4k Survey

[Fred588]

From what I have been able to glean from various technical sources, one does not actually need a huge display to be able to see the difference between HD (2k) and UHD (4k). Rather, its a combination of screen size and viewing distance. If you sit fairly (say, 24 inches or closer) close to the screen then with a screen size as small as 24 inches a (and with normal visual acuity) you can see the difference. My own visual acuity has now declined to the point where I am comfortable viewing my monitor from about 16 inches away (or closer) so I think it will be a viewing advantage to have the 4k display, especially for things such as video.

An interesting (to me) observation of what is probably holding back sales of these displays to some extent is this: A couple of months ago I tried to look at some 4k televisions in a Walmart. I asked if the 4k units were displaying images from 4k sources. They were NOT. If that is true (OK, it WAS Walmart) then it is impossible to actually SEE if there is a difference inside the store.

When I mentioned this to the salesperson I got the usual noncommittal answer but the look on his face said, "You are right but those in upper management are all pencil-pushing morons who think the customers are even dumber than they are."

[Fred588]

I have a cinematic 4K monitor (4096 x 2160P) and love it. I'd love more content to be available in this format and at much higher bit rates.

A followup question to awdc. The way scenes are rendered, regardless of the original footage, any bit rate up to that of the original material, is possible and very easy to implement in terms of rendering. However, one must bear in mind that higher bit rates mean larger (much larger) files and consequent longer up and download times. Since you appear to be equipped for 4k my question to you is how high a bit rate is high enough?

[dlodoski]

This seems to be about right.

bitrates.png

Although I often use 8Mb/sec for 720p due to busy backgrounds and lots of colors used.

[Duncan Edwards]

This goes back to what I was talking about. If you render a 4k video at a bit rate sufficient to do it justice you're going to have some whompin' big files. This is going to require upgrades to the ability to edit and distribute such files unless scenes are limited to 30 second run times. I don't think we're there yet. Give it five more years.

[awdc]

I have a cinematic 4K monitor (4096 x 2160P) and love it. I'd love more content to be available in this format and at much higher bit rates.

A followup question to awdc. The way scenes are rendered, regardless of the original footage, any bit rate up to that of the original material, is possible and very easy to implement in terms of rendering. However, one must bear in mind that higher bit rates mean larger (much larger) files and consequent longer up and download times. Since you appear to be equipped for 4k my question to you is how high a bit rate is high enough?

I imagine it's part of the art to get the right balance but the point I wanted to convey is precisely what you're getting at in that for distributed content to simply get to a measured pixel size of 3840x2160P is not enough to say it's done and check off a box like others have done (I'm looking at you netflix and partially you, youtube). Some of the nicer 4K samples I've seen that really impressed me and really show the potential of 4k happen to be 3840x2160P @ 29.97FPS using H.264 compression with a bit-rate ranging between 50-60Mbps and others ranging between 90-105Mbps.

I realize these bit-rates likely won't be practical here with the producers so depending on the choice of codec and frame-rate, I could see anything from 35bMps+ being rather decent (which is what dlodoski posted in his chat). I also have to believe it will depend on how the actual footage was shot such that fast-paced content or content with more dramatic lighting, darker scenes, etc might need more tweaking of different bit-rates to get an optimal result. My point is, quoting a single bit-rate won't suffice for all situations so it's a bit of trial and error with some educated guessing.

I find the real value in content that can measure 3840x2160P (or higher) and offer increased clarity via higher bit-rates but as you've rightfully pointed out, there's limited ways to achieve this without growing the file size considerably which eventually trickles down to additional costs. There are some potential ways via H.265 compression to reduce the file size but it's not as widely adopted yet in all areas and offers other pluses and minuses depending on what you read and who you talk to. I would be willing to pay more for higher bit-rate content knowing full well it offers more challenges on the distribution and content create/management side of things and additional costs in storage and bandwidth consumption.

[Fred588]

I have a cinematic 4K monitor (4096 x 2160P) and love it. I'd love more content to be available in this format and at much higher bit rates.

A followup question to awdc. The way scenes are rendered, regardless of the original footage, any bit rate up to that of the original material, is possible and very easy to implement in terms of rendering. However, one must bear in mind that higher bit rates mean larger (much larger) files and consequent longer up and download times. Since you appear to be equipped for 4k my question to you is how high a bit rate is high enough?

I imagine it's part of the art to get the right balance but the point I wanted to convey is precisely what you're getting at in that for distributed content to simply get to a measured pixel size of 3840x2160P is not enough to say it's done and check off a box like others have done (I'm looking at you netflix and partially you, youtube). Some of the nicer 4K samples I've seen that really impressed me and really show the potential of 4k happen to be 3840x2160P @ 29.97FPS using H.264 compression with a bit-rate ranging between 50-60Mbps and others ranging between 90-105Mbps.

