UDH Blu Ray Player is the future!

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Agreed Pete

I'm shooting 4K now and again but the BIG issue is that as amazing as the image is, you have to consider how many of your couples will own a 4K TV, never mind a 4K TV and a 4K player! Probably one in 30 of my brides actually know what a BD is never mind a 4K player. The 4K market will also depend on what is available in retail stores in the form of 4K movies ...until that market is common place brides are not going to buy a 4K TV (around $3000 here still) and also a 4K player JUST to watch their wedding once or twice.

You have not been able to buy an SD TV for years & the price of a 4K TV has plummeted recently. A 40" 4K set is under £500 & a 65" 4K set is about the price that I paid for a 60" 1080p set four years ago 4K Ultra HD (2160p) | All TVs | John Lewis

4K TVs will be the norm very soon

[Steven Davis]

I rarely get a blu ray request, although I don't push it too much. I'm a let the dust settle and then I'll buy kinda guy. Patience is a virtue.

[Kyle Root]

My original post was somewhat sarcastic.

I still deliver on SD DVD. Only 2x delivered a BD DVD.

I'm going more towards digital online delivery myself and it will be interesting to see what happens with this UHD BD DVD format.

I had not heard JVC TY was discontinuing discs. I hope that's not true because I love their product.

[Chris Harding]

Hi Nigel

Yep they have dropped here too ..the first ones were close to $5000!! However the bottom line is STILL the bride and groom need to buy one and regardless of price that might not be a priority for them at this stage of their life and they are certainly not going to buy a new TV to keep the video guy happy!!

When it becomes commonplace then demand for 4K media will increase. I'm actually surprised manufacturers are still looking at mechanical players and optical disks ..one would think that a totally solid state solution would have been a better idea? It must be cheaper to put a USB socket on a TV cabinet than produce a player?

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

one would think that a totally solid state solution would have been a better idea? It must be cheaper to put a USB socket on a TV cabinet than produce a player?

No, it's far, far cheaper to produce BDXL discs, which is already being done. I use them for archival purposes actually. It's a lot cheaper to release media on it than it would be to release it on solid state. And solid state would be a lot easier to crack too, especially because once the protection scheme is cracked, you can just copy it off instead of having to read it off a disc.

Ultimately they would like to go streaming only for purchases because it's the ultimate control for the rights holder (including revocation of purchased copies and no resale market), but I bet BD and DVD are still a healthy market and the bandwidth just isn't there world-wide to really make that happen in a way that would make sense to kill the potential sale of 4K physical media.

Though I think BDXL 4K Blu-rays aren't going to be as hot. BD will get super cheap because of it, but I doubt it's going to spurn 4K TV sales. That's going to happen when the market finds out that people are not going to adopt it en masse and only when a) they come to the point where they need a new TV and b) might as well get 4K because it's basically the same price.

[Chris Harding]

Good point Gary

It's all about ongoing sales!! Much like the good ole inkjet printers where the machine only costs you $100 but you spend 10 times that buying ink cartridges!! As long as you own a UHD player then you need to buy disks don't you?

I read somewhere than Sony make precious little profit selling their Playstations BUT they make a fortune with the games they sell.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

As long as you own a UHD player then you need to buy disks don't you?

The difference from say Inkjet Printers is that one can buy for example an LG 4k tv, a Samsung 4K player and have disks released by Disney. So each will independently push for 4K, but none can cut costs dramatically on the basis of expensive peripherals. Those Production companies producing disks, would welcome anything that makes people buy their favourite movies all over again. Companies making 4K players would hope it becomes a new fad as will those producing TV's. Of course its not going to happen that quickly. As Gary said, they'll upgrade when they need a new one. HD TV's were in a way helped by the new slimline versions that came out. I think when I got my first HD TV, it was more because it replaced a bulky 28" beast of a machine with a 40" slimline than because it was HD. Obviously when I saw HD on it for the first time I was impressed with the quality, but that appreciation came only after I bought it not before.

Unless clients see their Weddings in 4K they can hardly base any comparison to DVD's. So SD as a delivery format will exist for many years to come, but I do think 4K delivery will start to rear its head as some do upgrade their TV's and players. Even geeks get married contrary to popular myths.

[Roger Gunkel]

One thing that makes me cynical about 4k TV is that so many people convince themselves how great it looks. I clearly remember only a few years ago delivering wedding DVDs to couples that had just moved up to a new HD TV. The comment was always that 'It looks so much better in HD'. I never had the heart to burst their bubble by pointing out that the better TV made it look great even though it was still SD. Nigel mentioned that 40" 4k tvs are being offered at a very reasonable price, but a 4k TV picture in a typical UK lounge will not look any different to an HD TV. It's only when you start to go above 50-60 inches that the increase pixel numbers will give a noticeable improvement over HD at longe viewing distances. That of course is assuming that any broadcast or streamed content is not compressed to hell anyway!

Even at last Sunday's wedding show one groom asked if the video he was watching was 4k as it was very sharp. I pointed out that we use 4k cameras to film but deliver on DVD or in HD on USB. I love 4k for filming and stills lifting, but until there is an affordable delivery system that is widely adopted, I can't see much demand for some considerable time no matter what TV they have.

Roger

[Steve Burkett]

Roger, you are a cynic. I dont need to convince myself of anything. When I saw a video I shot in 4k in the Yorkshire Dales on my new 55" TV at the start of this year, I was blown away by the quality. Like looking through a window. For years I've tried to capture the beauty of the place with Photography and video and always been left dissatisfied. Until then. Watching 4k on my 28" monitor also shows greater detail than watching the same video on my HD monitor, but of course I'm a lot closer. Actually even watching 4k on an HD monitor is better than watching HD on an HD monitor. The video posted earlier in the thread made the same point.

Of course TV's upscale SD to fit their HD screen, so hardly surprising people don't notice the difference. SD on my 4k 55" looks mostly crap, with some content suffering more than others. I'm not disagreeing that deliverable 4k is a long way off, though had 2 such deliveries this year. However as you yourself have proven Roger, 4k is becoming a term to be used by enquiring couples. Whether we can deliver it or not, and I can, such 4k related queries are only going to become more common once 4k blurays hit the market next year.

[Chris Harding]

Roger isn't actually a cynic at all, he is blessed like me, with cameras that are so sharp that HD looks like 4K! OK Steve for one will poo poo this statement but seriously our FZ1000's, in terms of sharpness, knock the stuffing out of my old $4000 Sony EA-50's even with Sigma art lenses on them!!

Is it the Leica optics? is it the internal processing? I have no idea but one thing I do know is that I could fool any tech-head groom into thinking the 1080P footage is actually full UHD ...it really is that sharp!!

For the cinematic people, you probably wouldn't like it, but I'm sitting on my edit desk right now doing speeches inside the venue and it LOOKS as good as 4K ... My preview monitor is 1920 pixels wide and if I still had Sony footage on the time line it would look good, I agree but NOTHING like what I'm seeing!

All in all Roger can be forgiven as a cynic as these cameras even at FHD LOOK like 4K!!!

[Noa Put]

And yet Ray Roman still charges 9K+ for a glorious 1D/5D 1080p video, I imagine at some point he too will need to switch to 4K to stay competitive but brides probably love his films because of the typical Canon color but especially because of the softer image these canon's produce which hides imperfections and which makes all his brides skin look silky smooth. They don't want to see a pimple in 4K.

[Steve Burkett]

Chris your camera is like the GH4's kid brother. HD from the GH4 is very sharp and barring 1" sensor differences, no doubt your camera is similar in results. So I'm hardly going to poo poo your opinions. However sharpness and detail although similar, give different results on a 55" 4K TV. No matter how sharp HD is, it will never give the same detail on a 4K TV or Monitor as true 4K. I know, I've watched 4K on my monitor then an HD version down sampled from the 4K. The image is sharp but not as detailed as the 4K. Not the same looking through the window effect.

Now I'm interested in cinematic, but cinematic to me isn't about lack of detail and sharpness. I've seen some great examples of cinematography in TV and Movies where detail and sharpness is clearly there. I know the full frame users value the softness as it flatters the skins, but to me wide shots don't look as cinematic, they just look mushy. The C100 which is often considered a cinematic camera by some, is way sharper than a 5D.

So really Chris, I'm not saying your camera footage isn't very sharp, that it can't fool many in thinking its 4K, but perhaps you need to see some 4K shot on your camera on a large 4K screen before judging the true value of 4K.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

Now I'm interested in cinematic, but cinematic to me isn't about lack of detail and sharpness. I've seen some great examples of cinematography in TV and Movies where detail and sharpness is clearly there. I know the full frame users value the softness as it flatters the skins, but to me wide shots don't look as cinematic, they just look mushy. The C100 which is often considered a cinematic camera by some, is way sharper than a 5D.

I think the "cinematic = soft" look comes from people who grew up watching movies in low-end theaters and on VHS.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

And yet Ray Roman still charges 9K+ for a glorious 1D/5D 1080p video, I imagine at some point he too will need to switch to 4K to stay competitive but brides probably love his films because of the typical Canon color but especially because of the softer image these canon's produce which hides imperfections and which makes all his brides skin look silky smooth. They don't want to see a pimple in 4K.

I find it easier to soften the skin of a 4K image than add detail and sharpness to a soft 5D wide shot. I speak from experience here.

[James Manford]

I can't wait to enjoy movies in 4K at home.

Not so sure about delivering wedding films. I get many brides always asking me to make them look beautiful on video. The last thing they want to see is their defects in Ultra HD.