This IS the Avid L2: Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Up-Rez HD to 4K

Perhaps so. But that's one of the things I love most about this list. Someone can ask a seemingly innocuous question, but then the minds represented here almost always find a way to drill down to some essential bedrock underlying the original query. The resulting discussion is often lively and compelling. I love that.

David Dodson

davidadodson@sbcglobal.net

On May 8, 2015, at 9:30 PM, Mark Spano cutandcover@gmail.com [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

this thread should be called

4K: ¿Por qué?

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:32 PM, John Beck jb30343@windstream.net [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I read a great article a few months ago about how low fidelity audio
almost became the Standard because of poorly conducted listern
preference tests in (IIRC) the 1940's. I wish I could find a link to
that article. There are a few things of which I'm pretty certain:

I can't see the difference between 4K and 1080 on my TV at my normal
viewing distance.
I am genuinely afraid of how 4K would look at common delivery bandwidths
with today's codecs.
I've heard the "5.1" sound installation at my daughter's house which was
installed by her "tech savvy" husband. I've also seen how their TV is
set up. 4K won't help.

One other observation. If you hold down the shift key when you type 4K
it comes out $K. --J.B.

tcurren@aol.com [Avid-L2] wrote:
>
>
> 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 #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.
>
>
>