[QUOTE=TheHydra;43444061]here's hoping companies rolling out this kind of technology will push 4k TVs and monitors closer to being standard[/QUOTE]
I want a cheap 4K 32" computer monitor.
I think we've reached a peak with what the general public wants out of their TV's. Unless you're super into this technology, or super rich, there's no reason that someone is going out to buy anything 4K. 1080p is good enough for most people.
I've seen a 4k display in action and it looked fucking amazing, blew my current screen out of the water and it wasn't even properly calibrated.
Only issue is though, why doesn't it support 25p?
[QUOTE=megafat;43447985]I think we've reached a peak with what the general public wants out of their TV's. Unless you're super into this technology, or super rich, there's no reason that someone is going out to buy anything 4K. 1080p is good enough for most people.[/QUOTE]
Until it drops enough in price to justify it.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;43447931]Not really. Have you ever seen a good 4K TV? There's really no comparison, the 4K TV is amazing to look at compared to the 1080p one.[/QUOTE]
I saw a 4K [I]once[/I] at an electronics store and it had a velvet rope around + chained to the floor.
[QUOTE=O Cheerios O;43448082]Until it drops enough in price to justify it.[/QUOTE]
I don't think most people want a TV that big.
Reminds me of ye old HC1:
[IMG]http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/sc/31385157-2-440-camera+on-1.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Genericenemy;43448028]
Only issue is though, why doesn't it support 25p?[/QUOTE]
Uhm, the PAL version will just record 25 instead of the NTSC version which records 30. That's how every other camera works like, at least.
[QUOTE=Barbarian887;43447303]isn't 1920x1080 high enough?
[/QUOTE]
get out
[QUOTE=TheHydra;43444061]here's hoping companies rolling out this kind of technology will push 4k TVs and monitors closer to being standard[/QUOTE]
I don't see much of a point in 4k monitor.
My monitor is 1920x1200 and at standard healthy distance, you can't really see individual pixels anyway.
[editline]7th January 2014[/editline]
I mean, I get it for big TVs and shit but desktop monitors, nah.
[QUOTE=dwt110;43443646]except most people I know who buy a "home camcorder" pay no more than $500
and whats the point of a 4K home camcorder when 90% of homes probably dont have a 4k or UHD tv
[editline]6th January 2014[/editline]
also lol @ 1" sensor and "significant bokeh"[/QUOTE]
"technological advancements being available for consumers is bad!"
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43448235]I don't see much of a point in 4k monitor.
My monitor is 1920x1200 and at standard healthy distance, you can't really see individual pixels anyway.
[editline]7th January 2014[/editline]
I mean, I get it for big TVs and shit but desktop monitors, nah.[/QUOTE]
I have a 21.5 inch full hd monitor and I can see the pixels. With 4k you wouldn't really need antialiasing either.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43448235]I don't see much of a point in 4k monitor.
My monitor is 1920x1200 and at standard healthy distance, you can't really see individual pixels anyway.
[editline]7th January 2014[/editline]
I mean, I get it for big TVs and shit but desktop monitors, nah.[/QUOTE]
It's the exact opposite if you ask me. A TV doesn't benefit as much from 4k as a computer would, since a TV is mainly used to display video and the increase in resolution "only" means an increase in detail, while a computer monitor mostly displays information and with a higher resolution you have more screen space = More information.
[QUOTE=JoonazL;43448352]I have a 21.5 inch full hd monitor and I can see the pixels. With 4k you [B]wouldn't really need antialiasing either.[/B][/QUOTE]
False.
You will always need antialiasing.
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Aliased.png[/img]
Finer and finer resolution will only lead to finer and finer black and white gibberish instead of desired
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fc/Antialiased-lanczos.png[/img]
This and other artifacts are inherent fault of attempting to display what's practically analogue picture (infinitesimals scales) on a strict RGB raster and making finer and finer display won't fix them, you need something to make grey out of black and white, and that has to be done through subpixel shenanigans.
I don't see the belt feeding mechanism for SD cards in the photo
[editline]7th January 2014[/editline]
[quote]Uncompressed bitrate: 3,82 Gbps (standard SI-units)
= 477,76 MB/s
3,6 Gibps (1024-based)
(rgb444, 12 bits/comp, 24fps)
Required storage:
(uncompressed)
1 second: 477,76 MB 455,6 MiB
30 seconds: 14,33 GB 13,3 GiB
1 minute: 28,67 GB 26,7 GiB
5 minutes: 143,33 GB 133,5 GiB
1 hour: 1,72 TB 1,6 TiB
24 hours: 41,28 TB 37,5 TiB[/quote]
christ
[QUOTE=Genericenemy;43448028]I've seen a 4k display in action and it looked fucking amazing, blew my current screen out of the water and it wasn't even properly calibrated.
