PDA

View Full Version : Is the BMC already OBSOLETE? >> Ultra HD



vidguy22
10-20-2012, 05:03 PM
Hi,

I'm not trolling, I've got one on order. BUT, It's just announced 4k is now known as ULTRA HD.
It's here or coming - 4 k for the home. { Someone said since 3D bombed in the marketplace,
the electronics manufacturers are now pushing this for the home buyer. }

So, if your camera only does 2.5 K, is it already obsolete for a pro? { or even a home
hobbiest who buys Ultra HD from his local store }

ULTRA HD LINK:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/10/19/CEA-confirms-Ultra-High-Definition-4k-video-spec-with-3480-2160-pixel-minimum

Andrew
10-20-2012, 05:14 PM
Definitely not, but I do understand your concern. With the recent announcement from the CEA about ultra HD it does seem as if things are moving faster in that direction. The fact that the new Gopro shoots 4k at 15fps also adds fuel to the fire imo.

The way I look at it is that a solid 2k image is already up there in discernible resolution. The jump from HD to 4k does not seem to be as big as a move as the jump from SD to HD was.

I don't think it will be long before we have many great 4k options in this price range though.

vidguy22
10-20-2012, 05:19 PM
well I think 2k looks good too. But Ive read posts saying 4k really does look discernible better. On the subject of future proofing our productions -- is 2.5k a bad business decision now?

mhood
10-20-2012, 05:25 PM
http://www.zdnet.com/cea-sets-ultra-hd-standard-for-next-generation-television-7000006085/


Whether there's any advantage to having an Ultra HD TV is open to doubt, and back in January, a CNet article explained Why 4K TVs are stupid for home use. At an 8-foot viewing distance, you'd need something like a 102-inch screen to see the pixels on a 1080p picture, so there's really no point in having 2160p.

Indeed, CNet's Geoffrey Morrison points out that, at a distance of 10 feet from a 50-inch TV set, "even 720p TVs have pixels too small for your eye to see". In other words, many TV viewers don't even need Full HD (1080p).

I'm having trouble getting Dish Network to deliver HD to more than one of my TVs and I quite like the SD signal on the HD LCD I watch in my bedroom. It's the delivery of Ultra HD (4K) that I wonder about the most.

What happened to 3D? Wasn't it supposed to have swept the consumer market by now? Are you making a bad decision by not shooting 3D? Who knows what "future proof" is anyway? If you can make an Avatar, you would be making a "bad business decision" if you decided not to. ;-)

loganmackay
10-20-2012, 05:26 PM
The Alexa, which is arguably the best looking footage around, only shoots 2k.

vidguy22
10-20-2012, 05:28 PM
I guess we need to hear from 4k shooters who see it on a 4k monitor.

mhood
10-20-2012, 05:30 PM
I guess we need to hear from 4k shooters who see it on a 4k monitor.

Yea...all four of them.

vidguy22
10-20-2012, 05:33 PM
Yea...all four of them. LOL

But seriously, how soon till walmart has Ultra HD TV sets and ULTRA HD cams? I think CES this year is gonna push it!

Wolf
10-20-2012, 05:33 PM
2k will be good for another 2-3 years at the very least.
Remember that virtually no one has a 4k TV/monitor as of now. We only recently switched over to HD, and most people still watch in SD!

Not to mention that most providers struggle to provide a decent bitrate and go with 720p instead.
Add to that the economic crisis and the fact that most people will be more than satisfied with 1080p for now, i don't see 4k coming any time soon.

Unless you intend on shooting for the big screen, 4k is a wise decision. But then again, you probably wouldn't have looked at the BMC anyway.

But even then, there are still plenty of movies and Tv series being shot on Alexa. Same resolution as the BMC.

itimjim
10-20-2012, 05:38 PM
Great. I'm going to have to move my sofa another 4ft closer to the TV.....again.

Grug
10-20-2012, 06:17 PM
The Alexa, which is arguably the best looking footage around, only shoots 2k.

2.7k (when it's shooting RAW).

It's going to be an interesting market, I don't think we'll see much in the way of 4K-delivered video content anytime soon (heck the HD broadcasters are putting out at the moment is still so miserably compressed that it barely looks better than SD).

I actually think it'll be gaming, more so than film or tv, that will start pushing 4K sets out the door. Simply because gaming consoles present a direct means for outputting the added resolution.

You've also got the fact that most of these screens are going to be in the 70-80" range, which can easily get uncomfortable in a regular-sized living room/viewing distance.

At any rate, it'll be interesting to see where things go. I'm just sad that the resolution race has won out in TV manufacturing, rather than a push to wider colour gamuts, bit-depth and tonal range - which would enhance the images we watch at home so much more than quadrupling resolution will do.

Brandon
10-20-2012, 06:22 PM
It's just announced 4k is now known as ULTRA HD.

This isnt new news. That term has been around for a while.



So, if your camera only does 2.5 K, is it already obsolete for a pro?


No consumer electronics store sells 4k TVs yet, so no.

Will the BMC be obsolete in 4 years? Of course. But not because of the lack of 4k. Even the 4k Red one is obsolete in spite of what Jannard might tell you. Electronics dont last long, especially cameras. Technology changes fast. Your camera will become outdated for other reasons before lack of resolution becomes an issue.

ROCKMORE
10-20-2012, 07:27 PM
future proofing

If you could see the future, all you would see is your equipment becoming obsolete. Just invest in what you make money with today sell tomorrow and move on to the next wave of technology.

ianim8
10-20-2012, 07:33 PM
Ive been dealing with this issue of 4K for 6 years now.
I thought by now we would have a freakin 4K display for grading and finishing :P
There is the REDRAY but that is also a half year away.
Its the closest I know that will get 4K in a home theater.
One heck of a grading set-up huh :)

vidguy22
10-20-2012, 07:33 PM
Not even if you can see the future.

well seems like a lot of shooters here are happy with 2.5k. I guess it depends on what your market is. In 2 years will people buying your stuff go " well we prefer a 4 k master " ?


On a side-note: what home file delivery is there for 4k? Will it be a new standard of blu-ray? or what? thanks

John Brawley
10-20-2012, 07:42 PM
Im sure i've read statistsic that say mosy US TV viewers don't even have their HD tv sets hooked up correctly to receive HD. Add to that the broadcasters who don't even broadcast in HD.

http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/most-homes-now-have-hd-sets-only-53-percent-tv-stations-can-accept-hd-spots

It's all about selling consumer electronics and nothing to do with better content.

jb


PS....most DI finished films are only finished to 2K. What's really really funny is that everyone was saying 4K was *enough* back when we were introducing digital cinema cameras. Lo and behold, we're up to 4K displays. Lucky for the good ole resolution independence of celluloid, so we can just re-scan all those old films that were shot on film and get 4K out of them. Too bad the same can't be said for any current sub 2k technology. (and no de-bayering it in a better way won't improve it by more than a few percent).

Film. The format that just keeps giving. Too bad it's already been thrown away in the rush for something *better*

nickjbedford
10-20-2012, 07:45 PM
For blockbuster productions... maybe. But for regular Joe shooting music videos or documentaries or whatevs, 2K is enough. The main thing is coming from a >destination-resolution image.

I'd personally rather use 4K of a RED frame to produce a SLICK, antialiased 2K frame.

Matthew Bennett
10-20-2012, 07:49 PM
Resolution... bah

Color reproduction. Great colour and 2.5K a great camera makes.

nickjbedford
10-20-2012, 07:55 PM
Same goes for depth of field for me. If there is enough to add some separation, then ON WITH THE SHOW.

In my short time filming stuff, I don't pay that much attention to just how shallow the depth of field is.

/personal-opinion

vidguy22
10-20-2012, 08:01 PM
Well,

Im mainly interested in keying. so Im still gonna bite - IF they ever deliver...before the competition is announced.

jimagine
10-20-2012, 08:03 PM
Im sure i've read statistsic that say mosy US TV viewers don't even have their HD tv sets hooked up correctly to receive HD. Add to that the broadcasters who don't even broadcast in HD.


