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

A lot of the equipment out there either doesn't do 444, or when it does, it's dual link 1.5G and not single link 3G.
So, can your macpro drive an SDI monitor? or your Tektronix scope?

What I'm trying to say here is that double the effort is required in order to connect devices that otherwise support the RGB 444 natively.
You need to buy expensive I/O cards for your computer, when the GFX card is perfectly capable of delivering that signal.
Then you have to buy expensive options for your scopes and plasma displays in order to connect that computer I/O card output to them(via SDI), when they are perfectly capable of handling the RGB444 format.

cheers,
BG

www.finale.tv

________________________________
From: johnrobmoore <bigfish@pacbell.net>
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 12:45 PM
Subject: [Avid-L2] Re: More folks are panning the 4K push

By traditional SDI I assume you mean the YUV 422 version. Wouldn't 3G's 4:4:4 handle the full range etc....

From a quick search:
4:4:4 with 10-bit or 12-bit resolution), at up to 60 progressive frames per second, over the nominal. 3 Gbit/s SDI.

I think of the SDI pathway as the convenient common denominator for signal distribution. As has been pointed out in this thread there are few installations set up for proper 4K monitoring and signal evaluation in it's native form. I'm currently monitoring the Red Epic signal out of Resove, shot double HD, over SDI to my OLED monitor and scope. I know Tektronix has new scopes with HDMI in but why switch to that when what I have works. I hear what you are saying about the files staying in a digital world but until I have an external real time scope for files, which I haven't seen yet although Cerify was going to have some Diamond displays etc..., and a grading monitor that accepts file input in real time I don't think SDI should go away.

--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Bogdan Grigorescu <bogdan_grigorescu@...> wrote:
>
> Most of the current productions shoot higher resolution than HD(RED, Alexa, SONY F, etc.), so that part of the equation is already taken care of .
> Add to this a much more streamlined/proven editorial process(which can be done in HD) and you have a viable model.Â
> Big difference from 3D which has hefty additional costs at each level of production.
>
> The extra weight of 4K is going to be at the conform/finishing stage - but I believe not a show stopper, as current technology is up to the task.
>
> I also see the traditional SDI interface fading out...if you think about, it is only artificially kept alive.Â
> With file based workflows, all chain could be RGB/full range levels. That's what our cameras du jour capture and that's the implementation of all current display technologies (be it LCD/Plasma/Projection).Â
> So why convert to SDI back and forth when you can connect them directly and pass data between these devices in its native form?
>
> cheers,
> BG
> www.finale.tv
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "owen@..." <owen@...>
> To: "Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com" <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: "Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com" <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 9:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Re: More folks are panning the 4K push
>
>
>
> Â
> 3D sucks because people hate wearing stupid 3d glasses in their homes even more than in theatres. 4K big screen tv is a different animal. People love big screens.
>
> Owen's iphone
>
> On Aug 25, 2013, at 11:50 AM, David Dodson <davidadodson@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hard to make this argument in the face of the collapse of the 3D push. The electronics companies went way out of their way to tell us how much bigger, better, faster, and stronger 3D was. It was absolutely the future! And in the case of 3D, the consumers COULD, and did. compare the picture in the store. But what happened? Crickets.
> >
> > And not only are the electronics manufacturers not deciding this for us (3D), but now their distribution allies (broadcasters) are actively CLOSING 3D channels. As a result, I'm not convinced that the public doesn't always make these decisions for themselves. And just like the 3D evangelists deluded themselves about how people watch TV at home, they might also be deluding themselves about the limits of perception by the human eye, and their belief in the ascendency of 4K.
> >
> > Emotionally speaking, greater resolution is not always the goal. From a purely artistic stand point, you go into a museum and see two paintings. One is one of these photorealist paintings of a rain-soaked boulevard or some such thing. The other is a Monet of a cathedral shimmering in a twilight mist. For me, I can admire the technical skill of the photo realist rain-soaked boulevard. But the Monet moves me.
> >
> > Audiences often react the same way to filmed entertainment. The resolution is a secondary, if not tertiary concern. For most people, it's the story, and whether or not they're moved by it. HD has gotten us really far down the road of having that rain-soaked boulevard and all its technical perfection. A few more rain drops aren't likely to move the audience to upgrade their TV's again. At least not any time soon.
> >
> > David
> >
> > On Aug 25, 2013, at 5:16 AM, T Hopkins <hoplist@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Will the consumer want it? Yes, because consumers always want bigger, better, faster, stronger (anyone?). Damn hard to argue 4k is not better than 2k. They can't compare pictures in the store. They are comparing specs and going on faith. This one is a no brainer. If one goes to 10 and the other goes to 11, I want the one that goes to 11.
> >
> > David Dodson
> > davidadodson@...
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

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