Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 4K Digital Comparison

This is topic 4K Digital Comparison in forum Digital Cinema Forum 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=16;t=000123

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-20-2005, 10:20 AM:

I had posted this in another thread but it seemed to get lost so I figured I'd make it a new topic:

I was just running some numbers to compare the resolution of Sony's 4K projector vs. 4K digital intermediates. I got most of this info from cinesite (except the super35 numbers, I got from bipack). So basically a 4K scan of a film shot in scope would be 3656x3112 (11.4 Megapixel), a film shot in super35 would be 3950x1647 (6.5 Megapixel), and a film shot in flat would be (interpolating from academy offset) 3656x1976 (7.2 Megapixel).

Sony's 4K projector is 4096x2160 (8.85 Megapixel). So would the following be correct to say (assuming they get the contrast and color to equal film at some point)?:

If a release print and a digital file were made directly from a 4k digital intermediate, the 4K digital projector will look at least as good if the source material was flat or super35 and only slightly worse if the source material is scope.

Since no release print is directly from a laser recorder, at least some of that resolution will be lost in practice. Is it then safe to say that with proper contrast and color, 4K digital projection should eclipse the quality of 35mm film projection.

I know that John Pytlak has commented before about the need for anti-aliasing filters which reduce the resolution of the fixed array projection system. Are these same filters requred when working with digital intermediates (or digital effects for that matter) when printed to film? Or does the film grain sufficiently randomize the image even though it is printed like a fixed array.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 01-20-2005, 11:56 AM:

Here is where you posted the original info.

Anybody attending the Sony 4K Demo

Moderator, a little help needed here [Smile]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-20-2005, 12:11 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
Is it then safe to say that with proper contrast and color, 4K digital projection should eclipse the quality of 35mm film projection.

"Proper contrast and color" have been issues with Digital Cinema. And although a 4K scan is certainly better than a 2K scan, work published by Kodak image scientist Dr. Roger Morton and his team has shown that even higher resolution scanning than 4K is needed to completely capture the detail contained on a 35mm motion-picture negative film without aliasing:

http://www.electronicipc.com/journalez/detail.cfm?code=45390011120508

quote:
An Introduction to Aliasing and Sharpening in Digital Motion Picture Systems
By Roger R. A. Morton, Michelle A. Maurer, and Christopher L. DuMont

May 2003 SMPTE Journal

Abstract
Many interacting factors affect image quality. This paper discusses the measurement of some crucial factors and reviews their interactions. Specifically, how pixel count can interact with the image-quality factors of limiting resolution, aliasing ratio, and shape of frequency response. A new tool designed for onscreen image-quality measurements for both film and electronic projectors is described, and actual examples of aliasing artifacts are shown in still images from digital motion picture systems. It is then illustrated how aliasing artifacts can arise, although Nyquist sampling requirements are satisfied. Finally, some of the interactions between limiting resolution and frequency response shape for still and moving images are explained.

http://www.electronicipc.com/journalez/detail.cfm?code=45390011120705

quote:
Relationships between Pixel Count, Aliasing, and Limiting Resolution in Digital Motion Picture Systems
By Roger R. A. Morton, Christopher L. DuMont, and Michelle A. Maurer

July 2003 SMPTE Journal

Abstract
This paper analyzes how pixel count affects one type of aliasing artifact and image rendition near limiting resolution. A previous paper1 showed that aliasing artifacts take many forms. This paper focuses on the aliasing artifact identified in the ISO 12233 standard and identified as Type A aliasing in the prior paper. A relationship termed “Type A aliasing equation” is presented, which predicts aliasing as measured by the ISO 12233 standard. It is then demonstrated that this equation predicts the best unreconstructed aliasing performance for digital motion picture systems and subsystems, thereby defining one characteristic of an ideal system. The predicted result is then compared by the Type A aliasing equation and the measured aliasing performance of 20 different digital motion picture systems and subsystems. It is also shown that the Type A aliasing equation is superior to the classical Nyquist theory as a predictor of aliasing performance of digital motion picture systems. Finally, the equation is used to compute the minimum number of pixels required for a given aliasing level and limiting resolution, and data is presented to determine the pixel count required to render a given limiting resolution.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-20-2005, 12:38 PM:

