|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: the future of 4K
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-12-2016 12:33 PM
There is a pretty big push going on for 4K in consumer electronics. I think that is going to force movie theaters to adopt 4K in defense against home theater if they don't already have 4K.
In the past couple of years TV manufacturers have replaced just about all their new model high end and mid range priced displays with 4K-based monitors. Big 4K resolution UHDTV sets are now dipping below the $1000 barrier. Just yesterday I got a piece of email spam from Sony showing off a large and extremely thin 4K HDR TV for $999.
The Ultra HD Blu-ray format has finally launched, but with some controversy due to quite a few launch titles (such as Mad Max: Fury Road) really being 2K movies that were just blown up to 4K. Reviewers say the these discs still look better than the regular 1080p Blu-ray versions thanks to better color quality and a bigger video bit rate. Nevertheless, fake 4K isn't going to look as impressively detailed on a UHDTV screen as real native 4K content.
The computing industry has also gone UHD. They're trying to entice users to dump old desktop and notebook computers that still work perfectly fine. My own personal notebook computer is now 5 years old (jeez!) yet I'm in no hurry to replace it. Plus it has some features in it, like a Blu-ray burner, that would be very difficult to find in a new computer. The UHD monitors are good for graphics work, but unless you have a high end Internet connection running 75 megabits per second or more you're not going to get real 4K from an Internet video stream.
Go Pro cameras, DSLR cameras and certain new smart phones are supporting UHD capture.
quote: Scott Norwood
I am actually not sure that I have ever even seen 4K content with 4K projection, so I don't even have an opinion on this one.
That kind of echoes my complaint about soft projection quality in a lot of theaters. If it's not tack sharp it's going to be difficult to tell the difference between 2K and 4K. The deeper color depth in the DCP (versus what's on Blu-ray) also gets diluted. I can sure tell the difference between 2K and 4K on a big UHDTV set showing native 4K content.
quote: Scott Norwood
Will 4K become more common in the future (due to public demand and/or decreased costs), or will it remain a niche product? Does the movie-going public even notice the difference?
I think 4K will eventually be the de-facto production standard. Movie production technology is pushing well above that level (6K, 8K). The main bottleneck is production time and render time needed for higher resolution visual effects and digital backlot work. Wall Street investors screaming for ever more profit are a downward drag on quality versus doing things faster and cheaper.
quote: Frank Bolkovac
My opinion, the movie going public is there for good entertainment. The majority doesn't care whats projecting out the portholes. Hollywood hasn't caught this yet...
Very few people in a theater audience know any of the technical details about film or digital projection. They would need to know those details in order to really, deliberately not care about what is being projected. The fact is they don't know any better. Any theaters choosing not be lax about presentation quality are asking for it.
We're way past the days when living rooms at best had square TV sets and low resolution analog imagery. There used to be a giant sized gap between the image quality one could see in a movie theater versus that in the home. That gap is all but gone now.
One thing is certain, there's a lot of people in the consumer electronics buying public that care a great deal about technical details. There is a good amount of consumer anger revolving around those early Ultra HD Blu-ray releases in fake-4K.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Roddy
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 114
From: Spring, TX, United States
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 07-12-2016 03:02 PM
4K did a pretty sad job entering the digital cinema market. Even the newest 4K equipment leaves a lot to be desired. Luckily, it's holding up very well in the consumer scene. 4K TV's are rapidly dropping in price, and 4K monitors are becoming more and more feasible. Even the computing power necessary to drive games at that resolution is becoming more affordable. Heck, even the screen on my freaking phone is closer to 4K (1440p/"Quad HD"; I have an LG G3). It's very strange to look at the massive movie screens at my theaters and think that my phone has a much better resolution, not to mention an insanely high PPI.
Personally, I'm interested to see what laser can offer. After all, one of its key advantages is that it offers a much higher contrast ratio, right? Only problem right now is that the 4K-ready higher end stuff is still way out of the price range for most theaters. There are several cheaper options available, and even the laser-phosphor upgrade for Barco's C-series projectors (I'm not 100% sure if a B-series upgrade is in the works, but I'd imagine it is). Sadly, they're all 2K. But hey, if laser works as well as it's supposed to, then it's really really good 2K. So that's…something, I guess.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 07-13-2016 11:24 AM
Bobby's reply covered things pretty well.
Consumers are very familiar with the 4K branding, thanks to TV manufacturers who have made 4K the current marketing buzzword to sell new units. Ultra HD Blu-ray is building steam pretty well considering that it just debuted in February, and that's with just one player available in the U.S. marketplace.
The awareness of 4K is there among the general population, and if theaters aren't getting questions about it, it may be because moviegoers might assume that theaters have something better than what they can buy for $900 at Best Buy and put in their living room. If there was a sign at the ticket booth that stated the resolution of each movie, there might be some enquiring minds wanting to know why your 25-75 foot wide movie screen doesn't have the same number of pixels as their 4-5 foot wide TV does.
Once again, though, I think it boils down to showmanship. Gordon and Brad have stated that a 2K setup can provide a better quality picture (overall) than a 4K setup, and if that's the case, then going with 4K wouldn't be automatic if you're truly looking to provide the best possible experience.
Anyone that asks why you're not showing the movie in 4K would likely appreciate an answer that is along the lines of "We found that the 2K system we have outperformed the 4K systems that are available, and we want to provide our customers with the best quality possible."
Unfortunately, many of the movie screens around here are the shiny variety to make 3D brighter, which conspire with too much lighting to elevate the blacks to the point of dull grey. My home displays (flat panel, front projector) are brighter and have more contrast.
Further complicating the matter is that the source material often isn't "true" 4K, as has been stated previously. That's an artificial limitation simply due to choices made by the studios, and Mike's comment about the quality of The Jungle Book speaks to what can be done if the will is there.
For a theater looking to make a purchase, the issue is definitely not clear-cut. Do you buy 2K because it's cheaper and there aren't many 4K movies out there anyway? Do you invest in 4K because it will most likely be the future, albeit at some unknown date?
If it were me, I'd lean toward 4K, but then I would need to see for myself how it would perform next to an equivalent 2K setup to see if it was worth the upgrade (while weighing a prediction about where the industry was going re: 4K production).
If I could get a really good 2K image, why not go that route? Especially if it opened up funds that could be used to improve the sound and the auditorium for a better overall experience.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-13-2016 01:31 PM
2K DLP may have better color and contrast than a 4K DLP system or a 4K LCOS system. But I don't see that as a good thing. I see it as a problem. It doesn't bode well for the future in the rivalry with home theater. The problem is compounded by the extreme prices of laser-based projection systems. The laser systems might be better (especially for 3D) but they're never going to be installed on a widespread basis as long as they carry such ridiculously high price tags.
I read somewhere that it's costing IMAX between $1.3 million to $2 million to convert an existing IMAX screen from 15/70mm film projection or 2K Xenon projection to the new 4K dual laser projection system. IMAX has nothing on their Drupal generated web site mentioning IMAX with Laser. As of May 2016, The Large Format Examiner web site says IMAX has only 7 screens in the US equipped with the new system. AMC has 19 Dolby Cinema screens in operation with 3 more in the process of installation and 10 others planned after that.
quote: Adam Martin
Based on content seen on our network here, it seems that 4K "release prints" peaked in 2014.
2012 - 11 titles
2013 - 15 titles
2014 - 26 titles
2015 - 23 titles
2016 - 5 titles so far (and we're half way through)
Is that based on info from the Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets forum? Or is it a complete view of all titles playing in North America?
quote: Mike Schulz
Bobby Henderson mentioned this above and the main reason most titles are not released in 4K is due to the visual effects. Almost every VFX intensive movie has all of the effects rendered in 2K so even if they are shooting on film or capturing on a 4K Alexa, if you have a movie like Star Wars with hundreds or even thousands of VFX shots, the DI and final output will be 2K.
I forgot to mention a very important thing: 3D. Just about any movie being released with a 3D version will produced in 2K. Perhaps Dolby Cinema and IMAX with Laser theaters can present 3D in 4K, but AFAIK no other theaters can do it with the current technology. I'm not sure if any movie has been made in both 3D and 4K yet.
quote: Scott Jentsch
Consumers are very familiar with the 4K branding, thanks to TV manufacturers who have made 4K the current marketing buzzword to sell new units. Ultra HD Blu-ray is building steam pretty well considering that it just debuted in February, and that's with just one player available in the U.S. marketplace.
Ultra HD Blu-ray is doing alright, but the fake-4K titles really stained the launch. One thing that is interesting: 3D is pretty much dead on the 4K platform. Not many of the new 4K UHDTV sets support 3D. I don't think the Ultra HD Blu-ray players are doing it either. The higher resolution video and next generation audio formats are taking priority over 3D.
I think the failure of 3D in the consumer marketplace was mostly a self-inflicted wound via price gouging. The discs were just too damned expensive. The pricing gap grew even worse as an existing 2D Blu-ray headed to bargain pricing while the 3D version stubbornly stayed near the $30 level or even more depending on the retailer. 3D works great on my TV set, but I have only a handful of 3D titles thanks both to the high price and the sheer lack of titles I like enough to buy at all.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic