# Are 4K Displays Necessary?



## Steve Crowe

*Are 4K Displays Necessary?*

By Grant Clauser
*Will 4K be the next hot technology? We take a look at the issues.*


I saw a number of 4K or 4K x 2K (3840x2160) resolution TVs and projectors at CES 2011. The only time I've seen so many 4K displays under one roof was at InfoComm.


DisplaySearch analyst Paul Gray recently suggested there's not much need for 4K displays, which he says have several issues that could impede their implementation.

 


Several companies have been actively showing 4K prototypes, and Toshiba plans to market products within the next 12 months. The product will be a glasses-free 3D TV. LG, Panasonic, Samsung and Sony all showed 4K displays at CES, but Toshiba has been the only company with confirmed plans to get them to U.S. retailers.

*No 4K Content*

The answer to that depends on several factors. First, there's no 4K content. No broadcaster, Blu-ray disc or VOD service has 4K content, or the ability to deliver 4K. Let's face it, 4K is a heck of a lot of data and bandwidth, and many delivery mechanisms are already taxed trying to meet the requirements of 1080p, 3D and multi-channel audio.

* Click here to continue. *


----------



## JohnAV




> Quote:
> Is 4K Necessary?
> 
> Yes. Among the premium models from the major TV makers, there really isn’t wide variation in picture quality. If you pick a TV from the top two lines of the top three or four brands, you’ll get a very good TV. One may have slightly better blacks, while another has slightly more natural greens. You may like the smart TV menu of one brand over another, or the industrial design of one brand over another, but they’re all pretty good. The manufacturers know this, and it’s why they’re looking for something else.
> 
> 
> 4K may be that something else.
> 
> 
> And here’s another reason 4K may be necessary: FPR. LG is introducing 3D TVs based on frame pattern retarder (FPR) technology. These are TVs that use passive, polarized glasses rather than the battery-operated active-shutter glasses (LG also makes 3D TVs that use active-shutter technology). One issue some people have raised with this technology is that it reduces the full 1080p resolution to 540 for each eye. Moving to a 4K panel could solve that issue (if it’s actually an issue, meaning, if the viewer can even notice). At a meeting I had with LG Display representatives at CES, the company said that a 4K version of their polarized 3D TV would likely be coming—possibly even this year.
> 
> 
> The world didn't end when 1080p arrived. We settled on a terminology (full HD), video scaling improved, and content eventually became easily available. Now 3D is here with its early adopter issues and growing pains. I expect 4K will come to the consumer market and eventually will overcome its obstacles the same way every other innovation has. I just hope I don’t have to buy another Blu-ray player.



I expect that in several years when 4K displays become more mainstreet we will repeat that same scenario that we had with upscaling DVD players, only this time it is applied to Blu-ray players, that is the ability to upscale 2K content to 4K content. I note that certain video processors like the Marvell Qdeo have the capacity to scale a video to 4K right now, so hoping this will be not so difficult to implement against future Blu-ray players. Against 4K source material, it seems more and more films are mastered at 4K and above, so we just need a physical media standard to contain this massive file size content, that I doubt will be pirated on the internet because of the size of the files. Heck the studios should love that aspect.










The greatest challenge will be on the broadcast side, as we are still watching either 720p and 1080i which use around 50 Mbps bandwidths and must be compressed to fit into the current 18 Mbps broadcast bandwidth per channel. The industry still doesn't have a decent way to compress 2K (1080P) which uses up to 125 Mbps to this ridiculous 18 Mbps broadcast bandwidth. As we all know the broadcasters are fighting the FCC which is being led by the wireless industry to give up valuable spectrum, so unless something gives this is kinda a dead end as it currently stands.


----------



## worth

4K for home theatre seems like overkill to me. Even on a fifty foot screen, the differences between 2K and 4K are subtle at best. I'd imagine they'd be non-existent on a 65" set.


----------



## sb1

Most people don't need external amplifiers for their audio rigs, either, but they're selling them left and right because they "sound" better.


----------



## Beerstalker

I think that that big selling point for this will be full 1080p passive 3D. You won't notice much difference between regular 2D stuff at 1920x1080 scaled to 4kx2k, but the ability to show full 1080p 3D content with using polarized glasses, or no glasses at all will be a big benefit.


----------



## fight4yu

I think any "TV" is overkill. For projector that usually project minimum of 8-9ft, and go up to 20ft+, I think you can see a difference pretty easily, if the content do support that. Now that will take at least another 5-10 years, just like blu-ray vs DVD.


----------



## JohnAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *worth* /forum/post/20299126
> 
> 
> 4K for home theatre seems like overkill to me. Even on a fifty foot screen, the differences between 2K and 4K are subtle at best. I'd imagine they'd be non-existent on a 65" set.



Most of the displays I see demoed are 56". The increased detail with 4K helps make the scene a lot more real and almost 3d like. See The Battle of 3D vs. 4K .


----------



## RipperDoc85

I thought 1080p was 1080 lines, 2k was 2000 lines and 4k was 4000 lines of horizontal resolution. Why are people saying 1080p = 2k????


----------



## poppabk

I don't see 4k making a big difference to most people, upscaled blu-ray will look better, but at normal viewing distances I doubt most people would notice, same as a lot of people don't really notice the benefits of Bluray over upscaled DVD.

However, 4K is a catchy name, and if advertised right it could take off even if it only provided marginal improvements to most users.

As someone pointed out above, 4K may take off due to its utility in passive and glasses free technologies in producing a better 3D picture for those sets.


----------



## cloken




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnAV* /forum/post/20299051
> 
> 
> I expect that in several years when 4K displays become more mainstreet we will repeat that same scenario that we had with upscaling DVD players, only this time it is applied to Blu-ray players, that is the ability to upscale 2K content to 4K content. I note that certain video processors like the Marvell Qdeo have the capacity to scale a video to 4K right now, so hoping this will be not so difficult to implement against future Blu-ray players. Against 4K source material, it seems more and more films are mastered at 4K and above, so we just need a physical media standard to contain this massive file size content, that I doubt will be pirated on the internet because of the size of the files. Heck the studios should love that aspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The greatest challenge will be on the broadcast side, as we are still watching either 720p and 1080i which use around 50 Mbps bandwidths and must be compressed to fit into the current 18 Mbps broadcast bandwidth per channel. The industry still doesn't have a decent way to compress 2K (1080P) which uses up to 125 Mbps to this ridiculous 18 Mbps broadcast bandwidth. As we all know the broadcasters are fighting the FCC which is being led by the wireless industry to give up valuable spectrum, so unless something gives this is kinda a dead end as it currently stands.



Agreed, I would also add that it seem uncompressed (better compressed?) 1080P should be the goal before we worry about 4k that we can't even deal with bandwidth wise. 1080P (or 1080i / 720p) at higher data rates would also give us a better picture right now with current hardware in the homes!


Personally the 4K push seem very much 'cart before the horse' at this point.


----------



## poppabk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bimmerfreak0* /forum/post/20299431
> 
> 
> I thought 1080p was 1080 lines, 2k was 2000 lines and 4k was 4000 lines of horizontal resolution. Why are people saying 1080p = 2k????



I think people are using the nomenclature of 1920x1080 = 2K1K

Double that would be 4K2K.


----------



## poppabk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnAV* /forum/post/20299051
> 
> 
> The greatest challenge will be on the broadcast side, as we are still watching either 720p and 1080i which use around 50 Mbps bandwidths and must be compressed to fit into the current 18 Mbps broadcast bandwidth per channel. The industry still doesn't have a decent way to compress 2K (1080P) which uses up to 125 Mbps to this ridiculous 18 Mbps broadcast bandwidth. As we all know the broadcasters are fighting the FCC which is being led by the wireless industry to give up valuable spectrum, so unless something gives this is kinda a dead end as it currently stands.



The other issue is the increase in netflix/vudu/amazon/hulu video streaming services, which often still provide their content in SD resolutions and even when it is HD it is highly compressed. Bandwidth caps are already becoming a potential issue for people, 4K2K streaming would put a lot of people over the top.

Its still very hard to find content that makes maximal use of a regular HD set, its hard to imagine that 4K content will become readily available any time soon. Throw in a potential move to 48FPS content (96 FPS for 3D) and you have some serious bandwidth and storage issues.


----------



## javanpohl

"Necessary"??!! What an odd term to use considering the home theater industry in general is far from being "necessary." "Beneficial", on the other hand, makes a lot more sense. "Will it ever get off the ground?" is even more relevant. I'd love to see 4k displays in the home but will that ever be a viable reality for the common folk? I don't know. As the article states, it's all about content. The storage medium is there: holographic discs. They have the storage capacity. What's not there is the mass demand to justify introducing a new medium, and the tougher part of getting a new format off the ground, a standard. That's at least 5 years off, I'm guessing. Formats tend to have a shelf life of 10 years before a new one gets introduce and blu-ray is still a baby. However, the light at the end of the tunnel, that I see, is that 4K *WILL* become a standard in the theaters. It's make zero sense not to use it there. And if studios are going to be mastering at 4k for the theater, then it's not much of a stretch to do that for the home video crowd too.


----------



## KidHorn

TVs will keep getting better and better. 4K is the next logical step. Followed by 8k, etc... . Otherwise, people wouldn't buy a new TV unless their old one didn't work any more.


----------



## JohnAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javanpohl* /forum/post/20299518
> 
> 
> The storage medium is there: holographic discs. They have the storage capacity. What's not there is the mass demand to justify introducing a new medium, and the tougher part of getting a new format off the ground, a standard. That's at least 5 years off, I'm guessing.



Per BDXL format we already have 128GB Blu-ray discs.


----------



## irfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bimmerfreak0* /forum/post/20299431
> 
> 
> i thought 1080p was 1080 lines, 2k was 2000 lines and 4k was 4000 lines of horizontal resolution. Why are people saying 1080p = 2k????



1920 = 2k


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beerstalker* /forum/post/20299221
> 
> 
> I think that that big selling point for this will be full 1080p passive 3D. You won't notice much difference between regular 2D stuff at 1920x1080 scaled to 4kx2k, but the ability to show full 1080p 3D content with using polarized glasses, or no glasses at all will be a big benefit.



I agree, and have posted the same elsewhere in AVS a few months ago. While active glasses are tolerable for the earliest adopters and might eventually be a $20-30 item, the reality is passive glasses are a sub-$1 item, no one will miss them when they break, and don't require any magical technology to be worn by the end user.


If 3-D is going to catch on in the home it will be passive, and coupling it with the extra resolution of 4k TVs seems spot on. Especially because LCD and plasma prices are bottoming out right now and the ability to upsell something has been part of the CE industry as long as there has been a CE industry.


It would be surprising if a major mfr. doesn't announce a 4k TV within the next 24 months.


----------



## mgkdragn

Doubtful if the tech will go anywhere anytime soon ..


As we continue to transition to more and more of a streaming delivery model, and consumers get used to the lower quality (which most consider good as it is now) .. the mainstream demand for higher rez than BD will be minimal ..


Niche market, maybe .. Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs carved out a small market for high end vinyl years ago ..


----------



## Andronicus81

Isn't this akin to building a yacht in your back yard and then not being able to get it out?


----------



## javanpohl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnAV* /forum/post/20299623
> 
> 
> Per BDXL format we already have 128GB Blu-ray discs.



And regular blu-rays are 50GB. 4K is 4 times the resolution of 2K (in terms of pixels), requiring 4 times the space (more advanced compression codecs not taken into account.) So at least 200GB would be required. Holographic discs can do 500GB, and some are up to at least 1TB, I understand.


----------



## chriscic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javanpohl* /forum/post/20299518
> 
> 
> "Necessary"??!! What an odd term to use considering the home theater industry in general is far from being "necessary." "Beneficial", on the other hand, makes a lot more sense. "Will it ever get off the ground?" is even more relevant.



Well put. In my opinion, there is a market for 4k (I'm definitely in it) and it will definitely happen, my hope within the next 2-3 years. Will there be a lot of content no, but you have to have the displays before the content. I'm sure DirecTV or some other enterprising company will throw a channel or two out there, even if it's overly compressed and not "true 4k". If 3D can help drive sooner rather than later then all the better.


I'm sure 4k is going to look superior to 1080p on a 100""+ projector and probably any large flat panel.


I want one.


----------



## mschupp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Andronicus81* /forum/post/20300085
> 
> 
> Isn't this akin to building a yacht in your back yard and then not being able to get it out?



Off-topic, but when I was growing up we used to drive by a house all the time with about a 40ft sailboat being built (50 miles from the ocean). Took the guy about 15 years, but one day we went by and it was gone. Paper had an article on it showing how he had to get a big crane to pick it out of his yard onto a truck to get it to the ocean. So there's always a way.


----------



## thorr

I believe there is absolutely a place for 4k in the home today with a large enough display. I can think of several things that could take advantage of it right away or in the very near future:


- Upscaling from existing content. More resolution should mean less scaling artifacts. This is my weakest argument, so read on...

- Passive 3D. I saw the passive 3D TV's LG had at CES and they were totally awesome and made me want one. I did not realize they were at half resolution, and that doesn't really bother me, but knowing that they will be coming out with a 4K TV to provide not only full resolution passive 3D, but also a 4K TV in general, I am stoked.

- Computer display. You can hook up a computer to a 4K display and totally take advantage of that extra resolution. It's great for presentations, movies, more info on the screen, etc.

- Playstation 4! Gaming could go to 4K resolution with the super powerful graphics they will most likely come out with. You could use either 3D mode at half the 4K resolution (still much more than 1080p), or full 4K mode with the same frame rate. This idea also applies to computer gaming.

- Projectors. I have a 163" screen in a totally blacked out room with a Stewart 1.3 gain screen just begging for a 4K projector. Of course, if I want passive 3D, I will need to replace the screen, so most likely I would go with active shutter glasses in that case.

- Future content. Now that everyone is buying Blu-ray's to upgrade their DVD's. Make Blu-ray 4.0 with 4K content and 14.4 audio (7.1 on the ground and ceiling with subs in front and back, and left and right - feel the wind move in 3D with Twister).


With all that said, I agree with the poster who said we should find a way to do lossless video storage. It would be a tough decision for me to decide between either lossless 1080p or compressed 4K. Hopefully they can relax the compression and make sure there is enough bandwidth to be nearly lossless. If you think of it in terms of saving a file in the .PNG format, it gives an idea of how much bandwidth it would require (file-size times frame-rate would give the required bandwidth per second).


I say bring on the 4K displays! When LG comes out with theirs, I will finally upgrade my 720p Toshiba plasma that I still love today.


-Mike


----------



## skyylinegtr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irfan* /forum/post/20299780
> 
> 
> 1920 = 2k



Indeed, what irfan said above. Think of it like automotive engines; a 2.0L engine could have 1998cc of displacement, but most people will use the 2.0L measurement when speaking of the engine as opposed to saying 1998cc. Saying 2k is just the quick and dirty (lazy?) way of saying 1920x1080.


----------



## David Susilo

I'd rather they upgrade to 16-bit colour 4:4:4 colourspace before going to 4k but maintaining the archaic 8-bit 4:2:0 colour.


----------



## TitusTroy

the problem with this whole scenario of 4K is that most people do not buy a TV that is 55" or bigger...only the videophiles and hard core home theater enthusiasts do and that will not be enough to drive sales of 4K displays...if the increased resolution of Blu-ray discs don't matter to most why would 4K discs?


----------



## mgkdragn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TitusTroy* /forum/post/20300710
> 
> 
> the problem with this whole scenario of 4K is that most people do not buy a TV that is 55" or bigger...only the videophiles and hard core home theater enthusiasts do and that will not be enough to drive sales of 4K displays...if the increased resolution of Blu-ray discs don't matter to most why would 4K discs?



Exactly .. as well as the limitations of streaming, which is where it's all headed anyway ..


----------



## JohnAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TitusTroy* /forum/post/20300710
> 
> 
> the problem with this whole scenario of 4K is that most people do not buy a TV that is 55" or bigger...only the videophiles and hard core home theater enthusiasts do and that will not be enough to drive sales of 4K displays...if the increased resolution of Blu-ray discs don't matter to most why would 4K discs?



Based on looking at high resolution computer monitors I could see 40" to 42" 4K displays readily in the future. I know some think that only very large screen size benefits from 4K images but your eyes can resolve that much detail on a small display in that size range. Typical 30" resolution is 2560 x1600, not that much larger monitor needed to see 3840 x2160.


----------



## TJ7

I say we skip all that and go straight to 8K!


----------



## brianbat420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TJ7* /forum/post/20301128
> 
> 
> I say we skip all that and go straight to 8K!



Um.... I say screw the "K's" and go straight to Holodeck!


----------



## N8DOGG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnAV* /forum/post/20300924
> 
> 
> Based on looking at high resolution computer monitors I could see 40" to 42" 4K displays readily in the future. I know some think that only very large screen size benefits from 4K images but your eyes can resolve that much detail on a small display in that size range. Typical 30" resolution is 2560 x1600, not that much larger monitor needed to see 3840 x2160.



This is true, I have a 30" dell and if you can't see a difference at 2560x1600 vs 1080p, you may as well do the world a favor and pull your bottom lip over your head and swallow


----------



## PRO-630HD

Yes, they are necessary. Content in the format is needed though. It also cures a massive problem with bluray by studios using dated decade old dvd masters! It would force all studios to remaster every title unless a 4K master already exists. Obviously 4K HD Cameras are already out there content on regular TV such as sports, nature, tv shows etc. would need to be filmed in 4K as well.


----------



## gary cornell

Is the Ultra High Definition 4320p that was shown in Japan with resolution that is 16 times HDTV considered 4K?


----------



## reallynotnick

Well the first public HDTV broadcast was in 1996, I think it is quite plausible 4K will take off in the next 15 years. Mix it in with increases in bandwidth, better compression with H.265, and possibly better disc formats and bam you got 4K.


----------



## skibum5000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *worth* /forum/post/20299126
> 
> 
> 4K for home theatre seems like overkill to me. Even on a fifty foot screen, the differences between 2K and 4K are subtle at best. I'd imagine they'd be non-existent on a 65" set.



I totally disagree! Heck on my 24" monitor it's easy enough to tell 720p from 1080p.


It's pretty easy to tell that 1080p on my 55" doesn't look half as sharp as looking out the window even with just one eye (stereo vision tends to make things look more detailed so to be fair).


4k would also be awesome for photography. One of the people print is because a 1920x1080 screen doesn't come close to showing the detail you can see even on a 9x6" print!


I personally think those who go on about how you need two mile wide screens for this or that are all blind or sit wayyyyyyy to far back. I remember the same people going on about how blu-ray didn't make sense over DVD at less than 52", also totally ridiculous!


----------



## skibum5000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *poppabk* /forum/post/20299476
> 
> 
> The other issue is the increase in netflix/vudu/amazon/hulu video streaming services, which often still provide their content in SD resolutions and even when it is HD it is highly compressed. Bandwidth caps are already becoming a potential issue for people, 4K2K streaming would put a lot of people over the top.
> 
> Its still very hard to find content that makes maximal use of a regular HD set, its hard to imagine that 4K content will become readily available any time soon. Throw in a potential move to 48FPS content (96 FPS for 3D) and you have some serious bandwidth and storage issues.



Who wants to stream?


I hate not being able to own physical disc and streaming at quality is still pie in the sky anyway. I don't exactly live in the hills and most normal waking hours the fastest internet we get is 2Mbs and it often dips to just 0.7. Only wayyy late at night does it jump to 10-15Mbs and even then what is that?


Even people with solid connections, their streaming looks mediocre to me and the audio is weak too. Our infrastructure needs a long ways to go.


----------



## skibum5000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20299902
> 
> 
> I agree, and have posted the same elsewhere in AVS a few months ago. While active glasses are tolerable for the earliest adopters and might eventually be a $20-30 item, the reality is passive glasses are a sub-$1 item, no one will miss them when they break, and don't require any magical technology to be worn by the end user.
> 
> 
> If 3-D is going to catch on in the home it will be passive, and coupling it with the extra resolution of 4k TVs seems spot on. Especially because LCD and plasma prices are bottoming out right now and the ability to upsell something has been part of the CE industry as long as there has been a CE industry.
> 
> 
> It would be surprising if a major mfr. doesn't announce a 4k TV within the next 24 months.



good point, passive 4k may be what 3D needs to really catch on


----------



## Mr.D




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irfan* /forum/post/20299780
> 
> 
> 1920 = 2k



in industry nomenclature 2k is not 1080p , 2k is with reference to what was originally referred to as a half res film scan , half res being 2k from an original 4k scanner, 2048x1556 , 1828x1332 are 2k formats (fillip and academy film frames) . Films mastered at 2k are not 1080p .


1080p has sloppily become referred to as 2k in the last couple of years in the press for some reason.


The practical difference between 2k and 4k is extremely subtle even on large screens ( to the point that even DOPs cannot tell the difference without prolonged ABing).


The bandwidth would be better spent on improving color resolution and bitdepth.


10bit 4:4:4 would be much more visually impactful than moving to 4k.


----------



## Stealthlude

4K sounds great if you you a HTPC or the display for a computer.


I would buy one just for use with my PC.


----------



## bmwracer

I'd take 4K over 3D any day of the week.


----------



## TheaterChad

I feel they need to start making cameras that can record and broadcast best possible image, and upgrading the bandwidth of transmission, this is still the bottle-neck with the current system of broadcast in 1080i, but they want to push a tv that has 4k resolution, but they can't broadcast anything better than 1080i, unless they will eliminate broadcast television, and go directly to satellite / cable, which they say they can transmit at 1080p, which I would like to contest, we really only see the difference of 1080P vs 1080i in Blu-Ray, which says it's all about the bandwidth / transmission speed....


----------



## mgkdragn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *skibum5000* /forum/post/20302301
> 
> 
> Who wants to stream?
> 
> 
> I hate not being able to own physical disc and streaming at quality is still pie in the sky anyway. I don't exactly live in the hills and most normal waking hours the fastest internet we get is 2Mbs and it often dips to just 0.7. Only wayyy late at night does it jump to 10-15Mbs and even then what is that?
> 
> 
> Even people with solid connections, their streaming looks mediocre to me and the audio is weak too. Our infrastructure needs a long ways to go.



The most growth in content availability is thru the streaming model .. although I fully agree with the quality and bandwidth limitations you mention, we are in the minority on that as most of the populace is fine with it .. that's why I see 4K as at best, a niche market ..


----------



## dvran

As most of you stated, with all media going streaming at some point in the near future, how will the bandwidth infrastructure support this?


Right now, you have some internet companies capping bandwidth usages which already limit Netflix which streams at low video quality.


I would think all of these companies, along with federal aid, would push for upgrades in infrastructure throughout the U.S. before pushing out new technology that pushes the borderline of what I can get delivered in my home.


----------



## CRGINC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Susilo* /forum/post/20300554
> 
> 
> I'd rather they upgrade to 16-bit colour 4:4:4 colourspace before going to 4k but maintaining the archaic 8-bit 4:2:0 colour.



David, I agree with you 100%. Most do not realize that the color resolution and sampling are the same for DVD and BD. I would be happy with 10 bit 4:2:2. This alone would increase the total data considerably so it might not fit on a BD. Higher resolution for a home 10' wide screen wouldn't be of major benefit unless you want to set up very close to the screen. Just give me more color sampling and dynamic range.


----------



## 6pence

I am curious about the resolution available to the docs who are removing all types of internal body parts while viewing on a monitor?? Passive 3D would sure be nice if it was me on the table!


----------



## javanpohl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.D* /forum/post/20302424
> 
> 
> in industry nomenclature 2k is not 1080p , 2k is with reference to what was originally referred to as a half res film scan , half res being 2k from an original 4k scanner, 2048x1556 , 1828x1332 are 2k formats (fillip and academy film frames) . Films mastered at 2k are not 1080p .
> 
> 
> 1080p has sloppily become referred to as 2k in the last couple of years in the press for some reason.



