Okay Mark, for you I will be more specific. The current push for 4K is being driven by manufacturers. They are driven by the desire to sell more product. I contend that the viewer is not asking for higher fidelity at home. Let's have a discourse on that subject.
Observation #1. We have had the ability to master and distribute audio at 24bit /192 K for quite a while. What did the consumer settle for? MP3
Observation #2. We have been distributing HD for years now and the saturation of HD sets is very high. However, in various studies we see around 50 % of viewing on HD TVs is still SD. Why?
Observation #3. The human eye has a limit to it's ability to perceive detail. There are online calculators that show where that limit drops off in regards to 4K vs HD, etc. I contend there is no point in going beyond that as it is wasted bandwidth.
Observation #3. The human eye has a limit to it's ability to perceive detail. There are online calculators that show where that limit drops off in regards to 4K vs HD, etc. I contend there is no point in going beyond that as it is wasted bandwidth.
Observation #4. One of the selling points of 4K is "future proofing." Is the human eye's ability to observe resolution going to improve in the future?
Observation #5. HDR makes a much bigger impact to the normal observer than higher resolution. Once you accept this, then why isn't our focus there?
Don't get me wrong, I have spent my career trying to put the highest quality into the post process. But I realize there are limits. And as someone who realizes the scope of money that will be wasted (yes I said wasted) to create a 4K master that will add little to the project in the best of circumstances, I am calling it a scam.
__._,_.___
Posted by: tcurren@aol.com
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (30) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment