Joe Kane on 4K - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 146 Old 05-13-2013, 11:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Here is a link to a relatively sophisticated seating distance calculator: http://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/


It is crucial that people have their vision tested before they make decisions about UHDTV and whether it benefits them. The calculator's results are highly dependent upon the acuity of one's vision. 

The most important thing to understand about 20/20 vision is that it is only perfect in the sense of being a goal for optometrists. When they correct for faulty vision, they attempt to correct it to 20/20. 
Because someone with 20/10 vision literally only needs a 42 inch screen to get the same benefit that an 84 inch set provides to someone with 20/20 vision. That is a dramatic difference.


In my case, based on my (recently measured) vision, the ideal distance for watching 2160p on a 55 inch set is 8 feet! Furthermore, 1080p pixels on a 55 inch set become visible (to me) at 16 feet. I am glad I found the 4K calculator, because for a while I thought it was going crazy.

Later today, I should have an article about resolution and visual acuity and viewing distance. After doing a bit of research, one of the things that came up is that 90% of children and young people have better than 20/20 vision. That's why they can see the difference in 5 inch telephone screens, even the difference between 720p and 1080p.

oh my.

The pixels on a 55" 1080 display become "visible" to you at 16 feet? So if you stand on the 5 yard line on a football field and I put a 55" 1080 tv on the goal line you can make out the individual pixels?

Oh, you mean the image that is composed of the pixels? Yeah, they're visible to you and everyone else who is not blind.

As for discerning the actual individual pixel structures on a 55" 1080 set at 16' feet? Yeah, sure. Me too...and I'm "just" 20/15. I just KNOW I can. rolleyes.gif

Hopefully your "article" will be/is better backed with actual valid data and reference as almost ALL children's vision is WORSE (most times, considerably so) than 20/20 until they're 6-7 years old. And nearly 50% of children aged 15 are or should be acuity-corrected. Ref: Goh PP, Abqariyah Y, Pokharel GP, Ellwein LB. Refractive error and visual impairment in school-age children 2005;112:678–685

But yeah, some people do have vision more acute than 20/20...and, like so much else, tacking on the years does not help, but acuity trends beyond secondary school are also very uniform and predictable. I can provide references for those as well, if desired.

EDIT: and just so you're aware your assertion that a person with 20/10 vision only needs a 42" screen to see 4k instead of a 84" screen for a 20/20 viewer at distance "x" is completely false (hint: screen area and therefore pixel size does not increase linearly as the diagonal measurement increases). It would be much closer to 60"


James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 146 Old 05-13-2013, 12:04 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,623
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1085 Post(s)
Liked: 2245
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post


oh my.

The pixels on a 55" 1080 display become "visible" to you at 16 feet? So if you stand on the 5 yard line on a football field and I put a 55" 1080 tv on the goal line you can make out the individual pixels?

Oh, you mean the image that is composed of the pixels? Yeah, they're visible to you and everyone else who is not blind.

As for discerning the actual individual pixel structures on a 55" 1080 set at 16' feet? Yeah, sure. Me too...and I'm "just" 20/15. I just KNOW I can. rolleyes.gif

Hopefully your "article" will be/is better backed with actual valid data and reference as almost ALL children's vision is WORSE (most times, considerably so) than 20/20 until they're 6-7 years old. And over 50% of children aged 6-15 are or should be acuity-corrected. Goh PP, Abqariyah Y, Pokharel GP, Ellwein LB. Refractive error and visual impairment in school-age children 2005;112:678–685

But yeah, some people do have vision more acute than 20/20...and, like so much else, tacking on the years does not help, but acuity trends beyond secondary school are also very uniform and predictable. I can provide references for those as well, if desired.

I suggest running the calculator. 20/15 vision requires you to be 10-11 feet  from the screen before you start to see individual pixels. Based on that calculator, with 20/20 vision, 8 feet is the distance where pixels become visible. I'll concede it might not be fully 16 feet for me—but between 12 and 16 feet is accurate.  