I realize these bit-rates likely won't be practical here with the producers so depending on the choice of codec and frame-rate, I could see anything from 35bMps+ being rather decent (which is what dlodoski posted in his chat). I also have to believe it will depend on how the actual footage was shot such that fast-paced content or content with more dramatic lighting, darker scenes, etc might need more tweaking of different bit-rates to get an optimal result. My point is, quoting a single bit-rate won't suffice for all situations so it's a bit of trial and error with some educated guessing.

I find the real value in content that can measure 3840x2160P (or higher) and offer increased clarity via higher bit-rates but as you've rightfully pointed out, there's limited ways to achieve this without growing the file size considerably which eventually trickles down to additional costs. There are some potential ways via H.265 compression to reduce the file size but it's not as widely adopted yet in all areas and offers other pluses and minuses depending on what you read and who you talk to. I would be willing to pay more for higher bit-rate content knowing full well it offers more challenges on the distribution and content create/management side of things and additional costs in storage and bandwidth consumption.

If my calculations are correct, a 10 minute video at a bit rate of 16Mbps results in a file size of about 1.2G. Bit rates of 32 and 48Mbps would then project to 2.4G and 3.6G. That sort of thing would be relatively easy to render. The rendering might, in fact, take LESS time if less compression was necessary. The issues would all come from the much larger file sizes, which would mean an increase in the time required to upload and then download. That is not insurmountable but would likely slow down the process of obtaining a scene.

[Chimerix]

This goes back to what I was talking about. If you render a 4k video at a bit rate sufficient to do it justice you're going to have some whompin' big files. This is going to require upgrades to the ability to edit and distribute such files unless scenes are limited to 30 second run times. I don't think we're there yet. Give it five more years.

Remember when you connected via a modem at speeds measured in bits per second? When mass storage was measured in kilobits? It's a-comin', and it's a-comin' just as quickly as the market wants it. Moore's Law and its corollaries are obsolete now; the bottleneck is consumer buy-in.

[awdc]

This goes back to what I was talking about. If you render a 4k video at a bit rate sufficient to do it justice you're going to have some whompin' big files. This is going to require upgrades to the ability to edit and distribute such files unless scenes are limited to 30 second run times. I don't think we're there yet. Give it five more years.

Remember when you connected via a modem at speeds measured in bits per second? When mass storage was measured in kilobits? It's a-comin', and it's a-comin' just as quickly as the market wants it. Moore's Law and its corollaries are obsolete now; the bottleneck is consumer buy-in.

This has little to nothing to do with Moore's law and everything to do with the limited advancement of consumer internet speeds due to large companies pushing policy to stifle innovation specifically for US residents. The technology is there (hell, 100 Gb is available to enterprise) and has been for quite some time that in reality it shouldn't be difficult to get 1000Mb internet pipes to people's homes let alone even 100Mb. Data caps are bullshit marketing to take huge amounts of profit in the majority of areas where most have little option or availability to multiple carriers/providers. Cloud, cloud, cloud is what we hear and yet they forget how many have abysmally-slow internet speeds for the age we live in. Consumer buy-in isn't the issue. Sure, I and others may have access to 500/500Mb internet speeds in my area and I'm not buying into it because the price is ridiculous. I'm certain I could use it but it's way over priced.

The market (general masses) doesn't understand or want 4K because they can't get decent access to content. The most common thing I hear and read is "I see no difference". Why is that? Because the places these folk can get any 4K content have lousy bit-rate offerings (Netflix) so in fact they're right, they're seeing little to no difference compared to 1080P. Why does Netflix have low bit-rates? See passage above. 4K blu-ray comes in so late because so much time was spent adding DRM up its ass and into its spec that now the 4K ship has sailed and really all people have done is replace their 1080P sets with glorified 4K up-sampled TVs. People are tired of re-buying their same collections over again and many other reasons. Broadcast 4K is unlikely for the foreseeable future so it really leaves it to specialized content and dealing with physical media discs to get good quality content.

[Chimerix]

As a producer, of course, there are pluses to shooting in 4K even if you have no intention to distribute 4K content. The ability to do a 200% zoom losslessly in post comes to mind, and cameras tend to have higher dynamic range, something that video has always struggled with, particularly in natural settings.

[dlodoski]

As a producer, of course, there are pluses to shooting in 4K even if you have no intention to distribute 4K content. The ability to do a 200% zoom losslessly in post comes to mind, and cameras tend to have higher dynamic range, something that video has always struggled with, particularly in natural settings.

Yea, this is the appeal for me, especially the cropping aspect. Other than lens distortion (if you went all the way into a corner), it's a big plus for unattended camera footage.

Regarding what awdc remarked about residential internet performance, I actually have 100Mb fiber optic service - in the Philippines. You still have to go across town and stand in line to pay the bill, but gee whiz, if a third world country can do it, why not in every house in the US by now?