>
> This is the same argument we have been having for years about why film is better than video and HD is better than SD.
Not really. Film vs Video was not so much about resolution, they used to be very different physical ways to acquire an image.
HD versus SD was very much about resolution, as there's little if any difference but resolution. Terry's point is that the resolution difference between 2K and 4K is something that our eyes just physically won't be able to see (unlike the easy-to-see difference between SD and HD on a 32" screen) unless you are watching the 4K at an exceptionally large screen, or very close to a large screen - closer than anyone in their right mind would want to be.
So he (and others) doubt that there is anything to gain by distributing 4K to the home. Acquistion and post production in 4K, sure, but distribution to the home? It would be interesting to check out what would improve perceived quality more: HD with improved distribution codecs versus 4K with more compression. Then see where the money is to be made by the operators (be they Netflix or Cable): more HD channels in the same bandwidth or less channels but in 4K.
J
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (87) |
No comments:
Post a Comment