 

As for the incidence of vision problems among school age children in Kuala Lumpur... You are mistaken to be passing off that article as a 'reference' of any kind to back up your point. 

Quote:
"More than half of those in need of corrective spectacles were without them." - source

Not the same thing as more half the kids needing glasses.tongue.gif

Quote:
"The examined population was 70.3% Malay, 16.5% Chinese, 8.9% Indian, and 4.3% of other ethnicity. The prevalence of uncorrected (unaided), presenting, and best-corrected visual impairment (visual acuity 20/40 in the better eye) was 17.1%, 10.1%, and 1.4%, respectively." - source

 

and of course there is the conclusion, which dispells any notion that the paper you cited is relevant to the discussion:

 

Quote:
CONCLUSIONS:
 
"Visual impairment in school-age children in urban Gombak District is overwhelmingly caused by myopia, with a particularly high prevalence among children of Chinese ethnicity." - source


In response to your edit...
Quote:
EDIT: and just so you're aware your assertion that a person with 20/10 vision only needs a 42" screen to see 4k instead of a 84" screen for a 20/20 viewer at distance "x" is completely false (hint: screen area and therefore pixel size does not increase linearly as the diagonal measurement increases). It would be much closer to 60"

It's basic math, there is nothing wrong with my assertion.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
imagic is online now  
post #93 of 146 Old 05-13-2013, 12:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 158
Ahh, a personal assault. I can "comprehend" just fine, thanks. Perhaps you should heed your own advice that you seem to be so ready to dish out to everyone else. rolleyes.gif Your failing is assuming that I concur with this calculator and its implications.

I cut the wrong line and will correct it re my cite, but I'm laughing that you took the time to "dispute" it when it should have been immediately clear that it was a mistake, lol. But I'm sure once it's corrected this will mirror your contention that the "average" internet customer in the US sees 15mbps speeds...even after I post evidence to the contrary.

James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
post #94 of 146 Old 05-13-2013, 01:23 PM
Newbie
 
alacritymedia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If all other things are equal then more pixels are better. Fair enough?
If bandwidth limitations mean UHD/4K has less bits per pixel than 1080 then it might be one step forward, two steps back.
HEVC/H.265 encoding is estimated to offer 4 times greater efficiency than H.264 at equivalent quality levels, though actual widespread implementation and testing will be needed to verify that. If true, UHD/4K with similar chroma subsampling characteristics to 1080 distribution formats "should" offer more resolution without lowering that particular bar.

If we move from 1080 to UHD/4K but remain in rec709 color gamut the IQ delta of the higher resolution alone may be disappointing. I get that rec2020 may require too much bandwidth/storage for current/near term hardware but I am concerned that if the content owners remaster in UHD/4K in a weak color space it will be a wasted opportunity.
P3 gamut with 2.6 gamma per DCI is a better starting point than rec709 for great color, but the dimmer gamma and lack of displays designed to best utilize it may negate most of the theoretical advantages.

Sony's xvYCC approach sounds like a viable option to suit contemporary devices while carrying enough color information for next generation devices to achieve significantly better perceived IQ. Would love to hear from anyone who has delved into the real world metrics of their scheme in practice.

Cheers - Blair
alacritymedia is offline  
post #95 of 146 Old 05-13-2013, 01:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 102
HEVC/H.265: Everything you need to know

Comparing HEVC and H.264 quality: see for yourself
This test is done on low rez material that show degrading in image quality much earlier than 4K material.
.
.
.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alacritymedia View Post

If all other things are equal then more pixels are better. Fair enough?
If bandwidth limitations mean UHD/4K has less bits per pixel than 1080 then it might be one step forward, two steps back.
Not less, but the same bitrate.
4K can be compressed much harder than 1080p with less visible deterioration in image quality because of it higher resolve of surface texture/detail.
Compression algorithms work more efficient when they have an abundance of data to choose from.

