|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Sharp Doubles Down On 8K, Literally
|
|
|
Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!
Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 03-26-2015 03:38 PM
From CEPro (Consumer Electronics Pro):
quote:
25 March 2015
8K, UHD-2, HDR Technologies Move Forward
The broadcast television industry is trying to keep pace with the momentum of 4K, 8K, HDR and higher color gamuts, while maintaining cost efficiency and quality, and this all means that homeowners may someday use advanced set-top boxes in their homes that receive a combination of broadcast and streaming media.
By Robert Archer
While the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), TV manufacturers and enthusiasts whet their appetites on 4K and the limited, but growing amount of content from companies such as Netflix and Amazon Instant Video, the broadcast industry has bigger issues on its plate.
Sure 4K, HDR (high dynamic range) and an expanded color gamut (ITU-R BT.2020) are high priorities, but during the 2014 National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) trade event, the Japanese broadcast company NHK had already moved beyond 4K by demonstrating 8K.
The discussion for media beyond 8K doesn’t end with this tradeshow demonstration either. A recent Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) blog written by Michael Goldman examines the opinions of Andy Quested, head of technology for HD and UHDTV initiatives, BBC. Summarizing Quested’s position in the Goldman story, the broadcast community will have to assess every aspect of the broadcast chain before UltraHD becomes truly ubiquitous.
Goldman emphasizes one of Quested’s major points is that while the consumer market matures with improved televisions, camera manufacturers are also improving their products, and more opportunities are being provided by IP technologies, but there remains a lack of UHD television services.
Quested goes on to say that until the entire chain is addressed that incremental improvements such as 4K aren’t going to mean much.
“In a sense, it is a major risk to make HD look too good because why would anybody want to throw huge amounts of money into production and bandwidth to bump up the viewing experience just a small amount more … basically [we] getting the best HD you can by using UHD cameras and displays,” he states in the story.
Related: Are 4K & 7.1 Surround Sound Already Passé? Here comes 8K and 22.2
Based on the trends he is seeing in the industry, Quested points out a greater emphasis could end up being placed on streaming content and the development of advanced set-top boxes that match the content to consumers’ televisions. This he theorizes will aid in the process of implementing a piece-by-piece overhaul of the television ecosystem. Goldman says that for now the first point of action is aimed at ITU-R Recommendation BT.2020 UHD-1 (2,160/4K).
The second phase of the multi-part plan is Super Hi-Vision or UHD-2 (4,320/8K), but Goldman points out that Quested isn’t sure 8K will ever make the dedicated broadcast level.
“Even the Korean broadcasters working on UHD-2 and NHK are not saying there will be dedicated [8K] services for many years,” Quested says. “But there could be a mixture, which is interesting, where you might never have an entire 8K service or channel, but you may have 8K programming like the 2020 Olympics, which is something the Japanese are very focused on. I doubt we will know their plans or anyone else’s for standard Super Hi-Vision services until after that event in 2020. But those Olympics do tell you how short five or six years can be. They have to build an entire infrastructure just to do the largest broadcast ever in the world. In the meantime experiments will continue. We will need to see some content.”
During this time, Quested adds consumers could end up taking their time with their UHD decisions and the broadcast market will have to decide what type of financial approach they are going to take with these impending technologies.
“There is some consumer fatigue out there, and there are some business decisions for broadcasters to make … for UHD-1 the pieces are coming together. SMPTE has an HDR standard, primarily targeted at non-broadcast content, and the ITU is working on HDR standards and HD SDI options,” explains Quested.
Speculating about what the future holds for TV, Quested theorizes that next-generation formats could ultimately use a combination of deliver methods with the bottom line being access to content.
“Will the consumer even know or care where their TV is pulling the content from as long as it looks good,” he asks rhetorically. “From them, it will be about the quality of the experience, and those possibilities are great. For the broadcaster, we have to remember that we are aiming for those eyeballs sitting on the sofa or watching a high-resolution portable. Consumers don’t really care how they get the pictures, as long as they don’t have to do anything difficult to get it.”
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!
Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 07-16-2015 05:15 PM
More from DoddleMe.com:
quote:
Major League Baseball To Test 8K Cameras This Week
15 July 2015
By James DeRuvo
In the afterglow of the All-Star Game (congrats to the American League BTW), came news that Major League Baseball, in association with Japanese broadcaster NHK, was going to test out 8K cameras for sports broadcasting this week at Yankee stadium with six Ikegami 8K cameras. Man! They’re wasting no time, are they? Could it be that 4K is going to be the 8-Track of high definition video? Because 8K seems to be coming on the horizon a lot faster than we imagined.
NHK’s experiment comes on the heals of a successful test of the Ikegami cameras at the FIFA World Cup in Canada last month, and this test will deploy the 4th generation Ultra High Definition (Super Hi-Vision) 8K camera known as the SHK-810.
The Camera has a Super 35 CMOS sensor and provides 33 million pixels across an array of 4,000 lines, both horizontal and vertical resolution. The 1st generation 8K camera was tested in 2002, with steady upgrades in 2004, and 2010. Now with the SHK-810, Ikegami has a camera that is 90% smaller than the original prototype.
Unfortunately, there will be no way for fans to watch the 8K broadcast, as the test will be largely confined to a closed circuit feed that will be available to media and industry insiders at Yankee Stadium itself. Which begs the question, if you’re at the stadium, why are you going to watch the game on TV?! I know, it’s an experiment. And it’s one that is leading up to the big event of the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo, which NHK plans to broadcast all over Asia in 8K.
But hot on their heels is Samsung, which is developing an 11K camera that they hope to have in … wait for it … cellphones by 2019! Whoa boy. Honestly, I can’t see an 11K camera in a smartphone. That would amass so much data, you’d have to bring along red wagon to hold the RAID in order to save the video files to it! So I wouldn’t hold my breath that we’ll get a Super Ultra High Definition camera anytime before 2020. But 8K is definitely doable in the TV world by then, with 4K smartphones being the norm.
But with all this talk about resolution, we have to keep in mind a few things:
1) Standards. Even though it’s finally been voted on and adopted, we still haven’t had the formal ultra high definition standard applied in a practical sense. That’s why I rather doubt that we’ll be seeing sales pick up on 4K TVs until we do.
2) Content. We barely have any 4K content as it is. Market saturation of HDTVs is still so heavy that it indicates that consumers are quite happy with their 1080p screens, and that even though 4K has come down in price, there really isn’t anything still to watch on it.
Additionally, movie theaters have only recently undergone an expensive transition to 4K digital projection, and they’re going to want to get their money back on that investment before looking to upgrade to 8K projectors.
Plus, can they please make of their mind on what to call it? Super Hi-Vision, Super Ultra High Definition, Quad Ultra High Definition. Come on guys, that’s just inviting confusion! So while [I] think that this test of 8K is interesting, I’m not so sure it’s going to cause much momentum for 8K … yet. But it will come.
4K/Ultra high definition adoption is lagging to the point that its window is rapidly shrinking. And that makes me wonder if people are saying, “HD is fine; I can wait for 8K.” 2020 isn’t that far off.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Macaulay
Film God
Posts: 2321
From: Toronto, Canada
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-16-2015 09:24 PM
"Additionally, movie theaters have only recently undergone an expensive transition to 4K digital projection, and they’re going to want to get their money back on that investment before looking to upgrade to 8K projectors."
Not many.
And I don't know of any 4K upcharges. The audience is unaware that a screen is 4K as far as I can tell, maybe the chains are afraid to sell 4K because it announces that all their other screens are 2K? Or does selling a 4K screen cause problems when a flick is only in 2K?
2K looks pretty good on a reasonably sized screen. 4K looks better but does anyone care? The nerds who have 4K home screens most likely don't go to cinemas anyway.
People bought tickets to cinemas with horrid 35 presentations - image and sound. Maybe they didn't come back, I don't know. The places stayed in business though.
Digital is harder to screw up - yes, it can be done though! - and the basic quality is rather consistent. There are horror stories of bad focus, bizzare masking to odd aspect ratios, terrible color, etc. The average d-cinema presentation is pretty damn good and doesn't deteriorate as was typical with film as the popcorn dude "projectionist" abused the print.
Some people do care, the upcharge screens (Imax, ETX, whatever) appeal to them.
Most people I know go to a cinema to (1) see a new movie they can't see anywhere else and (2) the experience of seeing it in a real theatre.
Recreating a cinema experience at home is something few can afford. Watching a movie at home is not comparable to a cinema unless you spend a huge pile of cash and have the space for a large home theatre available. And you have to deal with home stuff... you go to the movies to get away from that crap.
I don't think movie people get it. IMO the audience is NOT looking for 8K images or 200 channel super immersive sound. I think they want a nice place to see a movie... hopefully a good movie. Convenient access, a safe environment, decent popcorn at not outrageous prices, clean auditoria and seats, and a good image with better sound than from their TV. Dark enough so you can privately grope your date (mostly this is for teenagers). Not dark enough that you can do much more privately (more for the teenagers' parents). Toilets that aren't disgusting.
If the industry did this stuff right they could do OK. The overbuild of the 90's is still shaking out but a quality site will do well if they can access the good movies opening weekend. People talk - a cinema with broken dirty seats, sticky floors, and a persistent stale urine smell will never thrive regardless of whether it features 8K image and the latest sound system gimmickry. They won't come back.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-17-2015 06:27 AM
One eventually reaches a point of diminishing returns. How big a screen do you need before you can "benefit" from the increased resolution?
The DVD/Blu-Ray people have seen that to a degree. Whatever the "own your disc market" is the consumer didn't flock to Blu-Ray despite it being MUCH better than the Standard Def 480 DVD. The problem is, the vast majority of people just didn't perceive a difference on the typical television they were watching their movies on.
I doubt many people, in the home are really going to flock to the 4K TV due to very small differences in perceived image quality...again, the bigger the set, the bigger the difference. For 8K you are slicing that difference even thinner in the home.
In theatres...those of you with mixed 2K and 4K projection systems...how much better does the 4K image look? It has 4 times as many pixels. It is a tough question to answer...typically the 4Ks end up on the larger screens, making the difference seem less so, the availability of 4K content is not universal so one can't depend on a true 4K image day-to-day and in the DLP world, 4K comes with some technical problems (uneven light and lower contrast).
And, from the business stand point...how many extra tickets does 4K sell? Or, another way to look at the question, how many potential customers did you keep away because your 2K image didn't seem to be good enough? That is VERY hard to quantify. One thing the higher resolution home systems will do is "educate" how sharp and detailed images can/should be and perhaps if Cinema lags, the perception will be that the cinema is not that big a deal anymore. To a degree, advanced home sound formats have done that...but with sound the consumer is able to emphasize the parts they like (surrounds and subs) to their liking (and then think the cinema has THEIR'S set too low).
I don't think the home is ready for 4K, let alone 8K. The point of diminishing returns is already here. I don't want to discourage the advancement of technology...just the opposite but people don't like to keep buying the same thing over and over, it actually can put people off of the technology entirely. That is something that both consumers and businesses can harmonize on.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-17-2015 08:47 AM
quote: Steve Guttag
The DVD/Blu-Ray people have seen that to a degree. Whatever the "own your disc market" is the consumer didn't flock to Blu-Ray despite it being MUCH better than the Standard Def 480 DVD. The problem is, the vast majority of people just didn't perceive a difference on the typical television they were watching their movies on.
I’m not sure the problem was that people didn’t notice a much of a difference between DVD and BluRay on their at-home displays. I think that the problem is that not everyone shares the resolution fetishism that drives 'advancements' such as these. The difference between DVD and BluRay is only MUCH better technically, the content remains the same. Or to put it more pointedly, at the end of Casablanca, Ilsa still gets on the plane, both at 480i and 1080p. Not every casual film fan particularly needs, desires or cares to see everything in the highest technically possible resolution, and not everyone is willing to pay to upgrade for it.