It's amazing how many markets air our HD spots in SD.
Many of them network affiliates broadcasting content in HD.

David
10-20-2012, 10:20 PM
Res is very important to me but it's not the end all be all. The BMC will be fine for at least a couple of years but possibly more. To many bandwidth issues that are being battled over. We can't even broadcast real HD to most homes if any and early adopters of Ultra HD for home use I believe will be few and far between. Ultra HD will be a nightmare to get into homes without compressing the images even worse than they are now.

morgan_moore
10-20-2012, 10:33 PM
Everyone is correct. There are so many reasons why a resolution of 4000 lines is not going to be witnessed by viewers any day soon.

There is no way any viewer will even appreciate 1000 lines soon

But we dont work for viewers, we work for producers and production companies and other people who want the latest buzzword.

There may be a lot of 4k requests soon

At that point we have a choice, throw out our camera or lose work.

Now Id prefer to throw out a $3k camera head than a C300/SonyF3 or whatever

Owning the BMC 'camera head' will cost max $2k per year, total bargain

Your next camera head will probably run on SSD, need rails, lenses etc so that investment is safe.

S

Barrett Phillips
10-20-2012, 11:53 PM
Never posted here but I've been a lurker for a while - got a MFT BMCC on order. Hi :-)

Just thought I'd chime in about the whole resolution debate as to whether 4K TVs are even necessary...

This CNET article is kind of annoying to me because they seem to suggest that literally being able to see every individual pixel is some sort of goal - I have decent eyes but they aren't tack sharp at longer distances, however I was at the RED booth this year at NAB and happened to catch sight of a ~50inch 4K TV from at least 40 feet away at an oblique angle (the first 4K footage I think I'd ever seen at that point) and I could even tell that there was something different about it from that far away; it looked to me more like a printed photograph than video. Because it was kind of tucked away in a corner if it hadn't stood out like it did I never would've approached it, so even though I obviously could never 'see' all the individual pixels it still was a clear difference to HD. Now up closer it was stunning; I would attribute the difference to something like 35mm vs IMAX. I will admit I actually prefer the Alexa's image to most RED footage all things considered (because all things need to be considered) but there's no question the 4K footage was extremely captivating in it's own right and I'd love to see more of it.

I just think the notion that you have to actually be able to discern one pixel from the next is totally wrong and is counter to what the industry needs to hear. I think most of us could sit a normal distance from a Macbook and tell if it's got a retina display or not. If anything the idea that people don't need 4K tvs will make television and projector manufacturers push other things like HFR or 3D which in my opinion are both annoying and probably just business decisions in most scenarios. Because let's face it, they're going to push something. With that in mind I think it should be something that actually has the ability to improve a viewing experience rather than give us a headache or make us think we're watching a soap opera. I'm willing to eat my words if HFR makes it into the theatre without it costing the audience but... I have my doubts :\

Sorry for getting OT – I basically mean to say 4K is actually really cool just like going to see an IMAX film is really cool, but it doesn't make me want to go home and throw away my HDTV either. Resolution is just part of the puzzle. Like everyone's been saying DR, highlight handling and skin tone tend to be a higher priority on this board at least (which is why most of us would rather shoot on the BMCC than say an FS700) but LIKE dynamic range, highlights & skin tone, resolution is a healthy technology to improve alongside everything else (rather than all on its own).

ROCKMORE
10-21-2012, 12:17 AM
Never posted here but I've been a lurker for a while - got a MFT BMCC on order. Hi :-)

Just thought I'd chime in about the whole resolution debate as to whether 4K TVs are even necessary...

This CNET article is kind of annoying to me because they seem to suggest that literally being able to see every individual pixel is some sort of goal - I have decent eyes but they aren't tack sharp at longer distances, however I was at the RED booth this year at NAB and happened to catch sight of a ~50inch 4K TV from at least 40 feet away at an oblique angle (the first 4K footage I think I'd ever seen at that point) and I could even tell that there was something different about it from that far away; it looked to me more like a printed photograph than video. Because it was kind of tucked away in a corner if it hadn't stood out like it did I never would've approached it, so even though I obviously could never 'see' all the individual pixels it still was a clear difference to HD. Now up closer it was stunning; I would attribute the difference to something like 35mm vs IMAX. I will admit I actually prefer the Alexa's image to most RED footage all things considered (because all things need to be considered) but there's no question the 4K footage was extremely captivating in it's own right and I'd love to see more of it.

I just think the notion that you have to actually be able to discern one pixel from the next is totally wrong and is counter to what the industry needs to hear. I think most of us could sit a normal distance from a Macbook and tell if it's got a retina display or not. If anything the idea that people don't need 4K tvs will make television and projector manufacturers push other things like HFR or 3D which in my opinion are both annoying and probably just business decisions in most scenarios. Because let's face it, they're going to push something. With that in mind I think it should be something that actually has the ability to improve a viewing experience rather than give us a headache or make us think we're watching a soap opera. I'm willing to eat my words if HFR makes it into the theatre without it costing the audience but... I have my doubts :\

Sorry for getting OT – I basically mean to say 4K is actually really cool just like going to see an IMAX film is really cool, but it doesn't make me want to go home and throw away my HDTV either. Resolution is just part of the puzzle. Like everyone's been saying DR, highlight handling and skin tone tend to be a higher priority on this board at least (which is why most of us would rather shoot on the BMCC than say an FS700) but LIKE dynamic range, highlights & skin tone, resolution is a healthy technology to improve alongside everything else (rather than all on its own).

Very good for your first post.

rawCAM35
10-21-2012, 02:51 AM
Many are already worried about media storage and management for a 2K raw workflow, many are saying that they intend to shoot ProRes or DNxHD, so should we really need to be worried about the 4K in the near feature ?, I do not think so.
A 4K camera with internal 4K raw recorder will not be cheap
High quality lenses that resolve to 4k sensors are not cheap
4K monitoring is not cheap
Recording media and storage for 4K is not cheap

Cable companies, the internet and dishes can hardly handle compressed HD signal, they had problems even with standard definition signals, imagine handling 4K

New technology takes long time to make it to main stream, HD TV took 20 years to come to mass market

Super Hi-Vision also known as UHDTV, it is an 8K resolution or 7,680 x 4,320 pixels was tested by NHK and the BBC during the 2012 Olympics in London.
NHK and the BBC sent the uncompressed UHDTV signal at 24 Gbit/s to viewing centers on a 20GBps connection over eight wavelengths optical fiber link carrying the UHDTV uncompressed at 24 Gbit/s over eight wavelengths.
It took 16 HD recorders For recording the 24 Gbit/s UHDTV signal, probably we won't see this until the early 2030s.

2K raw looks great on the big screen, BMD camera will still be good enough for the next 4-5 years

markscott
10-21-2012, 02:53 AM
Above a certain point does a theatre audience really care about how amazing the picture quality can be. Reminds me of a new car after a little while you forget its new and just drive.

Maybe getting the perfect picture will be why everyone goes to the cinema. Busily checking what spot has been resolved better.

rawCAM35
10-21-2012, 03:15 AM
Above a certain point does a theatre audience really care about how amazing the picture quality can be. Reminds me of a new car after a little while you forget its new and just drive.

Maybe getting the perfect picture will be why everyone goes to the cinema. Busily checking what spot has been resolved better.

Agree, sometimes people in our business are forgetting that what goes on the large screen is not only the highest resolution picture but a good story, directing, convincing lighting, performance, editing and audio.

I must say that it is always good to start with very decent picture.

greymog
10-21-2012, 08:26 AM
... so no more 4096?

ROCKMORE
10-21-2012, 08:43 AM
well seems like a lot of shooters here are happy with 2.5k. I guess it depends on what your market is. In 2 years will people buying your stuff go " well we prefer a 4 k master " ?


I'm still shooting with an EX3 as a mainstream camera with a 60D as a B-cam and nobody seems to be complaining. I'll squeeze them both to the last drop till the next best camera gets delivered. Both of these cameras are very cheap for storage and about as easy as it gets for post production.
The BMC is the best choice for the money for sure, but 6 months who knows. That's why I will never buy a camera again without selling it in mind.

jaybirch
10-21-2012, 08:51 AM
4K is gonna be a really tough sell to joe public and could flop just as fast as 3D did. I don't think it will get past the niche markets until it is just as cheap to buy a 4K screen as a HD screen.

HD looks great for the average family watching a 40" screen in an average sized living room. Even if the manufacturers started pushing out really cheap 90" 4K screens, most families don't have room for such a tv.

4K on a family sized 40" tv will just not look so much better that it is worth the upgrade.... Unless you sit 1 meter away from your tv.

Cde.
10-21-2012, 09:10 AM
... so no more 4096?
That's 4K, a cinema resolution. This is UHD, a TV resolution.

pharpsied
10-21-2012, 09:45 AM
4K is gonna be a really tough sell to joe public and could flop just as fast as 3D did. I don't think it will get past the niche markets until it is just as cheap to buy a 4K screen as a HD screen.

HD looks great for the average family watching a 40" screen in an average sized living room. Even if the manufacturers started pushing out really cheap 90" 4K screens, most families don't have room for such a tv.

4K on a family sized 40" tv will just not look so much better that it is worth the upgrade.... Unless you sit 1 meter away from your tv.

The price of the displays will play a huge role in the uptake of UHD displays. Right now, LED TVs are price in the sweet spot for all consumers and if they don't do this from jump street, it seems like the idea may be dead in the water, consider this:

Earlier this year, 55-inch 3-D TVs were selling for as little as $700, roughly half of what they cost 12 months prior.

The average 32-inch LCD TV sold for $435 in the second quarter of 2012, down from $495 in Q1 and $546 in Q2 of 2011. In June, the average 42-inch LCD TV hit an all-time low of $761, down from the May average of $807.

Read more: http://moneyland.time.com/2012/08/01/tv-prices-shrink-yet-average-tv-purchase-costs-more/#ixzz29waEpH7l

The article also says that although the prices have dropped, consumers are paying more for their TVs but that seems to be a future proofing measure, ie "if is just costs a few hundred more, why not get the bigger screen- it's still cheaper than it was before..."
If people upgrade their 32 inch LCD or SDTV to a 55" OLED 3D for $850, why would they turn around and buy another 55" 4k TV for $3600*? This is not the era of the frivolous spender...

Also the argument that viewers just don't care about 3d and other gimmicks seems to be correct:


The majority of viewers actually seem to have no interest in 3-D TV. The technology may not even represent an upgrade to some. The results of a survey published this past spring indicated that less than 1 in 5 viewers deem 3-D TV as “appealing,” and just 16% found 3-D TV “useful.” A Wall Street Journal reviewer who recently spent three weeks viewing 3-D TV had little good to say about the technology. “I’m probably not going to recommend it to anyone” because “it’s practically impossible to find anything in 3-D worth watching,” he wrote. A line that the technology being “not necessarily superior … just more eccentric,” is the closest he gets to complimenting 3-D TV.

Read more: http://moneyland.time.com/2012/08/01/tv-prices-shrink-yet-average-tv-purchase-costs-more/#ixzz29wYZMpdz

All in all, past the special edition of Avatar (completely oversaturated) and maybe Avengers (approaching critical mass), 3d seems to be a lame duck...
The question is, how will consumers view 4K and will there be enough 4K launch material for viewers to care?

For me, the decision to remain loyal to the promise/mythic legend of the BMC is a difficult but intelligent one. I believe that this camera will afford me the image that I am looking for right now and will allow me to more easily translate my vision from my head into a medium. I am not a shooter primarily, I am a director by trade, and I am buying this camera to circumvent a lot of the cost of making films, but I am making films that I hope will be marketable and sell-able, so I hope to make money from my films and eventually move into the large budget realm. Therefore, I am investing in a system that allows me to make movies now, and get money for cameras later. When it is time for 4k deliverables, we will all be there, but while we can make our mark in 2k and 1080p, the BMCC is the best budget purchase for what I and a few others intend to do...

Is it obsolete, no?
But does it have an expiration date, absolutely!

Everything does.
(I don't know why I work so hard on these posts sometimes? Does anyone read these long ones?)

mhood
10-21-2012, 09:53 AM
(I don't know why I work so hard on these posts sometimes? Does anyone read these long ones?)

Every word.

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
10-21-2012, 12:40 PM
...
Is it obsolete, no?
But does it have an expiration date, absolutely!

Everything does.
(I don't know why I work so hard on these posts sometimes? Does anyone read these long ones?)

Yep, and agreed.

Roxco
10-22-2012, 11:09 AM
Great. I'm going to have to move my sofa another 4ft closer to the TV.....again.

Read The Media Lab, a book from MIT to calculate the exact place to put your couch.

Otherwise understand that video is now file based and 8K/300fps is already here.

It's the production pipeline that determines the "best" resolution not the camera.

The other argument is good talent (and I) are never cheap, so shoot at 6K now.

That's my take,

Rosco

P.S. The term UltraHD was just made official for the comsumer.

Brian Self
10-22-2012, 12:28 PM
IMO I think the best way to deliver 4k in the home is the red ray or a similar projector, I think projectors will begin to become popular. I think the medium of delivery wont be the cloud, america just cant keep up with the rest of the world in bandwidth and internet delivery. Instead I think blu ray will be the last optical media and disk based media like a cf, sd or ssd card will be delivery medium of the future. It's a medium that doesn't need to change when resolution or file sizes do.

daveswan
10-22-2012, 01:34 PM
"If people upgrade their 32 inch LCD or SDTV to a 55" OLED 3D for $850"

pharpseid, can you point me to where I can get a 55" OLED TV for $850?

AFAIK OLEDs top out at 24-32" at lottery-winner price tags. Consumer LEDs are just LED backlight LCDs. I think I prefer plasma anyway

whoatemyteeth
10-22-2012, 01:58 PM
4K is inevitable. Talk to anyone who's into PC gaming and ask if they play at "HD" resolution today. They'll laugh. Watch a HD video on a 24" iMac and look at how tiny it is. Even the iPad has a 2,048 x1536 display. More and more media is being used outside of the home theater, but even with traditional TVs, big companies like Sony are making their next console gaming/media system at 4k res.

3D failed because it didn't work well and wasn't necessary, the use of and demand of higher res content has already happened, TVs are just trying to keep up.

mhood
10-22-2012, 02:01 PM
TVs are just trying to keep up.

So what are broadcasters doing?

Tom
10-22-2012, 02:12 PM
The number of times ive been round to someones house and seen that an SD version of the channel was being watched rather than the HD version and I have point this out only to find no one could tell the difference...

I can tell the difference sure, im sure many people can. But in the same way that many people can hear the nasty compression on a mp3, millions more will ignore it and settle with having more songs but at a lower bitrate.

SD to HD is an easy sell I think, because the difference is noticeable by enough people and the typical sizes of tv's on sale combined with the typical viewing distances makes it a worth while purchase for your typical consumer. HD to 4K however might be a much harder sell. How many people sit close enough and or have vision good enough to see the difference?

Film buffs, film makers, tv enthusiasts, techy people and a whole other group of people would probably notice and want the 4k - but I suspect they would still be a significant minority compared to the masses of other consumers which would need to be convinced for 4k to be a viable direction for tv and film to develop.

Film of course has the detail in which 4k is useful to effectively digitise all the imagery in each frame - but I think that the perceived resolution of film at your typical cinema is such that most people would say that the 2k digital projection looks clearer. Ive even heard people claim this. Ive also heard people complain that they wish the cinema was HD, I pointed out that it was probably either a higher than HD projection and or film which is better than HD, but these people would not have any of it.

Personally, my ideal development would be to have a frame in front of me which looks like a clear window, and a camera which is capable of capturing images to compliment the screen. BUT, I dont expect us to get to that point just because of how your average consumer is. I just dont think it would be appreciated enough for it to be mass produced to an extent to bring the cost down to your typical price. I think it is a bit silly to assume that every aspect of development to continue in the same direction forever and ever - 2k, 4k, 8k etc. There has to be a point in which it plateaus and some other development is marketed enough in order for it to become a real standard feature.

Just my thoughts, based mostly on my experiences - its obviously speculative and therefore arguably wrong. No need to reply to explain why i'm wrong - I dont necessarily think i am right ;-)

PaulDelVecchio
10-22-2012, 02:17 PM
So what are broadcasters doing?

Still broadcasting in 720p. =)

What sucks about the digital revolution is that we kinda have to buy new cameras and keep up with tech as far as 2K, 4K, 8K, etc, whereas with film, for the most part, you can just rescan it. Man, let me tell you, I wish we could freeze the resolution tech at 4k or 2k even... so I can buy one camera, and stick with it for 10 years+ and concentrate more on creating content than worrying about falling behind on tech and having to buy new stuff to keep up with deliverables.

It makes me happy that 2K is the standard delivery for cinema (but that'll probably change soon) and that TV is only 720p, because it looks good enough, and the concentration should be more on the content than the technology.

whoatemyteeth
10-22-2012, 02:35 PM
What I was saying was that a TON of media is now being watched on computers and tablets and other non-TV devices. All of those devices have moved past 1080 and TVs are behind.

Within my group of friends in their 20s/30s almost no one has cable. We watch Hulu, Netflix, blu-rays, rent movies from the 360 and PS3 (now moving to 4k in the PS4). On a retina display or most PC monitors HD content looks "small" and doesn't blow up well. Again, it's a force you can't stop that video content is going to have to keep up. The fact that cable companies are often making their HD channels more compressed than the free HD broadcasts, doesn't mean that people aren't moving to 4k. It really just means more and more people are going to give up on cable, and cable tv will die out as the thing my parents still have set to 720p and watched stretched, non-the wiser.

Dafilman21
10-22-2012, 02:43 PM
While a lot of people do watch TV on there devices, there are MILLIONS of people who watch sports. And until the major sports leagues allow you to watch any game you want on or your device without having a subscription to Directv or cable these services will still be around. Also for certain sports you can't watch them on a small screen Football comes immediately to mind.

mhood
10-22-2012, 02:46 PM
I fully expect to get my Samsung Note 2 before I get my BMC and I doubt very seriously if 4K will look better than 720p...it will just eat up my minutes faster. Netflix to our 1080p LCD via the wife's iPad looks pretty bad to my eyes. It may be inevitable but it isn't likely to be quick.

I do some stuff for Youtube only and decided to give up 1080p for 720p so that I could crop some of the footage. So far, nobody in a pretty sophisticated audience has mentioned it. We are not representative...I think you can bank on that.

whoatemyteeth
10-22-2012, 03:13 PM
Video games are a larger industry than film, and 1080p is very outdated in that environment. Computer monitors and tablets are going higher and higher res. There's a demand for 4K. Right now it may be just in the tech community, but the rest who may or may not "need" it, will be dragged into it. When HDTVs came out there was no to almost no broadcast content for it for years. The PS3 was the intro to Blu-Ray for a lot of people (and MS tried HD-DVD). It first started in the gaming/tech community. The first few years it will be online rentals and discs, over the next 4-5 years it will be as standard across the board broadcast as HD is today (we've been shooting a ton of tv shows in 4K for "future proof" distro for a while now).

You can't judge the future by what cable companies are doing today. They are constantly three steps behind. Not to make this into a "cut the cable" rant, but Boxee are working on a set top box with live sports coverage (currently offer over the air HDTV programming) and who knows what Apple TV will bring for IPTV.

