Sony introduces ultra-HD video player with pre-loaded films

Technological advances are always great, but even with post production filters/editing, how much clearer can movies possibly get? Especially movies like Taxi Driver that were filmed in the 1970s. Surely 35mm film is not magic, infinite quality, though it would be nice if I'm wrong.

Alex TokyoDec. 02, 2012 - 07:44AM JST

Technological advances are always great, but even with post production filters/editing, how much clearer can movies possibly get? Especially movies like Taxi Driver that were filmed in the 1970s. Surely 35mm film is not magic, infinite quality, though it would be nice if I'm wrong.

35mm ASA 100 film has a resolution of about 20-30megapixel ( more than enough for 4K), and cinema lenses of the time were good enough. The sources themselves are good enough to need it, and in fact, most studios shot film until not too long ago simply because the film versions were much better in terms of resolution (and sometimes smaller cameras too). RED cameras and new Arri ones have changed the field a bit, but old stuff isn't to be trifled with.

The article headline is entirely wrong!

It should actually read "Sony introduces ultra-HD TV with bundled video player pre-loaded with films"

Also wrong:

The electronics industry has dubbed the new flat-panel displays “Ultra HD,” while Sony specifically refers to it as “4K” because it features nearly 4,000 pixels, compared to the 1,080 pixels found in “1080p” sets.

1080p is actually 1920x1080, 4K is actually 3840 × 2160 (or 4096×2160 for cinema), so the comparison is 3840 to 1920 (twice resolution) or 2160 to 1080 (twice resolution). Comparing 4000 to 1080 is simply wrong, misleading, and poor journalism.

marcelitoDec. 02, 2012 - 11:14AM JST

25 K? What a bargain.

Far cheaper than the 32in EIZO that costs $35k.

It's also about the same as Sony's other 4k option, Sony Home Theater 4K ES Projector, that doesn't have the video player or videos (videos alone in japanese prices would be $1k) and requires another 1-5k for screen and install.

Prices have to drop so ordinary folks could buy one.

Jack SternDec. 02, 2012 - 12:43PM JST

Prices have to drop so ordinary folks could buy one.

What are ordinary folk going to do with more resolution than their eyes can distinguish? A 1080p screen at standard viewing distances is already better than the resolution a human eye can distinguish, 4K screen would be enough so that the eye is actually below the nyquist frequency and it's impossible to see any more. NHK's already trying 8K broadcasts for no reason, but even 4K isn't worth the extra power needed to decode or the space needed to store the video.

Why don't Sony allow the customer to pick which movies they want pre-loaded to watch?

Wasn't there an article on JT a few years ago that Sony says they did not have the cutomer in mind which caused them to lose market shares? The price tag of $25K is a lot. A person can buy a brand new car for that price.

The price isn't all that bad, compared to when normal 1080p LCDs came out. I remember when Samsung and LG were fighting over who could make the largest TVs. They were throwing out 80" 1080p LCDs for $50k.

skipbeatDec. 03, 2012 - 02:50PM JST

Why don't Sony allow the customer to pick which movies they want pre-loaded to watch?

Because they don't HAVE other movies in consumer formats. Bluray only has a quarter the resolution (DVD just 1/24), and most old movies would have to be rescanned and remastered to actually be better than bluray versions they have.

Sony says they did not have the cutomer in mind which caused them to lose market shares?

This isn't meant for regular consumers, much like when plasma and LCD tvs first hit the market at around $15k. The people who would buy this are those that either need it (think studio executives doing screenings, now they don't need to go to their private theaters or deal with screens and dim lighting) or have no care for the cost. If the technology proves valuable, you can see mass production versions in 7-10 years (maybe less if 4k recording hits more than 10% of broadcasts).

The price tag of $25K is a lot. A person can buy a brand new car for that price.

They can buy a 4K video camera, or an old Hasselblad digital camera (without lenses). 20 years ago, it would not even be enough to buy a digital SLR.

And believe it or not, the materials and manufacturing costs associated with this thing are probably higher than your $25k car. Just the indium used (among other rare metals) is almost as rare as platinum, and the manufacturing process is incredibly costly, especially for low production runs like with this display.

basroilDec. 03, 2012 - 04:30PM JST : This isn't meant for regular consumers,

Sony can still make a profit by charging $25K if enough super rich people buy it. Sony is not "cool" like Apple.

The other business strategy is charge less so a lot more people can buy it and still make a profit.

The newer generation probably doesn't even know about Sony or Sony walkman.