Only issue is though, why doesn't it support 25p?[/QUOTE]
It probably will, just switch from ntsc to pal mode. Problem solved.
[editline]7th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;43448881]I don't see the belt feeding mechanism for SD cards in the photo
[editline]7th January 2014[/editline]
christ[/QUOTE]
Where did you get that chart? It looks like it's uncompressed 4K.
The camcorder uses compression so the file size isn't massive like that.
[QUOTE=garychencool;43449034]
Where did you get that chart? It looks like it's uncompressed 4K.
The camcorder uses compression so the file size isn't massive like that.[/QUOTE]
It is umcompressed, yeah, but the article doesn't say what compression it will use or how big the files will be
Kinda cool, but I will be happy with my 1080p tv and camcorder for many years.
Shit I even had a "fat" tv 2 year ago.
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;43449957]It is umcompressed, yeah, but the article doesn't say what compression it will use or how big the files will be[/QUOTE]
It says it uses XAVC S, which is compressed pretty well if it's anything like XAVC and should provide a really great ratio of image quality and file size
Also I read that this thing has a 25-300mm constant 2.8 zoom, which combined with the 1" chip is going to be pretty damn insane for lowlight and bokeh when compared to other handheld camcorders.
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;43447390]This is digital technology we're talking about. Tell me one thing that in the last two decades that companies have just decided "We're done."
Internet connections better, framerates faster, GPU's stronger, resolutions bigger. We're all gonna be pretty old dudes by the time digital stuff becomes matured technology with no room for massive innovation.[/QUOTE]
sound cards
By the looks of it, it really looks like you have a decent amount of control. As in it's better than every other consumer camcorder.
Sony, PLEASE, don't abandon your DSLR market!
Maybe I'm just blind, but I'm watching 480p content on my 720p TV and it looks glorious. I can understand 1080p for larger TVs, but unless our eyes improve vastly in the near future I can't imagine 4K looking any better than 1080p on anything under 60''.
[QUOTE=Robber;43452037]Maybe I'm just blind, but I'm watching 480p content on my 720p TV and it looks glorious. I can understand 1080p for larger TVs, but unless our eyes improve vastly in the near future I can't imagine 4K looking any better than 1080p on anything under 60''.[/QUOTE]
Video quality is more than resolution though.
[QUOTE=Warship;43452072]Video quality is more than resolution though.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, there is a huge difference between bad quality 480p and good quality 480p, but not a whole lot of difference between good quality 480p and good quality 720p. (on a TV, on YouTube it's very obvious)
In addition, you know those old miniDV pro camcorders? Well the output is 480p off those tapes but you can easily upres it in your video editor, just switch the timeline to a 720p project and it looks like the same 720p quality you see on youtube. Upresing it to anything higher is really pushing it though.
I could see using it for video games or something, so that you could bring out a little more detail, which could be critial like in a shooter or something. But as far as movies and stuff, I think you'd just get big diminishing returns unless you were viewing a 70 inch tv from less than 10 feet
[editline]7th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;43447801]People would have said that about everything before it.
Why can't we just push the boundaries regardless of whether we can tell the difference?[/QUOTE]
Hey man I'm all for the pressing on of tech, but 4k is just beating a dead horse, LCD is inherently inferior to cathode ray tubes and OLED in terms of picture quality, response time and viewing angle, and still has not caught up to tube displays and it is 2014, it's time for this failed technology to die, not to be kept alive with gimmicks like wildly inflating the resolution while still suffering from shit viewing angles, shit black levels, shit response time and blurred motion.
[QUOTE=garychencool;43453493]In addition, you know those old miniDV pro camcorders? Well the output is 480p off those tapes but you can easily upres it in your video editor, just switch the timeline to a 720p project and it looks like the same 720p quality you see on youtube. Upresing it to anything higher is really pushing it though.[/QUOTE]
MiniDV is 480i, and does not even come close to a mid grade 720p image.
[QUOTE=Warship;43456489]MiniDV is 480i, and does not even come close to a mid grade 720p image.[/QUOTE]
480p on MiniDV is possible.
I suppose, but does the camera [I]actually[/I] capture in a progressive resolution, or does it just de-interlace it before recording to tape?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.