Some new compression technology similar to HEVC has these general guidelines for 4K material that as a staring point has a superior quality.

10Mbs; acceptable quality (for small screens).
20Mbs; Very good quality almost transparent to source for TV and HT projectors.
40Mbs; Cinema quality for large screens up to about 20 feet wide.
coolscan is offline  
post #96 of 146 Old 05-13-2013, 03:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
docrings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL -- Soundside
Posts: 784
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I just want a future 2160p home theater projector so I can blow up my screen to IMAX-like viewing angle and not get a screen-door effect; even if all I have is upscaled 1080p material for a while.

With my current projector, from my front row home theater seating position, I get "just-noticeable" SDE if I go larger than about 130". So for now, I am keeping my 110" screen until something like 2160p gets cost-effective enough to upgrade my screen, too.

I'd like to go about 160" to get more of an IMAX-like immersion viewing angle... hence the need for MUCH denser 2160p pixels for that to be possible.

I think I'll be waiting a while for prices to get to my budget range of sub-$2000. But, with my current calibrated-fantastic system, I can wait it out....

smile.gif

Cheers,
Doc R

cool.gif


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

 

docrings is offline  
post #97 of 146 Old 05-13-2013, 06:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AVfile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 1,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Doc
If you can deal with mounting the beast a Barco 909 would fit the bill. No pixels whatsoever, it's analog wink.gif

Edit: sorry the 909 goes for more than $2k. What do you have now? The JVC e-shift technology is supposed to help with pixels and may trickle down to the cheaper models some day.

- AVStefan
If you like someone's post, just use the Like button to give thanks.
AVfile is offline  
post #98 of 146 Old 05-13-2013, 06:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Merillville, IN 46410
Posts: 3,637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by docrings View Post

I just want a future 2160p home theater projector so I can blow up my screen to IMAX-like viewing angle and not get a screen-door effect; even if all I have is upscaled 1080p material for a while.

With my current projector, from my front row home theater seating position, I get "just-noticeable" SDE if I go larger than about 130". So for now, I am keeping my 110" screen until something like 2160p gets cost-effective enough to upgrade my screen, too.

I'd like to go about 160" to get more of an IMAX-like immersion viewing angle... hence the need for MUCH denser 2160p pixels for that to be possible.

I think I'll be waiting a while for prices to get to my budget range of sub-$2000. But, with my current calibrated-fantastic system, I can wait it out....

smile.gif

Cheers,
Doc R

cool.gif

Sub $2000 is going to be hard with a 4k projector. A 4k lens for the projector will cost over $2000+
blee0120 is online now  
post #99 of 146 Old 05-14-2013, 02:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

Sub $2000 is going to be hard with a 4k projector. A 4k lens for the projector will cost over $2000+

The question I ask myself is why does a lens on a projector 'cost so much'......a decent zoom lens on a DSLR that has a 24Mpixel sensor( 4x 4K res capture capable) is a fraction of that................what gives?........re we being conned?

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is online now  
post #100 of 146 Old 05-14-2013, 02:49 AM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 59
I agree with Highjinx, it's hard to believe that a projector lens capable of displaying 2160p needs to be expensive.

If we look at 2160p flat panels, the first were somewhere around $25,000. Now we have the Seiki at under $2000, in very little time. It's no wonder, considering we've had laptop screens and smart phones with pixel densities far great than these 84" or 55" 2160p panels.

These companies need to make a profit somewhere and perhaps it's fair of them to charge a high price for "cutting edge" technology. It doesn't mean the technology is inherently expensive.
Airion is offline  
post #101 of 146 Old 05-14-2013, 05:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 289 Post(s)
Liked: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

The question I ask myself is why does a lens on a projector 'cost so much'......a decent zoom lens on a DSLR that has a 24Mpixel sensor( 4x 4K res capture capable) is a fraction of that................what gives?........re we being conned?