Of course, saying this here or in another technically oriented forum is tantamount to saying that Santa Claus beats his reindeer, but this is the mentality of the whole “8K is better than 4K is better than HD” thing, or any other technically-driven enterprise. A Yankees game in 8K? Why does anybody need to see that, because it’s technically possible? Rodriguez is still an asshole and their infield still sucks, but now you can watch them suck in quadruple the resolution. You might think that’s great, I might think that’s great, but everyone else? At some point, people perceive that an increase in resolution makes no improvement whatever in the content that is being watched, and the importance and value of the technical upgrade is diminished.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-17-2015 10:09 AM
quote: Dave Macaulay
The audience is unaware that a screen is 4K as far as I can tell, maybe the chains are afraid to sell 4K because it announces that all their other screens are 2K? Or does selling a 4K screen cause problems when a flick is only in 2K?
Some theaters chains do openly state if their projectors are 4K, or if they have a 4K projector in their big, premium room. AMC advertises their 4K Sony projectors.
However, as far as I can tell NONE of the commercial theater chains differentiate when a movie is 4K or just 2K. The general public is going to find out about these resolution differences the hard way when 4K material finally becomes more common, via 4K Blu-ray players mainly and as residential Internet speeds very slowly creep toward being able to stream 4K content to more people. The common question is going to be “why isn’t this big hit movie available in 4K when a bunch of other ordinary shows are in 4K?” There is a lot of movies out there that will never be any better than 2K because that’s how they were rendered.
quote: Dave Macaulay
Some people do care, the upcharge screens (Imax, ETX, whatever) appeal to them.
This is where the pressure is going to come down on theaters to upgrade.
If a theater is going to charge $3, $6 or even more to enter a certain auditorium there is an expectation that auditorium would be equipped with the top end of movie theater technology. Not all these fake large format theaters are doing this. There is a bunch that deliver nothing more than a 2K resolution image, about the same as the 1080p TV set most people have in their homes.
Standard priced theaters will only upgrade existing 2K projectors to 4K as their aging 2K systems break and no longer have crucial replacement parts to buy for that product line.
quote: Dave Macaulay
IMO the audience is NOT looking for 8K images or 200 channel super immersive sound.
Everyone wants the movie to be good. I’ll happily avoid wasting money on a turd of a movie regardless if it supports all the latest high tech sound and projection standards. However it is nice to have all those extra top of the line things in a theater if you’re pretty sure the show is going to be good.
There are plenty of factors that push away people from movie theaters, unruly crowds being the top reason for me. It won’t matter to me if a theater has Dolby Atmos, Dolby Vision and IMAX 4K with Laser. If its houses are taken over by compulsive cell phone users and noisy, trashy people I won’t come back. I probably won’t even bother telling the manager or anyone on the staff about it either. They should know better in the first place.
quote: Steve Guttag
One eventually reaches a point of diminishing returns. How big a screen do you need before you can "benefit" from the increased resolution?
There’s not only that. Only so much can be done practically with digital projection technology and projector optics. It’s not all that big a deal to squeeze more pixels into the pixel grid on a large TV monitor or even computer monitor (Apple’s top of the line iMac has a 5.6K resolution panel).
It’s a lot harder to bump up resolution on a digital projector. If more pixels are squeezed into an imaging chip the same size as the previous generation chip brightness and contrast could take a hit. One could make the imaging chip bigger to keep the pixels the same size, but then that chip would be a lot more expensive. And it might need a larger, more expensive lens to cover it. There is a lot more data to push with 4K than 2K. And 8K has 4 times more data to push than 4K.
Digital projector optics might be good enough to cover 4K, but are they good enough to cover 8K or resolution levels beyond that?
The biggest problem facing 8K is very few movies have been digitally rendered at that level. Some classic titles have been scanned at 8K, but they’ve been down-sampled to 4K or even 1080p for final digital restoration work. None of the popular d-cinema camera systems in use (Arri Alexa, Red, etc.) support 8K yet.
quote: Steve Guttag
I don't think the home is ready for 4K, let alone 8K. The point of diminishing returns is already here. I don't want to discourage the advancement of technology...just the opposite but people don't like to keep buying the same thing over and over, it actually can put people off of the technology entirely.
The nature of digital technology is having to buy the same thing over and over again. None of this stuff is designed to last forever. Some of it is deliberately designed that way.
Content could drive 4K sales, but I think we’re at least another year or more away from seeing that happen since so many movies (3D ones in particular) are still being rendered in 2K only.
Some people are buying 4K TV sets without knowing all the facts. I know a couple people who bought 4K TV sets thinking it makes everything 4K. They don’t realize they need both 4K hardware and 4K content to really have 4K.
Electronics manufacturers are replacing their high end and mid range TV product lines with 4K already. It won’t be very long before someone in need of a decent HDTV set will be stuck buying a 4K panel because there won’t be any 2K options in that product range.
quote:
The difference between DVD and BluRay is only MUCH better technically, the content remains the same. Or to put it more pointedly, at the end of Casablanca, Ilsa still gets on the plane, both at 480i and 1080p. Not every casual film fan particularly needs, desires or cares to see everything in the highest technically possible resolution, and not everyone is willing to pay to upgrade for it.
Casablanca in 480p looks decent on a good SD resolution CRT monitor. 480p looks terrible blown up on a large 1080p TV. Most people can see that difference. They may not understand it entirely though. They might go back to the electronics store complaining something is wrong with their HDTV set. “Why do all my shows look so terrible on this TV?”
quote: Randy Stankey
They won't buy Blu-Ray because they feel like they got stung when they bought CDs over Vinyl and got stung again when they bought DVD over VHS.
I was buying a decent number of Blu-ray movies years ago, but my buying habit has dropped off next to nothing in the last couple or so years. It doesn't have anything to do with price. Yes, some Blu-ray movies are kind of pricey when they are released (and some even stay pricey if they have a Disney label on them). But let's face it. There is a LOT of bargains out there too. There's tons of Blu-ray movies priced at $10 or even $5, just like what happened with DVD.
The reason I've almost stopped buying movies on Blu-ray is the movies themselves. I see very few modern movies that have any repeat viewing potential. This applies regardless of platform. I'm not buying "HD Digital" download movies either. Too many shows are just seen "once and done" and that's it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-17-2015 03:43 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
The reason I've almost stopped buying movies on Blu-ray is the movies themselves. I see very few modern movies that have any repeat viewing potential
I hear that. I think the newest movie I have on disk is the remake of "True Grit" and I only bought that in case we ever want to show it in the theater. I haven't actually watched the disk and probably never will. It was a good movie, but I have too many other old favorites I like.
quote: Randy Stankey
They won't buy Blu-Ray because they feel like they got stung when they bought CDs over Vinyl and got stung again when they bought DVD over VHS.
I disagree about people feeling ripped off for "price" reasons. For one thing, there was a huge difference in quality and durability from LP (or cassette) to CD. And, prices actually went down after the CD was the de facto standard. When CDs came out the list price of a CD album was usually $15.98. 20 years later, most CDs were being sold for $12 or less, often less than $10, yet people still have slowed down buying them. The price had little to do with it; the internet and file sharing is what dropped the sales.
There was also a huge difference in quality DVD vs VHS. But the internet, streaming and file sharing is what killed that business too. Not prices.
We could argue all day that people wouldn't have stopped buying this stuff if the prices were more reasonable, but as the music and movie industries have found out, you cannot compete with "free," not to mention the convenience of the download world. People would have stopped buying CD and DVDs even if they were $5 or less. It's just easier to stream or download.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-17-2015 08:01 PM
Yes, any commercial movie theater, be it part of a chain or an independent, would be in for some trouble in the next few years if they didn't figure on having to replace a digital projector. Those things are never going to last as long as a good film projector. I figure if a d-cinema projector is 10 years old it's already living on borrowed time.
Regarding uncompressed 8K, A movie in 8K would need roughly 16 times the storage capacity and input/output bandwidth as a movie in 2K. This is provided both use the same color bit depth. The 2K image has, at most, 2.2 million pixels. An 8K, 8192 X 4320 image, would be 35.3 million pixels. That's more pixels than most full frame D-SLR still cameras.
Obviously some advances in compression would have to be made to ensure smooth playback. Consumer 4K is going to use the HEVC codec, which is even more efficient than MPEG-4 AVC. Another leap would probably be necessary for 8K.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic