[opendtv] Re: TV Technology: 4K for Broadcast: Is it Worth the Expense?

From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2017 12:22:20 -0400

On Jul 2, 2017, at 2:11 AM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Donald Cooleman wrote:

Dive into the archives TV Mark (Schubin) posted about this in the SD
vs. HD days.

Granted, but everything has to be put in its proper perspective.

Correct. 20 years ago we were evolving from a bunch of compromises that made
broadcasting video possible B&W in the '50s, and color TV in the 60s.

Sadly we perpetuated many of these compromises because of "protectionism." In
this case a CE industry caught in the headlights of digital technology.

Large screens of the future are likely to be just as significantly different
from those of today, as those of today are from 20 years ago.

You mean like speakers and audio playback devices?

Did you see this story:

https://www.pcmag.com/news/354703/sony-to-restart-vinyl-record-production-in-japan

Please explain why high resolution audio has largely been ignored by consumers.
Clearly there is no technical reason, or a cost issue with moving beyond 44.1
kHz with 16 bit samples.

Maybe this chart would be informative:

We have a handful of IMAX theaters around the country - why not every theater?

We used to have big CinemaScope theaters with one or two huge screens. We now
have cinema multiplexes with much smaller screens. Why?

No doubt TV screens will continue to evolve. We are on the cusp of a major
breakthrough with OLED - a screen that can actually deliver HDR and WCG at ANY
size, from a smartphone to a 50-70 inch TV you can hang on a wall.

Bottom line, the major breakthrough in the way we watch entertainment TV WAS
NOT HDTV. It is the addition of new mobile screens and the ability to watch TV
anywhere, anytime.

One example would be floor to ceiling display, but another one is the
tabletop displays (the tabletop *is* the display) that we already see in TV
shows like NCIS. So it's a totally different ballgame. Visual acuity has to
be taken into account. Rule of thumb, ~1 arcmin of angular separation starts
to become noticeable, for humans with 20/20 vision (or less than great
vision, but wearing appropriate spectacles).

The same argument can be made about our auditory acuity. Quadrophonic sound
offered a better music experience. It was not a market success, but surround
sound has achieved success in home theater systems.

The reality is that 1080P is more than adequate for most consumer displays, but
2048 P is going to replace it for OTHER reasons - primarily the benefits of
display oversampling and the ability to render non-Nyquist limited text and
graphics with less visible aliasing. That being said, the average 4K screen
size consumers are buying is in the same 50-70 inch range as HD displays.

I think the point is more like, for the next 20 years, what image standards
will make sense to have ready to go for consumer displays? The answers to
such questions always depend on one's assumptions. Obviously, if we assume
that screens will remain in the max ~60" range, 1080p is fine.

Pick an argument Bert. You've been telling us for months that 4K is a done
deal.

I have countered that this resolution is NOT NEEDED for TV entertainment, but
that other uses for the big screen will drive the shift to 4K.

Somewhat related, remember when Craig thought that 4:3 displays would always
be popular, just because they were then? At the time I said no, probably not,
because LCDs do not have the restrictions of evacuated glass bottles.

Bert was correct about TV screens. But the world is still filled with many
display aspect ratios, especially computer displays. And Hollywood completely
ignored 16:9.

Fact is, display aspect ratio does not matter; we expect every display to
accommodate every source, regardless of aspect ratio, like the 4:3 Retina
display with Wide Color Gamut on this iPad.

There's no reason to assume squarish needs to survive. Of course he argued
and argued and argued, but the facts speak for themselves. The same applies
to size. Restrictions of today won't last forever.

It all depends on the application, and the desires of the person shooting the
image/video. I guess Bert would like us to ignore all of the Portrait oriented
video we see these days, shot on smartphones.

Yes, and in the late 1990s, Craig was arguing that HDTVs cost in the 10s of
thousands of dollars, and were out of reach of the common mortal. But even
back then, the point was, spectrum-compatible HDTV (i.e. digital HDTV) was
being designed FOR the common mortal. Not as a premium service.

Not exactly.

ATSC was designed to protect the broadcast spectrum, and to perpetuate a number
of archaic ideas about video imaging systems - to build a wall to protect the
CE industry from that progressive computer industry, which had already
disrupted the consumer audio industry. The demand for HDTV was not driven by
broadcasters, who were the last to join the party. It was driven by DVDs for
movies then HD sports.

Now we have 4K sets already, available to the common mortal, **even before**
their size warrants the pixel count! (Another point that took forever to get
across.) The prices are totally competitive already. Affordable, bigger
sizes, are the next step.

Bert is clearly confused. He tells us that at the size most consumers are
buying 1080P is adequate. He is right.

Then he tells us that 4K is here and affordable even before we (don't) need the
pixels. He does not understand what higher resolution displays will be used for
in ADDITION to TV entertainment.

Affordable bigger sizes are not the next step for 4K, which is coming out of
the same fabs that built the former 2K screens.

Affordable OLED is the next step, which will be manifest FIRST in small
displays for smartphones, tablets and laptop computers.

It will take a huge investment in OLED fabs to bring 50-70 inch OLED screens
down the prices of LCD panels. It will happen.

What wont happen is a huge increase in the sales of 70-100 inch LCD panels;
largerOLED panels are even further out in the future as a mass market product.

Regards
Craig

References:
- [opendtv] Re: TV Technology: 4K for Broadcast: Is it Worth the Expense?
  - From: Manfredi, Albert E

[opendtv] Re: TV Technology: 4K for Broadcast: Is it Worth the Expense?

Other related posts: