So we all know while 1080p HD is nice, its not even close to being at the same "resolution" or quality of 35mm film. Quad HD will be 3840x2160. Will this be good enough? Or will we always have to visit specialty screens?

I was just wondering the same thing. Actually, what Gb size disc would be required to fit a full length movie plus extras, without having to compress the digital files?

Remember that resolution of a 35mm film is seperated into actual resolution and theoretical resolution.

When they do a 4K scan of a negative it is to get an exact digital copy of the orginal negative, every little scratch grain etc. But the real reolution if you would mesure lines are in most cases not that high.

So what you see in 1080P is the real resolution of the movie. The details you are missing are details in the negative, not the movie.

So we all know while 1080p HD is nice, its not even close to being at the same "resolution" or quality of 35mm film.
Do we know that really? I think your priorities are wrong. 1080p is fine concerning the number of pixels. It's not 35mm negative resolution but close to 2K (for widescreen material) which is still the standard of DIs today. So you are seeing about the same number of pixels/detail on all prints from 2K DI films and 2K digital projection. The 2K is not the bottleneck for now at home. It's the HD color gamut and the 8 bit samples and the 4:2:0 format. Before 4K we need in that order
- cinema color gamut
- 10 bit samples
- 4:2:2 or 4:4:4
and then we can go to 4K. Once you have full 2K as in the cinema you will notice that going to 4K brings marginal improvement for 35mm material. To make 4K shine you need 70mm and digital 4K camera sources.

Why on earth does it matter anyway? I doubt any but the richest individuals here have screens the size of commercial movie theaters anyway. 1080P is good enough for normal ~100 inch theaters with moderate viewing distances. You only need 4K and the like because of the immense size of commercial theaters..

So we all know while 1080p HD is nice, its not even close to being at the same "resolution" or quality of 35mm film.

Do 'we' all know that?

Is it really a fact?

What I do know is that some films in high def look a fair bit better than SD, but some don't look much better at all, despite being a pretty good transfer.

Similarly, test reported here suggest people are struggling to tell the difference between 720p & 1080p.

This suggests that, in real world viewing, 1080p is pretty near the limit of the quality we need.

Many comparisons have 1080p alongside pristine prints that 99% of us will nevr get to see.

Steve W

This study will help all to understand that we never see the high resolution of film when we go to the movies:

http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf

2560 x 1600 (16:10) already seems to be a standard for LCD monitors. I think we will see LCD projectors with that resolution for home use soon. That's about 2x the resolution of 1080p.

2560 x 1600 (16:10) already seems to be a standard for LCD monitors. I think we will see LCD projectors with that resolution for home use soon. That's about 2x the resolution of 1080p.


But it won't make the image twice as good. That is not how it works.

I'm already maxed at my viewing distance, so anything higher than 1080p will look no different in my home theater.

So we all know while 1080p HD is nice, its not even close to being at the same "resolution" or quality of 35mm film. Quad HD will be 3840x2160. Will this be good enough? Or will we always have to visit specialty screens?
Yes, quad HD (3840x2160) will be good enough for me for a while (at least a few months) ;)

As someone else has said, we also need High Colour res (at least 10 bit) and 4:4:4, less visible artefacts (less compression). - oh and we need 60p at full quad HD for concerts, documentaries and recorded live events.

Quad HD should also be better for films with lots of CGI effects as for those scenes maybe you could render out at 3840x2160 and go straight to the BD/other disc, bypassing the film stage (though it may make them look too different from the other scenes?). I'm not sure whether a quad HD video camera (they do exist?) would be any better for it than a 35mm film camera, maybe in some ways? And it might make them use 65mm film cameras more (and direct scans of the original negative).

And we also need HDTVs that can display all of this (and if they use LED backlights they need lots of them - hundreds or more maybe). Or OLED or something like that.

4k would allow bigger projection and/or closer viewing distances screens - I would love that!

4k would let my digital photos look awesome - I would love that!

I think 4k will come sooner or later - with better colors, 3D and whatever .... - hopefully sooner. :)

But it won't make the image twice as good. That is not how it works.

Tell that to people buying 2560 x 1600 monitors.:D

4000x2000 does have on "official" name BTW - Super HD.

And I really cannot see it as a platform for the consumer bcause it requires a LARGE display to be appreciated. 95% of ALL HDTV's are 60 inches or less and SHD will not be a benefit at that small a screen.

In what form would the delivery system be? The raw file for SHD is between 7 and 12 TB's depending on if it is 24FPS (film) or 30 FPS (video). A current 1920x1080x24P master is 1 TB in file size. All numbers assume 120 minute content.

Tell that to people buying 2560 x 1600 monitors.:D

People don't generally sit 2 feet away from their TV.
People don't tend to read copious amounts of text on their TV's

This is a question that will likely never be answered. The expense is substantial and the benefit infintesimal. You must all have obscenely good eyesight and sit with your nose touching the TV. Thats about the only way it would make any difference...

4000x2000 does have on "official" name BTW - Super HD.

And I really cannot see it as a platform for the consumer bcause it requires a LARGE display to be appreciated. 95% of ALL HDTV's are 60 inches or less and SHD will not be a benefit at that small a screen.

In what form would the delivery system be? The raw file for SHD is between 7 and 12 TB's depending on if it is 24FPS (film) or 30 FPS (video). A current 1920x1080x24P master is 1 TB in file size. All numbers assume 120 minute content.
In what form would the delivery system be?

Well they could try their best on a 50GB Blu-ray disc (with a bit more compression), or introduce 100GB or 200GB Blu-ray discs. They could also introduce HVD discs or memory cards, or use some form of hard disc/multiple hard disc (maybe copy from multiple Blu-ray discs to the hard disc system if broadband isn't yet up to it). Also, using some of the techniques of HD-VMD and applying those to Blu-ray could maybe get Blu-ray discs upto 500GB or more?

or 30 FPS (video)
60 make it at least 60p! :) when the US has had 60hz in the past (admittedly interlaced) and the UK has had 50hz, settling for only 30fps won't be good. I also wonder, with bigger screens in the home required for this quad HD will mean lower frame rates will look worse than now? And having higher frame rates will mean people won't have to use the 'fake' motion interpolation options (which won't help much with rotating wheels going faster than 12 or so revs per second etc.) or some ghosting etc.

4k would allow bigger projection and/or closer viewing distances screens - I would love that!



Hi,

True, higher resolutions will permit closer viewing distances before seeing image structure, i.e., pixels, scan lines, etc. This of course aids in achieving the minimum recommended viewing angles needed to give you a sense of immersion in the on screen action.

However, regardless of resolution, there is a practical limit to how close to the screen a viewer should be seated in terms of viewing comfort. Most viewers start feeling discomfort when the horizontal viewing angle starts exceeding roughly 40 degrees. Likewise, sitting too close to a large screen can cause the neck strain when the vertical viewing angle is too large.

For example, I have a 720p projector with my first row of seating about 12 feet from a 120" screen. As it turns out at 720p, for viewers with excellent visual acuity, a 12 foot viewing distance is at the borderline for resolving image structure, so one would think that increasing the projector resolution would be a benefit. However, the horizontal viewing angle is already at 40 degrees, so while increasing the resolution would help avoid rare situations where viewers with exceptional vision can resolve image structure, I still wouldn't be able to move the seating any closer to the screen without adversely affecting viewer comfort.

Larry

Well they could try their best on a 50GB Blu-ray disc (with a bit more compression), or introduce 100GB or 200GB Blu-ray discs. They could also introduce HVD discs or memory cards, or use some form of hard disc/multiple hard disc (maybe copy from multiple Blu-ray discs to the hard disc system if broadband isn't yet up to it). Also, using some of the techniques of HD-VMD and applying those to Blu-ray could maybe get Blu-ray discs upto 500GB or more?

A 50GB BD is 5% of the master. That means compression is 95%. To retain this %, the delivery system would have to be between 350 GB and 600 GB. That would mean either a 14 layer BD or a 24 layer BD (assumes 25GB per layer). We are so far away from that kind of technology due to manufacturing road blocks.

The media has to be cheap and easily reproduceable at high rates of speed with good accuracy.

Having SHD PJ's or displays is one thing. They are already there. Having a format that is SHD native for the consumer? Not even close.

60 make it at least 60p! :) when the US has had 60hz in the past (admittedly interlaced) and the UK has had 50hz, settling for only 30fps won't be good. I also wonder, with bigger screens in the home required for this quad HD will mean lower frame rates will look worse than now? And having higher frame rates will mean people won't have to use the 'fake' motion interpolation options (which won't help much with rotating wheels going faster than 12 or so revs per second etc.) or some ghosting etc.

:D I know you are 60 FPS's biggest fan. Trust me on this one . . . it won't happen. They can't even get Hollywood to go from 24 to 30!:(

This study will help all to understand that we never see the high resolution of film when we go to the movies:

http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf

Thanks for posting that link.

You will barely see a difference if it's going to be four times as much as 1080p, so I'd say no.

To see a difference, you'd have to be less than 10 feet at a 120" Quad HD TV. I'd post a link to the page, but apparently being new means I can't post links, so Google up "Chart: 1080p Does Matter".

Super HD is so . . . . yesterday:D

Ultra HD is what we should strive for!

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/14/33-megapixel-super-hi-vision-ultra-hdtv-could-be-on-the-air-in/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Video

A 50GB BD is 5% of the master. That means compression is 95%. To retain this %, the delivery system would have to be between 350 GB and 600 GB. That would mean either a 14 layer BD or a 24 layer BD (assumes 25GB per layer). We are so far away from that kind of technology due to manufacturing road blocks.

For the 350-600GB are you talking 24fps quad and all other video format specs being the same as they are now (colour res, 4:2:0 etc)?

I thought, if all else was the same Quad HD would only take 4 x current bitrates & disc space (ie. you should be able fit it on 200GB discs - or 4 x 50GB discs or less (as HD-DVD managed with 30GB quite well)). I mentioned above some of the other ways of storing/playing back this amount. They could also have players with 2 to 4 Blu-ray drives in them for upto 4 x the bitrate.

Also, someone said that higher colour depths wouldn't take up much more space than 8 bits (and in some cases would actually take up less bitrate/space than 8 bit - due to better encoding efficiency or not having to store 8 bit dithered encodes or something).

