4K monitors

[John Davidson]

It’s glorious. We absolutely love them. My office machine is an iMac, but our two Mac Pros use these and after I work on them some, it kills me to go back to the iMac. They’re fantastic.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.

[Marcus Moore]

yes, h.265 is more processor intensive to both encode and decode, but I’d wager not as bad as when we first started encoding h.264 files way back when. And it’s not just resolution, a broader colour spectrum is part of the h.265 spec, thankfully.

As to the 4K vs 1080 “no visible difference” argument, that could be made about any resolution, depending on the size of screen and the distance you’re sitting from it. Many people today aren’t benefiting from 720p vs 1080p, cause they’re watching those 65″ screens they bought from a couch 15′ across their basement rec-rooms.

I can only point to my own personal setup- in my house I have 3 screens I watch movies on. Here’s how I’d benefit. Calculations via https://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/

Living Room, 42″ TV from 9 feet: 0% BENEFIT
Office, 27″ Monitor from 2.5 feet: 300% BENEFIT
Home Theatre, 110″ Projection screen from 8 feet: 299% BENEFIT

So I’d benefit enormously in 2 out of 3 scenarios.

As resolutions get higher and higher, yes, absolutely fewer and fewer people benefit. For instance I don’t think I’d benefit from 8K on any of my screens. Which is why digital distribution is the perfect for this- because they can have 20 versions of the same file that they can feed to you depending on whether you’re watching on your iPhone on the train, or your 110″ home theatre. Or, depending on the quality of your internet connection.

Those who want 4K are going to be the same self-selecting group that bought into higher end video formats before. They’ll have the larger screens, be sitting closer for a more “theatrical” experience, and have beefy internet connections to get the highest bandwidth version of files possible.

Sure, it’s going to sell to people who probably don’t benefit- but people get oversold all the time, so that’s nothing new.

[Marcus Moore]

Considering the lack of flexibility in the FCP X UI on a single screen, I’m still leaning towards a second cinema display. Especially working in Motion on two screens, with one for JUST the timeline (and option FCP X needs) is just great.

There’s been lots of scuttlebutt about a 4K ACD coming in the fall, but I’m honestly thinking I may just get another current TB Display. The way I figure it, a 4K ACD is definitely going to come at a price premium- maybe $2,000-$2500? For that money, I think I’d rather just get another current gen, which still looks great, and then spend my 4K money on a larger TV display for the studio instead, where the resolution will be more noticeable.

The only way I’ll be cheesed off is if Apple releases an 4K display at the same or only marginally more money, but I just can’t see that happening.

[John Davidson]

[Marcus Moore] “Considering the lack of flexibility in the FCP X UI on a single screen, I’m still leaning towards a second cinema display. Especially working in Motion on two screens, with one for JUST the timeline (and option FCP X needs) is just great.”

I would never do that now. Especially because the current Cinema Displays are glossier than the current, thinner iMacs. They don’t even have USB3.

I don’t perceive this as being a limitation of a single screen. Literally everything can be open. The 34 isn’t just screen size, it’s resolution.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.

[Marcus Moore]

It looks very nice, and I’ve heard great reviews. The only disadvantage I see here is the lack of available vertical space for the Project timeline- which is always at a premium. I’d love to be able to throw just the timeline out to the second display, giving me oodles of vertical hight for complex project with no need for scrolling up and down.

[Marcus Moore]

[John Davidson] “I don’t perceive this as being a limitation of a single screen. Literally everything can be open. The 34 isn’t just screen size, it’s resolution.”

But it’s no more vertical resolution than a 27″ ACD.

[John Davidson]

It’s basically the same height as the current 27″, it’s just so damn wide it makes it look short.

I drooled over this thing since Bob Zelin posted about it at NAB. Odds are I’m getting one for my office when the next rMBP refresh comes – unless of course Apple releases a variant of this with FaceTime camera. In our experience no camera is the only negative.

I worked on it for a few days straight the other weekend and it’s just good fun. The Mac Pro was also obviously was more fun to work with over an iMac as well.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.

[John Davidson]

I always thought the old 30″ were too high, but to each his own!

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.

[Marcus Moore]

I mean resolution, not height. Both displays are 1440 pixels tall.

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Marcus Moore] “Living Room, 42″ TV from 9 feet: 0% BENEFIT
Office, 27″ Monitor from 2.5 feet: 300% BENEFIT
Home Theatre, 110” Projection screen from 8 feet: 299% BENEFIT
“
[Marcus Moore] “Sure, it’s going to sell to people who probably don’t benefit- but people get oversold all the time, so that’s nothing new.”

it still feels mad – aren’t we having a stupid argument that has nothing to do with the attributes of the film held in US salt mines?
If cinemas are being marginalised to spectacle:
exactly how stupid is the person pushing false pixel density with crap LCD screens?
why are the panel suppliers at such a destructively reductive mega-pixel argument?

how is it that the 12 bit vista-vision classic film celluloid 13000 nits blow your mind household panels are only available in our imaginations?

thank god someone thought to engineer them anyway.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics