This IS the Avid L2: Re: [Avid-L2] More folks are panning the 4K push

Monday, August 26, 2013

Re: [Avid-L2] More folks are panning the 4K push

It's quite a bit easier with digital now - rather than the dodgy composite
video splitters that used to be the norm, they now usually have pretty
decent HDMI splitters or even routers. I heard of one "boutique" store in
Australia installing a Blackmagic VideoHub and many SDI->HDMI converters -
the sales staff can route any of a number of HD playback sources into any
monitor from an iPad while standing with a customer -- "oh, you watch a lot
of Cricket? Let me pull up the latest Ashes match on here"

Not sure what they playback systems are, but hell they could use Blackmagic
Hyperdecks too - the same tech will work for 4K too.

But in practice the manufacturers will just provide a Blu-Ray with
simulated "HD" and "4K" examples that will be played on the 4K TVs in HD -
seriously. I'm sure they will.

Dylan Reeve
http://dylanreeve.com/

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Steve Hullfish <steve4lists@veralith.com>wrote:

> From being in Best Buys and Frys when they were just trying to sell HD,
> they'll never be able to sell 4K because I was trying to judge HD sets from
> super-compressed, blocky cable signals. So if they say "Look how much
> better this looks?" the stores are going to have to have some serious
> playback material and throughput from their video servers to be able to
> actually DELIVER the 4K to the sets, instead of the crap they were sending
> to the HD sets.
>
> Steve
>
> On Aug 26, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Dylan Reeve <dylan@dylan.wibble.net> wrote:
>
> > "I agree with Terry to some degree, but I don't think you can compare 4k
> > with 3D. 4K is an evolutionary step in the quality chain. 3D is an
> > evolutionary dead-end toy that is unwieldy and more expensive at every
> > level."
> >
> > But 3D at least offered something that tangible and obviously different.
> 4K
> > offers so much less obvious benefit to the viewer than SD to HD did, and
> > people still struggle with seeing the difference there often.
> >
> > That said TV manufacturers will be sure to create demo videos that
> > artificially highlight the benefit of 4K over HD, and when you're in the
> > shop looking at TVs you're usually standing about three feet from the
> > screen. Maybe they'll sell, maybe they won't. But it'll be a long time
> > before there's a significant amount of content to take advantage of them,
> > and until we're routinely being asked to create content for 4K
> distribution.
> >
> > Dylan Reeve
> > http://dylanreeve.com/
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Benny Christensen <
> > benny@producersplayhouse.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with Terry to some degree, but I don't think you can compare 4k
> > > with 3D. 4K is an evolutionary step in the quality chain. 3D is an
> > > evolutionary dead-end toy that is unwieldy and more expensive at every
> > > level.
> > >
> > > When someone develops a workflow for 3D that makes is a seamless
> viewing
> > > experience it might have a chance. In fact, IMHO the problem with 3D
> has
> > > always been that it doesn't really do anything to help make a story
> better.
> > > In many cases it actually distracts from the story and movies like HUGO
> > > don't need 3d to be a good movie. Alice in Wonderland had awful
> gee-whiz
> > > shots that were there simply because it was 3D.
> > >
> > > Back to 4K, I remember when we started talking about delivering HD. We
> all
> > > thought that it would mean huge file sizes and bigger pipes to move the
> > > data around. And of course, the expensive hardware to make it all
> happen.
> > >
> > > The reality was that the compression schemes made final HD deliverables
> > > smaller than their SD counterparts with no discernible difference in
> visual
> > > quality. While the hardware costs at every level have dropped.
> > >
> > > 4K will be no different. Better compression schemes will lower the data
> > > rates to acceptable levels while the pipes get incrementally faster.
> > >
> > > As 4k proliferates our eyes will become accustomed to the better
> quality.
> > > When we look back at our best stuff from even a few years ago, we will
> > > shudder and wonder why we thought it looked so good.
> > >
> > > And of course we will all promote our shops as providing the best 4k,
> 6k
> > > or whatever, because we will have to in order to survive, whether
> anyone
> > > can actually see the difference or not.
> > >
> > >
> > > Benny Christensen
> > > Producers Playhouse
> > > Oklahoma City
> > > 405-858-0700
> > >
> > > "We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give." -
> Sir
> > > Winston Churchill
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Aug 25, 2013, at 10:14 PM, Tim McLaughlin wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wow! What a discussion.
> > > >
> > > > Myself, nearly everything in my shop is shot 1080 and posted in 720,
> with
> > > > FCP or PPro handling the scaling and repositioning of the source in
> the
> > > > timeline.
> > > > My producers and clients LOVE the workflow capabilities this provides
> > > them.
> > > >
> > > > Hardly ANY of my corporate clients ask for or need HD - their final
> > > > deliverable is usually an SD widescreen WMV or MP4 - which gets
> dropped
> > > > into a PPT presentation.
> > > >
> > > > The clients that DO ask for HD want it for 55 inch touchscreens as
> POS
> > > > installations or educational installations. This is rapidly becoming
> our
> > > > new deliverable.
> > > >
> > > > I'm looking forward to getting a new MacPro "coffee can" and asking
> my
> > > > shooters for 4K source material in 2014 as I start posting in 1080
> "full
> > > > HD".
> > > >
> > > > I should be careful what I wish for...
> > > >
> > > > PS - took my son to see "Pacific Rim" at the local theater. The
> movie was
> > > > shown in "Sony 4K". I couldn't tell the difference from other movies
> I've
> > > > seen FWIW...
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tim McLaughlin
> > > > Final Cut, Avid and Premiere Pro Editor
> > > > http://vimeo.com/mcltim
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:
> > > http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:
> http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]