>The same factor applies to 4K in a theater. Once you get enough rows back
you won't be able to see the difference between 4K and 2K.
The difference being 4K in theatrical projection makes practical sense. 2K
was "just" there but 4K is much better like 70mm was to 35mm. I normally sit
slightly forward of center row. When I saw my first 4K projection Batman:
The Dark Knight Rises I noticed the difference immediately in more detail,
better contrast, clearer viewing and obvious missed focus. The inconsistent
nature of the various film stocks was even more noticeable so production now
has even more concerns on the shooting end. Going any higher than 4K would
be wasted on present day "mall" screen sizes except IMAX screens.
I think on the good side of 4K is better compression algorithms and more
care in re-mastering and home release quality. The downside that I haven't
seen mentioned anywhere is having to scale present 1920x1080 material to 4K.
I was at Fry's recently watching Skyfall on Blu-Ray on the new Sony 4K and
it was very disappointing with the typical up-scaling artifacts. I confirmed
it was a 1080p signal feeding the monitor but the sales person could not
find the remote to let me get into the menu. While I know this is a poor
example to cite it's the only example I've seen of 1080p material on a 4K
TV.
4K in the home is a necessary marketing strategy to overcome the falling 3D
craze, sell TVs and give techies something new to push. When 4K comes down
in price to $799 for a set I'll switch. Till then my opinion of 4K in the
home is...yawn.
Tom McDonnell
Cinematographer/Operator/Editor
Los Angeles, CA
New Orleans, LA
818-675-1501
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (29) |
No comments:
Post a Comment