The debate over higher resolutions tends to provoke a lot of emotional response. Roland Denning offers us his counter to the point of whether higher resolutions are inveitable.
Is the move to higher resolutions inevitable? Articles recently by Neil Oseman , Simon Wyndham, Mark L. Pederson and David Shapton have provoked a lot of discussion about the inevitably of ever-increasing resolutions, sometimes at an almost feverish pitch.
I am not one of the dissenting voices, but I am, perhaps, one of the less certain ones. This is not because I am in any way opposed to the idea of progress or because I dislike high resolutions (that would be absurd), I just want to emphasise two fundamental points:
- The sheer number of pixels is not an end in itself
- Nothing in this business is inevitable.
Technology does not get adopted just because it is good. There are plenty of inferior technologies that became the standard (NTSC, VHS, DAB to pick out just 3 acronyms) and great technologies that never took off. It is never technology alone that determines changes in technology and standards in this industry. It is always dependent on market forces.
I emphasise the term market forces rather than marketing. I am emphatically not saying the demand for increasing resolutions is a part of a cynical marketing ploy, rather those new technologies will not take off without an economic case.
It’s always dependent on market forces
Although technology continually improves and offers potentially higher quality, at many points in history quality has actually diminished where money can be saved or made. There was a shift, for instance, in film from 4-perf 35mm to 2-perf and 16mm, in audio from CD to mp3.
Why are the majority of TVs sold now 4K when the majority of cinemas still exhibit at 2K? The answer is simple and market forces are the reason. No-one wants to buy an obsolete TV if one with a higher spec is available for only a little more, but the costs of re-equipping cinemas to 4K cannot simply be recouped by higher ticket prices (as sort of happened with 3D movies) as audiences don’t seem particularly dissatisfied by 2K projection. Cinemas, unlike TV manufacturers, can’t make more money by shifting to 4K.
The rapid consumer take-up of 4k might not be repeated
The rapid consumer acceptance of 4K in the home took all of us by surprise. Unless you are going for an unfashionably small screen size, who would not buy a 4K TV today? Even if all you were going to watch was upscaled HD.
Crucially, manufacturers’ desires to encourage consumers to upgrade their TVs coincided with the sudden rise of the streaming services like Netflix and Amazon which needed ‘added value’ and, unlike the over-air broadcasters, could offer UHD. Whether 4K/UHD dominates in the future is dependent on how much this shift to streaming services continues. Nevertheless…
4K remains minority viewing
A quick reality check: reading these pages, it’s easy to get the impression that everyone is watching UHD/4K in their home – in fact, these resolutions remain minority viewing. At least 80% of TV viewing is broadcast over the air rather than streamed and that maxes out at 1080 HD. In the remaining 20% or so of the market, only a minority of programmes are streamed in UHD and some streaming services (like NOW TV in the UK) only output at 720 HD. And we do not know what percentage of Netflix viewers pay the premium to watch in UHD rather than HD. Moreover, if your internet connection is slow or you simply live in a part of the world where high-speed internet is simply unavailable, you are not going to get UHD, anyway. And the majority of cinema distribution remains at 2K.
The reality is that the majority of the world still doesn’t get to see a decent HD picture on their screens.
The law of diminishing returns – there is a point at which there is no point
In terms of distribution and exhibition, there is a point at which there is little to be gained by increases in resolution. Whether the difference between HD and UHD in the home is noticeable is entirely dependent on the size of your screen and how close you sit to it. There are very few homes where an 8K screen makes any sense and houses, certainly in the UK, are getting smaller rather than larger. Possibly in the future we will have screens that occupy an entire wall and houses will be designed around them, but that, to me, would suggest a very different approach to framing and composition – do you really want to sit a few feet away from a close-up on an 8-foot high screen? Avoiding aliasing is another argument that is put forward which has some credence, although I am not convinced it is a significant problem looking for a solution.
There is also always a cost in computing power and storage cost of going to higher resolutions – anyone who denies 4K takes more computing power is compromising in other ways. These costs may or may not be significant, depending on your budget, but they exist.