Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Screw HDTV, I want my UHDTV!

This is topic Screw HDTV, I want my UHDTV! in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000429

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-08-2005, 07:54 PM:

4K TV for the home. The hell with cinemas! HA!

Read all about it HERE !

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-08-2005, 08:04 PM:

35mm cannot compare.

I think in theater lingo this would be "7k" since they seem to measure horizontally instead of vertically. 35mm REALLY can't compare!

[ 09-08-2005, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Joe Redifer ]

Posted by Adam Heath (Member # 2910) on 09-08-2005, 08:11 PM:

It's like every time there's a new video game system coming out...it's hard to imagine something better.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-08-2005, 09:59 PM:

Joe,
This is thr real reason why Golden Colorado doesn't want that HDTV tower... they want to wait for the larger and more obstructive UHDTV tower.....

Mark

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-09-2005, 11:58 AM:

Film has "been there, done that", and the systems have been in theatres for decades. Can anyone say 70mm film?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-09-2005, 12:52 PM:

Maybe it's just me, but I'd take uncompressed 1080p over compressed-to-hell 4k.

I've seen a number of HDTV demos and I have yet to see an over-the-air broadcast that I thought was impressive. The image looks great coming directly off an HDCAM tape, but the broadcast stuff just isn't that good, at least judging by what I've seen. On the other hand, it's possible that the demo sets weren't ever set up properly and may have just been showing an up-rezed NTSC image.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-09-2005, 01:35 PM:

quote: John Pytlak
Can anyone say 70mm film?

Apparently not anymore.

quote: Scott Norwood
it's possible that the demo sets weren't ever set up properly and may have just been showing an up-rezed NTSC image.

That is VERY possible, depending on what you were looking at. And even if it was a true 1080i broadcast, it is possible that you were watching NBC, which allocates some of its bandwidth to an extremely lame 24-hour 480i weather channel. Who cares about the weather? Weather is stupid. Anyway it wrongfully and immorally steals about 3 megabits and the HDTV is left with only 16 or fewer megabits. Also I think in a lot of cases it is a matter of "poorly compressed" rather than "overly compressed". Remember, TV stations are not known for high quality components and will buy the cheapest encoders they can get. Plus the HDTV signal gets recompressed many times from the source. TV stations don't know what they're doing yet with HDTV. Fools. Also, keep in mind that MPEG2 is not exactly a professional-quality codec. Why they chose MPEG2 for broadcast is beyond my logical reasoning. It is not beyond my moron reasoning, however. MPEG2 is retarded. I think I will get angry about it, as that seems to help.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-09-2005, 06:27 PM:

I've had an HD set from the very beginning of HD here in Salt Lake City. The few weekly early broadcasts were plagued with pixilation problems and other odd artifacts especially in fast motion sports and the like. In the last two years though things HD have gotten ALOT better than they were back then. No more pixilation on fades or dissolves and an artifact in fast motion stuff with 720p is an oddity. At the start 720P looked and behaved better and had the least amount of artifacts while 1080i was the worst. Now its getting to the point that you can barely tell the difference between the two formats....1080i still has a little trouble with fast moving objects. For the most part they have made great strides in picture quality in both standards. This means either encoder upgrades have been made at the transmitter sites or the early Zenith encoders themselves have been changed out.... it seems like these guys have been doing their homework non-stop.

Mark

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-09-2005, 06:38 PM:

John, Joe is right! RIP 70mm. [Frown]

Even 1570 will go TV... [Razz]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-09-2005, 09:31 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Why they chose MPEG2 for broadcast is beyond my logical reasoning.

Joe,
Thats easy... MPEG 2 was the top dog 15 years ago when they started designing the HD coding scheme.

MArk

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-09-2005, 09:44 PM:

quote: Joe
Apparently not anymore.

quote: Coot
John, Joe is right! RIP 70mm.

I'd better not tell that to our 70mm slitting and perforating department, who are busier than ever making 70mm print film! Mostly for 15-perf 70mm systems, of course. [thumbsup]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-09-2005, 09:59 PM:

You miss the point, John. 1570 is not in every auditorium or even every theater or even every town. UHDTV can be. IMAX was not meant for real movies, anyway.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-09-2005, 10:00 PM:

That's Ok John... tell me about it in 3-5 years from now. I HOPE you're singing the same tune then.

Since I'm a film guy, I'm sad about it all too ya know!

Oh, and stop deflecting the posts to your company's prognosis and supposed plans for 1570 when it was clearly implied that we were ALL talking about 570 for a 35mm film and/or UHDTV replacement. JEEZE!

And yes... tell those dedicated Kodak 70mm (oh and 35mm) Film Workers their days are numbered... I'm SURE Kodak has a great early retirement package for them... [beer]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-10-2005, 07:22 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
1570 is not in every auditorium or even every theater or even every town. UHDTV can be. IMAX was not meant for real movies, anyway.

Not if IMAX succeeds in their plan with more and more DMR blow-up to 15-perf 70mm prints.

quote: Phil "Coot" Hill
And yes... tell those dedicated Kodak 70mm (oh and 35mm) Film Workers their days are numbered... I'm SURE Kodak has a great early retirement package for them...

You make hay while the sun shines , and plant different crops for tomorrow. Kodak has many irons in the digital fire too. [Cool]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-10-2005, 11:47 PM:

DMR blowups = bleh. I'd rather have higher quality to begin with. Did I mention that the 15/70 aspect ratio is unacceptable? It needs to be 35/70 or 40/70 to be worthy.

quote: John Pytlak
Kodak has many irons in the digital fire

How will Kodak's 1's and 0's be better than anyone elses 1's and 0's?

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-10-2005, 11:53 PM:

quote: Phil Hill or as Mr. Kodak, from building 69, would say, "Coot"
tell those dedicated Kodak 70mm (oh and 35mm) Film Workers their days are numbered... I'm SURE Kodak has a great early retirement package for them...

There's a lot of them here in the GTA spending their severance cheques on college tuition.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 09-12-2005, 04:39 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Did I mention that the 15/70 aspect ratio is unacceptable? It needs to be 35/70 or 40/70 to be worthy.

I sure hope I just missed your sarcasm or something! Forty sprocket holes to a frame would require a heck of an intermittent or rolling-loop rotor! [Wink]

Although, now that I think about it ... who's to say you couldn't do full frame 15/70 with anamorphic lenses? That would be pretty sharp! You can HAVE your 2.35:1 after all.

And, by the way, what's this "television" thing y'all are talkin' 'bout?

Speaker channels above, at, AND below ear level? To me, this sounds ridiculous, at least as long as it's meant to accompany a FLAT SCREEN for the visual. Once we get wraparound screens above and below and behind, THEN an audio system like this would make sense to me. Anything more complicated than 5.1 is a novelty like lace on a bowling ball. And for home television even that's pushing it, as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-12-2005, 11:02 PM:

Even though the "4K" (or "7K") TV thing from NHK is largely vaporware I'm not at all surprised to see that electronics folks are already at work on stuff to replace current HDTV standards. Welcome to the wonderful world of digital technology where anything you buy (like a computer) becomes obsolete at an ever faster pace.

Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 09-19-2005, 03:47 PM:

So what is (UHDTV) “Ultra High Definition Television” what is wrong with (HDTV) then as we Brits have been reading slowly up on this and feeling depressed, so getting the image as film like, but it’s still digital, and since I haven’t seen an A&B testing side by side of (35mm) VS (DVD) or (HDTV) and this (UHDTV) like “Richard Edlund” said-

-The closer you get to (DLP) the blacks become easier to see, and the pixels really stand out, and unlike 35mm with it’s soft grain and golf balls, your really trading one artefact from the other, man I have seen some chronic digital TV broadcasts around a friends and the greens, like the football pitch was hurting my eyes, WOW can I see the pixels BIG TIME, unlike DVD very few have I seen with lots of errors per second or milliseconds, British digital TV is only fit for peasants.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-19-2005, 09:01 PM:

Nobody cares about England or anything over there. Why has this been mentioned?

Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 09-20-2005, 12:41 PM:

Joe’

I think under that cynical shell of yours you a deep hearted sentimentalist……

[puke]

[ 09-20-2005, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Andy Summers ]