Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Sharp Doubles Down On 8K, Literally

This is topic Sharp Doubles Down On 8K, Literally in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=007272

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-04-2015, 06:59 PM:

In Japan, NHK is planning on presenting the 2020 Olympics in 8K "Super HiVision UHD" (love the moniker [Smile]

) Sony is working on the cameras; Sharp is already demonstrating consumer 8K displays. Limited testing is under way in southern Japan (BT.2020 standard). I know I can't afford it, even in five years. But that's what the TV people over there are working on...

quote:

Doddle: Sharp Doubles Down on 8K, Literally

By James DeRuvo (doddleNEWS)

The ink is barely dry on deals made for 4K TVs and cameras at CES 2015, and Sharp is already setting it’s sights over the horizon and trying to push for 8K TVs. And they’re serious about it.

“Certainly, the bigger the screen gets, people would like to have high-resolution pictures, of course the hardware side must catch up with all the broadcast and infrastructure.” - Sharp spokeswoman Miyuki Nakayama

Sharp has been showing off 8K TVs for three years in a row now. Starting back in 2012, they showed off the prototype of an 85-inch Super HiVision TV, which promised a resolution of 16 times that of HD, and 4 times that of ultra high definition. But 4K was so new to viewers back then, that it was considered extremely experimental (plus the push of 3D TVs). Since there wasn’t any content for 4K, much less 8K, nobody really paid attention, other than to the oddity of it.

Set the DeLorean to three years later, and Sharp was still showing off Super HiVision with their 85-inch Sharp Aquos Beyond 4K Ultra HDTV. It really wasn’t fully super-UHD, though, as it just had what Sharp called SubPixels that quadruples the 4K image, providing for an virtual 8K presentation. Why their persistence? Well, NHK is serious about 8K in Japan and has been conducting limited broadcast tests in and around southern Japan.

Then there are the companies who are developing 8K cameras along with NHK, including Sony. Sharp’s current Aquos Beyond 4K TV meets the adopted 8K standard known as BT.2020. The TV also received an award recently from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, which has been helping NHK promote Super Hi-Vision, which could start broadcasting by 2018, with full adoption by the Tokyo Summer Olympics in 2020.

So, will we see 8K TVs within 5 years? Maybe, but also maybe not. While 4K TVs are only now starting to be affordable, there’s still an issue of content, and only recently at CES did a formal 4K standard for dynamic range and color gamut finally get adopted.

So we should see 4K Blu-rays and broadcasting in ultra high definition within the next year or so. So I rather doubt that 8K will make its mark anytime before 2020, and probably after that. The goal to have 8K broadcast for the Olympics is a worthy one, but they did that at the London games in movie theaters in 2012. Frankly, I think I’d rather see better dynamic range and color than an overly life-like image.

Thoughts? Would you be an early adopter of an 8K TV, or is 4K good enough? Frankly, I’m still fine with HD in the home and 4K in the movie theater. But then again, that 8K movie I saw at NAB last year had 22-channel sound and it was pretty fantastic.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-05-2015, 12:07 AM:

quote: Paul Mayer
I know I can't afford it, even in five years. But that's what the TV people over there are working on...

How expensive was a 4K UHDTV 5 years ago?

That doodleNews article, like many reports on this year's Winter CES show, tries to pass off 4K UHDTV sets as something brand new. They're not. The big news this year is really the fact 4K UHDTV sets have become affordable, mainstream items. They're replacing standard 1080p HDTV sets in multiple product tiers, not just the very high end. My girlfriend's daughter recently bought a 55" 4K UHDTV for $1500.

Lots of screens in other devices have native resolution well beyond 1080p. A growing number of notebook computers have 4K or near 4K resolution displays. Apple's latest iMac has a 5K display.

Digital technology is continuing to advance and it is pushing TV sets, computer displays and portable device displays to better standards.

The year 2020 is still a pretty considerable distance in the future. There is a whole lot that can change and improve in digital technology between now and then.

By the year 2020 the technology in TV sets and other displays should be a great deal better. I expect displays to be even thinner, due to OLED and/or quantum dot technology becoming a lot more popular and perhaps a whole lot more affordable by then.

I'm optimistic 8K resolution TV sets could be affordable by 2020, but that's only if movie and TV productions actually start producing shows in that resolution. Digital technology may have no trouble with the bandwidth and storage requirements of 8K by then. The real problem is the talent in front of the cameras. Youth conscious actors do not like HD at all. Sharper images reveal more flaws and evidence of aging.

I recently watched a stand up comedy special by Ron White, a show he made a couple years ago. But he deliberately had it shot in standard definition and made jokes about it in his routine. He mentioned various actors he knows hating HD specifically over what I just mentioned.

One thing on the side of 8K: premium big screen movie theaters. The generation of 4K laser-based digital projectors is just now arriving in select theaters. It's a sure bet technology companies will not stop there. They have to keep selling product and developing new reasons for customers to upgrade.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-05-2015, 02:18 AM:

Screw this amateur shit I'm waiting for 12K, bitches!

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-05-2015, 08:59 AM:

So the home viewer will have 8K resolution in his home theatre while a high percentage of cinemas will be still limping along with their 2K projectors. He'll be filling his 62" screen with 8K rez while the "theatre near him" will be filling their 680" screen with 2K worth of image information. Just another reason he's going to think of his home theatre as the BETTER place to watch a movie.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-05-2015, 10:28 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Youth conscious actors do not like HD at all. Sharper images reveal more flaws and evidence of aging.

This I never got at all. Film always had a higher rez than HD and plenty of things were shot (if not seen) on film. And certainly they all were hoping to get into the movies. Not sure if it is urban legend or Hollywood stupid.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-05-2015, 11:25 AM:

So just where is all of this uber high rez content coming from that will play on one's 8K TV? Lets see just how fast 4K content starts showing up for the home.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-05-2015, 11:29 AM:

I'm sure the compression artifacts on that will be lovely.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 02-05-2015, 11:33 AM:

The current crop of 4K TV's up-convert 1080p to 4K but it doesn't say that it does the same for Standard Def. More than half the content of my cable is standard def which makes it pillar boxed in then the station has letter boxed the picture which makes the standard def a very small picture. I can't find any information that says the 4K TV will up-convert a standard def picture so I'm not sure it would do me much good to invest in a 4K TV not that I watch that much TV but I do watch some.

If you blow up the standard def to fill the screen it is a bit pixeled.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-05-2015, 01:29 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
So the home viewer will have 8K resolution in his home theatre while a high percentage of cinemas will be still limping along with their 2K projectors.

Perhaps not. Digital projectors don't have the life span of a film projector. Not many computerized devices have life spans any longer than 10 years. A digital projection system has many different components that can and will eventually fail. Companies making replacement parts will make those parts for only so long. It's really not much different than what we all have to put up with in our personal computers. It's just on a more grand and costly scale.

By the year 2020 plenty of 2K projectors will have been scrapped out of necessity. Theaters that can manage to keep up with the costly replacement cycle will upgrade past 2K-only systems by default.

quote: Martin McCaffery
This I never got at all. Film always had a higher rez than HD and plenty of things were shot (if not seen) on film. And certainly they all were hoping to get into the movies. Not sure if it is urban legend or Hollywood stupid.

This isn't a new problem. Those jokes about an aging Elizabeth Taylor photographed with soft focus and through layers of brides veil were told long before any movies were shot on HD video.

Actors in their teens and twenties (which makes up a great deal of the on camera talent pool) don't worry so much about razor sharp focus. They don't have any crow's feet or lip lines to hide on their faces and maybe not much cellulite on their butts and legs either. Successful actors in their 30's and older who are trying to remain successful start getting worried about sharp focus and deep depth of field. Middle age actors don't like it at all. Male actors put up with it. Female actors hate it. If they have enough influence they'll make demands either on how things are shot or how the imagery is processed in post production. "How about a soft focus tracking blur just for your crinkled face and turkey neck? We can punch that up in After Effects super easy."

Another thing that has been a legit problem: a really great camera/lens setup and large format film stock could do a great job showing all the flaws in a movie set, stuff that might be otherwise blurred a bit in a smaller film format.

These days productions can hide cheap sets by shooting in low depth of field, lighting the scene dark as a dungeon, throwing in some fake digital grain, desaturating the image and then tinting it the color of urine and finally: shaky fucking cam! Anyone deliberately hunting for production design flaws will need to pop Dramamine™ tablets.

Digital Back Lot techniques have become widespread in movie and TV production. The post production crew can render virtual sets in whatever resolution is needed, provided if the budget allows for it. I think it's fun to see the occasional lost "I don't know what I'm looking at" look on actors' faces when they have to mime around in an all green studio.
:razz:

quote: Steve Guttag
So just where is all of this uber high rez content coming from that will play on one's 8K TV? Lets see just how fast 4K content starts showing up for the home.

I think electronics store sales people are doing a pretty good job misrepresenting what 4K TV sets actually do. There's a LOT of people who think anything they watch on their 4K TV is suddenly now 4K and much sharper. They don't realize they need native 4K content playing on their 4K TV to really have 4K. Very few are buying dedicated hard disc based 4K media players unless they come bundled with the 4K TV set.