While I didn't know that, that sorta thing frustrates me... like how flat-panels suddenly became "flat-screens"


----------



## poppabk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.D* /forum/post/20302424
> 
> 
> in industry nomenclature 2k is not 1080p , 2k is with reference to what was originally referred to as a half res film scan , half res being 2k from an original 4k scanner, 2048x1556 , 1828x1332 are 2k formats (fillip and academy film frames) . Films mastered at 2k are not 1080p .
> 
> 
> 1080p has sloppily become referred to as 2k in the last couple of years in the press for some reason.



But the 4K and 2K nomenclature is a shorthand for the approximately 4000 and 2000 horizontal lines of resolution. Using 2K to reference 1920x1080 is therefore perfectly within keeping with the nomenclature as the point of using horizontal resolution is apparently because aspect ratios vary with film and thus vertical resolution is not constant for a given height.

Its like arguing that 1366×768 isn't HD - while technically you might be correct - its a pointless argument outside of a technical discussion where the distinction has some import.


----------



## Eyleron

I see another use for more resolution: providing more detail than I need at "typical viewing distance" enables the addition of other forms of looking at content, such as zooming, or moving closer to the screen.


In an art gallery, or a museum, people often walk closer to the presentations to see more detail.


There are many times when watching something like Planet Earth that I wanted to see the scene in greater detail. When I'm watching the special "behind the scenes" of a film, I'd like to zoom into different areas of the picture.


Imagine if there was "extra detail" in the film, like the writing of a letter, or on a computer screen, that's there as a kind of Easter Egg if you're willing to get closer to the screen.


----------



## Big Lag

I would LOVE to have a 4k display for my computer, maybe ever two. The work I do uses very large spreadsheets and many times it is like looking at an elephant thru a microscope.


----------



## Lazarus Dark

It's my thinking that 4k WILL come to us HT people, but is likely to be high-end/enthusiast only. I'm thinking 4k movies will come, but they will be an expensive ($50-$100 per movie) niche market, like laserdisc or d-vhs. At least for the next 20 years. Beyond that I wouldn't even venture a guess.


Though, gamers already drool over 2560x1600 displays, I can see a lot of pc gamers ready to plop down all thier cash on a 4k display for gaming. And Nvidia, Intel, and AMD would LOVE for a brand new cycle of high end gaming pc purchasing, as more people move to android tablets and small netbooks for most of thier computing, the pc industry needs gamers more than ever to buy the latest faster processors/vid cards.


----------



## Eyleron

I don't think the monitor, or supported game resolutions, are related to home theater resolutions.


There are like ten resolutions found in Windows or games, but there's only SD, and a few flavors of HD now.


And for commercial digital theaters...they have two or three?


----------



## dchalfont

I think the article should have been called "are 4k tv's needed now" because the no content argument will be null and void in a few years. HDMI 1.4a can already do higher than 1080p. I'm not sure of the stats but I think 1.4a can do that res in non 3d mode as long as the source is 24fps.


Even at 40" 1080p the pixel pitch sucks if you are at the same viewing distance/screen size ratio that people generally sit for TV watching.


When you go to the movies the screen is obviously much larger and fills more of your viewing field. If you sit that close with a 1080p tv/screen the individual pixels are quite noticable ( that would be >2metres for a 40" 1080p tv ).


So there is definitely a benefit of 4k screens in the future.


But after that I don't think there will be any benefit ( 8 or 16k ) as the pixels will be completely indistinguishable.


After the next resolution jump.........the only thing I'll care about is increased sound quality.


I want 7.1 or 9.1 LPCM for all media. Even youtube.


----------



## Brian Hampton

I *believe* they are not necessary because I *know* I can't afford one.


----------



## worth




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CRGINC* /forum/post/20303980
> 
> 
> Just give me more color sampling and dynamic range.



Exactly. Resolution isn't the be all and end all. 35mm release prints are about equal to 720p in terms of resolution, but still blow away everything but the best digital presentations thanks to better colour and dynamic range.


----------



## sub24ox7

LOLOLOL ^ @ above statement the negative of 35mm film has 4K detail enough said.

Also if we get 4K displays projectors who's to say we don't get a 4K 12 bit per channel

4:4:4 format like Dcinema. Also I think once we get to 4K there will be no need whatsoever for H.265, I would think we would possibly use mjpeg2000 as its Very efficient

at very High resolution.


----------



## skibum5000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mgkdragn* /forum/post/20303514
> 
> 
> The most growth in content availability is thru the streaming model .. although I fully agree with the quality and bandwidth limitations you mention, we are in the minority on that as most of the populace is fine with it .. that's why I see 4K as at best, a niche market ..



Sadly you may be correct. Very sadly I fear that even 1080p may become a niche market since streaming doesn't seem to even manage that well under the best of circumstances. Maybe in 20 years if they finally modernize our net infrastructure by then.


----------



## skibum5000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CRGINC* /forum/post/20303980
> 
> 
> David, I agree with you 100%. Most do not realize that the color resolution and sampling are the same for DVD and BD. I would be happy with 10 bit 4:2:2. This alone would increase the total data considerably so it might not fit on a BD. Higher resolution for a home 10' wide screen wouldn't be of major benefit unless you want to set up very close to the screen. Just give me more color sampling and dynamic range.



If you compare bayer to foveon sensor cameras though you see that full RGB per pixel isn't necessarily the better tradeoff.


And for filmic material banding isn't really that bad with 8bits.


I'd rather see more than 1080p resolution, which doesn't look at all sharp as real life and wider gamut support first so we can get more intense reds and such.


----------



## skibum5000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *worth* /forum/post/20309163
> 
> 
> Exactly. Resolution isn't the be all and end all. 35mm release prints are about equal to 720p in terms of resolution, but still blow away everything but the best digital presentations thanks to better colour and dynamic range.



I think you are talking more DISPLAY dynamic range and size of color gamut rather than storing it as 8bits vs 10bits per channel or 4:2:2 vs 4:4:4.


----------



## worth




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sub24ox7* /forum/post/20309769
> 
> 
> LOLOLOL ^ @ above statement the negative of 35mm film has 4K detail enough said.



Yes, and when was the last time you saw film _negative_ projected. Although film has somewhere between 3K-6K, depending on whom you ask and how it was shot, it has to go through three generations to get to a release print which is all anyone ever sees:

http://www.filmschooldirect.com/samp...HD_vs_35mm.htm 

_Film is analog so there are no real "pixels." However, based on converted measures, a 35mm frame has 3 to 12 million pixels, depending on the stock, lens, and shooting conditions. An HD frame has 2 million pixels, measured using 1920 x 1080 scan lines. With this difference, 35mm appears vastly superior to HD.


This is the argument most film purists use. The truth is, pixels are not the way to compare resolution. The human eye cannot see individual pixels beyond a short distance. What we can see are lines.


Consequently, manufacturers measure the sharpness of photographic images and components using a parameter called Modulation Transfer Function (MTF). This process uses lines (not pixels) as a basis for comparison.


There is an international study on this issue, called Image Resolution of 35mm Film in Theatrical Presentation. It was conducted by Hank Mahler (CBS, United States), Vittorio Baroncini (Fondazione Ugo Bordoni, Italy), and Mattieu Sintas (CST, France).


In the study, MTF measurements were used to determine the typical resolution of theatrical release prints and answer prints in normal operation, utilizing existing state-of-the-art 35mm film, processing, printing, and projection.


The prints were projected in six movie theaters in various countries, and a panel of experts made the assessments of the projected images using a well defined formula. The results are as follows:


35mm RESOLUTION

Measurement

Lines

Answer Print MTF 1400

Release Print MTF 1000

Theater Highest Assessment 875
*Theater Average Assessment 750*_


----------



## Ryan1

IMO, the world is going to streaming.


It has largely happened to audio, it will happen to video. Disks? What is a disk, pops...?


4k is total overkill for a normal size room and a 60" screen. I am sure higher resolutions will come, but in the near future, this is just a marketing gimmick. Kind of like the 3d fad.


----------



## ROSSINFLORIDA

ultra hd would be great for watching live sports on tv esp football and basketball.


heres the article in wikipedia about ultra hd and the 22.2 audio that would go along with it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_hd 


audio:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22.2 


in either his article or another that i read it stated that you would need at least a 60 inch ultra hdtv to use ultra hd.



it says his as far as when we might be able t see ultra hd in our homes:


The final goal is for UHDTV to be available in domestic homes, though the timeframe for this happening varies between 2016 to 2020 (mainly based on technical reasons concerning storage and broadcast distribution of content).[12]



heres article about 10.2 sound that may or may not be avl soon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10.2


----------



## indio22

Considering many people (including myself) don't even have Blu-ray yet, I think the 4k hi-res will eventually arrive, but could be a long time coming. Perhaps the drawn out Blu-ray/HD DVD war and aggravations with the locked down security/software restrictions put a bit of a damper on wider bluray adoption. Personally, I have always been more interested in content quality than technical quality. 4k would not buy me any more content quality than I already get. So I tend to make my purchases with that in mind.


----------



## lmaolmao

4k = 3840*2160


so four 1080p's.


the reason i post is there was loads of confusion.


i also don't understand the reasoning behind switching from labelling via number of vertical pixels (720p/1080p) to rounding the number of horizontal pixels to 1 s.f. (2k/4k)


----------



## SSpivey

I can't get too excited about it because decent source material will be so hard to come by.


I've been so often disappointed by films that were poorly transferred, and it's obvious enough in blu-ray. Imagine how much more obvious these flaws will be in 4k.


----------



## coolscan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve Crowe* /forum/post/20298870
> 
> *Are 4K Displays Necessary?*
> 
> By Grant Clauser
> 
> *No 4K Content*
> 
> The answer to that depends on several factors. First, there’s no 4K content. No broadcaster, Blu-ray disc or VOD service has 4K content, or the ability to deliver 4K. Let’s face it, 4K is a heck of a lot of data and bandwidth, and many delivery mechanisms are already taxed trying to meet the requirements of 1080p, 3D and multi-channel audio.



4K playback option, Red Ray pro media recorder and playback machine, estimated available this summer. This is a Pro machine targeted for production and post production. Price; under $10K, rumoured around $7500.

Was playing 4K content on a Sony 4K PJ in the RED booth at NAB 2011.


Plays back .R3D, .RED files and DCP packages...

The drive bays are modular... so you can have 1.8" readers, CF readers, SD card Readers, 2.5" drives, and mix and match.etc. etc. etc.

Internal 3.5" drive.
 


Red Ray playback machine for HT, estimated 2012 for under $1000.

 

Both pictures from NAB.


Will there be content? Much a question for the movie companies to answer. But there is a lot of content that never has a distribution, or limited distribution, that can be made available if someone provides an outlet.


RED is also working on a 4K Laser HT projector. Whether this is a collaboration with a projector company is unknown.


Texas Intruments is expected to deliver a HT version of their 4K DLP DMD next year.


European Broadcasting Union has a sat down a work group to come with a UHDTV broadcast and TV standard. Expected late this year or early next year.

It will have two standards. UHDTV 1 = 4K, UHDTV 2 = 8K.


Are 4K Displays Necessary?


Yes they are! 1080p/2megapixel displays are a joke. The only reason people accept them is lack of knowledge and nothing to compare to.


4K content captured at a higher resolution will compress better, with less artefacts than 2K to 1080p.

Even Blu-Ray's 1080p doesn't max out it's highest quality unless the source comes from 4K. Something the studioes knows very well but ignore.


RED has 5K (ca.15megapixel) shooting now on all the largest Movie productions shooting in 3D.

Peter Jackson is shooting The Hobbit in 5K, 2x48fps 3D.


Sony just announced their first 4K camera (sometimes refereed to as a 8K camera, but that is inflated marketing number counting green pixels 3 times over).


The brain can construct an image out of pixels, but a true quality picture captured and played back at such a high resolution our eyes can't see the pixels, will show the true quality of images. It will possible be better than reality. Even though that sounds strange to people. Moving images, specially in movies, must have a "separate reality" than real life to contain the "movie magic".


----------



## Mr.D




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *poppabk* /forum/post/20304870
> 
> 
> But the 4K and 2K nomenclature is a shorthand for the approximately 4000 and 2000 horizontal lines of resolution. Using 2K to reference 1920x1080 is therefore perfectly within keeping with the nomenclature as the point of using horizontal resolution is apparently because aspect ratios vary with film and thus vertical resolution is not constant for a given height.
> 
> Its like arguing that 1366×768 isn't HD - while technically you might be correct - its a pointless argument outside of a technical discussion where the distinction has some import.



