilities are piping the cable HD thru an SD pipeline. The video looks horrendous, stretched and pixelated. It is just accepted though.
My parents watched SD channels on their cable cause they didn't know HD was available, even though they had a guide. I had to keep pushing them to watch the higher numbered HD channels.
As we have discussed before, the key is content. If a program is good, people will watch regardless the medium. I just got done watching the BBC "Prime Suspect" series with Helen Mirren. Most of the series is 4:3 SD but believe me, that did not detract from the quality or my viewing pleasure one bit (of course, I could watch Helen in any format, but that is another discussion).
4K will catch hold eventually, but it will be forced on consumers rather than welcomed.

Most of these facilities are piping the cable HD thru an SD pipeline. The video looks horrendous, stretched and pixelated. It is just accepted though.

I think here is the problem in many peoples view on this forum. You say it is accepted but I say it was what is provided. What can you do as a patient in such a hospital if you don't like the SD? Nothing, it's forced on to you because someone didn't want to upgrade their system. Similar with TV channels. SD is not accepted but still provided and in some cases forced onto the end user.

As for the lower end 4K cameras, even the AX100 will hold up nicely with a EX1 and then there is the new Panasonic DVX200 for the higher end.

Old Smoke, you may be correct in some cases, but my other points showed that many people I know are willing to watch SD even though HD is available just by changing the channel. So it is both.

I believe 8K will be the pinnicle of human viewing needs, much like 20,000hz is the top end in audio. but, 8K, 16k, 32k and beyond will always be useful on the gathering side... can you image the crazy post zooms one could do in 32k? Maybe all that small pixel tech will lean to newer better ways to film 3D or something.

I film/deliver in 4K now becuase it got cheap enough. It gives us movie theater resolutions affordably.

Yep, gotta agree with jr. Yes, there is a difference between HD and 4K. Anyone who looks at the screen can usually see it, though i've had to prompt a couple of people as to what they should be noticing.

However, to most people the content matters much more than the resolution. If they want to watch Simpsons and it's only in SD, and they don't want to watch a nature documentary in 4K, they're not going to watch the 4K material, no matter how much clearer and more detailed it is.

I will note though that there is one case where i have noticed and enjoyed the difference between SD and HD. "Star Trek" on Netflix is HD and it is impressive. I pick out so many more details of the control panels and backgrounds that it's fun to watch all over again. Of course, they also remastered from the original films as compared to the DVD set being made from the studio tapes, so that contributes as much to the visual improvement as the resolution does. With pretty much everything else HD, yes i see it's HD, but it's not more exciting and enjoyable than the SD version because it's still the same material.

"I believe 8K will be the pinnicle of human viewing needs, much like 20,000hz is the top end in audio."

That is a fallacious argument because you didn't say how big the screen was nor how close the viewer was. You can always magnify images until you see the pixels, but you can't magnify audio until you hear the samples.

-----------------------------------------

When 8K or even 16K videos and TV channels are readily available at a reasonable price, I will happily buy the appropriate TV. But that probably won't happen in my lifetime given that HD has well and truly arrived but our TV channels continue to peddle smeared SD quality. I have spoken about plastic (or clay) faces before.

I was looking at the burnt out towns following the recent bush fires on TV, and I could see no detail in them whatsoever. In particular, the trees still standing looked like they had been deliberately blurred to disguise their identities. There would be no leaves of course, but I couldn't see the trunks and branches either, just a general tree shaped blur.

aw peter, couldn't see the tree for the forest ;P)

i had the opposite yesterday - i went into a number of big 'home' stores and checked out their offerings.

a. there were plenty of big screen 4k tv's and starting at an exceptionally low price (well relatively anyway)

b. VERY few 3d sets anywahere

c. re point a. big screens everywhere, but relatively few 42 > 50" range. quite frankly anything bigger than 50" i would find both obtrusive and be too close to for comfort in my living room.

d. as smart as some of these sets seem to be they're still pretty dumb.

finally, and of course this is purely a subjective viewpoint, i found a lot of the 4k playing 4k TOO sharp and totally unrealistic, at the other end i also realized how good sd looks on a hd set rather than 4k.

Just speaking for myself and my own needs:

(1) Reel-to-reel helical-scan videotape: Wow, amazing that one can record to video for instant playback, even though it's in monochrome and pretty fuzzy. But only a nerd will adopt it.

(2) VHS: Amazing! "Okay" picture, totally-user-friendly handling, now I can build a library of movies and time-shift to my heart's content! Looks good enough on my 20ish-inch TV.

(3) S-VHS: Nice that it's somewhat sharper now that I have a 35" Mitsubishi CRT TV. Otherwise, same features as VHS. Oh, it's nice that the audio is now pristine.

(4) DVD: Unbelievable! No tape issues, the utter stability of digital, razor-sharp SD quality that is MUCH better than even S-VHS in so many ways, even looks remarkably good on my 64" display. PLUS bonus features, commentary audio track, chapter selection, media that is read optically so it will never wear out, amazingly compact size. Artifacts that could detract from my immersion into the storyline are totally gone. And I can author a sophisticated DVD myself!

(5) Blu: Feh. Yeah, it's a bit sharper on my display (from about 10 feet away). Otherwise, pretty much the same feature set as my trusted DVD format. Plus, really disgusted at how Sony forced the format down people's throats, crushing HD-DVD. And the extremes they went for authorization and copy-protection. All in all, the format left a bad taste in my mouth.

(6) 4K: Okay, it's a display, not a delivery format, but I'm looking at how much it improves the viewing experience. Hmmm, very little commercial product available. Well so what, that was true for the other formats in the beginning. So let's see, the same technology and feature set as regular HD displays, just double the pixels. Hmmm... So it seems to me that from my living room viewing distance of about ten feet, I really can't see much of a difference. Now maybe if/when I get that 108" set that covers the whole wall, then the pixel improvement will really be obvious. But do I really want to watch a movie from two picture-heights? It was fun when I was 14 and we could sit in the front rows and not be bothered by the adults. That was then.


So, given all that's happened over the past few decades, I'd have to say that the major events were video cassette and then DVD. I hate it when people overuse the term "paradigm shift" but those two product introductions certainly qualify.

4K means nothing to me at this point in time. A 4K camera will still have limitations but they will be optical in nature and not pixel-related, kind of like when I experimented with super-fine-grain film in my Nikon back in my college days. Great fun but never became mainstream. I guess at some point the technology gets "good enough." I'd have to conclude that 2K is "good enough" as a delivery format. Not to say that 4K wouldn't be nice to shoot in for delivery in 2K.

You wanna talk realism? Do an honest 4-channel surround-sound project for your friends, then switch off the rear two channels midway through. Very upsetting to the audience every time. So THERE'S an enhancement that is quite obvious, yet few make the effort to do it.

+1 riredale.

"I guess at some point the technology gets "good enough." I'd have to conclude that 2K is "good enough" as a delivery format. Not to say that 4K wouldn't be nice to shoot in for delivery in 2K."

And when HD first came out, people said,

'I guess at some point the technology gets "good enough." I'd have to conclude that DVD is "good enough" as a delivery format. Not to say that HD wouldn't be nice to shoot in for delivery in DVD.'

www.dannyfye.com

+1 VidMus

Technology, like life, is a one-way trip.

"[I]She's got a ticket to ride, but she don't care[/I]."

" I'd have to conclude that 2K is "good enough" as a delivery format."

The term "good enough" is not in my vocabulary.

John Cline said: [I]The term "good enough" is not in my vocabulary. "[/I]

It isn't in mine either. Problem so many seem to be skirting around is what it takes to shoot 4K. that isn't "barely good enough" most of which from what I've seen is garbage with lots of pixels. The only camera I've had my hands on that says to me I could shoot good 4K is Sony's F5 and then there's the question of a zoom lens. The Fujinon Cabrio 85-300 zoom would cover what I shoot. I'm looking at around $60K for such a setup. I've looked at many of the cheaper options and they're either a Frankenstein setup (hello BMD) or producing images that are worse than HD.

Bob.

I only read part of this thread so apologizes if this was already brought up. But I think you guys are kind of missing the point of 4k. It's for the new tv audience, young people who don't watch broadcast, cable or directv and instead watch mostly netflix, youtube and the like. Traditional tv delivery methods will forever be handicapped due to them requiring specific hardware boxes to get the job done, whereas the new methods like netflix and youtube don't, they just work with your tablet, laptop or whatever. That's where you will see 4k content. I can tell you first hand given that I work with lots of young folk, that the old tv watching method is considered quaint, obsolete, a novelty. Heck I even have a house that I rent rooms to models that fly in from out of town and I have directv setup there. By and large no one cares about it, they all watch netflix, hulu, youtube, and all that. Likewise all my websites are viewed on peoples tablets and laptops, and on such devices displays with > 1080p resolution are downright common, hence why all my videos are 4k now and have been for a while. People still stuck to the old way of watching digital entertainment won't see value in 4k, but I assure you the value is there, I profit from ti quite regularly. If you are talking about older folk then sure I agree, but if you are talking about people in their 20's, the old tv watching methods are dying and aren't really a factor anymore. They will watch 4k on their laptops and 4k ready roku's.

I agree with Peter Siamidis. My two daughters both got Comcast boxes in their room but wished for an Apple TV for Christmas. Apple being Apple, the Apple TV doesn't come with a HDMI cable but both my daughters fine with disconnecting the cable box and use Netflix, Hullu and what ever else is available. No commercials, no news and you can watch what ever you like at your own time. It doesn't do 4K, not yet, but it shows that the younger generation has a different attitude towards TV.

I wonder what impact that has on the advertising industry and the media.

The whole "no ads" thing will have a huge effect and probably already is. TV stations are hard pressed to get major advertisers to keep dumping major bucks in when they know that it reaches fewer and fewer eyeballs every day. I imagine there is a segment of content creators already struggling to keep their projects afloat.

There will probably be a shift towards more of the delivery companies producing original content. Netflix already has several of its own original high-production-value series. Obviously they get enough revenue to be able to do that without ads.

As far as no news goes, quite a few news stations are uploading a lot of their material to YouTube and even offer real-time feeds. As far back as 2001 we were sitting in the conference room watching almost live coverage of 9/11 over our 128K line on a web browser. On the other hand younger folks today probably prefer their news the way they like their programming: small focused snippets that they choose to watch over a 30 or 60 minute program of what someone else wants to show.

Still though, Hulu is full of ads, almost more ad time than TV broadcasts. Even my paid Hulu account shows several minutes of ads every 6 to 10 minutes of program. I'm surprised more of the services don't do that. (I hope they didn't see me say that!) I'm pretty sure the $8/month i pay for a couple services doesn't even come close to what the ad revenue is through other delivery channels.

"The whole "no ads" thing will have a huge effect and probably already is"

I can understand commercial TV stations pushing in ads at every opportunity, but what I most hate is pop-up ads which merely tell you what you are watching in case you forgot during the last ad break, or to advertise what is coming up next. And our government owned TV network, which doesn't have commercial ads, inserts their own ads on how wonderful they are.