Will movies and tv shows be available in 4K next year? 100% yes. I can guarantee it.

pharpsied
10-22-2012, 10:11 PM
"If people upgrade their 32 inch LCD or SDTV to a 55" OLED 3D for $850"

pharpseid, can you point me to where I can get a 55" OLED TV for $850?

AFAIK OLEDs top out at 24-32" at lottery-winner price tags. Consumer LEDs are just LED backlight LCDs. I think I prefer plasma anyway

Sorry, I forgot that hyperbole doesn't fly around these parts...
It was a little tongue in cheek example of the constant declination of price against the constant inclusion of gimmicky features for consumers who will most likely beat a dead technology horse before frivolously upgrading...

zwarte_kat
10-22-2012, 10:41 PM
And even if broadcast standards don't rise quickly in resolution, producers will want to have content made in high resolution anyway, because they also want to sell the product through other current and future high res channels. In the same way as series became popular purchases on dvd and downloads in the the past.

If 4K devices and cameras become more normal, producers will want to use it, and they would be right too. The BMC is made for a stunning quality HD output, their president even says it himself on the 1st page of the manual. It is a good investment for NOW, but not a future proof resolution. But who cares? You can get a profit on it on your first 1 or 2 jobs already anyway if they are decent projects, and will pave way for getting jobs in the future, which you can then shoot on new affordable 4K cameras from Blackmagic or other companies.

So it's specs are not future proof, but it is a future proof (for the user's carreer) camera because of it's price versus CURRENT performance. That's already quite something, I believe.

vidguy22
10-22-2012, 11:28 PM
EVEN TABLETS

are now HIGHER than Full HD.

Google Nexus 10 - 2560 1600, 10.1-inch 299 PPI

http://www.zdnet.com/tablet-wars-googles-nexus-10-could-break-the-300-ppi-barrier-7000006185/

ward
10-23-2012, 12:34 AM
Received my JVC 4K GY hmq10, have been testing it for the four days, so far the detail in each frame is astounding. the camera needs light but with gain opened up can do interiors decently with regular room lights on. With a properly lit subject, inside shots will be no problem with the camera set right. Exterior shots were on cloudy and sunny days and are crystal clear but with the sun the camera likes the gain set to 0. Added a variable ND to make the sky rich and blue and cut the highlights a bit making the fall colors etc. pop. As far as work flow I pull the 4 HD quadrants into After Effects and assembled them. Very easy to do. I make the comp window as big as I can and then ask AE to fit the 4K comp inside a fairly large monitor. Incredible the amount of detail. Stuff shows up in the distance that I missed when shooting. Though I don't have a 4K monitor, an AE or Premiere composition at 4k benefits greatly from the 4x HD resolution very noticeably. No jaggys anywhere. The mercury play back engine in Premiere plays a 4.2.2 output at full 4k without a hitch. Bowed out of the BMC for now as a I am beginning a short film and couldn't wait. the JVC also does Full 4K at 60P and the macro mode creates some nice filmick focus pulls. I am happy with it. Cheer

Amr Rahmy
10-23-2012, 08:37 AM
i have seen comments on youtube videos complaining about resolution (some times up to 720p), one of which commenting on the 240p resolution video of a classic song with a static cover art, the cover art was white text on a black background.

i have seen people replacing their mobile phones with the exact phone in a different shell/exterior every few month in the past.

if the new gaming consoles comes in ultra hd, people will eat that up.

it's a shame it's not 10bit 1080p, that would have been better and more bandwidth friendly. or even the 2560x1080p displays.

Brian Merlin
11-05-2012, 10:14 PM
dude i can't believe JJ just liquidated the Red Ones for 1k more then the BMC! i already got sick of waiting and bought a used scarlet a few months ago...but none the less i am sure a lot of BMC orders got cancelled and these Red Ones will run out super fast! I almost wanna grab one myself if I could just justify owning 2 cinema cameras while primarily working as a DIT/Editor at the moment lol!