Well, since we are revisiting, here's a question that I asked but didn't get answered, so I'll give it another shot:

quote:
Ok, I am a bit clueless when it comes to the multiple formats of video in relationship to projection, so this may sound rudimentary, but can someone explain what is meant by 2K and 4K? 4K what? -- pixels, salamis? Is it referring to the nano-mirror module....the video signal....the file size for each frame? And again, whatever it is, why isn't it part of a full spec statement like 1KHz for audio or 256Mb for RAM, or 8MegaPixels etc., as most other specs are stated? And how does the 1K, 2K, 4K relate to HDTV or home video projection equipment? How come you don't see that "K" measurement in the myriad of home video projectors and other equipment, like DVDs? Like, "This InFocus DLP projector has a resolution of .01K."

Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-20-2005, 01:00 PM:

Nominally, it's the number of pixels across the width of the image.

Here's what's available at Kodak Cinesite:

Kodak Cinesite Scanning Submission Form

Remember, with fixed array pixels, the image resolution will usually be less than half the number of pixels, because you need to avoid aliasing artifacts (Nyquist criterion), and you often subsample color information.

Posted by Dominic Case (Member # 1830) on 01-20-2005, 05:40 PM:

quote:
And how does the 1K, 2K, 4K relate to HDTV or home video projection

Usually you find slightly different applications will choose entirely different ways to specify things.

2K and 4k terms are used mainly in the digital inermediate business to indicate the number of pixels across the width of a scanned frame. 4k being 4096; but that is usually the full width of the negative perf to perf, so image width uses less than that. Since there are a number of different aspect ratios in film, it's left at the one common factor - the width.

Still cameras are specified by the total number of pixels, because (a) it's a fixed aspect ratio and (b) the numbers are bigger, and it's a consumer-driven market and (c) the cameras use an area array, whereas most film scanners use a line array (i.e scanning one line at a time, whereas the still camera grabs the whole frame). So a 6 Megapixel still camera is approximately 2840 pixels by 2130 pixels. 6meg is easier for the shop assistant to say.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-20-2005, 06:10 PM:

quote: John Pytlak
Remember, with fixed array pixels, the image resolution will usually be less than half the number of pixels, because you need to avoid aliasing artifacts (Nyquist criterion), and you often subsample color information.

John,

Is there a good resource that you can point to which better explains the relationship of Nyquist to fixed pixel arrays. I'm an Electrical Engineer but have no experience with imaging. My understanding of Nyquist has always been with respect to sampling waveforms to avoid aliasing and how if you don't sample at a rate of 2x the frequency, the frequency domain representation of the waveform will "overlap." I'm having trouble understanding how an array of pixels is affected by Nyquist. I'm probably missing something conceptually here but isn't each pixel just a spot represented by a light wave at that point? If I have a tic tac toe board with each box colored in why do I need to scan it at 81 pixels in order to be able to display those original 9 pixels without aliasing?

Thanks to anybody that chimes in here and enhances my understanding.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-21-2005, 07:25 AM:

quote: Lyle Romer
My understanding of Nyquist has always been with respect to sampling waveforms to avoid aliasing and how if you don't sample at a rate of 2x the frequency, the frequency domain representation of the waveform will "overlap." I'm having trouble understanding how an array of pixels is affected by Nyquist.

It's exactly the same situation. Whether it's audio (time domain) or an image (spatial domain), when you digitally sample, you need to do it at a frequency at least twice the highest spatial frequency in the image to avoid any risk of "overlap" or aliasing. A fixed pixel array is "sampling" the image, and has the same limitations.

http://www.edn.com/article/CA90388.html?1=1

Nyquist, Harold, "Certain topics in telegraph transmission theory," Transactions of the AIEE #47, February 1928, pg 617 to 644.

quote:
Physicist and engineer Harry Nyquist's 1928 paper on telegraph-transmission theory revealed that complete reconstruction of an N-element signal is possible if you know N/2 sinusoidal components (Reference 1). This theory developed into Nyquist's sampling theorem, which states that complete reconstruction of a waveform is possible from samples taken at a rate greater than twice the highest frequency-harmonic component. If you sample the signal more slowly, an alias results, and information is lost.

The alias is unknown to novice engineers, feared by intermediate-level engineers, and used by expert engineers. Certain conditions are necessary to use these advanced measurement techniques, and simple test methods can reveal otherwise immeasurable time-domain characteristics.

Some references about digital imaging:

Poynton Notes

Poynton Book

Symes Book

Reference Links

Stefan Winkler

Digital Imaging

Kodak Digital Learning Center

Since the "pixels" in film (silver halide grains) are random in their size and spatial distribution, aliasing artifacts are not an issue, unless the film is digitally scanned.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-21-2005, 11:49 AM:

As always, thanks for the info guys. And someday John is going to tell us exactly what vitamins he takes soas to allow him to retain an entire reference library in his brain!

Now all someone has to do is figure out a good way to count the grains across a frame of film so as to match apples and apples. 2K, 4K, 8M video.....168K film....something like that. [Wink]

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 01-21-2005, 04:11 PM:

The logical thing would be so scan at 8k and store that as a 4k DI master file. This is possibly what will happen. No need to store for a long time at 8k and the 4k file gets smoothed.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-22-2005, 10:26 AM:

Thanks for the information and links John. I don't know why I never really thought of digital pictures as a "sampling system" in the same way as digital audio. Now I get it. Thanks for the links, now I can buy some cool books and have my girlfriend think I'm even more of a geek than she already does.

After reading through some of the links, I've determined that there is no quantifiable answer to the question that is asked very often. That is, what resolution is equal to film?

It appears the question needs to be, what resolution of d-cinema will look as good or better than film to a person viewing it from a normal viewing distance? It looks like the only way to find out is to subjectively test many people with each d-cinema system. I guess it is more than just the resolution, it's a combination of resolution, image processing and compression. I guess even if the d-cinema resolution is not capturing all of the negative detail, if that detail could only be seen in a still frame from .002 screen heights, it doesn't really matter.

I was always one that wanted to quantify a particular resolution for the holy grail of d-cinema. I guess the only way to find out is to wait and see each higher resolution. Maybe 4k d-cinema will look as good as 70 mm film even though it won't have anywhere near the detail.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 01-22-2005, 11:22 AM:

I have read that at the highest detail level lenses in aquisition and projecton is a factor that affects the real detail shown in the end.
The same person has said that the type of shutter used in filming and the speed it works at is very important to get alot of detail, think about the camera that is not perfectly still and objects that are moving relative to the camera.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-24-2005, 04:46 PM:

quote: Mattias Ohlson
I have read that at the highest detail level lenses in aquisition and projecton is a factor that affects the real detail shown in the end.
The same person has said that the type of shutter used in filming and the speed it works at is very important to get alot of detail, think about the camera that is not perfectly still and objects that are moving relative to the camera.

Modern camera and projection lenses come pretty close to being diffraction limited, which is about as sharp as you can get. Usually there is significant response out to well beyond 100 cycles per millimeter at the f/stops normally used for cinematography and projection.

The "motion blur" of film shot at 24fps with a 180-degree shutter (1/48 second exposure time) is normally considered a good thing, and part of the desired "film look". Using a smaller shutter angle is often used to produce a disconcerting effect, of fast moving objects being too sharp and "stroby". Motion blur occurs only when the camera or scene is moving --- stationary objects have full sharpness without blur. Human vision EXPECTS moving images to have some motion blur (due to persistence of vision).

Posted by Dominic Case (Member # 1830) on 01-24-2005, 08:41 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
After reading through some of the links, I've determined that there is no quantifiable answer to the question that is asked very often. That is, what resolution is equal to film?

Hallelujah! And from an engineer, too [Cool]

Thank you! Administrator, please pin this message to the top of the topic for ever. It is exactly the truth. There is no simple objective answer to the question, and yet people continue to insist that "film is 4K" or whatever.

quote: Lyle Romer
If I have a tic tac toe board with each box colored in why do I need to scan it at 81 pixels in order to be able to display those original 9 pixels without aliasing?

I guess JP's references have answered that for you - but for anyone who hasn't got through all of that yet, the answer is relatively simple. If you line up the tic-tac-toe box exactly with the pixels, then it's true, you only need 3x3=9 pixels to represent it perfectly. (in other words, one pixel per square). If you move it half a pixel to the right and half a pixel up, then every pixel will include a quarter of each of four squares in the box. If they are coloured in a checkerboard pattern, then each pixel will show the same shade of 50% grey. The digital image of the pattern would thus be totally invisible. You need twice the number of pixels in each direction to be sure that the image won't average itself out to nothing.

A film image, with randomly-placed grains, might capture some of the squares in one frame, others in the next, and so on: even if the smallest grains were the same size as the squares in the tic-tac-toe subject, you'd still see the detail of the image over a few frames. But as film has small grains as well as large ones, you are even better off.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 01-27-2005, 08:33 AM:

Do you expect TI will announce a 4k projections system together with one of its partners at Showest in March. This in anticipation of Star Wars III in May.

What is most likely
1 one 4k sxrd projector will be used to project Star Wars III to paying customers this year
or
2 a 4k TI solution will be used to play Star Wars III to paying customers this year

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-27-2005, 09:05 AM:

It has taken TI nearly 6 years of research and development (read: spending lots of money) to jump from XGA and XGA+ resolution DLP chips to the new 2K models. It would be highly doubtful TI would roll out a 4K micromirror chip anytime soon.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-27-2005, 09:39 AM:

quote:
...announce a 4k projections system...in anticipation of Star Wars III in May.

Since Episode III is only being shot with the Sony HDCAM SR, it's certainly less than 4K, and arguably less than 2K. So why would 4K projection make much of an improvement?

Now if they shot it on 35mm or 65mm film, and did all the scanning, CGI, VFX, and output at 4K or greater, then 4K projection would matter, and the IMAX film prints would be MUCH better than anything seen with Episode II. When I did a TAP evaluation of the Rochester IMAX presentation of Episode II, the sharpness just didn't hold up well on a big screen.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 01-27-2005, 10:37 AM:

Mr Pytlak
I understand and I agree with the lack of resolution from not using a 4k digital capture device or film.

Mr Hendersson
TI has mostly done process improvements to increase contrast ratio. Interface improvements have also been done to increase the bit rate feeding the chip with data. In the modern product days of dlp I know of only one process shrink of the mirrors.

With a new shrink and wobultation pseudo 4k should not be that far off.

2048x1080 is 1.2 or is it 1.25 inches in diagonal
For simplicity lets say that 2048x1080 is possible at 1.0 inches.
With a rotated orientation of mirrors a 2048x2160 would be about 1.4 inches as compared with 1.25 today. The larger chip would allow higher brightness for the biggest screens.

4k d-ila and 4k sxrd are even bigger. Without a shrink a TI pseudo 4k might be about the same size.

This 4k from TI might not be for every screen though.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 01-27-2005, 01:18 PM:

TI will not be showing a 4K DLP chip anytime in the near future. By the way the 2K DLP chip looks pretty good. It's only the LCOS and the Sony version of the LCOS that will be 4K and so far nobody has shown a dedicated Digital Cinema 4K Machine.

What I would expect is to hear about some structured deals to get those 2K DLP Digital Cinema machines in more theatres this year. But those are being discussed behind closed doors with the 4 or 5 big cinema chains.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-27-2005, 01:47 PM:

quote: Mattias Ohlson
TI has mostly done process improvements to increase contrast ratio.

Claims in contrast ratio mean very little. As far as I'm concerned contrast ratio specs have just been some marketing bullshit for lots of electronics companies to use in hiding the embarrasingly low native resolution of their products.

This isn't just a slam on TI either. Their marketing guys are certainly guilty of it and not being very forthcoming on actual native resolution specs of their products. Just about every maker of plasma screen and LCD screen televisions is flat out guilty of this as well.

I could not give the first damn about some "6000:1" contrast ratio listed on the sales tag of some flat screen TV. One thing's for certain, you have to do a lot of asking around to find the native resolution for any flat screen TV in an electronics store. It is very rare that native resolution is listed on any "HDTV" sold.

At the recent 2005 CES in Las Vegas, a number of electronics companies have been promoting "1080p" HDTV sets -only now that they have models that actually hit the 1920 X 1080 native resolution specification. Naturally, such monitors are extremely expensive high end items. Anything affordable is not a real HD capable monitor, just a glorified "EDTV". Buyer beware.

It's only now that TI has a DLP chip that shows the full resolution of a 1080 HD video frame they're willing to put native resolution specifications right out front.

At any rate, TI has been working on the micromirror chip for more than a decade. For a long time such chips were stuck at VGA, XGA and SXGA resolutions. I would find it hard to believe that TI would be able to quadruple the number of spinning micromirrors on a silcon chip from the 2K unit to something hitting 4K levels in a matter of only a few months. From the standpoint of feasibility in production, it would be easier to make a 4K chip in the LCOS process -and even that has had obvious problems.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-27-2005, 02:45 PM:

quote: Mattias Ohlson
With a new shrink and wobultation pseudo 4k should not be that far off.

You shouldn't underestimate the degree of resistance public wobulation is going to meet, especially from conservative religious groups.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-27-2005, 03:21 PM:

quote: Mattias Ohlson
With a new shrink and wobultation pseudo 4k should not be that far off.

quote: Michael Schaffer
You shouldn't underestimate the degree of resistance public wobulation is going to meet, especially from conservative religious groups.

Not only would some groups object to wobultation, but changing psychiatrists and doing 4K under false pretenses would make some consider digital projection to be the work of the devil. [evil]

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 01-27-2005, 06:46 PM:

Lots of companies are looking at wobulation
HP
TI
Ricoh, is that spelled correctly

By producing 4 subframes a 2048x1080 dmd could function as a 4096x2160 chip. Time will be lost and result in lost bit depth. Overlapping, not in time but in space, pixels will create a smooth picture but a softer and less sharp picture.

Using 4 subframes which some will do is perhaps going to far for Digital cinema but using 2 subframes with 2048x2160 might be doable.

I agree that for most of the time cr is marketing BS. Dlp states ANSI lumens at maximum brightness but cr with minimum brightness. Still with lower lumen home theater equipment improvents in cr with dlp has been very visible.

2k dlp was shown in 2003 and is getting mature now. Perhaps 4k can be shown now and mature over 1-2 years. That will send the message that TI is capable of 4k.

In the end what you can build is not most important but what you can sell.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-27-2005, 07:57 PM:

quote: Mattias Ohlson
Lots of companies are looking at wobulation

Mr Ohlson, we know what wobulation is. I was just making fun of the fact that the name sounds like something Phil would do at home.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-27-2005, 08:00 PM:

And "shrink" and "pseudo" and "wobulation" in the same sentence were to hard to resist joking about. [Wink]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-27-2005, 11:13 PM:

True, especially sink "shrinking" and Phil are just automatic associations.

Posted by Don Cross (Member # 2980) on 01-28-2005, 07:18 PM:

Oops, we seem to be forgetting one probable item of concern here.

When it comes to expert stats about film versus digital; I have a considerable amount of experience. Consider the following...

The highest end (35mm body based) full frame (small format) digital camera; which would be the Canon Eos-1 Ds Mark II. It is capable of shooting a digital still at about 16.6mp. To go any higher than this file size (at the present time) would require a medium format camera with a digital back.

In order to effectively compare this high end camera to a film image one would have to weight the following factors. It would depend upon the subject matter; a landscape is significantly different from any portrait or wedding photo. Even more importantly it would also depend upon the film speed.

As noted in the January 2005 issue of Popular Photography the high end Canon camera is only capable of producing an image close to ISO100 film in most conditions. For all practical purposes though (in the field) it is really closer to the speed of ISO 200 film.

