4K TV's, but few 4K Cameras??

Posted by treatment 
4K TV's, but few 4K Cameras??
June 15, 2013 07:14AM
Question for my video friends: I already know that my audio recordings are way above the quality level that most consumers can achieve. BUT...it seems like 4K TV's are just around the corner, and I don;t know ANYONE with a 4K camera yet. Does this not worry you? SHOULD it worry you, if consumers have higher quality playback devices than what your camera can deliver? Is going back to film a better decision?

Thoughts, and comments much appreciated.
Treatment
Re: 4K TV's, but few 4K Cameras??
June 15, 2013 10:03AM
oh, no! and i've only just finished replacing all of my DVDs with Blu-Rays!


most top-end feature films are shot at 4k (at least)
and finished at 4k
i believe there are few 4k Blu-Ray releases, although i'm not sure how that works.

wether or not there'll be a huge demand for it remains to be seen

there's got to be some distinction between the consumer level and the top-end.
when DV became affordable,
TV went 16/9,
when that filtered down to us, HD came out,
not we've all got HD... well Hollywood has to have something bigger and better. otherwise why do you lay down your bucks?


nick
Re: 4K TV's, but few 4K Cameras??
June 16, 2013 07:36AM
There are lots of them out there! They don't cost under $100, but they are certainly there! RED has been the earliest out of the block by years, BMD announced the Cinema Production camera, Sony has the F5 and F55, Canon has a few cameras out, even JVC has made announcements on a new range of 4K cameras.



www.strypesinpost.com
Re: 4K TV's, but few 4K Cameras??
June 16, 2013 07:54AM
And a 2nd hand RED One can be picked up very affordably as people move onto the Red Epic.
Re: 4K TV's, but few 4K Cameras??
June 16, 2013 09:21AM
There are quite a few 4k cameras out there as we all witnessed at NAB this past April. Canon, RED, Blackmagic and I believe Sony also had one. Blackmagic has the most affordable at $3999 US. (4k for $4k was their mantra) ARRI was the notable exception.

There is a 4k consumer television for under $2000 US already.

Gary Adcock and I were talking at NAB and he's been working almost exclusively in 4k for the past three years.

8k Cameras were already on display at NAB in April. It's looking like all broadcast is going to move 4k while feature films will move 8k.

Now that's not to say that any camera you own today for HD is suddenly obsolete because, well we know it's going to take the US market some time to convert over to 4k broadcast. Japan has announced a 2014 launch for 4k broadcast but I haven't seen any other market announce that.

What I think you WILL see is US cable companies pushing 4k delivery for On Demand movies and maybe premium channels like HBO, Showtime. Then we'll probably see a sports channel or two such as ESPN go to 4k. Then marquee events like the Super Bowl, World Series and such be offered in 4k. The reason I say cable companies is because this is currently a competitive advantage for them over the satellite services. Dish and DirecTV don't currently have the bandwidth to deliver 4k programming but cable does. So expect the cablecasters to really start to push 4k over the next 12 months as a reason to "switch back" to cable.

As for when we will standard programming switch over to 4k, I would expect within the next 12 months television series will start to acquire in 4k to "future proof" their shows for future syndication. We've actually had that discussion about a docu-series I'm developing right now. I've been pushing to go ahead and acquire in 4k since the tools are affordable but edit and deliver in HD.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
biscardicreative.com
Re: 4K TV's, but few 4K Cameras??
June 16, 2013 02:34PM
for 4K broadcasts and feature film on demand, at what size screen will the consumer actually start seeing a difference between 4K 4096 x 2160(or Ultra HD 3840 x 2160) vs. a 1920x1080 monitor? I can clearly see it at my local Sony Style with their 84" 4K TV but I probably would never own a screen of that size. Of course viewing distance comes into play as well.
Re: 4K TV's, but few 4K Cameras??
June 16, 2013 04:34PM
>Blackmagic has the most affordable at $3999 US

Nope. GoPro was there first at a remarkable 1/10th the price of a BMD pocket camera with their Hero3. Just sayin'.



www.strypesinpost.com
Re: 4K TV's, but few 4K Cameras??
June 16, 2013 04:38PM
strypes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Blackmagic has the most affordable at $3999 US
>
> Nope. GoPro was there first at a remarkable 1/10th
> the price of a BMD pocket camera with their Hero3.
> Just sayin'.

Ok, how about the most affordable, flexible, useful camera for a variety of projects. GoPro has its place, but the BMD will do much more for you.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
biscardicreative.com
Re: 4K TV's, but few 4K Cameras??
June 17, 2013 11:56AM
Yea, I sure won't want to cut a half hour show with nothing but helmet cams!



www.strypesinpost.com
bj
Re: 4K TV's, but few 4K Cameras??
June 17, 2013 06:44PM
Can we expect the new APPLE 27" monitor to be 4K and still only $999?????
Would be nice.
Re: 4K TV's, but few 4K Cameras??
June 17, 2013 11:07PM
MMM but doesn't the GoPro record 4K an a creamy 12FPS?

------------------------
Dean

"When I see you floating down the gutter I'll give you a bottle of wine."
Captain Beefheart, Trout Mask Replica.
Re: 4K TV's, but few 4K Cameras??
June 18, 2013 05:30PM
>MMM but doesn't the GoPro record 4K an a creamy 12FPS?

Just saying it does 4K, maybe not the 4K we need, but it's 4K!



www.strypesinpost.com
Re: 4K TV's, but few 4K Cameras??
June 21, 2013 06:09AM
joeboo20 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> for 4K broadcasts and feature film on demand, at
> what size screen will the consumer actually start
> seeing a difference between 4K 4096 x 2160(or
> Ultra HD 3840 x 2160) vs. a 1920x1080 monitor? I
> can clearly see it at my local Sony Style with
> their 84" 4K TV but I probably would never own a
> screen of that size. Of course viewing distance
> comes into play as well.


I read something the other day about this, but unfortunately can't attribute it as I don't remember where I read it. In order to perceive the resolution in 4K you need to be about one screen height from the display. So for a 50" 16x9 monitor you need to be about 2 feet from the surface. That means a lot of people have to re-arrange the furniture in the family room!
Re: 4K TV's, but few 4K Cameras??
June 21, 2013 06:22AM
> In order to perceive the resolution in 4K you need to be about one screen height from the display.

I'm pretty sure it's a lot more than that. A distance of two feet is nothing. Most of us sit close to two feet away from our computer monitors. My own widescreen TV (31" ) is almost 10 feet away.


www.derekmok.com
Re: 4K TV's, but few 4K Cameras??
June 21, 2013 10:04AM
I heard that to see many difference, or to get the full 4k experience, you need at least a 80 inch monitor. I can see sports bar using these drinking smiley
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

 


Google
  Web lafcpug.org

Web Hosting by HermosawaveHermosawave Internet


Recycle computers and electronics