Can someone please explain 4K TV to me

[winb83]

forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=214000

Blu-ray Forum - View Single Post - Blu-ray 4K Under Consideration by BDA

In any case I don't feel that 4K resolution (but itself) really makes a difference for normal TV or home cinema viewing, from a typical viewing distance, unless you are talking about a large display size (e.g, 80 inch display when viewed from 6 ft. is probably near the threshold of seeing the full benefit of 4K resolution). If you want to see the full benefits of 4K resolution in a dedicated home theater context (using a front projector + screen) and your have 20/20 vision, with a typical viewing distance of perhaps 12 ft. you would need at least 10 ft. wide in order to get the full resolution benefits 4K has to offer.

so basically its a pointless technology for mass consumers. its like Retina Display.

 

[courtdog]

The First 4K Movie You Can Download Is 160GB and Absolutely Breathtaking
the movie is 160GBs that would murder most people's bandwidth caps.

there's no practical platform to get people 4K content. it will have to be heavily compressed to fit on a disc and downloading it isn't likely with bandwidth caps.

They been had quad layered blu rays (200gb) but the ps3 can't read them so that tech commercially has been put on hold. Ps4/720 BD drives will be able to read them. And we'll be able to download that much data fast, soon.
200mbps Internet is already available and will drop in price.
Oh wait, there's ppl in rural areas who don't have high speed Internet yet
I guess everyone else has to suffer Can't alienate those 100,000 gamers...

 

[Ayo]

Movies shot on 35mm and 70mm already has a resolution that's well pass 4k

Most Hollywood movies are shot in 2K and mastered in 4K.

Why? Because the film cameras most commonly used by Hollywood directors (basically anything Panavision) aren't capable of native 4K.

Hell, most of the popular digital cameras, like the Arri Alexa, is only capable of native 2K resolution. And the Alexa was released only a few years ago. Arri made the conscience decision NOT to have it be 4K capable. And it's STILL competing with Red as the most widely used digital camera for feature films.

Red was one of the first to arrive to the 4K game of course. But even though there are more movies than ever being shot on Red now, very few even take advantage of their 4K abilities because of the difficult work flow. At this point it's just not worth the man hours. Most movie theaters are just now equipping themselves with 4K projectors. Never mind the home user.

 

[2 Up 2 Down]

Most Hollywood movies are shot in 2K and mastered in 4K.

Why? Because the film cameras most commonly used by Hollywood directors (basically anything Panavision) aren't capable of native 4K.

Hell, most of the popular digital cameras, like the Arri Alexa, is only capable of native 2K resolution. And the Alexa was released only a few years ago. Arri made the conscience decision NOT to have it be 4K capable. And it's STILL competing with Red as the most widely used digital camera for feature films.

Red was one of the first to arrive to the 4K game of course. But even though there are more movies than ever being shot on Red now, very few even take advantage of their 4K abilities because of the difficult work flow. At this point it's just not worth the man hours. Most movie theaters are just now equipping themselves with 4K projectors. Never mind the home user.

The upper limit for a 35mm scan is, from what I read, was 6k. 70mm(65mm) is higher. Lawrence of Arabia (70mm) was downscaled from 8k for it's recent blu-ray release.

 

[Ayo]

The upper limit for a 35mm scan is, from what I read, was 6k. 70mm(65mm) is higher. Lawrence of Arabia (70mm) was downscaled from 8k for it's recent blu-ray release.

Ya they can be mastered in it. But native resolution is in the 2's.

So there are artifacts, scratches, aliasing, moire, dust and other flaws etc as a result of the scan. So restoration and cleaning up is usually needed. As is the case with most of the older flicks coming to Blu-Ray.

If you shoot at 4K you're going to get the advantages that 4K provides. Advantages that are beyond just perceived quality.

The 4K to 4K workflow is where it's at.

 

[2 Up 2 Down]

Ya they can be mastered in it. But native resolution is in the 2's.

So there are artifacts, scratches, aliasing, moire, dust and other flaws etc as a result of the scan. So restoration and cleaning up is usually needed. As is the case with most of the older flicks coming to Blu-Ray.

The 4K to 4K workflow is where it's at. But the only advantage of shooting at native 4K right now is for VFX purposes and to future proof your film.

I should've clarified that earlier, but that's what I meant for home 4k content.

 

[ll_simon]

If you have to ask, you already lost. Sony wants to make money.
So what they do is introduce new mediums. The problem is tech is advancing too fast so Sony is now trying to push mediums before there ready. Blu ray in 2006, 4kTV's in 2013
Watch Rekka and his clan of bafoons next year be like "4k ftw "

Never thought of that

You realize that DVD really started taking off in 2003 right? Not to mention h.265 was just finalized.

 

[NUPE 1911]

4k TV is a scam and dumb at this point. No thanks. This is just some dumb crap used by companies to part dummies from their paychecks.

 

[STAN JONES]

Blu-ray Forum - View Single Post - Blu-ray 4K Under Consideration by BDA

so basically its a pointless technology for mass consumers. its like Retina Display.

Its not pointless technology its just in the beginning stages

I wouldnt worry about for another 5-6 years tho

Once they start making affordable tvs and start releasing movies in 4k then ill worry about it

The movie/tv industry needs to make 1080p the standard before they try to move on to 4k....I still cant believe no tv station broadcasts in 1080p yet