Meanwhile we'll have to wait until year's end for those new 4K Blu-ray players and 4K movie discs. We're going to have to wait longer for the Internet to improve its speed to stream 4K in more than just a scant few homes.

quote: Ron Funderburg
The current crop of 4K TV's up-convert 1080p to 4K but it doesn't say that it does the same for Standard Def. More than half the content of my cable is standard def which makes it pillar boxed in then the station has letter boxed the picture which makes the standard def a very small picture.

I can't watch anything in standard definition on a regular 1080p HDTV. I can put up with HD content that is pillar-boxed, like some classic movies redone in HD on Blu-ray. SD stretch-o-vision is utter crap. Sadly there's a lot of flat screen TV owners who think they're watching high definition, but are really only stretching a SD image to fill the screen.

Upscaling 1080p to 2160p isn't as huge a jump as trying to go from 480p to 1080p. Attempting to go from 480p 4:3 to 2160p 16:9 is just plain crazy.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-05-2015, 02:31 PM:

quote: Ron Funderburg
The current crop of 4K TV's up-convert 1080p to 4K but it doesn't say that it does the same for Standard Def.

It HAS to. 4K is the only resolution the display is capable of showing so all inputs must be scaled to that size. This of course adds lag/latency.

quote: Brad Miller
I'm sure the compression artifacts on that will be lovely.

Now you'll be able to see compression artifacts with more clarity than ever! I wonder if they will "update" broadcast standards to the earliest version of H.264 instead of the current MPEG-2 which was crazy-outdated even when they adopted it.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 02-05-2015, 03:15 PM:

Bobby my TV will zoom the picture with out stretch so the pillar box, letter box fills the screen. Some channels it is crystal clear when I do that. Most you can see the pixels really bad. I just don't that until there is actual 4K content to watch that it benefits anyone to have a 4K TV much less an 8K. I hate Standard Def but it is technically 480p which they claim is HD but it isn't really.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-05-2015, 03:59 PM:

I never stretch or zoom anything out of its native resolution. If the movie is letter-boxed I leave it letter-boxed. The same thing goes if it is pillar-boxed. If you zoom either one you're cropping away image detail just to fill the screen. The zoomed detail remaining isn't nearly as sharp as it should be. It has been shifted out of its native pixel grid.

Now if I see something like a TV commercial that is window-boxed I just change the channel. I mean that's pure ignorance and bad standards of practice right there. It's a spot that was produced in HD, but down-rezzed to SD and then re-broadcast in HD, but with letter-boxing and pillars. And that's probably because somebody somewhere couldn't bother sending a proper HD version of the spot.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-05-2015, 05:04 PM:

The 4K craze is big in the A/V market too. To believe some claims, to not put in 4K stuff is to be way behind the times. Again, where is this 4K content coming from? From a computer, Okay, "Art" okay...but for motion video? I just don't see it as that big a deal, at this time.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-05-2015, 06:27 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Now if I see something like a TV commercial that is window-boxed I just change the channel. I mean that's pure ignorance and bad standards of practice right there. It's a spot that was produced in HD, but down-rezzed to SD and then re-broadcast in HD, but with letter-boxing and pillars. And that's probably because somebody somewhere couldn't bother sending a proper HD version of the spot.

Or it is just another cheap trick trying to get your attention? I've seen quite a few of those, like cutting a line mid-sentence or an entirely silent commercial, so if you were not watching your TV, you will look at it to check what's wrong with it...

As for 8K, right now I don't see any market for home consumers, not now and not in a year or 3. Let them first get the price for OLED screens down, because frankly, this LCD technology is rather outdated. The only reason why they started pushing 4K is because they can do it with minimum investments into their existing LCD production plants, whereas OLED mass production requires entirely new production facilities.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-05-2015, 09:58 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
As for 8K, right now I don't see any market for home consumers, not now and not in a year or 3. Let them first get the price for OLED screens down, because frankly, this LCD technology is rather outdated.

OLED-based displays are better in principle than Quantum Dot based displays. Nevertheless Quantum Dot is a pretty big step above the current standard in LED-backlit displays. The big question is whether the companies backing OLED production methods can get their display sizes scaled up big enough and prices scaled down low enough to compete with Quantum Dot.

Consumers are demading ever larger TV sets but at less than extreme price points. Very few people are going to shell out $8000-$10000 for a standard sized yet paper thin OLED TV set. And that's kind of where OLED is stuck for now. The standard for what passes as a "big screen" TV set today is well beyond the 52" level of just a few years ago. The 65" to 70" size range is just the starting level now. By the year 2020 it may be fairly common for people to install TV screen panels up to 120" on their living room walls. Is OLED going to have any chance of fitting in with that. Or will quantum dot take over the market?

quote: Steve Guttag
The 4K craze is big in the A/V market too. To believe some claims, to not put in 4K stuff is to be way behind the times. Again, where is this 4K content coming from?

There is at least a decent number of movies made over the past decade with 4K resolution digital intermediates. Those masters could be sourced for H.265 HEVC encodes to use in the next version of Blu-ray disc coming later this year. Sony and other companies selling 4K hard disc media players already must have a supply of 4K-based content.

Most movies shot on film could be remastered in 4K. The movies really stuck at 2K are digitally shot and rendered movies made specifically for 2K and/or 3D.

The biggest problems for 4K (and 8K for that matter) are Internet streaming and broadcast. The data bandwidth demands are too great.

Perhaps if Internet service providers go through a technology renaissance and up their download speeds to much higher levels it might make streaming real 4K truly practical. But not until then.

I'm pretty skeptical about broadcast. There's only so much data you can squeeze into a 6MHz channel over the airwaves. Current HDTV broadcast is stuck in old-world, inefficient MPEG-2. It has been years since cable and satellite providers switched over to MPEG-4. The HEVC standard is quite a bit more efficient than MPEG-4. I expect cable and satelite providers to start shifting their customers onto new HEVC-based receivers and set top boxes to maximize bandwidth. But that may not necessarily mean 4K-based cable channels. It may mean cable providers just giving us even more shitty channels in 1080i/720p packed with reality TV garbage not worth watching.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Or it is just another cheap trick trying to get your attention? I've seen quite a few of those, like cutting a line mid-sentence or an entirely silent commercial, so if you were not watching your TV, you will look at it to check what's wrong with it...

If someone is going to deliberately use shitty looking window-boxing of content to get my attention he is getting it in a very negative way. It's like wearing a shit-stained T-shirt and soiled baby diaper to a black tie dinner. That equals me taking a very negative review of the product being sold in the TV commercial and deliberately choosing not to buy it.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 03-07-2015, 06:52 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
This isn't a new problem. Those jokes about an aging Elizabeth Taylor photographed with soft focus and through layers of brides veil were told long before any movies were shot on HD video.

Check out an episode of NCIS. It looks like it is shot through a scrim and then run through a blur filter. Somebody needs to tell Mark Harmon that it doesn't make him look any younger.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 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.”

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 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.

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 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.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 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.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 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.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-17-2015, 09:49 AM:

I also think that negative price perceptions about Blu-Ray vs DVD come into play.

It happened in the transition from vinyl to CD.
It happened in the transition from VHS to DVD.

The costs of producing the physical media went down as economies of scale kicked in but prices for music and movies stayed the same or even went up.

The public understands, at least intuitively, that companies charge more for disk based media because of a public perception that it is better... even though it is not necessarily better.

The public has become jaded against "new and improved" claims.

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.

Things just keep getting more expensive, over time, and the quality hasn't improved enough to make it worth the extra cost.

Bigger and better digital TVs and media players are the same.
4K... 8K... 1,024K... 65,535K... Doesn't matter.
The cost of upgrading isn't worth the improvement.

People would rather just wait and see.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-17-2015, 12:14 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 think the last one that did was The Dark Knight!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-17-2015, 05:50 PM:

I agree. I've been renting most Blu-rays but very few I'll actually buy. Maybe Mad Max. That's the only action movie in a while that doesn't star some guy named Chris.

Anyway Blu-ray players are cheap as hell now and there's no reason for people not to have one. They'll play your stupid DVDs. Don't be a bitch, just get a Blu-ray player already!

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-17-2015, 06:54 PM:

Can you imagine on how much storage space will be needed for 8K uncompressed resolution?

As Brad mentions on the compression .... don't know if I want to see it or not.

quote: Bobby Henderson
By the year 2020 plenty of 2K projectors will have been scrapped out of necessity. Theaters that can manage to keep up with the costly replacement cycle will upgrade past 2K-only systems by default.

Hope these cinemas have started to put away a nice next egg when this all takes place.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-18-2015, 01:04 AM:

I figure in 5 to 7 years we'll be getting a new projector. Wonder what they will be like in that amount of time?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-18-2015, 01:46 AM:

There's no telling for sure. My guess is 4K will be the de facto standard for new projectors by then. 8K is such a big leap I could see interim jumps to levels of 5K and 6K. At least some Hollywood movies are being videotaped at those resolutions, even if their digital intermediates are not being rendered at those levels yet.

I'm wondering how common laser projectors will be by then or how far concepts like Dolby Cinema will be deployed. There is a lot of uncertainty ahead, even more for the business model of the movie industry than the technology for making the product.

Hopefully OLED TV sets will be a lot more common and a lot more affordable by then. Those could be a winner if the costs can come down.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-18-2015, 10:02 AM:

I think the 2K projectors are going to last a bit longer than you think. We already have projectors in the over 10-year category and they have a lot of disadvantages being early series 1s yet are still completely viable.

The big thing that will likely continue longevity of the series 2 projectors is the sheer proliferation of them. There are a lot of them and most are 2K (overwhelming majority, in fact). As a business concern, nobody is going to ditch their working 2K if they are not going to ether need to to retain business or increase business. The former being less desirable because you are spending money just to hold your own. It isn't like the presentations are going to get appreciably worse.

Series 2 projectors, by and large, were designed more more with service in mind. So keeping them going will not be so bad. But lets say your light engine goes on one in your complex and you decide to replace it with whatever is current. Your big theatre gets the nice new machine and the old one becomes a parts source for the remaining machines...so if an ICP goes out...you got one...further prolonging the rest of the projectors.

Me personally, I think the series 2 machines are 10-15 year machines. The S2Ks maybe not so long. Barco has tried to keep it serviceable but NEC...on the NC900 seems to have gone out of its way to not care what it takes to get to a part. With the relative cost of the projector being so low...the threshold of repair vs replace is also lowered.

If you are a single or twin, it is probably economically advisable to purchase extended warranty for your projector. All of the DLP companies will get you out to 10-years warranty with the projectors coming with 2-3 years so think of the extended warranty being able to buy the light engine on the 7-8 year plan.

All of this is going to add into these projectors getting closer to the 15-year mark.

Another factor is the life-span of a movie theatre...will the theatre that has these machines even be viable in 15-years? Will some new state-of-the-art theatre open up and make the whole point moot?

2004 is when the first "modern" 2K projectors (Series 1) hit the streets and while I've just retired one, we still have one going strong...just needs lamps, filters, coolant change and now a fan here or there). We are 5 years into the series 2s and while the product lines have been augmented, only Sony has really retired any of their product line (R220 for example). Christie replaced the CP2210 with the CP2215 but it is the same projector with a different lamp power supply to allow a wider range). This is going add into the longevity too...long product production runs. Even if all of the projector companies discontinued their current projectors next year and started up with "Series 3"...we'd still be getting at least 10-years from now or 15 years since the first series 2. I haven't heard anything about canning the current lines. Lasers are too expensive and don't bring anything to the table except if you are a very big screen with lots of light requirements. We'll see if the Blue-Phosphorous laser things take off but that is just a change of light source, not projector...Barco plans for it to be a retrofit even. That would just keep the line going that much longer.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-18-2015, 11:44 AM:

Kind of depressing to think that if our projector was to crap out in 3 or 4 years, our best (most affordable) alternative for a new one would be.... basically the same thing we bought in 2010.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-18-2015, 01:21 PM:

It'll be fun to see if one of the predictions in the article actually happens - that 8K for theaters and homes will come along so quickly that 4K will end up being a "lost" or "skipped" generation of technology.

On smaller screens, 2K does seem to be "good enough." But if you're using a bigger screen, 4K/8K may be the future, with rapid advancement of technology/manufacturing/pricing/distribution/delivery favoring 8K. Exciting (though admittedly daunting/troubling for cinema owners) times!

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-18-2015, 02:05 PM:

quote: Paul Mayer
It'll be fun to see if one of the predictions in the article actually happens - that 8K for theaters and homes will come along so quickly that 4K will end up being a "lost" or "skipped" generation of technology.

I'd like the articles to explain what cable or satellite provider or internet service will be supplying the bandwidth for 8K. 1080i is compressed to barely acceptable levels for home delivery.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-18-2015, 04:47 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Kind of depressing to think that if our projector was to crap out in 3 or 4 years, our best (most affordable) alternative for a new one would be....

And Mike prob still has that Christie/XL setup upstairs that was running fine when he did the changeout.

Yet, the big question: Why of the conversion - who drove it forward?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-19-2015, 04:56 AM:

To add..the difference in the duration category would be the big box houses against the independents.

Big Box houses are burning their unit for five shows a day, seven days a week and adding three to four hundred hours a month of usage. Independents are prob operating their units half that time, thus their units will last longer.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-19-2015, 09:24 AM:

What drove the conversion was the prediction of the increasing lack of 35mm prints. Hard to book a single-screen independent if it can't get a wide choice of titles on the break.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-19-2015, 10:42 AM:

Are you talking about the entire conversion or for those this year?

If you are talking about the entire conversion...there are some key pivotal points.

You have George Lucas and his insistence of DCinema back in 1999 that forced the early systems in a handful of theatres (you have to start somewhere). These Mark VII systems (I'm not sure the 1999 systems were Mark VII but the Mark VIIs were out not too long after that) plodded along until 2004 when 2K systems came out. Think about it...we were on 1.3K for about 5 years. There were just a handful of sites that put in these systems from Christie and Barco/Kinoton. The early "players" were people like Qualcom and Boeing and Technicolor.

I'd say the next plateau though a minor one was Chicken Little in 2005. We had barely gotten the 2K series 1 machines and some a-hole got the idea of 3D...it is like a illness for this industry. Showing that the technology never really intended 3D we had to start the compromise. Not enough light and not enough bandwidth so the image was limited to 1920 pixels wide and the light...well...you just to the best you can...it is 3D...people will understand. However, Chicken Little and the 3D thing again put more systems..."modern systems." in the theatres.

I consider the above two steps the necessary ones to really beta test the concept. Nothing ever goes as planned and you don't change an industry overnight.

But what really is the absolute benchmark for what got this industry to covert is really 1-title...Avatar.

When Avatar was a bona fide hit, you have nearly every cinema in the industry wanting ONE DCinema machine in their complex to handle this 3D craze that has come around again. Everyone that played Avatar in 3D did MANY folds better business than anyone else playing most anything. It was way too big to ignore.

And if people didn't get the message...the next season we had the Miley Cyrus movie Hanna Montana that again drove people to the theatre for this "new" fad. Furthermore, people charged a premium for "concert 3D" movies.

So with those two movies, we saw our DCinema system requests really have an up-tick but again, typically just one or maybe 2 systems per complex. Those that bought just one mistakenly put it on their big screen thinking they needed to recoup their investment fast (and they were MUCH more expensive than current systems). I say mistake because a movie is only big for a couple of weeks before the next big movie. Better to lose some business on the opening week than to be stuck with a dead movie for the next 6 weeks taking up the big screen. As such, some of our complexes put in a second system to have a move over house to free up the bigger screen(s) for the current hot movie. At this time you have Carmike putting not just their toe in the water but jumping in (not with both feet as some theatres remained mono and such) but you now have an industry that has to be able to supply most of their content in a DCinema form. This was known as "Phase 1 conversions."

So if you are looking on a graph. The winter 2008 into Summer 2009 would show a distinct change in trajectory upwards.

The the combination of 2 things allowed/forced the conversion. The AMC/Regal/Cinemark (DCIP) "deal" that signaled that about half of the US was going to be converting despite crappy loan opportunities due to VIRTUAL PRINT FEES. Yes, without a doubt, it is VPFs that allowed the mass conversion.

The VPF being available to everyone that met the criteria and was willing to play by the rules, that is what allowed the conversion. Because again, it was a tough sell. You aren't going to increase business by going digital so why spend the money. The DCIP deal would put pressure on competitors but they have money and have no problem defaulting on loans anyway...that is just part of business. Independents don't get that luxury. But with VPFs, independents can get "most" of their investment into DCinema covered by Hollywood and THAT is what drove the conversion.

The deadline, end of 2012, accelerated it a bit and then a couple of other VPF deals like GDCs and Scrabble have also covered most anyone that wanted or could qualify for one.

In the end...it was money...as it always is that did the conversion. Someone else's money stimulated the masses (VPFs).

The ones that didn't fit into the VPF criteria have had a rough time and have had to save every penny and do fund raisers to make the conversion since now film supply is virtually nil.

So the next change in your graph would have been 2010 - 2012 as the VPFs went into high-gear. After 2012 it would start to level off as the biggest VPF deal (Cinedigms) came to a close but the conversion was definitely still going on in 2013. By 2014, in the US you are down to the smaller independents, art, "what to do about drive-ins" type people. In fact, 2014 was the year of Drive-In conversions because print supply had already decreased dramatically. One would have to chose titles based on availability.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-19-2015, 05:37 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Only so much can be done practically with digital projection technology and projector optics.

Can't the same argument be used to say that what you could actually get on screen from film is/was also limited by the optics? With the best case print on the most advanced film stock, how much resolution could you actually get on screen with 5-perf, 70mm film? Maybe that's why, with the exception of the jaggies on text, 2K doesn't really look much worse than 35mm from a resolution standpoint, even on a 60 foot screen. Black level and contrast are another story.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-19-2015, 08:01 PM:

I see the future of cinema is with the screen AS the light source and imager rather than projection. It would effectively end the resolution on the presentation side of things. It would be up to the pixel density of the day. It would be scalable based on the screen size itself. Think billboards and stadium video boards. Advance that sort of technology to the point where you get a flexible light emitting screen that also can pass sound. You get light, resolution, boothless...just about everything cinema could want as well as digital. The downside is when there is a problem it will likely be expensive or a hassle to change the problem section. But I really think that is the future, not projectors.

As for film projection...film projectors and late model lenses could resolve in excess of 100 lines per millimeter. NTAV had high resolution targets and with ISCO Ultra Star Plus (and even Schneider Premiere stopped down to f/2.4 or more) one could get all of the resolution it had. But the point is valid that resolution suffered as it went through the duping process. However, if you got a print of of the OCN like we did for screenings...oh my were they pretty.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-20-2015, 05:29 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
I see the future of cinema is with the screen AS the light source and imager rather than projection. It would effectively end the resolution on the presentation side of things. It would be up to the pixel density of the day. It would be scalable based on the screen size itself. Think billboards and stadium video boards. Advance that sort of technology to the point where you get a flexible light emitting screen that also can pass sound

Why does it need to be flexible? I've seen plenty of LED boards that are curved (the giant one on the Walgreens on the Vegas Strip being one).

The individual modules could probably be designed with holes for sound.

I think the 2 biggest issues with current technology are:

1) Noise. I would imagine there is a decent amount of fan noise that comes from these displays. There seems to be a fan on every square. Perhaps some sort of liquid cooling system could be used so the cooling fans are remote.

2) Matching the modules. On many LED displays, you can see a couple of modules that aren't aligned perfectly or have slightly different video characteristics.

Of course, the biggest problem using current technology is cost. I would imagine a movie screen sized LED display would be at least several hundred thousand dollars. Certainly significantly more expensive than a 4k laser projection system and those are not flying off the shelves!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-20-2015, 09:05 AM:

Hmm...light-up screens would be sort of interesting and would eliminate keystoning and alignment issues in general. I wonder what the lifespan and replacement costs would be....

Quality would have to improve significantly, though, for these to be an option for cinemas. The newer ones that are being installed in baseball parks and such are generally pretty high-res (better than HD), but the pixel density is poor and they look quite awful up close. Has anyone ever tried to make a cinema-quality version of an LED scoreboard?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-20-2015, 11:27 AM:

quote: Paul Mayer
It'll be fun to see if one of the predictions in the article actually happens - that 8K for theaters and homes will come along so quickly that 4K will end up being a "lost" or "skipped" generation of technology.

I don't think there's any chance of 4K being skipped in the movie theater. I think the person who wrote the article is trying to apply a "Moore's Law" concept to this stuff.

There is a lot of specific advancements that have to be made to make 8K projection possible and practical in movie theaters. Movie productions aren't even ready for it yet. Hollywood studios are currently screwing up, making short sighted mistakes like rendering a lot of their tent-pole releases only in mere 2K, mainly to take advantage of the 3D option, but also to save money too.

Current 4K UHDTV sets are dropping in price, growing ever more attractive to customers. I just came back from a trip to visit my parents in Colorado Springs. During my stay we visited a Costco store to pick up some groceries. My dad really wanted one of the curved 4K TV sets on display there. It had a real native 4K demo reel playing and the video material looked awesome.

If current 4K TVs aren't in the "must have" category for consumers, the coming product lines that support wider color gamma tech (REC 2020, Dolby Vision, etc.) will further boost appeal. OLED-based displays may fall into more affordable price ranges.

All of this stuff will increase pressure on commercial movie theaters to improve their projected image quality. I sure don't like what I'm seeing currently.

quote: Lyle Romer
Can't the same argument be used to say that what you could actually get on screen from film is/was also limited by the optics? With the best case print on the most advanced film stock, how much resolution could you actually get on screen with 5-perf, 70mm film? Maybe that's why, with the exception of the jaggies on text, 2K doesn't really look much worse than 35mm from a resolution standpoint, even on a 60 foot screen. Black level and contrast are another story.

If I recall correctly, most film-based projectors were outfitted with various kinds of prime lenses. The auditoriums and screens had to be configured with certain focal lengths in mind. With d-cinema, nearly all such projection systems have some sort of zoom lens. Zooms aren't as sharp as primes.

When our local Carmike theater was showing 35mm film prints it was pretty common to be able to see film grain on the screen. I never see anything like that with the d-cinema shows. Whether the focus has simply drifted or was dialed to "soft" on purpose elements on text on screen are rendered noticeably blurry. The experience reminds me of watching a movie on an old rear projection HDTV set.

quote: Steve Guttag
I see the future of cinema is with the screen AS the light source and imager rather than projection. It would effectively end the resolution on the presentation side of things. It would be up to the pixel density of the day. It would be scalable based on the screen size itself. Think billboards and stadium video boards.

LED boards have a long way to go to function as a movie screen alternative to projected images. The biggest problem is cost per pixel. It's just too expensive to build a 1080p HD resolution display, never mind something much higher like 4K, in a standard movie theater auditorium.

Maintenance is another issue. Driver boards go bad. As the system ages and different driver boards are switched out the whole display loses its uniformity in color and contrast level. It ends up with a quilted look. Manufacturers like Daktronics have tools to adjust individual tiles to improve uniformity, but making the adjustments can be a real pain in the ass. Wear and tear over of the years affects the alignment of the driver boards. You end up being able to see the seams more obviously. Most of these things last 8-10 years tops.

quote: Scott Norwood
Quality would have to improve significantly, though, for these to be an option for cinemas. The newer ones that are being installed in baseball parks and such are generally pretty high-res (better than HD), but the pixel density is poor and they look quite awful up close. Has anyone ever tried to make a cinema-quality version of an LED scoreboard?

I don't know about cinema quality. Some cruise ship lines have used LED boards to show movies. These are typically outdoor displays mounted in view of the swimming pool and party deck. But I doubt if those displays were of any HD resolution, probably not even 720p.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-20-2015, 11:46 AM:

Bobby--you mention curved 4K TV sets. Is there any benefit to a curved set vs. a flat one? I understand the benefits of curved screens as they relate to maintaining even focus for projected images as well as being visually impressive in a large cinema, but none of that really applies to a TV set that is likely to fit in a home.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-20-2015, 12:52 PM:

If your viewing angle is within the curve, then it probably has a better appearance. But it is bound to be a subjective feeling.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-20-2015, 01:21 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Bobby--you mention curved 4K TV sets. Is there any benefit to a curved set vs. a flat one?

I think companies like Samsung are marketing curved TV screens just for novelty sake.

The imagery does look really good when you're sitting at a dead center view of the curved TV screen. The slight wrap-around effect is good for that. Unfortunately, in typical living room viewing environments not many people are seated in the dead center view of the TV screen. The curved screen is not so great if you're watching at an angle. I think flat monitors are much better in that regard.

I do find it odd no one is marketing curved computer monitors yet. Maybe other computer companies or computer monitor companies are just waiting to see what Apple will do and merely copy that. Nevertheless, I would get more use out of a large, curved, very high resolution computer monitor (even 8K resolution) than I would a curved TV screen.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 07-20-2015, 03:23 PM:

quote:
On smaller screens, 2K does seem to be "good enough." But if you're using a bigger screen, 4K/8K may be the future, with rapid advancement of technology/manufacturing/pricing/distribution/delivery favoring 8K. Exciting (though admittedly daunting/troubling for cinema owners) times!

I don't think anyone seriously in the business (and that excludes the NHK folks) is actually considering 8k for entertainment.

There is an automatism always inherent with those numbers. 'So, there's 4k! At last! Great! Fantastic! Err... what's next? Oh, 8k!'
And larger numbers are ALWAYS better than smaller numbers.

In all those years neither me nor any single one of our staff or anyone else i know personally in this business has EVER been asked what resolution our or their projection system is. Yes, we do have 4k and I voted for it, but I'd never say it is essential for our business.

There may be places in the entertainment industry where these bigger numbers actually sell. E.g. when making or selling flat screens huge numbers and you have to choose between FullHD or UHD or between 1080p or 4k (even considering completely uneducated buyers).
But even then people are prepared to choose a lower resolution model if the price makes it an attractive decision. Because for most of them '4k' does not represent a distinctive value but just some sort of expectance of of a better picture. 'I don't see much difference, I'm okay with the cheaper model'.

Aside from that, it was an enormous effort for TI to actually launch the 4k DLP chipsets. They do not even now offer them for the consumer projector market. Now, essentially all cinemas worldwide are equipped with 2k and a much smaller number with 4k projectors. How could 8k Cinema DLP EVER bring in the development cost with such a small market ahead? That's even a big challenge for the laser systems.

Yes, 8k will happen one day, but I do not even bother considering it for the current cinema ecosystem. I am sure 8k will never become reality for standard cinema style projection systems (we already do have +16k multi-projector systems for tiled special venues/planetarium projection).
Before that happens, we will have large OLED walls in cinemas, or whatever these locations will be called then. Consider an 8k high contrast capable zoom lens and an 8k convergence challenge?

No, there are lots of other things to be improved about cinema logistics and presentation quality that mean more real value for patrons.

- Carsten