Try referring to 1080p video as 2k in professional circles and you will get some less than complimentary looks. Its sloppy and incorrect...end of.


----------



## reallynotnick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan* /forum/post/20318837
> 
> 
> 4K content captured at a higher resolution will compress better, with less artefacts than 2K to 1080p.



How do you come to that conclusion? Compress artifacts are based on the bitrate and codec used. Sure it won't take 4x the bitrate with the same codec to get similar quality of compression but it still can easily get compression artifacts if the bitrate is not high enough and digital distribution which everyone champions as where video is going can't even do 1080p without compression artifacts (ok stuff like Vudu's HDX is quite impressive but it still is rare and lots of people don't have a connection fast enough to support that).


I personally see H.265 and constant improvements in bandwidth being where we will see the most PQ improvement in the next 6 years as it will be relatively un-itrusive for most customers and we will finally have BD quality video that can be streamed.


Also with cable companies being stuck on MPEG-2 poses another problem as many users get their shows that way and they tend to over compress the hell out of that stuff. Not that MPEG-2 can't look great at higher bitrates such as OTA but it would be nice if cable could somehow adopt H.264 (or 265 way later) so we wouldn't have to have so many compression artifacts.


----------



## decodave

Iv'e seen more realistic, impressive images with higher frame rates. 48 & 60 FPS. Even those with 2K would be great.


----------



## Doc Ostrow

The general rule for viewing distance is to see maximum resolution without seeing pixels. If you have a 16:9 television, the proper viewing distance is 1.5 x the screen diagonal for HD (2K) and 3 x diagonal for SD (.72K?). For a 4K TV, you would have to sit .75 x diagonal away from the TV. 35mm film in a movie theater has about 4K resolution so that would be like sitting near the front of the theater or in an IMAX theater. I generally sit in the middle of a theater and am satisfied with a 2K display.


As the article above says, the real reason for 4K TV is for 3D TV. Although I saw Avatar in 3D at the theater, I'm not that wild about 3D. For anyone who thinks 2K TV is not enough for 2D viewing, try watching the _Baraka_ Blu-ray. Per a Blu-ray.com reviewer, this movie was "_Filmed in 65mm and painstakingly and lovingly restored with an 8k UltraDigital HD Process, the film represents the current zenith of Blu-ray picture quality_."


----------



## JENC

Quote:

Originally Posted by *skibum5000* 
I totally disagree! Heck on my 24" monitor it's easy enough to tell 720p from 1080p.


It's pretty easy to tell that 1080p on my 55" doesn't look half as sharp as looking out the window even with just one eye (stereo vision tends to make things look more detailed so to be fair).


4k would also be awesome for photography. One of the people print is because a 1920x1080 screen doesn't come close to showing the detail you can see even on a 9x6" print!


I personally think those who go on about how you need two mile wide screens for this or that are all blind or sit wayyyyyyy to far back. I remember the same people going on about how blu-ray didn't make sense over DVD at less than 52", also totally ridiculous!
I couldn't say it better myself. I fully totally agree.


I too see difference on my kitchen 27" full HD tv between resolutions.

And I miss to see my photographs with better resolution than 1920x1080 on my 46" tv.


But also, selling the 4k displays for the manufactures will be like when 3D came. They will, if not sametime, then soon after, have playable material ready. E.g. Bluray "4.0". Imagine when you can buy a Bluray movie recorded digital in full 4k-p60 resolution. We will all want that, and it will look amazing.


It seems we contionusly will have these discussions. Are DVD any better than VHS. Are Blurays better than DVD. Are 4k any better than 2k. Today you still here people praise 720p even though next to nothing broadcastet on a 720p channel is actually recorded in a true progressive mode but rather is recorded as 1080i. And even though it is a resoulution matching a 10" tab-computer. Actually calling that "High Definition" is so last century.


I definitely hope my next tv-set gets to be a 4k set.


One good thing though. The TV industri can reuse there commercials. When we got DVD to replace VHS they had a commercial with the bad resolution on one side of the TV and the good new resolution on the other side. "Heyi - see the difference..." We say the same add when bluray came to superseed DVD. And we'll for sure see it when 4K comes


----------



## JENC

Quote:

Originally Posted by *SSpivey* 
I can't get too excited about it because decent source material will be so hard to come by.


I've been so often disappointed by films that were poorly transferred, and it's obvious enough in blu-ray. Imagine how much more obvious these flaws will be in 4k.
Those flaws will eventually not be an issue, as films will be recordede digitally in 4k resolution - or higher.


Also there will be 4k camcorders for privates to buy.


Arguing 4k will not be needed, and may not even come. Well, it triggers me to kind of hearing the voice of someone important once saying... "640k memory will always be enough for any computer"


----------



## JENC

Quote:

Originally Posted by *coolscan* 
are 4k displays necessary?


Yes they are! 1080p/2megapixel displays are a joke. The only reason people accept them is lack of knowledge and nothing to compare to.
+1


----------



## SSpivey

Quote:

Originally Posted by *JENC* 
Those flaws will eventually not be an issue, as films will be recordede digitally in 4k resolution - or higher.


Also there will be 4k camcorders for privates to buy.


Arguing 4k will not be needed, and may not even come. Well, it triggers me to kind of hearing the voice of someone important once saying... "640k memory will always be enough for any computer"
I would certainly like to have a 4k display for my photos, but for home theatre use, I worry only the very exceptional film is going to shine on 4k, because it seems like only exceptional ones shine on BR.


How many people have found themselves in a store, pondering an impulse purchase or an online pre-order and thinking 'I know it's a good film, but is it a good -transfer-?' I always feel like I'm placing a bet if I haven't read 2 reviews first.


I -want- to see 4k, but I feel that BR still has a lot of headroom. If the studios are still struggling with 1080p, how are they going to manage with 4K?


----------



## coolscan

They are struggling with BD because the source is scanned at 2K or filmed with 2K digital cameras. If all films had been scanned at 4K and/or filmed in 4K digital for a 4K finish that is downsampled, all movies on BD would be without issues (except for those that is managed by incompetent people. A lot of them too.).


So, for a 4K system to work, all analogue film has to be scanned at 6K or even better, 8K. And all films shot on digital camera has to be from a sensor with minimum 5K (15mpx) sensor for a 4K (8mpx) delivery. More than 5K, preferably 6K(20'ish mpx) to 8K(35'ish mpx) is better.

Oversampling at the capture point for post production grading and downsample finished material is the clue to great images.


----------



## Mr.D




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolscan* /forum/post/20334139
> 
> 
> They are struggling with BD because the source is scanned at 2K or filmed with 2K digital cameras. If all films had been scanned at 4K and/or filmed in 4K digital for a 4K finish that is downsampled, all movies on BD would be without issues (except for those that is managed by incompetent people. A lot of them too.).
> 
> 
> So, for a 4K system to work, all analogue film has to be scanned at 6K or even better, 8K. And all films shot on digital camera has to be from a sensor with minimum 5K (15mpx) sensor for a 4K (8mpx) delivery. More than 5K, preferably 6K(20'ish mpx) to 8K(35'ish mpx) is better.
> 
> Oversampling at the capture point for post production grading and downsample finished material is the clue to great images.



Have you seen a 4k film scan compared with a 2k film scan?


Are you aware that 2k films scans are pretty much always downsamples from initial larger scans of at least 4k and have been for about the last 10 years? Most of the early scanners were actually 4k native , The Kodak Lightning for example.


I've done tests and I'm totally convinced that 2k vs 4k given decent initial scanning is of no consequence to 1080p versioning.


Oversampling itself is of little relevance to grading by the way ; resolution is independant of color space and dynamic range at least as long as you have a handful of pixels to work with.


The thing that annoys me about all this 2k vs 4k malarkey is that its often trumpeted by people with no practical experience of the differences , and again its something that people wax lyrical at length about because its easy for them to get their heads around ( they think).


It attracts much more hyperbolic commentary than the more difficult to grasp aspects of image production such as colorspace for example.


----------



## mjfink

It will probably come, but it will also probably always remain a "niche" product (like SACD or DVD-A). The simple fact is that most people don't have the gear to see the difference between 720P and 1080P. Until a majority of the country has rooms (likely dedicated theaters) with 100"+ screens, 4K simply isn't going to make much difference.


I'm putting my money on the next mainstream format being less resolution (or less bitrate) than the current standard (BD). The next "big" thing, IMHO, is all streaming of data, people want more convenience, not more resolution (except, of course, for us, but we're all nuts). Much like CD was killed by MP3, I expect BD will be eclipsed by MKV (or something like it) compressed files.


Carrying around 100s of movies on your laptop and being able to watch anything anywhere is much more appealing to most people than more resolution (all of this, IMHO).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JENC* /forum/post/20327479
> 
> 
> Those flaws will eventually not be an issue, as films will be recordede digitally in 4k resolution - or higher.
> 
> 
> Also there will be 4k camcorders for privates to buy.
> 
> 
> Arguing 4k will not be needed, and may not even come. Well, it triggers me to kind of hearing the voice of someone important once saying... "640k memory will always be enough for any computer"


----------



## tory40

Hmm, I have a 46" 1080p tv 2'8" away from my face right now. I would really love to have that 4k screen as long as the pixels are aimed at me. I could really use the resolution for general computer use. However, i guess i can wait a while, since I bought this Sony nx711 for 3d and HDMI's input processors (as im told) currently have a limitation of 1080p @24hz/eye! Only 720p will work at 60hz/eye....







Still is quite amazing and makes your screen literally look like a window into a world, rather than a photo of it. Im hooked.


----------



## gary cornell

Based upon comments at NAB, 4k in 50" will be coming in 2 years. All well and good but the obsolete Kuro display is still the best and higher resolution on an inferior panel - hmmm.


----------



## rogo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20299902
> 
> 
> I agree, and have posted the same elsewhere in AVS a few months ago. While active glasses are tolerable for the earliest adopters and might eventually be a $20-30 item, the reality is passive glasses are a sub-$1 item, no one will miss them when they break, and don't require any magical technology to be worn by the end user.
> 
> 
> If 3-D is going to catch on in the home it will be passive, and coupling it with the extra resolution of 4k TVs seems spot on. Especially because LCD and plasma prices are bottoming out right now and the ability to upsell something has been part of the CE industry as long as there has been a CE industry.
> 
> 
> It would be surprising if a major mfr. doesn't announce a 4k TV within the next 24 months.



I.. love... it... when... a ... prediction... comes... together...

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/01/t...the-zl2-in-de/ 


"Toshiba has finally put a launch date on its glasses-free 3D TV ... the ZL2 will take its place at the top of the company's range of sets when it launches this December in Germany ... complete with an LED-backlit QuadHD resolution (3,840 x 2,160) LCD panel."


----------



## tory40

Wow


Any chance of that working in 3D from 2'8" away?


----------



## gmarceau




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rogo* /forum/post/20893794
> 
> 
> I.. love... it... when... a ... prediction... comes... together...
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/01/t...the-zl2-in-de/
> 
> 
> "Toshiba has finally put a launch date on its glasses-free 3D TV ... the ZL2 will take its place at the top of the company's range of sets when it launches this December in Germany ... complete with an LED-backlit QuadHD resolution (3,840 x 2,160) LCD panel."



This needs to happen on plasma, and with new cheaper active glasses (come on Panasonic).


Toshiba has been targeting 4Kx2K ever since they lost the blu-ray v. HD-DVD format war. I think they may be the only company with the upscaling technology to actually make images look good at that resolution.


Any speculation on price???


I'm guessing over 10k


Ok, just saw it's going for 8k over in Germany for a 55"- can't imagine they'll be selling these any smaller than that


----------



## rogo

I doubt they'll come any smaller than that ever... And really, the more exciting thing would be the larger size... Keep full resolution, go passive, etc.


I see no reason this can't come to plasma, at least at the 85" displays. Whether it comes to smaller plasmas or not is another matter.


----------



## gary cornell

With the merger i'd expect a Sony 3D 4k panel too.


----------

