Despite the fact that arguing with Terry on the Terence and Philip show might make for good entertainment, in this case I agree completely with Terry.
Go into most non-industry households and see how their SD or HD set is set up. It breaks your heart.
philip
On Aug 25, 2013, at 12:28 AM, Terence Curren <tcurren@aol.com> wrote:
> Tod,
>
> I appreciate your zeal. I too am a perfectionist. But I am also a realist who believes in modeling his predictions with historical data points. Here is reality, from a historical perspective. If you expect people to pay more for something, you need to get them to believe they need it.
>
> So, we either see 4K TVs selling at basically the same price point as HD TVs, or the buyers have to be convinced there is an increased value in proportion to the difference. And here is where the trouble starts. The human eye has a finite limit. Otherwise we would be talking about 2 million K TVs. everything in the physical universe has a limit (as far as we know). So, when we find the limit of human visual perception, anything above that is a waste of time and money. 4K in the home, and in many theaters, is arguably a waste due to these limits.
>
> Now you might say you can se the difference, just as audiophiles claim there is a difference in listening to an LP through a tube amplifier. Exactly how many LPs, and tube amplifiers are being sold?
>
> I have dealt with many editor friends who have been getting shows bounced by ABC because of problems when they are downconverted and played back to an analog SD TV. Yes, ABC still cares enough about a demographic watching analog SD. And this after Japan was broadcasting HD over 20 years ago. (And I can show even the least technical person how to differentiate HD from SD in a few minutes of viewing)
>
> So let's break this issue down. First, you have to convince people to ditch their perfectly good HD TVs (or SD for the holdouts) for a 4K TV.
>
> Second, you have to provide enough programming to justify it. And get that programming in some high quality format to the end user.
>
> Third, all production and post needs to start working in 4K.
>
> Finally, someone has to pay for all of this.
>
>
>
> I am extremely skeptical of the first point, just as I was with the historically oft repeated 3D craze. And I had plenty of really smart folks in the industry telling me how wrong I was.
>
> Second point, as appalling as it may seem, we are still delivering some shows in SD. Generating enough good 4K content appears to be a long ways down the road.
>
> Third point, How exactly are you monitoring your 4K? What scope are you using, or are you just guessing it's good enough based on the consumer monitor you are looking at? What is your mezzanine codec? You mention the new iMac Pro that will allegedly do 4 streams of 4K. Has anyone figured out how you are going to stream 4 streams of 4K down Thunderbolt 2 that only supports 10Gigs per channel for storage? Uncompressed 4K takes more than 10 Gigs for a 30 frame stream. Ooops.
> Oh yes, we are going to make it all work with H.265 and that is fine because H.264 works so well for post now....
>
>
> And finally, who will pay for it. I am a veteran of the transition from SD to HD. And at best you could command a 10 percent hike in pricing. And some of that was due to HDCam decks and tapes being so expensive. But we aren't using decks anymore in the 4K world. It's all file based. And what the heck, a 2 TB drive is $80.00 at Fry's. So this shouldn't cost any more, it should even be less as you don't need a VTR.
> The producer's kid has a computer that plays 4K, so you should match his price. And since there are no professional monitors or scopes to justify your higher charges, you will just have to work on the same crappy gear that the producer's kid owns.
>
> Again, I love quality. If it was up to me, all movies shot in the last 50 years would have been shot 65MM for a 70MM release. But there is a market equation to be considered. Time and again, the folks have shown they aren't willing to pay for a little bit more quality. I could lay this out historically for you, but that would take hours of typing. In a nutshell, story will always trump technical.
>
> Here is why we are having this discussion. The Japanese TV manufacturers are in deep trouble since the Koreans and Chinese entered the game and bested them. So they are hoping they can make profits again by selling overpriced 4K TVs. Cable and broadcast are hoping to hang on to a dwindling viewership and are willing to grasp at technical straws, (think Scope and color in the 50s). "Professionals" in the industry think they need some technical barrier to entry to protect their jobs.
> None of these are good business models. Each is coming from a point of weakness and hoping to force a change in a trend. None will be successful historically speaking.
>
> y bottom line is that if we truly care about quality ( I do) then we should take the new whiz bang codec (H.265) and combine it with increased bandwidth, to provide a less artifacted 444, 10 or 12 bit HD signal to the home. Oh yeah, and we could all use the infrastructure we already have in place. How come no one wants to talk about his approach? Oh yeah, they won't be able to sell more gear. :-(
>
>
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, T Hopkins <hoplist@...> wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 24, 2013, at 8:17 PM, Dylan Reeve wrote:
>>
>>> There is virtually no way to even get 4K to the consumer... No sign of 4K
>>> broadcast on the horizon.
>>
>> This is most definitely not my reading of the tea leaves. 4K is not a maybe, it's merely a when.
>>
>> I think you will see 4K monitors in Best Buy next year. 4K is here now at the pro level. It's all over the shows. Monitors, players, distribution, even projectors. The price is falling at an unprecedented pace. 70 inches of 4K glory can be had right now for about $15k.
>>
>> As for getting 4K content to the consumer, that's also not major hurdle. You are correct, it probably won't be broadcast any time soon, if ever. Do you still watch broadcast? This is hardly a barrier. You could put 4k on a Blu-ray if Sony decides to, but I hope they don't because I would dearly love to see the nightmare that is Blu-ray go away.
>>
>> LIke I said, the players are already available and will be cheap soon. Actually, this is the easiest part technically. 4K will initially go to the consumer as files. Yup, they will be big files. They will come over high-speed fiber and cable, on "thumb" drives and SD cards, and if we are REALLY lucky, the optical successor to Blu-ray. DRM will be an issue, but Hollywood will figure this out. Frankly, DRM is my biggest concern. It held up HD for years.
>>
>> But 4k content? Come on, please. Where does Hollywood go next if not 4k? Major films are already shot 4k. Theaters are rapidly converting to 4K, driven in part by the fact that they know 4k is coming to the consumer. Again, not a technical problem. The market will be created by the electronics companies. Hollywood will be forced to oblige.
>>
>> And sports. What would people pay for 4k football do you think? I'm thinking Superbowl 2015 maybe. World Cup 2018 definitely!
>>
>> And don't forget the other things you can do with 4K. The new MacPro has 4k outputs. Did anyone catch that? As a matter of fact, it has dual 4k outputs! Any forecasts for the future of Xbox and Playstation? Anyone want to play Halo 5 in 4k on an 80 inch monitor? Yeah, me too.
>>
>> Will the consumer care? Of course they will. Why? Because they are already buying 60-inch monitors, soon to be 70 and 80 inch. HD is great, but it's still not perfect. We can see the seams. It can get better and the consumer knows it. Sure they watch dreadful compression because it's convenient, but they also buy Blu-ray at stupidly unreasonable prices. They CAN see the difference.
>>
>> Will everyone have 4k by 2015? No. It will be too expensive for most. Will 4k eventually replace HD? Certainly, and it will do so faster than HD replaced SD. Much faster.
>>
>> cheers,
>> tod
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (28) |
No comments:
Post a Comment