i'll be happy when i can even stream 720p ;-(

I now have three 4k cams, which are great for being able to shoot shows with fixed extra cams and zoom in and still have full HD, but for two upcoming jobs which will be shot in HD, the output will be about 250 DVDs - I think one reason for the slow uptake of BluRay is that no-one seems to know that a $100 BR player will still play DVDs and CDs.

Well they should. If they just look at the box, it will have the DVD logo right there next to the Blu-ray logo.

That's if they ever get to look at the box.

If they just look at the box, it will have the DVD logo right there next to the Blu-ray logo

... along with up to a dozen or so other proprietary logos most of which probably mean nothing to the average purchaser, unlike most of us on this forum who have a high level of interest in - and knowledge of - techo terminology.

haahahaha so true, Dexcon. *I* was even amazed at the number of logos on the last box I purchased.
They should just have large red lettering that says "Does lots of stuff!" because the new web updateable enhancements will change what it can do anyway. Everyone get the "MAP MY CHOLESTEROL" app for their smart TVs? (kidding)

Yeah...the electronics boxes are starting to look like NASCAR drivers coveralls.

Zero requests for 4K which is 4 less than the number of Blu-rays I get requests for in a year.

SD DVD forever it seems.

John

We're planning on having quite a number of friends come over for a Star Wars marathon next weekend. Digging through my media piles i discovered i have I, II, & III on DVD, but they are 4:3, and IV, V, VI are on VHS. This won't do, no, not at all (*tsk tsk*), so i went to Amazon to order widescreen DVDs of everything. I found them available in combo DVD & BluRay packs for pretty cheap so i ordered. Well, one pack was ok, but the other turned out to contain only BluRay. Nuts!

Back to Amazon, and the only DVD-only sets were around $80 and most out of stock. I could order from somewhere in Europe, but even though they advertise Region 1 available i'm not sure i trust they'd ship the right one nor that it would arrive in time. On the other hand, i find a really nice Sony BluRay/net-streaming player for $42. That's cheaper than the DVDs. It's in stock at WalMart so i drive over there and pick it up. I now have my first HD playback setup from media -> screen. And i'm the media producing wiz in my area. I'm far ahead of most of my neighbors and the local schools and businesses.

4K? Really, why bother. It's not that much better than HD. The problem is that 8K is already known to be coming. Buy a 4K TV now for a lot of money that will just be obsolete soon, when the HD TV is still new-ish just doesn't make a lot of sense. I could see it if one needed a replacement TV and the next big thing wasn't around the corner, but for now it's just a tiny intermediate step designed to drain consumers of more money.

"4K? Really, why bother. It's not that much better than HD.

Wow! That's quite a statement. It's only four times better than HD, the difference is very noticeable.

I'd say two times better, not four. The dots are half the size so it can make out details twice as clearly. 2x just isn't really that big a difference. I do agree that it is noticeable, and it might even have been impressive if we didn't know that 8K will be here "any day now". Actually, i'm pretty sure that if manufacturers hadn't bothered designing and building 4K stuff, they'd be shipping 8K already.

The problem is manufacturers aren't really making 4K TVs, heck they're barely making HD TVs. Consumers don't see the difference because they cannot hence no real demand. The issue is viewing angle.

There's also the reverse problem. If a consumer did buy a 4K TV big enough for the room so they could see the benefits of 4K then of course HD would look bad and SD would be pretty much unwatchable. The consumer backlash would be huge, they spent all that money and most of what they can view looks bad and the old stuff they own looks atrocious.

The problem could be solved if TVs didn't upscale but then there's another obvious problem.

Bob.

I agree that most won't be able to see the difference that dramatically (as they did going from SD to HD).

Example, it has been proven that the human eye cannot see a difference in pixels that are 300 ppi or higher (I think when viewed at around 10 inches away). Apple calls it Retina. So using this algorithm with my 42" HD (1080) display the human eye should not be able to see the difference in the pixels when setting at 66 inches (168cm) or further away from the TV. I think most sit at least this far away ;-)

If that was a 4k display, there would be more pixels, but my eyes already cannot even tell the difference in the pixels in HD, so 4k won't be adding much.

With that said, it will become the future eventually. I think it will have a slower go of it though than when HD arrived on the scene.

One thing 4k does allow.... bigger screens - great for the sports fans that think they need 120" TV to watch the game (from 6ft away ;-) ).

On a 42" TV you wont see the difference to the degree where one would be convinced to buy a 4K TV. For me, it starts at 60" and bigger.

"On a 42" TV you won't see the difference to the degree where one would be convinced to buy a 4K TV"

It depends on how far you sit from the screen.

Online Viewing Distance vs Screen Size Calculator

I prefer....

http://isthisretina.com/

The company I work for now has two clients that require new video projects to be acquired and DELIVERED in 4k. Both are companies that are based in the US but do a great deal of trade internationally. China in particular seems to be asking for deliverables in 4K.