quote:

---

Yeah, 1080p - like its 720p predecessor - was cool back in the day. But now Google has taken YouTube to the next level with a full 4K of HD video goodness.

"At 4096 x 2304 pixels, 4K is over four times the size of 1080p," YouTube engineer Ramesh Sarukkai explained in a blog post.

---

quote:

---

Bah. Their 720p is still lower bitrate than DVD's, why not improve that instead of going to even higher resolutions. Oh, because its less marketable than just saying we have 4X the resolution of 1080p. Right.
You can see macroblocking many places on the 4k shots, this is clearly compressed pretty far. Probably lower bitrate than a 720p blu-ray.

---

 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-10-2010, 11:27 PM:
 
You need to switch the image size to "original" to get the 4K version of it.

And buy a 4K monitor/projector
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-11-2010, 12:07 AM:
 
Yeah, I did that too. But their "Hi-Rez" button is not apparent. You'd think that it would be more visible.

Why, the fuckin' vuvuzela button is more visible!

Like Chris said, even when switched to 4K mode, there was still banding and macroblocking all over the place.

I would rather watch a well-compressed video at 640x480 than to watch a 1,000,000 pixel wide image that was badly done.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-11-2010, 12:36 AM:
 
Ditto to all the comments here. It is the COMPRESSION that kills the image, not so much the resolution.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-11-2010, 07:31 AM:
 
Okay...lets say that compression was not an issue and they have an honest to goodness 4K image...

Just how big a monitor would you need to actually resolve all of the pixels in a 4K image? And how big would it need to be for your to actually be able to tell that it was a 4K image instead of a 2K or smaller image?

It isn't going be any computer monitor I've seen. Actually, the only 4K monitors I've seen are from Astro Systems and they are about $60,000 and are about 5-feet wide.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-11-2010, 08:53 AM:
 
Sharp was selling some nice 5' wide 4096x2160 screens for about $50k.

But, of course, you would want a 4K projector to get a good sized screen, specially since they can be $20k cheaper, too, like the Sony SRX-S105.



But the point is, if TODAY, when most movie theaters in the world aren't even 3D nor 4K (they may be film, but coming from a 2K intermediate ....) I can walk into any Best Buy/Mediamarkt store next door and walk out with a 65" 3D (basically 2K) screen or I can buy a $30k 4K projector and playback videos from ... of all things ... youtube (the "paramount" of low res videos ...)

....

and I can do that TODAY!!!!! while theaters are still installing as we speak 2K Nec/Barco/Christie in an industry that is "ready" for 4K (i.e. servers, masters, standards ...)

Just imagine 10 years down the road what people can have in their homes.

First, they said that "3D was an experience you couldn't get at home". Then that "4K is a resolution you can't get at home". But the truth is that you can get both of them easily and not too expensively TODAY and we are STILL moving to ... 2K?

Needless to say there is little advantage to 3D or 4K at home and that that's better experienced in a large screen. But even the size of the screens are becoming an issue with larger-and-larger screens at home, brighter cheap home projectors, etc.

This industry needed to move from "film" to "Imax 3D" and instead moved from film to ... "2K"? (=basically same as HD).

Anyway ... I don't want to have to be the one defending the image on movie theaters as a lease for a Barco/Nec/Christie expires 10 years from now against the new stuff that will be out there ...

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100403005024&newsLang=en

quote:

---

Blu-ray Disc Association Announces Additional Format Enhancements

LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 03, 2010 -

The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) today announced two new media specifications that use Blu-ray Disc technology to provide targeted functionality for commercial and consumer applications. The specifications for BDXL™ (High Capacity Recordable and Rewritable discs) and IH-BD (Intra-Hybrid discs) are expected in the next few months.

---

quote: Randy Stankey

---

the wise theater owner might do well to make a theater where people can smoke and drink and behave in a more relaxed atmosphere

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Actually, the home is probably the only place people will be able to smoke pretty soon, at least in this country. It's already that way in Montana -- you have outdoors, your house, or your car and that's it.

---

Everywhere I've been that has these bans has it legislated that smoking is banned in "open-to-the-public" facilities. So there might be some wiggle room by saying that your facility ISN'T open-to-the-public (as in members only) and to become a member, you'd have to sign an agreement that points out that smoking is allowed.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-11-2010, 09:46 PM:
 
This has been debated in some other thread before -- but the law here covers members-only clubs too, such as the Elks, Lions, etc. because they can allow non-members in as guests. Therefore for the purposes of the law it's considered "open to the public."