For the 350-600 are you talking 24fps quad and all other video format specs being the same as they are now (colour res, 4:2:0 etc)?

I thought, if all else was the same Quad HD would only take 4 x current bitrates & disc space (ie. you should be able fit it on 200GB discs - or 4 x 50GB discs or less (as HD-DVD managed with 30GB quite well).

Also, someone said that higher colour depths wouldn't take up much more space than 8 bits (and in some cases would actually take up less bitrate/space than 8 bit - due to better encoding efficiency or not having to store 8 bit dithered encodes or something).

It is to my understanding that the specs for SHD call for 12 bit color and 4:4:4 as set forth by the DCI.

If the master is 7 to 12 X bigger than an HD master - how can you get away with only 4X? You are increasing the amount of compression required.

Currently only JPEG2000 is used for Digital Cinema which is not as efficient as other encoding methods.

I was just wondering the same thing. Actually, what Gb size disc would be required to fit a full length movie plus extras, without having to compress the digital files?

Uncompressed HD, coming from HDCam on my edit system comes to about 7 Gigs/minute, so 120 minutes of uncompressed HD, not even including audio, is around 840 Gigs. The same length of footage in quad HD would come to 3.36 TB.

It is to my understanding that the specs for SHD call for 12 bit color and 4:4:4 as set forth by the DCI.

If the master is 7 to 12 X bigger than an HD master - how can you get away with only 4X? You are increasing the amount of compression required.

Currently only JPEG2000 is used for Digital Cinema which is not as efficient as other encoding methods.
Maybe. I'd wouldn't really mind if it was 4K across and only 10 bit colour as long as I couldn't see any differences between that and 12 bit colour on my TV :) as long as it could fit on a disc(s) and play back okay

OK I'm fifty two years old. This amy be OT but I betting my children will need to collect on this) I won't see quad HD displays, like projection ,for the home, and software, during my lifetime.

Art

OK I'm fifty two years old. This amy be OT but I betting my children will need to collect on this) I won't see quad HD displays, like projection ,for the home, and software, during my lifetime.

Art

How long are you planning on living? Lol! If you make it to at least 75 I'd say you'll get to see them. :D

The industry has us on the upgrade path. It's a dream come true for them. After decades of selling SD CRTs that people have no desire to replace, they've discovered that people will actually dump their inferior displays as soon as something better comes around. People bought 1080p displays and shoved their three year old 720p displays in closets. Soon they'll be selling expensive 2160 line displays with smart upconversion so they'll be compatible with low resolution HD.

Come on, is a little bit of occasional judder worth upgrading to a 120hz display? Of course it is! :)

Come on, is a little bit of occasional judder worth upgrading to a 120hz display? Of course it is! :)
I thought they reduced judder?
EDIT: oops. You mean upgrade to 120hz TVs reduce the judder I see now

Still when quad comes in a few months ;) I bet we're still stuck with 99% of everything being recorded at 24fps

The industry has us on the upgrade path. It's a dream come true for them. After decades of selling SD CRTs that people have no desire to replace, they've discovered that people will actually dump their inferior displays as soon as something better comes around.Incorrect. 1080p is part of the new HD spec, so anyone who wanted to max out the resolution available to them would go to that, and that's why those sets are selling. Without a new Quad HD/Ultra HD broadcast standard, any introduction of hardware or software for those formats will be effectively DOA. Anyone want to guess how long it will take before the U.S. sees a new broadcast standard? Remember, we aren't even officially cut over to ATSC DTV until next year! I'm betting 20-30 years, at a minimum.

OK I'm fifty two years old. This amy be OT but I betting my children will need to collect on this) I won't see quad HD displays, like projection ,for the home, and software, during my lifetime.You may see it, but at BEST it will be to Blu-ray what LaserDisc was to VHS, but most likely it will be about like what D-Theater DVHS was to DVD. Compared to most of the population I'm a huge home theater lover, and I'm perfectly satisfied with Blu-ray.

I thought they reduced judder?
EDIT: oops. You mean upgrade to 120hz TVs reduce the judder I see now

Still when quad comes in a few months ;) I bet we're still stuck with 99% of everything being recorded at 24fps

What about the new 3D movies? Are they recorded at 24fps or higher? I know they're projected at 2 lots of 60fps (I think, at least in Real-D) I'd love to see some filmmakers be a bit daring and shoot at 60fps. With HD DV cameras they don't have to worry about the cost of 2.5 times the film stock. :)

OK I'm fifty two years old. This amy be OT but I betting my children will need to collect on this) I won't see quad HD displays, like projection ,for the home, and software, during my lifetime.

Art

Hi Art.

My prognostication . . .

By the time you hit 65 you will see a format offered to the public that has higher resolution than current HD standards, be it SHD or UHD (highly doubt this one)

What about the new 3D movies? Are they recorded at 24fps or higher? I know they're projected at 2 lots of 60fps (I think, at least in Real-D) I'd love to see some filmmakers be a bit daring and shoot at 60fps. With HD DV cameras they don't have to worry about the cost of 2.5 times the film stock. :)

Here is the problem.

As of today there are 25,000 commerical movie theaters in the USA.

Of which about 1100 are Digital Cinema theaters.

You shoot at 60 FPS with a digital camera - what about the other 23,900 theaters? They can't show a movie at 60 FPS. Only 24.

I was just wondering the same thing. Actually, what Gb size disc would be required to fit a full length movie plus extras, without having to compress the digital files?

pixel count goes from about 2 million to 8 million so you can figure about four times the current size ... or about 80gb as most encodes now in 1080p are in the 20gb range after you strip all the extras. heck TMNT was only 13gb when I stripped that. 300 was around 18.

So you will need to use a double or triple layer for bluray assuming that you still more than 20gb of extras like some now use.

While 1080p is good, it is only 2.3Megapixels which for most of us would stink on a camera for instance.

2160p is around 10.. pretty high. Most photojournalist use about 10-13 megapixels... but they aren't using a 100" screen. I could see them still going higher eventually. I think that once you start hitting about 4000-6000p your mind will "truly" start to view it as "real"

They say that 1080p does that now, but When I look at my HD disks now in 1080p, they look great, but I doesn't exactly look like bruce banner is physically in front of me yet.

Here is the problem.

As of today there are 25,000 commerical movie theaters in the USA.

Of which about 1100 are Digital Cinema theaters.

You shoot at 60 FPS with a digital camera - what about the other 23,900 theaters? They can't show a movie at 60 FPS. Only 24.

We have those theater near us north of Philadelphia. They are really good, but in some ways, I think they still are not where film can be. Perhaps I am too critical..don't know.

Of course even with the best equipment, it still depends on a 16 year old making sure everything is up an running right while he is trying ot man the popcorn stand between shows. :rolleyes:

Incorrect. 1080p is part of the new HD spec, so anyone who wanted to max out the resolution available to them would go to that, and that's why those sets are selling. Without a new Quad HD/Ultra HD broadcast standard, any introduction of hardware or software for those formats will be effectively DOA.
Incorrect. A large percentage of people who own HDTVs have never watched any HD content on them. They're happy enough to watch upconverted DVDs and SD broadcasts. Anyone with a good upconverting DVD player can tell you how much better a good DVD can look on an HDTV display compared to an EDTV display.

Now... imagine using these same upconverting techniques on an 1080p disc to display it at even higher resolution. You won't have to imagine it eventually because before 1080p displays become as standard as SD CRTs were twenty years ago, the manufacturers will be pushing displays with even greater resolution.

They have to. HDTV has created a huge increase in television sales that was unimaginable before HD was introduced. All of a sudden people are coming in and dropping thousands of dollars on televisions! They are not going to watch those sales slide as HD becomes commonplace.

The high end crowd owned HDTVs before most of their local stations started broadcasting anything in HD. In fact HD is still a minority of OTA programming, almost entirely during prime time. We all know how so-called "HD" networks like TBS-HD, History-HD, USA-HD and TNT-HD are still upconverting and stretching SD to pass it off as HD. Still for some reason people keep purchasing HDTVs despite the lack of content.

You shoot at 60 FPS with a digital camera - what about the other 23,900 theaters? They can't show a movie at 60 FPS. Only 24.

Release two versions.

Dual format releases are nothing new. Today some films are released with 35mm and IMAX prints. In the past 70mm and 35mm releases were common. These days digitally releasing the 60 fps version to the thousand theaters that can project them would actually be cheaper than the thousands of 35mm prints for the other theaters.

The problem right now is the only common progressive 60 fps format is 720p and there is no strong demand in the industry for 1080p at 60 fps.

I thought they reduced judder?
EDIT: oops. You mean upgrade to 120hz TVs reduce the judder I see now.
Yes, I was trying to sound like a pushy Circuit City or Best Buy salesman trying to sell you a new TV. I don't blame you for misunderstanding me! :D

You shoot at 60 FPS with a digital camera - what about the other 23,900 theaters? They can't show a movie at 60 FPS. Only 24.
Shoot at 72fps instead and produce a 24fps version in post. Should look acceptable.

Shoot at 72fps instead and produce a 24fps version in post. Should look acceptable.
I agree with this post (they'll have more options for doing 2 renders for CGI stuff too or doing post production conversions like the live action stuff above).

Then they can release a 72fps Blu-ray/Quad ray :) version (as well as a 24fps blu/quad version if they want).

Here is the new Panasonic 150" Super HD Plasma display that was shown at CES:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/panny-keynote-img_0717.jpg

Here is the new Panasonic 150" Super HD Plasma display that was shown at CES:

The trouble with a display that size in a normal house is it might be slightly too big? And it might be better with 'proper' 3d (the type you can focus on) maybe? (unless you had a really big house). So I'd prefer a slightly smaller one that's the same res but full 3d (preferably not only a left+right view, and they'd have to change the way they film stuff too otherwise it might be hard to watch?)

Shoot at 72fps instead and produce a 24fps version in post. Should look acceptable.

So who wants higher frame rates?

Which directors? Which studio?

The only person I know of doesn't make movies any more - Douglas Trumbull.

The trouble with a display that size in a normal house is it might be slightly too big? And it might be better with 'proper' 3d (the type you can focus on) maybe? (unless you had a really big house). So I'd prefer a slightly smaller one that's the same res but full 3d (preferably not only a left+right view, and they'd have to change the way they film stuff too otherwise it might be hard to watch?)