Unless one flies a spy plane for the USAF, the average consumer is still a few years away from digital being able to come close to closing the gap on film. Especially considering that I regularly use film speeds of 64 or even 25. Also consider the cost of digital versus the cost of film.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 01-29-2005, 02:58 AM:

Don
Digital presentation does not exclude using film. Capture on film will be important for digital cinema.

35mm still and motion camera negatives are not of the same size.
Still pictures and motion picture are two different fields. With a high resolution you might look at a glossy photo from a very close distance and looking at details one at a time.

I do not think that motion picture and photography is directly comparable.

[ 01-29-2005, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Mattias Ohlson ]

Posted by Don Cross (Member # 2980) on 01-30-2005, 12:44 AM:

Thank you Mattias for pointing that out; and I agree with most of the points you make. I guess that I didn't make my post as clear as I should have.

To elaborate further... I believe that the current projector technology will end up being replaced well within the next five years for most theaters. There are two different options of where digital could possibly go to. It could be an upgradeable 4k or even 8k system as mentioned in some earlier postings by others.

The other option has been kept behind closed doors recently. Certain computer experts in the western United States and in Asia have been working with the idea of a type of interlaced screen without the need for any type of projection. More information about this technology should surface by the end of this year. Has anyone else heard about this type of non-projection screen technology?

Not to worry though- even once digital becomes more of an industry standard, there will still be quite a few houses which will still have the film projectors.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-31-2005, 03:52 PM:

As mentioned in another posting, Kodak Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) technology has the potential of being scaled up to produce larger flexible digital display screens:

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=1473/1481&pq-locale=en_US

quote:
High-definition image display that rivals reality.
Organic light emitting diode (OLED) displays show pictures and video at their best. Bright, clear images and fluid full-motion video appear true-to-life at almost any angle.

What is OLED?

Benefits of OLED

OLED Materials

Applications

Potential Applications

Partnerships and Licensing

Starting out small, but... [Wink]

Posted by Jean-Pierre Van Hoof (Member # 2063) on 01-31-2005, 04:37 PM:

Hi guy's,

First a BIG HELLO to you all since this is my first posting.(since more than 2 years)

Maybe a little OT but does anybody know if Starwars episode I&II
is available in 2k digital format?

We are planning to show episode III on a Barco 2k projector and it
would be nice to show episode I & II in the same format.
We tried to get hold of 35mm prints of episode I & II but there isn't a single copy left in The Netherlands :-(

Greetings,
Jean-Pierre van Hoof

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 01-31-2005, 09:42 PM:

The current issue of Cinefex magazine, in celebration of its 100th issue (25 years) has a lengthy article on the current state of the art in film effects technique and technology. Though not the main thrust of the article, special effects supervisor Richard Edlund had some interesting comments about digital projection:

quote:
"The Digital Cinema Initiative...has been doing test screenings at the Pacific Theatre...the DCI and the ASC produced a short film that had all the extremes of photography - a wedding taking place in the afternoon, with the white lace and the black suit, smoke and backlighting, and the bald blue sky. It was shot with Super 35, anamorphic, and 70mm and scanned at 6K, and downrezed so it could be projected at 2K with the answer print running on the other side of the screen. And it was about equal. Film was maybe a hair sharper. But the digital color was dead on, and it had no scratches. In that sense, it was superior. And keep in mind that we were comparing digital projection to answer print, which audiences never see. They always see a dup.

Cinefex: And that was at 2K?

Edlund: Yes. The next thing we saw was a simulated 4K projection where they had two TI projectors stacked on one side of the screen. So half of the screen was 4K and on the other side of the screen was film. And the 4K was incredibly sharp. Sharper than film. I was really knocked out by that. 4K has to be what is focused on in the theater. 2K is not enough."

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 02-01-2005, 10:36 AM:

Sony and perhaps JVC seem focused on 4k.
2k from TI is very nice from many accounts but 4k and the technology to achieve 4k will probably be where things end up. The pixel shifting to achieve 4k with dlp will eliminate pixelation for all practial purposes. The biggest question is how low a price 4k can reach?