Let's put it this way -- I've never heard of anyone figuring a way around the law. I think that's partly because most people are vastly in favor of it.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-11-2010, 09:51 PM:
 
Up until two years ago, it was illegal for grocery stores to sell beer in Pennsylvania. But all the big grocery store chains got their lawyers together and bitched at the government long enough and hard enough that they got a law passed which allowed them to sell beer.

There were a lot of conditions attached: There is a 100% ID/carding policy. They can't sell more than 144 oz. of beer to any single customer in one sale. The beer section has to be walled off and there has to be a separate cashier. The list goes on and on.

But the bottom line is that grocery stores banded together and lobbied for what they wanted and they got it.

Why don't theater owners strap on a pair and do the same thing? They could certainly get laws passed that allow separate, designated smoking sections where customers have to show ID to get in. What the heck? They already have to show ID to get into R-rated movies anyway.

If an older theater already has a balcony or a baby cry area that's not being used, they could convert that into a smoking section. Why not go all out and make it so customers have to show ID to get up the balcony stairs? Then theaters could have bars at the balcony concession stands.

They could server beer and wine and willing adults could go there and smoke their lungs out while they watch a movie.

The point I'm making is not specifically about smoking or drinking beer. It's about improving the customer experience. I don't mean "presentation." I don't mean "customer service." Those are just buzz words that people throw around at stockholder meetings, anymore. They have no meaning.

What theaters need to do is to forget about digital projection or 3-D technology and do whatever it takes to make the paying customer happy, overall, so that they want to come to the theater and spend money.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-11-2010, 11:22 PM:
 
I had a big ol' response to Randy's first post typed up on my iPod earlier today, but had to exit the browser to re-enable my internet connection. When I came back, the text I input was gone, even with "fast app switching" or whatever they call it.

ANYWAY, I basically said that Randy must really have a fetish for popcorn. I do not need popcorn to watch a movie. And I said some other things about how I enjoy watching movies more in the home than in the theater most of the time, like the sound being better, me being able to control the volume, the pause button for piss breaks and whatnot. Oh, and it's far more comfortable and I don't have to deal with constant dipshits that comprise most theatrical audiences these days. I can choose my own start time and what I want to watch as well.

I may have had some other points, but the theatrical experience, to me, not a huge selling point.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-11-2010, 11:29 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

This has been debated in some other thread before -- but the law here covers members-only clubs too, such as the Elks, Lions, etc. because they can allow non-members in as guests.

---

And if you had a club that didn't allow non-member guests, they'd probably make up some other silly reason to include the club as covered. Oh well.
 

---

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 07-12-2010, 12:46 AM:
 
Because the laws aren't written to protect the customer or member. They are written to protect the employee. This has all been discussed elsewhere.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-12-2010, 01:31 AM:
 
I know one club back in Olympia got around that by not having employees. They only have volunteers that are in the smoking area. That satisfied the laws there but obviously YMMV.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-12-2010, 09:29 AM:
 
Geez!! Use the word "popcorn" five times in nearly 1,000 words posted to the same thread and, suddenly, I've got a popcorn fetish!

Okay, then, any kind of snacks the customer wants to eat or drink.
(You're worse than my wife, Joe! )

Whatever... The movie theater paradigm is broken. We need to do something to fix it or move on to some other thing that works.

It used to be that a movie theater was a monolithic building where people used to come in, sit down and eat popcorn while they watched a movie. One or two movies played several times throughout the day. People would come to the theater, stand in line and sit in seats, all in rows, to watch whatever was on the screen.

Then, in the 70's came the twin cinemas and then the quads. By the 80's and 90's we have the multiplexes. We added more auditoriums, more screens, more seats and more of everything else but the paradigm didn't change. People still stand in line, buy popcorn (or whatever other snacks they want... Joe...) then they sit in seats, all in a row while consuming said snacks and watching whatever program is on that screen.

I'm sure that there is still a place for that kind of entertainment but, as an overall paradigm, it's not working anymore. From after World War II and on through the 1960's and 1970's people were happy to conform to society's expectations. They were happy to stand in line at the concession stand and sit in theaters and wait for a single showtime when the movie started. Nowadays, people are less willing to conform. The idea of sitting in a traditional movie theater seems restrictive. Many people are less willing to pay for that kind of experience. Something has to change.

We still have to have a "screen" and a "projector" or some similar arrangement, even if we used individualized video displays, we'd have to have some arrangement of "view screen" to present the entertainment program. We've got to work around that.

But, what if we had three or four screens, all arranged like a wheel, that played movies or other programs on a rolling schedule. Some program would begin on one of the screens, say, every hour. We could have open plan seating or some arrangement with Las Vegas style booths/tables. We can have a centrally located bar/concession stand with a lobby/gathering area in the center. The whole thing would be like a hub and spoke arrangement. People could buy one ticket for admission to any of the three or four movies. They could come and go as they please. If the same program is playing at rolling start times on two or more screens, they could move from one theater to the next if they wanted to watch a part of the movie over again, etc.

I'm not saying this is the answer. I'm just throwing out ideas for consideration.

Remember, when the multiplex became popular, people who came to the theater always used to joke about being able to hop from theater to theater if they didn't like the movie they were watching. But we have to have "rules" and, if people buy a ticket to one movie, they can't jump to the next.

It's been something that people have wanted for a long time but theaters have not given it to the customer.

The "customer experience" has suffered because the theater tries to make the customer conform to its rules too much.
(Okay, I agree that we need to have "some" rules to keep things organized but we need more flexibility in those rules.)

Overall, movie theaters have become inflexible, rule-minded places and too many people just aren't willing to pay money for that kind of experience anymore.

Something has got to change or movie theaters will cease to exist.

Inventing new technology, using digital projection, 3-D glasses, film or any other whiz-bang technology will not change this.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-12-2010, 11:00 AM:
 
Maybe the idea of the 2-hour movie should change. How about one-hour movies? People could go to the theatre and watch two or three shows, depending on how much time they had.

The idea of a-la-carte movies might have an audience, but the chaos from people arriving, leaving, eating, drinking, etc. would probably drive any serious watchers bananas.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-12-2010, 11:23 AM:
 
I think a movie has to be something special to last longer than 2 hours and still hold people's interest. A 60 to 90 minute movie would probably be better for most people in our "attention deficit" society. If a movie is really engaging and has an interesting, compelling story to tell, 2 hours or more is all right but it's not every movie that needs to be so long. Most of the dreck that they throw at the public, these days, might even be improved by cutting it down to 90 minutes.

So, what if we took the standard megaplex and, instead of showing 10 or 15 different movies that last 2 hours long, we showed only 5 different movies that only lasted 60 to 90 minutes but played more copies of them. There could be rolling start times every 20 minutes.

Customers don't buy a ticket to a particular show time. The buy a ticket for admission to the complex and they go into whichever movie is starting next. If they show up too late for the start time of the movie they wanted to see, they just wait 20 minutes for the next one to roll.

It would be more like waiting for a bus.

The neat thing would be that we don't have to rebuild all our theaters to make this work. We could do it with existing movie theaters. It just involves rearranging the schedule.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-12-2010, 12:18 PM:
 
Or another idea: How about a two-hour show, but it contains two or three different stories? That would be perfect for kids' movies. This has been done before of course with Twilight Zone and others, but those were all "Twilight Zone" episodes. Why couldn't Pixar or somebody make a two-hour program consisting of various shorter stories? Concession sales could be increased with "intermission" sales.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-12-2010, 12:29 PM:
 
I never understood why families spent so much money on concessions. Granted, I was grateful because that meant someone else was subsidizing my ticket price to some extent. Even worse than the popcorn was the money spent on candy you could get outside for a fraction of the price and do not even last that long in the theater.

As far as youtube, it doesn't matter what the bitrate is at this point, as youtube is just rolling out a feature they can incorporate. It doesn't cost the user anything, so even if it doesn't offer any significant benefit because of the compression, youtube probably gets to roll out a feature onto the field for defacto live testing.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-12-2010, 10:02 PM:
 
YouTube gets to advertise that they have "4K video" even though 1 customer in 1,000,000 will be able to play it at 4K resolution. One customer in 10,000,000 will even know the difference.

But everybody will "ooh" and "aah" because YouTube has "4K."

Basically its just another scoop of bullshit on top of a veritable mountain of bullshit. It's just a way to pull the wool over the customer's eyes with no real monetary outlay on their part.

It's just like the concession stand. Put a bunch of bright, shiny packages of candy, soda and popcorn out where the kids can see them. They will whine and scream until Mom and Dad buy them some. But everybody knows, even the kids know, that you can buy the same thing at WalMart for 1/10 the price.

It's all bullshit advertising playing on the "Buy Now!" mentality that they stir up by making a hoopla about it.
 

---