Last year they showed a 103" HD Plasma TV. They sold 3000 of them (at a reported $75,000 each) They stated they feel they can sell the same amout of the 150". No price was given.

If you have to ask what the price is . . . you can't afford it.:p

So who wants higher frame rates?

Which directors? Which studio?

The only person I know of doesn't make movies any more - Douglas Trumbull.

And didn't Trumball actually change his stance? I could have sworn I read something where he said he'd come to believe that 60 FPS wasn't appropriate for traditional "narrative" filmmaking. For ride films and the like it was appropriate, but not "normal" movies.

Vincent

And didn't Trumball actually change his stance? I could have sworn I read something where he said he'd come to believe that 60 FPS wasn't appropriate for traditional "narrative" filmmaking. For ride films and the like it was appropriate, but not "normal" movies.

Vincent

I do not remember him saying that but it very well would be true.

When Katenzenback from Disney saw Showscan he was quoted as saying; "too real"

When I saw Showscan - I would have to agree with him.

Do we know that really? I think your priorities are wrong. 1080p is fine concerning the number of pixels. It's not 35mm negative resolution but close to 2K (for widescreen material) which is still the standard of DIs today. So you are seeing about the same number of pixels/detail on all prints from 2K DI films and 2K digital projection. The 2K is not the bottleneck for now at home. It's the HD color gamut and the 8 bit samples and the 4:2:0 format. Before 4K we need in that order
- cinema color gamut
- 10 bit samples
- 4:2:2 or 4:4:4
and then we can go to 4K. Once you have full 2K as in the cinema you will notice that going to 4K brings marginal improvement for 35mm material. To make 4K shine you need 70mm and digital 4K camera sources.

Well put. And if the authors would just leave their hand off that " add sharpness" button many of our transfers on HD would look so much better.

/\ yes but a lot of films are 2.35:1 which is only about 817 lines (excluding black lines). Is that really the same as the best quality original 35mm negative motion picture film (maybe filmed with an anamorphic lens) or even the best original 65mm negative film? (and I thought a lot of film scans are done at 4K and some digital projectors (newer ones) were now 4K?

But I agree we need greater colour resolution (and HDTVs that can properly display it) and 4:4:4, less visible compression (or just less/better compression) etc.

So we all know while 1080p HD is nice, its not even close to being at the same "resolution" or quality of 35mm film. Quad HD will be 3840x2160. Will this be good enough? Or will we always have to visit specialty screens?

I know people don't like the idea that Toshiba is going to market Super-Converting that basically is I high-end Quad converter 480i to 960p that is based on the Cell Technology. But applying this technology to HDM on future 8 or 4 mega-pixel panels would look totally stunning.

...Angelo

I know people don't like the idea that Toshiba is going to market Super-Converting that basically is I high-end Quad converter 480i to 960p that is based on the Cell Technology. But applying this technology to HDM on future 8 or 4 mega-pixel panels would look totally stunning.

...Angelo
Maybe. But wouldn't it be better to have actual content on the disc at quad HD? With 2.35:1 films it wouldn't need that many pixels anyway.

But I agree we need greater colour resolution (and HDTVs that can properly display it) and 4:4:4, less visible compression (or just less/better compression) etc.

In the future if Sony decides to produce Super-Bit BD50 flicks with zero extras only on another BD disk and using the whole disc with AVC/VC1 and TrueHD audio for maximum picture bit rate, I would consider this to produce the BEST HD pictures.

Sony should of done "special" Super-Bit encodes for Studios when BD50 was released to show the superior PQ compared to HD DVD. But no, HD DVD was better at it from the start.... :confused:

...Angelo

Maybe. But wouldn't it be better to have actual content on the disc at quad HD? With 2.35:1 films it wouldn't need that many pixels anyway.

Yes, but BDM is now and new and can be easily be Super converted. Look at what Up-Converting did to DVD.

...Angelo

In the future if Sony decides to produce Super-Bit BD50 flicks with zero extras only on another BD disk and using the whole disc with AVC/VC1 and TrueHD audio for maximum picture bit rate, I would consider this to produce the BEST HD pictures.

Sony should of done "special" Super-Bit encodes for Studios when BD50 was released to show the superior PQ compared to HD DVD. But no, HD DVD was better at it from the start.... :confused:

...Angelo

Great post . . .

So what has this to do with "Quad HD and 35mm film?"

:confused:

Great post . . .

So what has this to do with "Quad HD and 35mm film?"

:confused:

I was just responding to lesser compression. :)

...Angelo

Great post . . .

So what has this to do with "Quad HD and 35mm film?"

:confused:
Also, for Quad HD it might help to have a higher bitrate and so put the extras on a second disc :)
(unless they can introduce ultra huge discs soon)

PS: HD-DVD wasn't necessarily better at it from the start, putting only 480i extras on the same disc instead of full hd extras on a second disc (though I don't think I've seen any of the later yet)

What about the new 3D movies? Are they recorded at 24fps or higher? I know they're projected at 2 lots of 60fps (I think, at least in Real-D) I'd love to see some filmmakers be a bit daring and shoot at 60fps. With HD DV cameras they don't have to worry about the cost of 2.5 times the film stock. :)Real D theatrical digital projection movies are 2K @ 48fps. It's still 24 fps... 24 fps for each eye.

For non-3D environments, digital cinema is 2K @ 24 fps or (far less likely, and arguably inferior with current projector technology) 4K @ 24 fps. 4:4:4 XYZ.

The problem is that all of you that are supporting this are talking about HOW. You are all very well informed and I have learned a lot from you. The problem is WHY. People aren't hung up on PQ. The industries we are talking about aren't interested in PQ. People aren't rushing off to get LCD/Plasma TVs because they have such great PQ. They are buying them because they are flat and hang like a picture. This is why half of the HDTVs don't have a SINGLE HD source connected to them. We are talking about the technology exceeding the actors/actresses desires (we have all heard how they feel about their imperfections being magnified), directors desires (they don't want their movies so "real"), the network desires (how many 1080p HDTV signals do we get? ZERO), The studios desires (won't even go up from 24fps??), and the consumer's desires (complete lack of adoption of any and all HD sources, despite HDTV purchases).

And that is for 1080p. Once we get to that point there is no way there is going to be an outcry for improvement. Not for 20 years atleast.

Understand that the future of 1080p is muddy. It is only us AVSfanaticals that want that stuff and frankly we don't matter unless we want to drop 100k on a 150" TV (even then we don't really matter).

Real D theatrical digital projection movies are 2K @ 48fps. It's still 24 fps... 24 fps for each eye.

For non-3D environments, digital cinema is 2K @ 24 fps or (far less likely, and arguably inferior with current projector technology) 4K @ 24 fps. 4:4:4 XYZ.

Actually I looked it up and you're thinking of IMAX 3D that runs at 48fps, Real-D runs at 144fps, 72fps each eye!!! :eek: No wonder it looks so incredible! :D

http://www.uemedia.net/CPC/digitalcinemamag/articles/article_16642.shtml

The problem is that all of you that are supporting this are talking about HOW. You are all very well informed and I have learned a lot from you. The problem is WHY. People aren't hung up on PQ. The industries we are talking about aren't interested in PQ. People aren't rushing off to get LCD/Plasma TVs because they have such great PQ. They are buying them because they are flat and hang like a picture. This is why half of the HDTVs don't have a SINGLE HD source connected to them. We are talking about the technology exceeding the actors/actresses desires (we have all heard how they feel about their imperfections being magnified), directors desires (they don't want their movies so "real"), the network desires (how many 1080p HDTV signals do we get? ZERO), The studios desires (won't even go up from 24fps??), and the consumer's desires (complete lack of adoption of any and all HD sources, despite HDTV purchases).

And that is for 1080p. Once we get to that point there is no way there is going to be an outcry for improvement. Not for 20 years atleast.

Understand that the future of 1080p is muddy. It is only us AVSfanaticals that want that stuff and frankly we don't matter unless we want to drop 100k on a 150" TV (even then we don't really matter).

Great post. Knowing how and wanting it is only half the battle, the remainder is why. It ain't going to happen guys.

Art

Actually I looked it up and you're thinking of IMAX 3D that runs at 48fps, Real-D runs at 144fps, 72fps each eye!!! :eek: No wonder it looks so incredible! :D

http://www.uemedia.net/CPC/digitalcinemamag/articles/article_16642.shtmlNo, I'm not. You are confusing the projector fps with the source fps. Two different things. The movie source content is still 24/48 fps. It doesn't matter if it's repeated 2 or 3 times: it doesn't change the movie's fps.

Even for non-digital theaters, your 24 fps movies are projected at 48 fps in almost all cases.

I'm already maxed at my viewing distance, so anything higher than 1080p will look no different in my home theater.

ok but we still need to worry about my room. I could use better than 1080p

No, I'm not. You are confusing the projector fps with the source fps. Two different things. The movie source content is still 24/48 fps. It doesn't matter if it's repeated 2 or 3 times: it doesn't change the movie's fps.

Even for non-digital theaters, your 24 fps movies are projected at 48 fps in almost all cases.

Are you sure? Couldn't CGI movies be rendered at 72fps? They've only just started making digital 3D live-action movies using the new technique, Journey To The Center Of The Earth 3D is the first ever full length live-action digital 3D movie using this technique, so maybe the new digital 3D cameras are 72fps?

Are you sure? Couldn't CGI movies be rendered at 72fps? They've only just started making digital 3D live-action movies using the new technique, Journey To The Center Of The Earth 3D is the first ever full length live-action digital 3D movie using this technique, so maybe the new digital 3D cameras are 72fps?

The camera system being used on Journey is the same used for Hanna Montana and it appears U2 in 3D:

http://pacehd.com/

I have read a few articles on this and see nothing that leads me to believe that anything higher than 24 FPS will be the output.

Some special effects shots are captured at 120 FPS and higher, like explosions so that 1 second in real life equals 5 seconds on the screen.

Just a thought, but here we go.

We can argue all we want as to whether we can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p or 1080p and Quad, but whatever we say, there is a limit.

Same with sound.

So when we get there, what then?

Steve W

You can go to any most big electronics stores and stand close to 1080p fixed pixel displays of various sizes. Ignore the fact they are probably set up wrong and have fairly bad demo material.

