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

"I would still say it's worth doing high quality work for the people who do care about it."

And this is where the rubber meets the road. Should we all be forced to invest billions for a handful of viewers who I would argue are NOT going to pay for that infrastructure investment?

Case in point, you said you watched The Master in 70MM. It cost 32 million to make and it grossed 28.25. And of course that doesn't count the marketing and distribution costs. This will be the issue across the board. Who will pay an investment that a handful of people are asking for?

---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <cutandcover@...> wrote :

I think we'll have to agree on some, and agree to disagree on several points here.

You say: "The current push for 4K is being driven by manufacturers." I agree with this in part, but I would also say that there is and has always been a contingent of people (like myself) who want this *where we can see it*. I'm well aware that *for the most part* I won't be able to resolve this quality at home. But I see video everywhere. Theaters is where I expect to reap the biggest benefit of higher fidelity. I don't have a 70mm projector at home, but I did go see Inception and The Master in 70mm at the Ziegfeld, and 2001 in 70mm at the Loews Astor Plaza and the Walter Reade and it was gorgeous.

You say: "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". I would say this is such a broad generalization that it is untrue in this context. MP3/AAC are good choices for convenience, but most people who care about fidelity are buying lossless and vinyl. And you didn't even mention DSD, which has a small but steadily growing foothold.

"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?" Because a large percentage of people care only about convenience and not about quality. I would still say it's worth doing high quality work for the people who do care about it.

"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." I agree only when it applies to certain distances, as you know from those studies. If the screen is large enough and you are within certain bounds, you can definitely resolve the detail, and that to me is important. Not so much in my house, like I said earlier, but where it can be seen.

"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?" I think you are aiming this off target. We will not be able to see any better, in all likelihood, but future-proofing has nothing to do with that. Future-proofing is making something of sufficiently high quality so that it does not suffer degradation when a delivery format is chosen. That means I'd like an 8K master so I can make theatrical, event projection, all the way down to iPhone screen quality and not lose anything in the process. Plus, we do not know where technology will lead us. We could very well need that resolution for higher definition display tech that integrates even more closely to our sense of sight and perception than we know exists at the moment. So I still side on higher fidelity.

"HDR makes a much bigger impact to the normal observer than higher resolution. Once you accept this, then why isn't our focus there?" Bang for the buck I completely agree here. But I do not think we should stop gaining in resolution either. Give me HDR, give me 16-bit, 24-bit per channel color, AND give me the ability to zoom/crop/project from a high resolution source. I want it all. But I definitely agree that this should be at least equal in importance and maybe more important to the pursuit (and it appears that it is gaining traction).

"But I realize there are limits." I, my colleague, do not. Just because I cannot see Andromeda with my eyes does not mean it is not worth devising a scheme to allow me to do so. Speaking of astrophysics, there's another perfectly valid reason for higher and higher resolution. Those images from space are getting better and more detailed all the time thanks to those pursuits.

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 7:10 PM, tcurren@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> 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.