-
4K might become a reality quicker than we think
-
[Gary Huff] “Of course, getting 4K 60p in the first place requires a helluva lot of bandwidth.”
Yes, and do they lack the will to even give up that much bandwidth?
Do they want to spend the $ after 3D fell on it’s face?
We don’t even do games in 1080 60p (only i for some) let alone 4k 60p
I could see some great sports shots coming out of it like you said but there are some hurdles.
We use the Phantom cam on certain shows now and everybody loves it, but with a large sensor cameras and prime lenses, tracking action is a little difficult some times. (We usually pick a spot and let action come into it)
Prime glass is great for a sit down interview and certain set up shots, but for covering moving action it’s almost useless.
I find myself shooting with a f3 for certain things and the trusty EX1R for a press conference or run and gun.
I guess I would need 2 4K cameras, one for sit downs and one for action : )
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “As a consumer, you have to replace a fairly new TV with a brand new 4k TV. Besides Seiki, 4k TVs are typically $5,000 – $20,000+. Of course this price will change, but for now, the one guy in the neighborhood who had a laserdisc/projector setup will be the guy who has the one 4k TV in the neighborhood streaming 4k YouTube videos.”
This is why I think 3D fell flat. I never believed people would toss out their nice new HD TV for a 3D one.
And they didn’t. At least, not enough did to keep it going. it just wasn’t practical.
I don’t see streaming 4K all that viable either to tell you the truth.
1. I don’t see enough folks buying a 4k TV
2. Nobody wants to wait 3 hours for a movie to download.
-
[Tim Wilson] “You heard it here first: a time machine, bus-powered over Thunderbolt 2 or USB 3.”
Awesome! The current going rate for plutonium is really cutting into my time traveling budget. That and Delorean parts are way too overpriced.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “4k delivery, in my opinion, will mostly be an IP based delivery at first. It will be a splintered delivery on top of a fairly fractured market. Amazon will release a 4k IP box, Apple may release a 4K ready IP box, Roku, etc,”
Yes, agreed, all movies or scripted series and all shot in 24… pointless 4K.
The only way to capture images that measure up to 4K rez is to shoot high frame rates. The “cult of 24” prevents this in the above productions unless it’s “The Hobbit”.
Sounds like sports might be the best use, but live 4K… ROFLOL… let me catch my breath. That means minimum 60fps 4K that’s 12Gb. To really see sharp 4K it would take 120fps which means 24Gb. 24Gb routers, switchers… my head spins. Understand that 100Mb it the top data rate supported by EVS in collaborative truck workflows and ESPN broadcasts 720×960 DVCProHD.
John
-
[tony west] “This is why I think 3D fell flat. I never believed people would toss out their nice new HD TV for a 3D one.”
3D capability of a TV doesn’t hurt the 2D at all. In many cases the 3DTVs are better in 2D as some models need stronger processors to display twice the frames for the ‘active shutter glasses’ type.
Nobody wanted to wear the stupid glasses.
-
[Darren Roark] “Nobody wanted to wear the stupid glasses.
“People will wear glasses for the right content. Over 80% of the audience for Gravity saw it in 3D. More than Avatar.
The larger problem is that the overwhelming majority of 3D movies bite. I’m a HUGE enthusiast, and other than the Hobbit, I can’t remember the last 3D movie I saw and liked.
(Actually, stay tuned for Stalingrad, a Russian movie that’ll have its US debut at the end of the month. Stunning on every level.)
More important, movies at home are a TERRIBLE business model. It’s simply not sustainable for building a platform. Can you imagine if the ONLY reason to watch HD was movies? No way.
HBO and Netflix have learned this. They’ll keep selling movies because it’s easy, but they way they’re making REAL money, now, and even moreso in the future, is off their original…what? Their original WHAT? Their original TV series.
And hey, it used to be boxing. Back in the early 70s, the only people I knew with HBO got it for the boxing. It’s still around, but it’s no longer the core of HBO’s business model.
Movies are a core product for Redbox, but almost exclusively to the extent that HBO and Netflix are softening their grip on them.
You might disagree with my assessment of that, but it doesn’t matter. LOL The only reason you can watch movies and sports in HD is because you bought an HD TV to watch TV shows.
It’s the chicken and egg, and the egg always comes first…and last. 3D TV is on its last legs because there was never any 3D TV to actually watch. 4K will live and die by the same thing. Not the hardware. The software. For TVs, that’s TV SHOWS. NOT MOVIES. NOT SPORTS.
For better AND for worse, you’ll get a 4K TV when you want to watch the 2015 equivalent of Breaking Bad or Spongebob in 4K. No amount of remastered 1960s widescreen epics mixed with Adam Sandler in “Grown Ups 4K” is going to get you there before then.
But, to my earlier point, we’re years away from 4K being driven by anyone but indie producers and filmmakers with snowflake workflows. Compelling content that isn’t movies or sports will drive broadcast LAST. It happened with HD, and it’ll happen with 4K.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Besides Seiki, 4k TVs are typically $5,000 – $20,000+. Of course this price will change, but for now, the one guy in the neighborhood who had a laserdisc/projector setup will be the guy who has the one 4k TV in the neighborhood streaming 4k YouTube videos.”
Jeremy,
I see about a dozen options in the 3000-5000 price range from Sony, LG, Toshiba, etc. (As an example, Sony has a 55inch UHDTV for 3000.00 there.)
I have no idea what people typically spend on TVs, but UltraHD seems to be on offering to the general (non-specialized) public.
Franz.
-
[Darren Roark] “3D capability of a TV doesn’t hurt the 2D at all. In many cases the 3DTVs are better in 2D as some models need stronger processors to display twice the frames for the ‘active shutter glasses’ type.
“Yeah, that’s all good if you got extra money laying around for that type of thing.
Things are tight for many in this country. When things are going well us sometimes we forget what’s going on with the rest. I didn’t think people would spend their money on it.
[Darren Roark] “Nobody wanted to wear the stupid glasses.”
they don’t seem to mind wearing them when they go the theater, but again, they aren’t spending that much cash to do that.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I see about a dozen options in the 3000-5000 price range from Sony, LG, Toshiba, etc. (As an example, Sony has a 55inch UHDTV for 3000.00 there.)”
OK, then $2,999 – $39,999.
Even 3 grand is a lot to spend on a TV where you can barely watch anything in 4k.
I was in an electronics store this past weekend and the ‘cheapest’ 4k TV was $4999. I guess they have yet to catch up with Best Buy.
-
[Tim Wilson] “People will wear glasses for the right content. Over 80% of the audience for Gravity saw it in 3D. More than Avatar.
The larger problem is that the overwhelming majority of 3D movies bite. I’m a HUGE enthusiast, and other than the Hobbit, I can’t remember the last 3D movie I saw and liked.”
Oh I could not agree more! I love 3D, I even love watching it at home but I am in the minority. “Gravity” is my ‘told you so’ to all the friends of mine who vocally dislike 3D. I shoot and make shorts in 3D.
Using my wife as an example, wearing polarized glasses would put a cramp her style while she watches TV and multitasks with her iPad. This is how I see most people watch things at home nowadays.
This now totally OT. I could go on about when 3D is done right by people who care, it’s amazing, just a PITA for most in the home. Also, the Russians are really pioneering post conversion software. What they are doing is starting to look better than shooting it stereo, which usually has to be converted anyway.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up