Just see how close you have to get before you start to see the pixel structure, including the stair step jaggies on any sharp diagonal lines.

That is the distance where something better than 1080p would would start to be an advantage for that screen size, even if the other links in the chain (capture, telecine, delivery, etc.) were not yet delivering the desired extra detail.

- Tom

Just see how close you have to get before you start to see the pixel structure, including the stair step jaggies on any sharp diagonal lines.

That is the distance where something better than 1080p would would start to be an advantage for that screen size, even if the other links in the chain (capture, telecine, delivery, etc.) were not yet delivering the desired extra detail.
My experience is that as I watch a 1080p display from closer and closer, the picture appears soft and loses detail before I get close enough to notice actual pixels. This may be a result of the content instead of the display although I've done this experiment with HDM releases of several movies like the Matrix.

1080 lines may be more than what the typical release can deliver at this point. Most people behind the cameras these days spend more time talking about which filters they put in front of the lens than how sharp the film is going into the camera.

My experience is that as I watch a 1080p display from closer and closer, the picture appears soft and loses detail before I get close enough to notice actual pixels. This may be a result of the content instead of the display although I've done this experiment with HDM releases of several movies like the Matrix.

1080 lines may be more than what the typical release can deliver at this point. Most people behind the cameras these days spend more time talking about which filters they put in front of the lens than how sharp the film is going into the camera.

Hi,

Of course the theory is that the resolution delivered to your eye balls must increase as you approach the particular critical viewing distance appropriate to your personal level of visual acuity. The critical viewing distance is defined as the maximum viewing distance beyond which some picture detail will be lost. Therefore, by definition, as you sit at distances beyond the critical viewing distance you are throwing away available resolution.

Regardless of the increase in available resolution, as you view closer and closer you may start to see image structure, which detracts from the viewing experience. However, before image structure becomes visible it is possible that you may exceed the maximum recommended viewing angle, which will cause viewer discomfort regardless of the amount of available resolution. See my posting #18 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=13318477&postcount=18).

The point is that, even if pixels aren't visible at a particular viewing distance, it is possible that practical viewing distances will be constrained by viewer comfort issues, and that increased resolution may not improve the overall viewing experience if the viewer is seated too close to the screen.

Larry

The trouble with a display that size in a normal house is it might be slightly too big? And it might be better with 'proper' 3d (the type you can focus on) maybe? (unless you had a really big house). So I'd prefer a slightly smaller one that's the same res but full 3d (preferably not only a left+right view, and they'd have to change the way they film stuff too otherwise it might be hard to watch?)

You would be surprised how quickly you could get used to that screen size I think.

I have a 92" screen. I sit about 8-9 feet away.

You know what I was thinking about the other day? I was thinking that 92" doesn't seem as big as I did the first month that I had it.

I am now considering going to oh maybe just a little bigger to 106" or something.

/\ yes but a lot of films are 2.35:1 which is only about 817 lines (excluding black lines). Is that really the same as the best quality original 35mm negative motion picture film (maybe filmed with an anamorphic lens) or even the best original 65mm negative film?.
When we have > or < 16:9 aspect ratio there is resolution loss on 1080p because we have no anamorphic variant in the standard. 4:3 2K is 2048 * 1536 which is > 1080p even with anamorphic option. Only with 16:9 material we are close to non anamorphic 2K.

My experience is that as I watch a 1080p display from closer and closer, the picture appears soft and loses detail before I get close enough to notice actual pixels. This may be a result of the content instead of the display although I've done this experiment with HDM releases of several movies like the Matrix.

1080 lines may be more than what the typical release can deliver at this point. Most people behind the cameras these days spend more time talking about which filters they put in front of the lens than how sharp the film is going into the camera.

sounds to me like someone needs glasses. :)

When we have > or < 16:9 aspect ratio there is resolution loss on 1080p because we have no anamorphic variant in the standard. 4:3 2K is 2048 * 1536 which is > 1080p even with anamorphic option. Only with 16:9 material we are close to non anamorphic 2K.

That is a good point about the 16:9 on 1080p. It seems just about every movie that I have since the 90s uses 2.35 instead. I coudl see this coming out as mainstream in a few years.

It is funny in a way. The movies were originally 4:3. When TV came out, they changed to 16:9 to differentiate themselves. When Widescreen 16:9 tvs first began development, they started to release more in 2:35. I think most people still think they will get rid of the black bars on the top and bottom... until they upgrade to a widescreen 16:9 and find out they are still there. Just skinnier. :D

According to these links, picked at not-so-randomly from Google:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

people with 20/20 vision can resolve 1/60 deg (or one arc-minute) of detail.

1920 pixels (i.e. 1080p horizontally) spread over the 40 deg field that has been mentioned as a comfortable limit results in one pixel taking up 1.25 arc-minutes.

Thus, for people who have better than 20/20 vision, or who like to be more immersed than "normal" would see the benefit of resolutions greater than 1920x1080. The description on Wiki seems to imply that many people with healthy vision do in fact have better than 20/20 vision, so this isn't 1-in-100. This link (http://www.mdsupport.org/library/acuity.html) (which seems fairly scientific) describes it this way:

20/20 is not actually normal or average, let alone perfect, acuity.

Referring to the Snellen chart:

Normal acuity in healthy adults is one or two lines better.

Average acuity in a population sample does not drop to the 20/20 level until age 60 or 70.

At the THX-recommended 36 deg FOV, the numbers adjust by 10%, and 1080p gets pretty close to the limit of 20/20 eyesight (1.125 arc-minutes).

So unless you like to have a field of view ("field of regard" may be more accurate) greater than 40 deg horizontally, 1080p may in fact be a suitable practical limit if you have 20/20 eyesight. Since the average person can resolve slightly higher detail, perhaps there is indeed room for more pixels, but twice as much in each dimension would be overkill. 2880x1620, or 1.5x the current lineal resolution of 1080p, seems appropriate.

Personally, I do like to have more than 40 deg horizontally, simply because movies that are 2.40:1 aspect ratio have only 16.7 deg of vertical field of view. The action happens in the center half of the movie most of the time anyway - the extra-wide field is used for shot composition with scenery, and look great with landscape shots, but if the scene is just two people in a room talking, the "action" is fairly centered, in my opinion/estimation. Yes, there are exceptions, and for those exceptions there may be a bit of discomfort with the more-than-40 deg horizontal action.

I also like to more fully immerse myself because I feel it simulates how I normally process reality: I see about 160-180 deg from side to side, and I would guess about 100 deg total up and down. Anything that can fill that space in more completely is good, in my opinion. That's why folks love the IMAX/OMNIMAX experience.

Therefore, since there is room for more pixels that can be resolved, and there are folks like me who like to be more immersed than 40 deg, I feel there is a market for greater-than-HD resolutions. SHD is probably enough. I look forward to the upgrade in five years... :D

IMHO, YVDMY (Your viewing distance may vary),

shinksma

If they start shooting in these resolutions, they will probably find a way to deliver them into the home for those who want it.

The distribution model is changing. I don't see the old model being relevant to tomorrow, ie. broadcast standards will not dictate as I see it.

What I can see happening is when digital distribution matures and movie studios release their new content on any given weekend (or weekday) to viewers at home via digital pay per view, right along side or even in place of movie theaters... if the films were shot above HD resolution they may offer a download/stream option that is 1600x2500+

It's not that different now in that there are downloads for multiple resolutions on movie trailer sites, or many sites with streaming video content. They offer 320x240, 640x480, 1280x720, 1080x1920.. in the future maybe 1600x2500+

If there are enough people out there with displays capable of taking advantage of those higher resolutions, enough to make it cost effective to shoot in those higher resolutions and offer them up for viewing, it will happen.

1080x1920 may be the prevailing HD resolution for years to come, but with the way technology is moving and the open ended distribution model that a PC environment/the internet brings, I don't see 1080 staying the highest available resoluton either.

Higher resolutions are extremely likely when dealing with CGI movies.

So as has been said, at 817 lines we are not even really at 1080p yet for 2.35:1 films. And I definitely see a need for 4k in the home soon, for the reasons people have said (though depending on the field of view etc. it might require new ways of filming things eg. less fast camera movement if a big field of view otherwise it would be like a theme park ride for every film if the field of view was too big - and people might get motion sickness?) Though I wonder if a wider field of view would only be needed with much higher res than 4K?

Also, when are we going to get TVs that can approximate the full range of human eye visible colour/brightness ranges (within reason - in case they show too bright lights etc :))? Will this be when we get LCDs with thousands of LED backlights or OLED or something else like laser TV?

And until we do actually get TVs that can approximate the full human eye visible colour/brightness range, higher resolutions like 4k would let you have an option for better dithering for improved true to life brightness/colour ranges, as well as letting you have smoother/less blurry motion from a to b.

According to these links, picked at not-so-randomly from Google:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

people with 20/20 vision can resolve 1/60 deg (or one arc-minute) of detail.

1920 pixels (i.e. 1080p horizontally) spread over the 40 deg field that has been mentioned as a comfortable limit results in one pixel taking up 1.25 arc-minutes.

Thus, for people who have better than 20/20 vision, or who like to be more immersed than "normal" would see the benefit of resolutions greater than 1920x1080. The description on Wiki seems to imply that many people with healthy vision do in fact have better than 20/20 vision, so this isn't 1-in-100. This link (http://www.mdsupport.org/library/acuity.html) (which seems fairly scientific) describes it this way:



Referring to the Snellen chart:





At the THX-recommended 36 deg FOV, the numbers adjust by 10%, and 1080p gets pretty close to the limit of 20/20 eyesight (1.125 arc-minutes).

So unless you like to have a field of view ("field of regard" may be more accurate) greater than 40 deg horizontally, 1080p may in fact be a suitable practical limit if you have 20/20 eyesight. Since the average person can resolve slightly higher detail, perhaps there is indeed room for more pixels, but twice as much in each dimension would be overkill. 2880x1620, or 1.5x the current lineal resolution of 1080p, seems appropriate.

Personally, I do like to have more than 40 deg horizontally, simply because movies that are 2.40:1 aspect ratio have only 16.7 deg of vertical field of view. The action happens in the center half of the movie most of the time anyway - the extra-wide field is used for shot composition with scenery, and look great with landscape shots, but if the scene is just two people in a room talking, the "action" is fairly centered, in my opinion/estimation. Yes, there are exceptions, and for those exceptions there may be a bit of discomfort with the more-than-40 deg horizontal action.

I also like to more fully immerse myself because I feel it simulates how I normally process reality: I see about 160-180 deg from side to side, and I would guess about 100 deg total up and down. Anything that can fill that space in more completely is good, in my opinion. That's why folks love the IMAX/OMNIMAX experience.

Therefore, since there is room for more pixels that can be resolved, and there are folks like me who like to be more immersed than 40 deg, I feel there is a market for greater-than-HD resolutions. SHD is probably enough. I look forward to the upgrade in five years... :D

IMHO, YVDMY (Your viewing distance may vary),

shinksma

I am the same way. I always sit alot closer in the movie theater too. There are alot of people that do as well.

It helps to with older stuff as well. a 92" screen at 8-9 feet is big, but not as big when I am watching 4:3 stuff on my 16:9.

I can see the SDE where I sit with my 720p. At about 10 feet it fades. I don't mind the SDE. I got used to seeing the scan line on my od CRT TV. I think my mind kinda processes that If I am not seeing the pixels it is out of focus.

I don't think lack of SDE means the resolution is the picture resolution doesn't matter. I had a 480p projector before that. The image definitely was night and day better when I went to 720p at the point where SDE disappears. I have a 1080p at my friends and it still looks better than my 720p.

So as has been said, at 817 lines we are not even really at 1080p yet for 2.35:1 films. And I definitely see a need for 4k in the home soon, for the reasons people have said (though depending on the field of view etc. it might require new ways of filming things eg. less fast camera movement if a big field of view otherwise it would be like a theme park ride for every film if the field of view was too big - and people might get motion sickness?) Though I wonder if a wider field of view would only be needed with much higher res than 4K?

Also, when are we going to get TVs that can approximate the full range of human eye visible colour/brightness ranges (within reason - in case they show too bright lights etc :))? Will this be when we get LCDs with thousands of LED backlights or OLED or something else like laser TV?

And until we do actually get TVs that can approximate the full human eye visible colour/brightness range, higher resolutions like 4k would let you have an option for better dithering for improved true to life brightness/colour ranges, as well as letting you have smoother/less blurry motion from a to b.

The laser DLP they were showcasing at the convention in January looked pretty cool. I think it said it showed 80% of what can be seen by the human eye as opposed to the 40% we have now.

Of course it depends on the source. Anyone with a an HD (hddvd/BR) player knows that all too well. It is amazing how much color their is on HDM as opposed to SD DVD.

Of course it depends on the source. Anyone with a an HD (hddvd/BR) player knows that all too well. It is amazing how much color their is on HDM as opposed to SD DVD.
In some ways, when watching SDTV I think the colour resolution of my CRT SDTV is better than my LCD HDTV, even though my LCD HDTV has a lot more pixels (though I haven't done any proper tests like tests for banding etc. but I'm assuming the CRT would be better).

According to these links, picked at not-so-randomly from Google:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

people with 20/20 vision can resolve 1/60 deg (or one arc-minute) of detail.

1920 pixels (i.e. 1080p horizontally) spread over the 40 deg field that has been mentioned as a comfortable limit results in one pixel taking up 1.25 arc-minutes.

Thus, for people who have better than 20/20 vision, or who like to be more immersed than "normal" would see the benefit of resolutions greater than 1920x1080. The description on Wiki seems to imply that many people with healthy vision do in fact have better than 20/20 vision, so this isn't 1-in-100. This link (http://www.mdsupport.org/library/acuity.html) (which seems fairly scientific) describes it this way:



Referring to the Snellen chart:





At the THX-recommended 36 deg FOV, the numbers adjust by 10%, and 1080p gets pretty close to the limit of 20/20 eyesight (1.125 arc-minutes).

So unless you like to have a field of view ("field of regard" may be more accurate) greater than 40 deg horizontally, 1080p may in fact be a suitable practical limit if you have 20/20 eyesight. Since the average person can resolve slightly higher detail, perhaps there is indeed room for more pixels, but twice as much in each dimension would be overkill. 2880x1620, or 1.5x the current lineal resolution of 1080p, seems appropriate.

Personally, I do like to have more than 40 deg horizontally, simply because movies that are 2.40:1 aspect ratio have only 16.7 deg of vertical field of view. The action happens in the center half of the movie most of the time anyway - the extra-wide field is used for shot composition with scenery, and look great with landscape shots, but if the scene is just two people in a room talking, the "action" is fairly centered, in my opinion/estimation. Yes, there are exceptions, and for those exceptions there may be a bit of discomfort with the more-than-40 deg horizontal action.

I also like to more fully immerse myself because I feel it simulates how I normally process reality: I see about 160-180 deg from side to side, and I would guess about 100 deg total up and down. Anything that can fill that space in more completely is good, in my opinion. That's why folks love the IMAX/OMNIMAX experience.

Therefore, since there is room for more pixels that can be resolved, and there are folks like me who like to be more immersed than 40 deg, I feel there is a market for greater-than-HD resolutions. SHD is probably enough. I look forward to the upgrade in five years... :D

IMHO, YVDMY (Your viewing distance may vary),

shinksma

Hi shinksma,

That's an excellent posting, but I'm hoping you didn't mean to be taken literally.

Like you I prefer close viewing that exceeds the THX and SMPTE field of view recommendations, but I would certainly balk at anything that attempted to present two+ hours of moving images inches away from the viewer and spread across a normal field of view of 160-180 degrees. This would be a formula for motion sickness, particularly if we were watching an action movie, and regardless of how much available resolution we had the image couldn't really be viewed properly.

For example, take my 120" diagonal screen, in order to produce a horizontal field of view of 160 degrees the eyeballs of the viewers would have to be 9 inches from the screen. To be able to view more than a few inches of the image would require some sort of radically curved screen. Even with a curved screen it would seem that trying to focus on a screen both so close and so far from the viewer would be sure to both create eye strain, and extreme amounts of head movement.

So if the intent of your posting was to merely state that higher resolutions permit slightly closer viewing, for people who prefer to view closer than standard recommendations, I completely agree. However, if it was meant to suggest that high resolutions can permit viewing at anything approaching normal fields of view, I am a somewhat skeptical.

It would seem that to achieve normal fields of view it would be much more feasible to pursue high resolution virtual reality eye glasses, and with such glasses why bother with a home theater? ;)

Larry

It would seem that to achieve normal fields of view it would be much more feasible to pursue high resolution virtual reality eye glasses, and with such glasses why bother with a home theater? ;)

Larry
Why not full 3d (sort of like holograms - not just left+right eye views) screens, without the glasses.

Why not full 3d (sort of like holograms - not just left+right eye views) screens, without the glasses.

Hi Joe,

I'm not real familar with the current 3D schemes. Are you suggesting that an existing 3D scheme can achieve 160-180 degree fields of view without incurring the same problems of extreme close to screen viewing distances?

I've seen a 3D HD DVD being marketed. I was under the impression that to view it it required a special processor, a suitable front projector, and special glasses. Such a setup appears to have the same field of view limitations as a conventional front projector setup.

Have you run into something else that is commercially available?

Larry

Hi Joe,


Have you run into something else that is commercially available?

Larry
No I don't think so, though I'm sure there were demos on the internet of some hologram thing. (you could also have a spinning disc with the pixels on :)).

Basically the virtual reality thing wouldn't solve the 'focus' problem where you eyes could move a bit to focus on any object in the scene no matter what the distance, so it wouldn't be as good as in real life - and you may get eye strain? (unless it tracked your eye movements, but that would need fast processors and there would be a slight delay between it seeing the new eye position and then re-calculating the scene for that eye's view) - but that wouldn't really work for 3d movies were everything is supposed to be pre-rendered/encoded.

Why not full 3d (sort of like holograms - not just left+right eye views) screens, without the glasses.

They are already developing this technology. The idea is not to have things fly at you like in the theater, but for the field you are looking at to look so real that you could almost put your hand in it not expecting to hit a flat surface of a screen. Kinda like looking at a super high tech panorama like we made in elementary school.

Hi Joe,

I'm not real familar with the current 3D schemes. Are you suggesting that an existing 3D scheme can achieve 160-180 degree fields of view without incurring the same problems of extreme close to screen viewing distances?

I've seen a 3D HD DVD being marketed. I was under the impression that to view it it required a special processor, a suitable front projector, and special glasses. Such a setup appears to have the same field of view limitations as a conventional front projector setup.

Have you run into something else that is commercially available?

Larry

From what I have been reading, what they are working on does not requre galsses. It isn't the 3D we are used to with those grey sunglasses. It is a 3D that works the real world works. You view point would change depending where you sat and it has a looking through a window look.

Usual circular argument. Discuss the pros and cons of 1080p . Proclamations that we are being short changed until we get 4k from people that are far from familiar with the difference it represents. Assertions that all forms of image based media are inadequate because they are not imperceptable from reality.

wash rinse repeat.

Usual circular argument. Discuss the pros and cons of 1080p . Proclamations that we are being short changed until we get 4k from people that are far from familiar with the difference it represents. Assertions that all forms of image based media are inadequate because they are not imperceptable from reality.

wash rinse repeat.

+1

How many times does someone have to restart this thread and get us all fired up.:rolleyes:

sounds to me like someone needs glasses. :)

Well, yes, you're right. I do need to wear corrective lenses to perceive these levels of resolution.

The point is that, even if pixels aren't visible at a particular viewing distance, it is possible that practical viewing distances will be constrained by viewer comfort issues, and that increased resolution may not improve the overall viewing experience if the viewer is seated too close to the screen.

This viewer feels comfortable sitting close to the screen.

Usual circular argument. Discuss the pros and cons of 1080p . Proclamations that we are being short changed until we get 4k from people that are far from familiar with the difference it represents. Assertions that all forms of image based media are inadequate because they are not imperceptable from reality.

wash rinse repeat.
Is that about me ;) Why not have the best moving picture quality we can? You don't sound very hopeful :confused:

PS: About the more like reality thing - the motion flow/interpolation option on some HDTVs etc. may help if people decide to use it and they have it (and as effects work is getting better that should help too, if it has more accurate physics/rendered to look real and less pastel colours).