LOL, just because a lens can be mounted on a 24 MP dslr doesn't mean it can resolve 24 MP. A decent lens will be something like L-series Canon lens that runs in the near $2k price range.

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

David Susilo is offline  
post #102 of 146 Old 05-14-2013, 07:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Merillville, IN 46410
Posts: 3,637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

LOL, just because a lens can be mounted on a 24 MP dslr doesn't mean it can resolve 24 MP. A decent lens will be something like L-series Canon lens that runs in the near $2k price range.

Plus, when you look at A-Lens, they are still high, so I doubt they will discount those anytime soon. That make me think that a 4k Lens on a projector will remain high. A good quality 2K lens in a projector is not cheap. I still hope I can get a good 4K projector in the next 2 years for $5k-6K. Hopefully, from JVC or Sony. Don't know if they will be able to light up a appropriate screen for 4k, but I can always hope.
blee0120 is online now  
post #103 of 146 Old 05-14-2013, 12:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kris Deering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Pacific Northwet
Posts: 7,094
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 198 Post(s)
Liked: 338
I only got to watch the first half of the video but I don't understand why Joe is making such a huge stink about it not really being 4K vs 2160p when we're in THE EXACT SAME BOAT with 2K vs 1080p. The sky isn't falling now so why should it be then? I'm all for doing TRUE 4K but he's making it sound like they are going way out of bounds on this and its going to have a huge affect when it doesn't seem to be crippling us now. On top of that how much real true 4K content is there? Most movies that are shot in 4K are still 2K DI's, and if 4K is the capture resolution than it is still effectively 2K. The Sony camera seems to be an exception, along with some of the newer Red stuff, but they certainly aren't the norm. I'm MUCH MUCH MUCH less worried about figuring out that 6% of data and already practiced scaling compared to the compression, chroma resolution and content pipeline.

Senior Video Editor
Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Kris Deering is offline  
post #104 of 146 Old 05-14-2013, 02:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

LOL, just because a lens can be mounted on a 24 MP dslr doesn't mean it can resolve 24 MP. A decent lens will be something like L-series Canon lens that runs in the near $2k price range.

If those lenses were not capable of transmitting the capture resolution required by the chip, the reviewers would be all over it.....

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is online now  
post #105 of 146 Old 05-14-2013, 02:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 289 Post(s)
Liked: 410
Being able to capture vs being able to fully resolve the 24MP sensor are two different things. One of my lenses cost me $9K. Look at the review of a similar lens sold at $1K and have a looksee at the sample photo, the difference is HUGE.

Also a high-end lens have an aperture around f/2, the cheap lens averages at f/5.6. Some even at f/8. The amount of light loss at aperture higher than f/2.8 is ridiculous.

That's why a 50mm fixed lens at f/1.2 is at the $3K price.

I don't even buy a lens if it doesn't have a constant aperture of f/2.8.

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

David Susilo is offline  
post #106 of 146 Old 05-14-2013, 02:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 289 Post(s)
Liked: 410
Oh, plus the projector lens have to be able to withstand the heat from the lightsource, making it even more expensive.

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

David Susilo is offline  
post #107 of 146 Old 05-15-2013, 02:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
If one compairs Nikon Dx vs Fx lenses, the price diff is not significant, the Fx being full frame and resolving well, well above 4k (8Mpx) actually used with 24Mpx sensors D3.........thermal handling? HT lenses arn't subjected to 7Kw lof the pro projector cousins, in HT land 300watt max? the cooling for the sensitive electronics and light path components are addressed by fans.

Still feel the $ sums being thrown around for projector lenses are inflated. Love to see a BOM cost break down. Those pro still camera lenses need superior optics to projectors. No doubt it's in the industry's interest to hype the costs and build apparent value.......charge the consumer whatever they are willing to pay and being such a small market, we will!....hey that's Biz!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_lens_design
Projector lenses

Projector lenses share many of the design constraints as enlarger lenses but with some critical differences. Projector lenses are always used at full aperture and must produce an acceptably illuminated and acceptably sharp image at full aperture.

However, because projected images are almost always viewed at some distance, lack of very fine focus and slight unevenness of illumination is often acceptable. Projector lenses have to be very tolerant of prolonged high temperatures from the projector lamp and frequently have a focal length much longer than the taking lens. This allows the lens to be positioned at a greater distance from the illuminated film and allows an acceptable sized image with the projector some distance from the screen. It also permits the lens to be mounted in a relatively coarsely threaded focusing mount so that the projectionist can quickly correct any focusing errors.

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is online now  
post #108 of 146 Old 05-15-2013, 11:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 289 Post(s)
Liked: 410
believe whatever you want to believe. You asked, a couple of us answered. Please find me a lens with a constant open aperture of f/2.0 with 2x zoom with 82mm diameter that costs less than $2,000 then I'll shut up. rolleyes.gif

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

David Susilo is offline  
post #109 of 146 Old 05-15-2013, 02:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

believe whatever you want to believe. You asked, a couple of us answered. Please find me a lens with a constant open aperture of f/2.0 with 2x zoom with 82mm diameter that costs less than $2,000 then I'll shut up. rolleyes.gif

Let'e be civil and agree to disagree smile.gif ....however which sub $20K projector in the HT arena uses a constant apeture lens?

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is online now  
post #110 of 146 Old 05-15-2013, 02:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 289 Post(s)
Liked: 410
There are none. If any, they use removable f/1.2 fixed lens at 82mm diameter.

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

David Susilo is offline  
post #111 of 146 Old 05-20-2013, 11:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
msgohan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Doesn't a 24" image produced by some projector technology fundamentally differ from a 24" LCD panel? Specifically, can a projector have 100% separation of each pixel from its neighbors at arbitrary sizes?
msgohan is offline  
post #112 of 146 Old 05-22-2013, 10:12 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdg4vfx View Post

+1 Well done Scott.

Re resolution differences ... Digital Cinema 2K resolution is 2048x1080 while HD resolution is 1920x1080 (functionally the difference between 1.77 and 1.80 aspect ratios). So the only resolution difference is 6.7% horizontally, while the vertical resolution is identical. The resolution difference between Digital Cinema 4K and "2160p" is the same. 2160p is 6.7% smaller horizontally than 4K, but has identical vertical resolution.

Personally I think a bigger issue for improving our home theater experience is deeper, more accurate color space (range of color) and not increasing resolution. Color depth, and not resolution, is a much bigger difference between theatrical viewing (DCI/P3 color space) and home viewing (Rec709 color space). And I can't help wondering if the 4K/UltraHD hype/trend will only make this worse, at least in the short term.

The limitation isn't home displays or projectors - most are capable of displaying full spectrum Rec709 4:4:4 color depth, and some are even capable of displaying the deeper DCI or P3 color spaces. The big limitation is the consumer delivery formats. Blu-Ray has the most bandwidth at the moment, but it barely accommodates the lowest grade Rec709 (4:0:0) color signal - the BR deck fabricates/calculates the additional color needed to output 4:4:4 color to our TV's/projectors. And of course both cable and streaming HD services compress the source's color-depth even more. (There's not even a pro/standardized rating/designation for the compressed color spaces of cable and streaming!)

To get a 4K/UltraHD signal with the same color depth as a 2K/HD signal the bandwidth pipe would need to be 4x larger. Where are the new delivery formats? So far all the 4K/UltraHD streaming services are only doubling (at best) the bandwidth requirements of their 2K/HD streaming (and the 2K/HD streaming material is already woefully compressed). The only Blu-Ray 4K/UltraHD variations/mods I've seen also only double the bandwidth.

So with 4K/UltraHD we get double the resolution but half the color depth/fidelity than with 2K/HD? I have my doubts that would be a genuine improvement ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdg4vfx View Post

+1 Well done Scott.

