# Amazon shooting 2014 original series lineup in 4K



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

*Amazon shooting 2014 original series lineup in 4K*

Set top boxes everywhere just cried out in agony. Amazon announced this morning that its full lineup of 2014 series will be shot in 4K. The retailer-turned-TV-studio likely considers the move a bit of future-proofing, given the limited options for actually watching such shows in their intended resolution.

Full Story Here


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

If they can get Sammy, Sony and a few others to allow downloads from Amazon to play on their 4k TV's, then we've got future proofing and a few bits and pieces for right now. Or at least, soon!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

This seems like an odd thing to be "news"... and I'm not criticizing Athlon for posting it... it is in fact news, so he was right to post it! I'm criticizing that it conceptually will be received as news by a lot of people.

It is great that they will shoot with 4K instead of 1080p digital cameras...

BUT

I Love Lucy was future proofed by being shot on film... way before I was born and before anyone even thought about the 4K HDTVs hitting the market now.

So... if they really wanted to future-proof, they could be shooting with film.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Digital is getting to the point of surpassing film in The Industry, as it has in still photography, a few very specialized cases being exceptions.

And well done film has a superb picture, beats the pants off the video taping that was done for tons of TV shows based on cost- and that no one foresaw that SD was only a waypoint on TV delivery.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

You mean surpassing in terms of usage. I'd actually guess we are way past that to its by far the dominant form especially for the big studios. 

However it's still and never will be as good a picture down to the last detail as film was. Even if it was 8k.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I heartily disagree with the quality issue. It'a a matter of physics.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Yes and because of physics it's impossible for digital To ever be as true as film. What you see vs reality may be different and you may not be able to tell but technically film will always be better. The problem Is keeping it better and the massively lower cost of digital.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

You're talking theoretically: if there were a perfect resolution film, then digital couldn't quite match it. But film is far from perfect. 

Digital has overtaken film as to PQ, but not to such a degree that it's pervasive. In fact, HQ HD is rare, but it is better than all but the most specialized and expensive of films.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

And ill say that's just not true. film will never have the stair step affect and other issues that are not possible to get rid of with digital...


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

What can you offer by way of specifics? Or hands on experience?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Not to get into the middle of the argument, but everyone's eye/brain "hardware/software" is different. In the end, quality determinations are made based on how that software processes the nerve impulses created by light from the "screen" passing through two imperfect lenses and received and transmitted by an imperfect nervous system. At some point the eye/brain really isn't objectively "seeing" the picture but rather subjectively interpreting it.

Many manufacturers tout their black blacks. Black is the absence of light, something that humans experience in few situations. What I want to "see" in most movies where the scene is dark is a rather "muddied" rgb low-level mashup, something that film can render well. I think my poor old brain frequently "sees" that in digital recordings where it doesn't exist.

I have to measure "realistic" based on what I "see" in the forest around me or while at the beach or in my home or in a hotel room. And then I have to consider what the director wanted me to "see" which if he/she were honest might not have been "captured" by the medium used.

Personally because of my age and vision, "improvements" in video presentation that add to my enjoyment in 99% of what's being created out there ceased to be meaningful beyond 720p/1080i unless we're talking about the commercial large screen movie theater. So even though I'm an Amazon Prime customer, I'm not impressed if it means I'm paying more because of the higher level of technology.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Right! Ultimate satisfaction to the individual is what counts, and subjectivity is a huge factor, one that tips the balance in favor of one flavor over an other. 

But technology marches on, and pretty soon they'll make the blacks so black that it'll suck in other light waves, and become the black hole of Living Rooms!


----------