1080p is probably sufficient for any movie I've ever seen. However while things like BD are pretty much fixed to 4:2:0 1080p max other delivery vehicles such as downloads have no such fixed restriction. So you can bet somebody will test market some such.

Meanwhile, even if movies are delivered in 1080p or less there are still possible advantages in displaying it upscaled onto a large display of even greater resolution. Since the technology to do so is becoming cost effective I see no reason why not to.

- Tom

According to SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) after many studies done, the most important parts of image creation . . . in order of their importance:

1. Contrast Ratio
2. Gray Scale Accuracy
3. Color Saturation
4. Resolution

So how much will Super HD improve on HD's creation of these parts? And are the improvements subtle or can anyone see them?

According to SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) after many studies done, the most important parts of image creation . . . in order of their importance:

1. Contrast Ratio
2. Gray Scale Accuracy
3. Color Saturation
4. Resolution

So how much will Super HD improve on HD's creation of these parts? And are the improvements subtle or can anyone see them?
2. It could improve grey scale accuracy if you had a dither option in the HDTV maybe (instead of in the HDM encode itself) - though other technologies will hopefully do a better job soon than using dither
4. It would improve resolution also

2. It could improve grey scale accuracy if you had a dither option in the HDTV maybe (instead of in the HDM encode itself) - though other technologies will hopefully do a better job soon than using dither
4. It would improve resolution also

If we implement Deep Color into the HD standard then that will improve 2 and 3. It will increase the number of "shades of Gray" from current 256 to something like 2056. And 12 bit color will add billions of colors (and stop banding) as opposed to our current 8 bit color depth.

There are plenty of improvements yet to be made to HD. The only realy improvement SHD offers once those improvements have been made is #4 and we all agree you need a BIG display to take advantage of it.

That is why IMO, SHD will be reserved for commerical applications like DC and Medical Imaging and CAD as opposed to consumer HT.

Hi shinksma,

That's an excellent posting, but I'm hoping you didn't mean to be taken literally.

Like you I prefer close viewing that exceeds the THX and SMPTE field of view recommendations, but I would certainly balk at anything that attempted to present two+ hours of moving images inches away from the viewer and spread across a normal field of view of 160-180 degrees. This would be a formula for motion sickness, particularly if we were watching an action movie, and regardless of how much available resolution we had the image couldn't really be viewed properly.

For example, take my 120" diagonal screen, in order to produce a horizontal field of view of 160 degrees the eyeballs of the viewers would have to be 9 inches from the screen. To be able to view more than a few inches of the image would require some sort of radically curved screen. Even with a curved screen it would seem that trying to focus on a screen both so close and so far from the viewer would be sure to both create eye strain, and extreme amounts of head movement.

So if the intent of your posting was to merely state that higher resolutions permit slightly closer viewing, for people who prefer to view closer than standard recommendations, I completely agree. However, if it was meant to suggest that high resolutions can permit viewing at anything approaching normal fields of view, I am a somewhat skeptical.

It would seem that to achieve normal fields of view it would be much more feasible to pursue high resolution virtual reality eye glasses, and with such glasses why bother with a home theater? ;)

Larry

Oh, I agree - I didn't mean to imply that i want a 10' screen wrapped half-way around my head or my nose 9" away. I just figure that if some folks want more than 1080p, someone will find a way to get it to them.

And I agree to an extent with Mr D:

Usual circular argument. Discuss the pros and cons of 1080p . Proclamations that we are being short changed until we get 4k from people that are far from familiar with the difference it represents. Assertions that all forms of image based media are inadequate because they are not imperceptable from reality.

Nonetheless, 1080p is the current consumer limit because some kind of "performance" limit had to be chosen. Performance limits are usually chosen based on technological limitations (CD player chipsets could not have possibly handled DVD-like data rates when first released, and 44.1kHz was a good Nyquist freq doubling of the human limit of 22kHz-ish, yet 48 and 96 kHz are used for recording/mixing to give a bit of head-room and perhaps lend to a more accurate recording - but this isn't the thread for that discussion).

In this case 1080p seemed like a fairly high resolution compared to the 480i standard of the day, and may have had a technological reason for limiting it there instead of higher. It could have been 1180p or 1880p - but someone had to set the standard, and they picked 1080p for probably a myriad of reasons.

I don't think we're being short-changed, I'm just looking to the future for the desire to improve on a technology that does have visible limits. I agree that improved color space, contrast and grays will be also important, and are possibly more achievable in the short-term. But this is the Quad HD dreamer thread, not the infinite color gamut dreamer thread. ;)

IMHO,

shinksma

Nonetheless, 1080p is the current consumer limit because some kind of "performance" limit had to be chosen. Performance limits are usually chosen based on technological limitations (CD player chipsets could not have possibly handled DVD-like data rates when first released, and 44.1kHz was a good Nyquist freq doubling of the human limit of 22kHz-ish, yet 48 and 96 kHz are used for recording/mixing to give a bit of head-room and perhaps lend to a more accurate recording - but this isn't the thread for that discussion).

In this case 1080p seemed like a fairly high resolution compared to the 480i standard of the day, and may have had a technological reason for limiting it there instead of higher. It could have been 1180p or 1880p - but someone had to set the standard, and they picked 1080p for probably a myriad of reasons.

I don't think we're being short-changed, I'm just looking to the future for the desire to improve on a technology that does have visible limits. I agree that improved color space, contrast and grays will be also important, and are possibly more achievable in the short-term. But this is the Quad HD dreamer thread, not the infinite color gamut dreamer thread. ;)

IMHO,

shinksma

Why was 1080 choosen (along with 720x60P)? Simple - using existing compression tech and interlacing (for 1080 content) - it was the max signal that would fit into a 6 Mz OTA channel . . . where HD first came from.

Our 1080 system is based on the parimeters of the Japanese system . . . 1920x1125 (with 45 vertical lines for "housekeeping".) Theirs was Analog - we wanted Digital.

MIT was one of the companies who was championing for a higher standard than 1080. They wanted the USA to wait and skip over 1080 and go to 2500x2000 . . . which didn't happen.

All this is happening in the 1990 time frame . . . almost 20 years ago with the first HD broadcasts coming in 1998.

As far as this being the "Super HD dreamers thread?"

Hey . . . dream all you want. But are you wishing for something that is in the distant future? As opposed to Deep Color which may be "right around the corner" in comparison.

Well, if we are dreaming for the future then my wish list is:

1) 4k resolution

2) 4:4:4 color space. 4:2:0 1080p currently has only about 409 pixels of vertical chroma resolution on a 2.35:1 1080p image

3) 16 bit color depth. I think the processor complexity would not be that much greater if we go to the next multiple of word size and normal compression has been shown to not take much more space as the color depth increases.

4) 60 Frames per second (actually variable, not standardized), and the heck with anyone that thinks it doesn't look sufficiently film-like. ;)

5) But better depth of field control from HD video cameras. I'm still a fan of using depth of field cues (blurring background and foreground framing) to draw attention to selected parts of the scene.

6) Full wall upscaled displays. Some people have said it can be much more immersive when the image goes all the way to the floor, like you can walk into it.

7) 3D only if they can do it right for a shared experience with no glasses.

8) Alll the usual requirements for audio, though my own hearing is not that exacting and is mostly satisfied by current AC-3.

- Tom

Well, if we are dreaming for the future then my wish list is:

1) 4k resolution

2) 4:4:4 color space. 4:2:0 1080p currently has only about 409 pixels of vertical chroma resolution on a 2.35:1 1080p image

3) 16 bit color depth. I think the processor complexity would not be that much greater if we go to the next multiple of word size and normal compression has been shown to not take much more space as the color depth increases.

4) 60 Frames per second (actually variable, not standardized), and the heck with anyone that thinks it doesn't look sufficiently film-like. ;)

5) But better depth of field control from HD video cameras. I'm still a fan of using depth of field cues (blurring background and foreground framing) to draw attention to selected parts of the scene.

6) Full wall upscaled displays. Some people have said it can be much more immersive when the image goes all the way to the floor, like you can walk into it.

7) 3D only if they can do it right for a shared experience with no glasses.

8) Alll the usual requirements for audio, though my own hearing is not that exacting and is mostly satisfied by current AC-3.

- Tom

Tom:

Did you ever see Showscan when it was alive?

Super Hi-Vision gets tested, could be used to publicly display 2012 Olympics in Britain

2015?Nah, that's about three years too long to wait for Super Hi-Vision -- for Britons, at least. Reportedly, Japanese public broadcaster NHK is currently testing the Super Hi-Vision system, and the BBC has announced plans to use said technology in order to "broadcast the 2012 Olympics to large TV sets placed in public areas across Britain." For folks worried that their current HDTV is about to become obsolete, we're here to pass along the news that it's not. According to Masuru Kanazawa, a research engineer at NHK's Science and Technical Research Laboratory, "SHV requires at least a 60-inch screen" in order to even see the improvements in quality, and of course, it's not exactly being aimed at the consumer market right now, either. 'Course, all that could change when 150-inch sets become living room mainstays
http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/03/12/super-hi-vision-gets-tested-could-be-used-to-publicly-display-2/

An excellent use of the technology - very large screens. This is the 33 MegaPixel format.

Super Hi-Vision gets tested, could be used to publicly display 2012 Olympics in Britain


http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/03/12/super-hi-vision-gets-tested-could-be-used-to-publicly-display-2/

An excellent use of the technology - very large screens. This is the 33 MegaPixel format.
They're going to "broadcast" to a few of these screens in 2012?

Yet Britain is the place where Ofcom are selling off our OTA TV bandwidth to anyone. We've no HDTV OTA broadcasts, just really compressed mpeg2 at low resolutions.
Maybe they'll use Satellite for these few public displays in 2012.
But with Ofcom we won't have much of a TV system left for any good HDTV system. :rolleyes:

Well, if we are dreaming for the future then my wish list is:

1) 4k resolution

2) 4:4:4 color space. 4:2:0 1080p currently has only about 409 pixels of vertical chroma resolution on a 2.35:1 1080p image

3) 16 bit color depth. I think the processor complexity would not be that much greater if we go to the next multiple of word size and normal compression has been shown to not take much more space as the color depth increases.

4) 60 Frames per second (actually variable, not standardized), and the heck with anyone that thinks it doesn't look sufficiently film-like. ;)

5) But better depth of field control from HD video cameras. I'm still a fan of using depth of field cues (blurring background and foreground framing) to draw attention to selected parts of the scene.

6) Full wall upscaled displays. Some people have said it can be much more immersive when the image goes all the way to the floor, like you can walk into it.

7) 3D only if they can do it right for a shared experience with no glasses.

8) Alll the usual requirements for audio, though my own hearing is not that exacting and is mostly satisfied by current AC-3.

- Tom
I think we should have everything on that list too. Though I was a bit surprised at the 16 bit per channel colour thing and wonder whether we could save any bitrate/disc space by going with 10 or 12 bits per channel colour instead? As we should get billions of colours with 12 bits.

PS: with the latest tv's doing 120hz interpolation is 60fps good enough for us :D (just kidding it probably is :))

I think we should have everything on that list too. Though I was a bit surprised at the 16 bit per channel colour thing and wonder whether we could save any bitrate/disc space by going with 10 or 12 bits per channel colour instead? As we should get billions of colours with 12 bits.


For a video type intensity range 10bit is plenty. ( heck you can probably get away with 9). You would not be able to percieve any difference between 10bit and 16bit video .

Once you reach transparency more bits don't do anything.

According to SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) after many studies done, the most important parts of image creation . . . in order of their importance:

1. Contrast Ratio
2. Gray Scale Accuracy
3. Color Saturation
4. Resolution

So how much will Super HD improve on HD's creation of these parts? And are the improvements subtle or can anyone see them?
Anyone aware of the specific studies that support this? IMO, after ~8 years of daily viewing HDTV on a 9"-gun 64" RPTV at ~8', the listing order seems roughly reversed. It makes little sense. Gray Scale?! As a SMPTE member I'd like to track down these studies in their library since I haven't come across them yet. -- John

Anyone aware of the specific studies that support this? IMO, after ~8 years of daily viewing HDTV on a 9"-gun 64" RPTV at ~8', the listing order seems roughly reversed. It makes little sense. Gray Scale?! As a SMPTE member I'd like to track down these studies in their library since I haven't come across them yet. -- John

Hi John,

Without quanitatively specifying these characteristics isn't it worthless to declare an intrinsic order of importance?

For example, how much would contrast have to improve to make up for a change in resolution from 720p to 480p? Realistically what does it mean to totally leave out quantitative measures when specifying an order of importance?

Larry

Tom:

Did you ever see Showscan when it was alive?

Sadly, no.

- Tom

For a video type intensity range 10bit is plenty. ( heck you can probably get away with 9). You would not be able to percieve any difference between 10bit and 16bit video .

Once you reach transparency more bits don't do anything.

Probably not, but at the same bit rates they don't cost anything either. This is not because they are free but because if you have a bit budget then they get quantized away, yet avoid rounding/truncation errors before that point.

So it leaves the door open to using more bits if needed, or you just feel like it, but does not actually require them past the point where the cost is not justified. I consider it a way to leave your options open without really having to pay much for it.

Apart from possibly being unnecessary the argument against 16 bit has sometimes been the extra codec complexity. But I personally believe that would be offset simply because programming would be simpler and more efficient using 16-bit words on most hardware.

So it becomes pretty close to a free lunch except in lossless encoding.

- Tom

Anyone aware of the specific studies that support this? IMO, after ~8 years of daily viewing HDTV on a 9"-gun 64" RPTV at ~8', the listing order seems roughly reversed. It makes little sense. Gray Scale?! As a SMPTE member I'd like to track down these studies in their library since I haven't come across them yet. -- John

I'd also like to see the studies, especially to make sure that by 'Contrast Ratio' they are talking about the difference between lowest and highest displayable levels and not instead the MTF curve which is more about effective perceived sharpness and resolution, summed over all spatial frequencies.

- Tom

But I personally believe that would be offset simply because programming would be simpler and more efficient using 16-bit words on most hardware.

So it becomes pretty close to a free lunch except in lossless encoding.

- Tom

It is true that even when working with 10bit or greater material the maths is usually happening in at least 16bit integer on most kit : unless its in some float format but I doubt you'd need that for the sort of stuff a consumer level display chain is likely to require.

Some of you are missing the point on 4K video. It is not so much that a 30 foot screen will be needed (and its not), but that you will be able to sit 2 feet from a 30" display and get a comparable viewing experience as sitting in a movie theatere.

you will be able to sit 2 feet from a 30" display and get a comparable viewing experience as sitting in a movie theatere.

What's wrong with this picture?

Some of you are missing the point on 4K video. It is not so much that a 30 foot screen will be needed (and its not), but that you will be able to sit 2 feet from a 30" display and get a comparable viewing experience as sitting in a movie theatere.

Hi,

So is your concept of home theater in the future a solitary viewer sitting 2 feet from a 30" display, or is it a group of people in a room each viewing on separate small displays?

I have to admit I probably am missing the point because neither of these alternatives appeals to me.

Larry

I don't think we'll be sitting that close. I think bigger screens would be better and greater viewing distances. I also wonder whether in future we might have curved screens that take up more of your field of view?

PS: Is everyone here looking forward to higher resolution displays in the home (say 4K across with 10 or 12 bit colour and cinema colour gamut for movies)? If these appeared in stores tomorrow but say cost a bit extra (say a £100 extra for the players and £100 extra for the TVs - probably unlikely :)) would people here be happy about it and maybe get one if/when they could afford one?

So is your concept of home theater in the future a solitary viewer sitting 2 feet from a 30" display, or is it a group of people in a room each viewing on separate small displays?

I don't think he was excluding several people sitting four feet from a 60" display. Back when 16" screens were typical in people's homes, four people often sat that close.

I don't think he was excluding several people sitting four feet from a 60" display. Back when 16" screens were typical in people's homes, four people often sat that close.

Hi,

Perhaps he was, but the problem is that today most folks with HDTVs in typical family room settings sit too far from the display to be experiencing even their available 1080p resolution. Providing 4x that available resolution in most cases still won't induce them, or more importantly their wives, to rearrange the furniture. ;)

Now if we consider a home theater setup, sitting 4 feet from the 60" screen is too close for typical viewing comfort. A 57 degrees horizontal field of view exceeds THX recommendations by 21 degrees. In terms of viewer comfort, for most folks a viewing distance of 7 feet would be better and screen structure still would be invisible with just 1080p resolution.

As far as four people huddling around a 16" screen "back in the day", I doubt that you are seriously recommending that as today's ideal viewing arrangement regardless of available resolution.

Larry

GE announced a process to make OLEDs in a flexible roll, with a huge drop in production cost. i can see a future where we put up a TV like wallpaper ! it would be cool to do a whole wall floor to ceiling and be able to use any part of it for a display, from a huge 4k image to a small 720p placed anywhere on the wall.

they just need to fix the life span of the blue emitter and we are set, this could come next week or ten years from now but it will happen.

THEN we will have a reason to see Quad HD.

Perhaps he was, but the problem is that today most folks with HDTVs in typical family room settings sit too far from the display to be experiencing even their available 1080p resolution.
That is absolutely true. People often put their new HDTV right where their crummy NTSC set was which was usually far enough away so they wouldn't see how bad the picture was. We've been trained to sit far far away from the television so it won't "ruin our eyes".

This is a concept that people are going to have to get over. When people see that my HDTV is only five or six feet away from where I sit, they think I'm already blind, just like the guy who said I needed glasses.

Providing 4x that available resolution in most cases still won't induce them, or more importantly their wives, to rearrange the furniture. ;)
There was no need to rearrange the furniture in my living room, only the screen placement.

Now if we consider a home theater setup, sitting 4 feet from the 60" screen is too close for typical viewing comfort. A 57 degrees horizontal field of view exceeds THX recommendations by 21 degrees.
I disagree with that recommendation. 36 degrees is only a quarter of my field of vision.

There is something happening outside your front window. Do you run to the window to get a better view? Or do you stand away from the window so it will be more comfortable to watch what's happening outside? My windows can transmit much more than 1080 lines of information. Why shouldn't the experience of looking through a window be the ultimate goal of a home theater (and commercial theaters for that matter!)?

As far as four people huddling around a 16" screen "back in the day", I doubt that you are seriously recommending that as today's ideal viewing arrangement regardless of available resolution.
That would depend on who you're huddling with.

I disagree with that recommendation. 36 degrees is only a quarter of my field of vision.

There is something happening outside your front window. Do you run to the window to get a better view? Or do you stand away from the window so it will be more comfortable to watch what's happening outside? My windows can transmit much more than 1080 lines of information. Why shouldn't the experience of looking through a window be the ultimate goal of a home theater (and commercial theaters for that matter!)?



Hi,

This gets back to my comments on posting #79 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=13344291&postcount=79).

So ideally your goal would be to have a horizontal field of view of about 144 degrees (36 x 4). To achieve that you would have to place your eyes 9 inches from a 60" display. If that's where you are sitting I can understand why your friends think you have vision issues. :D

I agree that our ultimate goal should be to recreate the "looking through a window" experience, but conventional display technologies result in focus problems when we actually attempt to position our eyes from a display at the distance needed to come close to our normal field of view.

As was suggested earlier, I believe that an advanced 3D technology will be required to recreate the optical characteristics of real life viewing.

Again, my argument is not that we can't enjoy sitting a little closer than THX recommendations, that's what I do. My point is that sitting at distances that approach normal fields of view will result in viewer discomfort using conventional display technology regardless of the available resolution we have at our disposal.

Larry

IMHO people have always placed NTSC TV's at a fairly far distance away (relative to display size) because they really don't look very good once you get closer. And then they get HDTV displays and place them where they expect 'they are supposed to be'.

However HD pictures look better larger and closer and thus exert some sort of a 'strange attractor' effect on living room furniture, drawing it closer to the screen over time, even over the sometimes objections of the significant other who may be in residence.

Eventually all this balances out and bigger screens are bought the next time around.

Once everybody gets used to HD then we will all be sitting closer to larger displays, wishing they were even larger and more detailed.

- Tom

you got that right !

my dad had a 27 inch Sony console set for 20 years, i got him to upgrade to a non HD 50 inch projection set in 98. then two years later he seen a HD set and got a 52 inch 4:3 set, that lasted a year and a half. he bought it without telling me so i got him a good deal on a Toshiba 54 or 53 inch wide screen set.

then we sold that set a year later and he got a sony WEGA LCD table top projection set because it took up a lot less room it was the same screen size but still half the size.

then they moved from NY to Houston, sold the WEGA to a friend and bought a 56 inch DLP projection table top with HDMI connections.

well 2 years later the bulb went out and he gave it to my sister and he bought a 60 inch Mitsubishi 120hz table top DLP set.

next set will be a 60 plus flat screen, and he will give me the the projection set. figure i got a year or two to wait. but if he sees a 70 inch super thin projection set for a good price it could be sooner :)

There is something happening outside your front window. Do you run to the window to get a better view? Or do you stand away from the window so it will be more comfortable to watch what's happening outside? My windows can transmit much more than 1080 lines of information. Why shouldn't the experience of looking through a window be the ultimate goal of a home theater (and commercial theaters for that matter!)?This is not a good analogy, for the simple reason that something outside your window is happening far away. Most of your field of view is going to be taken up by peripheral objects, that don't relate to the car accident or whatever that you're looking at. You move to the window to "zoom in" on what you're interested in.

Today, just about everything that's filmed or photographed makes use of the entire frame to isolate the subject being captured (to use the analogy, the DP already "went to the window" before recording). When watching a movie recorded this way, if your field of view is higher than about 40 degrees maximum, it will be VERY uncomfortable to watch. Imagine two people talking, one at the left side of the screen and one at the right. Your head would be swiveling around like crazy. I mean, think about it, when you go out to a movie, do you typically run to the first row of the theater so you can have a 100+ degree angle of view? I suspect not. Basically, it would take a wholesale shift in the way entertainment is created, before we could go for higher angles of view.

Just to add something funny to the discussion, I saw this sign at my local Costco the other day. My eyes are 9' from a 70" screen and can just resolve all of the detail of 1080p, so if this is what retailers are still recommending to their clients in the age of 60" HDTVs, it's going to be a very, very, very long time for a resolution higher than 1080p to start catching on.

http://www.glwt.net/images/reso.jpg

In one of its many tech papers on its super-HDTV system (older link summary (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8403077&&#post8403077)), NHK published a chart comparing its system to various film/video formats. Recall the system resolution exceeds 65mm (60-fps) film, according to that data. Still, the contrast range of both 35mm and 65mm film exceeds the range of NHK's camera sensors and displays, I recall. -- John

Nice. I'll take one for home use, and equip viewing chairs with barf bags since some viewers have vomited viewing the motion video at such extreme resolutions. Think I could tough it out, though. One feature of this high resolution is being able to enjoy (if that's the word ) 100-degree-wide pictures compared to 1080i/p's recommended 33-degree width.


Hi John,

You appear to be someone who has done a bit of research in this area and has some background on the subject.

Data and cost considerations aside, do you have an opinion regarding whether this NHK system would ever be able to deliver a pleasing presentation of typical movie content on a 100 degree wide display? Or like roller coasters, would such a presentation only work for a rather small portion of the available market?

Larry

This is not a good analogy, for the simple reason that something outside your window is happening far away.
What if it isn't? Say there's someone on your porch yelling for you.


Today, just about everything that's filmed or photographed makes use of the entire frame to isolate the subject being captured (to use the analogy, the DP already "went to the window" before recording). When watching a movie recorded this way, if your field of view is higher than about 40 degrees maximum, it will be VERY uncomfortable to watch. Imagine two people talking, one at the left side of the screen and one at the right.
Why isn't this a problem with movie screens in theaters that can take up well over 50 degrees of your vision in the front row?

In fact when I'm talking to two people at a normal conversational distance they take up more than 50 degrees of my vision, sometimes as much as 100 degrees, yet I don't find this "uncomfortable" nor do I feel the urge to move away from them. In a typical meeting, people will take up nearly 180 degrees of vision. My head turns, my eyes move and I don't find this physical movement uncomfortable.

If we're going to make television and movies look more realistic, we'll have to think about how our vision works in real life, not how it works when we're staring at a television screen.

Just to add something funny to the discussion, I saw this sign at my local Costco the other day. My eyes are 9' from a 70" screen and can just resolve all of the detail of 1080p, so if this is what retailers are still recommending to their clients in the age of 60" HDTVs, it's going to be a very, very, very long time for a resolution higher than 1080p to start catching on.
These distances are way too far in my opinion. Are they trying to sell 720p displays?

What if it isn't? Say there's someone on your porch yelling for you.



If we're going to make television and movies look more realistic, we'll have to think about how our vision works in real life, not how it works when we're staring at a television screen.



I refer you to point three I made in my opening comment on this thread.

Data and cost considerations aside, do you have an opinion regarding whether this NHK system would ever be able to deliver a pleasing presentation of typical movie content on a 100 degree wide display? Or like roller coasters, would such a presentation only work for a rather small portion of the available market?

I'd have to actually experience such resolutions up to ~100 degrees to be sure. Since I much prefer deep focus throughout most of a movie instead of selective focusing, don't think viewing 'typical movie content' at such widths would be very enjoyable. And since deep-focused dramas are so rare, it seems we'd have to await directors/DPs who prefer creating movies with the newer technologies, plus deep focus. Suspect travelogues/documentaries would be great at such resolutions/widths--with handy barf bags. :) One of the NHK tech papers--can't find it online anymore--showed a colored image of a small group sitting before a working UDTV screen at a 100-degree-wide viewing angle. It looked...feasible. -- John

I'd have to actually experience such resolutions up to ~100 degrees to be sure. Since I much prefer deep focus throughout most of a movie instead of selective focusing, don't think viewing 'typical movie content' at such widths would be very enjoyable. And since deep-focused dramas are so rare, it seems we'd have to await directors/DPs who prefer creating movies with the newer technologies, plus deep focus. Suspect travelogues/documentaries would be great at such resolutions/widths--with handy barf bags. :) One of the NHK tech papers--can't find it online anymore--showed a colored image of a small group sitting before a working UDTV screen at a 100-degree-wide viewing angle. It looked...feasible. -- John

Hi John,

Thanks for the response.

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by deep focus.

Thanks.

Larry

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by deep focus.

It's a photography technique that tries to keep everything within a scene in focus. Most directors/DP actually hire folks to measure to what they feel is the point of interest--actors in conversation, for example--then adjust lenses so other scene elements are out of focus. There's a section outlining deep focus on Wikipedia. Orson Welles and his DP used it for the classic, Citizen Kane, and Bogdanovich used it for Paper Moon and The Last Picture Show (coming up on HDNetM). Some 'spaghetti westerns' used it, and a few TV drama series. -- John

It's a photography technique that tries to keep everything within a scene in focus. Most directors/DP actually hire folks to measure to what they feel is the point of interest--actors in conversation, for example--then adjust lenses so other scene elements are out of focus. There's a section outlining deep focus on Wikipedia. Orson Welles and his DP used it for the classic, Citizen Kane, and Bogdanovich used it for Paper Moon and The Last Picture Show (coming up on HDNetM). Some 'spaghetti westerns' used it, and a few TV drama series. -- John

I believe it was the "foundation" for Showscan. Both the foreground and the background to be in focus - just like our eyes see real life.

... Both the foreground and the background to be in focus - just like our eyes see real life.
You must have exceptional eyes, Lee. Or perhaps mine are deficient.

You must have exceptional eyes, Lee. Or perhaps mine are deficient.
Yes, but we see in 3D and we can change our focus to look at close objects or far objects. If that's what showscan did then we can also look at any point in the frame and it will be in focus, unlike scenes where they've intentionally made the part of the scene - say everything other than the 2 people talking - out of focus. I'm not saying either is the best - I suppose it depends on the film, and how good the director/cinematographer is.

The compression is not as bad as has been claimed. I recall that at the advent of D-VHS, there was a screening comparing the 1080p studio master for U-571 to the 1080i DTheater tape, which I recall may have been shown at 1080p with the aid of a videoprocessor. Experts in the industry, including the editors at Widescreen Review stated that the differences between the two were minimal/practically imperceptible. The DTheater version was essentially the same as the Master. Of course, this could have had something to do with the display they were using at the time as this was a few years back. Nevertheless, it was likely a top notch front projector.

The point is that there may be marginal improvements before we go to some sort of 4k or higher system.

Once again I have to ask . . .

Is there something wrong with HD? Other than the 8 bit color depth?

:confused:

When they do a 4K scan its so that you get an exact digital copy of the orginal negative.

So its not just that they want to capture the orginal grain. Its even to capture the shape of the grain.

So 4K is more for preservation then for HomeTheater.

But for digital theaters 4K playback make sense. It should be able to perfectly emulate the filmexperience you get from film.

The compression is not as bad as has been claimed. I recall that at the advent of D-VHS, there was a screening comparing the 1080p studio master for U-571 to the 1080i DTheater tape, which I recall may have been shown at 1080p with the aid of a videoprocessor. Experts in the industry, including the editors at Widescreen Review stated that the differences between the two were minimal/practically imperceptible. The DTheater version was essentially the same as the Master. Of course, this could have had something to do with the display they were using at the time as this was a few years back. Nevertheless, it was likely a top notch front projector.

The point is that there may be marginal improvements before we go to some sort of 4k or higher system.
Recall summarizing that WSR comparison of a JVC D-Theater 1080/60i tape with its 1080/24p master, too, but can't locate the post now. But a key point, as summarized here in a Joe Kane quote (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=13391773&postcount=75) last Sunday, is that 1080/24p master-tape (HD-D5, ~270 Mbps) telecines have typical maximum effective horizontal resolution (resolvable detail) of 800 lines/picture width (not height), with 1100 lines/PW being exceptional. So, obtaining the potential full 1920X1080 resolvable detail from a Blu-ray, matching its format resolution, is theoretically possible with a 4k D.I. scan downconverted to 1920X1080; (necessary to boost HD's limiting resolution (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5667245&&#post5667245) of ~1700 lines). To find out what Blu-rays are currently delivering for maximum resolvable detail, just dust off that spectrum analyzer in your closet. :)

Resolution from non-sampled test patterns, such as monoscope resolution wedges as 'Easter Eggs' (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=717346) on Blue-rays, differs from ~74-MHz-sampled images for HD, especially sampled from heavily filtered movies using extensive selective focusing--deliberately blurring details--during production.-- John