Re resolution differences ... Digital Cinema 2K resolution is 2048x1080 while HD resolution is 1920x1080 (functionally the difference between 1.77 and 1.80 aspect ratios). So the only resolution difference is 6.7% horizontally, while the vertical resolution is identical. The resolution difference between Digital Cinema 4K and "2160p" is the same. 2160p is 6.7% smaller horizontally than 4K, but has identical vertical resolution.

Personally I think a bigger issue for improving our home theater experience is deeper, more accurate color space (range of color) and not increasing resolution. Color depth, and not resolution, is a much bigger difference between theatrical viewing (DCI/P3 color space) and home viewing (Rec709 color space). And I can't help wondering if the 4K/UltraHD hype/trend will only make this worse, at least in the short term.

The limitation isn't home displays or projectors - most are capable of displaying full spectrum Rec709 4:4:4 color depth, and some are even capable of displaying the deeper DCI or P3 color spaces. The big limitation is the consumer delivery formats. Blu-Ray has the most bandwidth at the moment, but it barely accommodates the lowest grade Rec709 (4:0:0) color signal - the BR deck fabricates/calculates the additional color needed to output 4:4:4 color to our TV's/projectors. And of course both cable and streaming HD services compress the source's color-depth even more. (There's not even a pro/standardized rating/designation for the compressed color spaces of cable and streaming!)

To get a 4K/UltraHD signal with the same color depth as a 2K/HD signal the bandwidth pipe would need to be 4x larger. Where are the new delivery formats? So far all the 4K/UltraHD streaming services are only doubling (at best) the bandwidth requirements of their 2K/HD streaming (and the 2K/HD streaming material is already woefully compressed). The only Blu-Ray 4K/UltraHD variations/mods I've seen also only double the bandwidth.

So with 4K/UltraHD we get double the resolution but half the color depth/fidelity than with 2K/HD? I have my doubts that would be a genuine improvement ...

Nice post but your math sorta sucks but no big deal. 3840 is not 6.7% smaller than 4096, its about 6.3% smaller. 4096 is 6.7% bigger than 3840. It all depends on the base number. The delta is 256 but the percentage depends on where your base is. a decrease of 256 from 4096 or an increase of 256 from 3840. smile.gif

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #113 of 146 Old 05-22-2013, 10:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

LOL, just because a lens can be mounted on a 24 MP dslr doesn't mean it can resolve 24 MP. A decent lens will be something like L-series Canon lens that runs in the near $2k price range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

Being able to capture vs being able to fully resolve the 24MP sensor are two different things. One of my lenses cost me $9K. Look at the review of a similar lens sold at $1K and have a looksee at the sample photo, the difference is HUGE.

Also a high-end lens have an aperture around f/2, the cheap lens averages at f/5.6. Some even at f/8. The amount of light loss at aperture higher than f/2.8 is ridiculous.

That's why a 50mm fixed lens at f/1.2 is at the $3K price.

I don't even buy a lens if it doesn't have a constant aperture of f/2.8.

Hi David. You don't buy such a lens because you obviously do not need or use long focal lengths. Most of my lenses are long. I do have a 2.8 400mm but my 500 mm and 600mm are 4.0. I have a 200 to 400 constant F4.0 any of these lenses at 2.8 would be giant and extremely expensive.

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #114 of 146 Old 09-20-2013, 01:26 PM
Member
 
chappie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: kaarst, duesseldorf, germany
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
here is a new interview with joe, we made in germany after he had visiting ifa in berlin and ibc in amsterdam. the interview is made of course in englisch. ;-) and of course - we are discussing over ultra hd / 4k

Patrick Schappert

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
chappie is offline  
post #115 of 146 Old 09-20-2013, 07:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AVfile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 1,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Thank you for making this video!

I had to chuckle at one of Joe's lines: "Nobody is using a CRT now."

wink.gif

- AVStefan
If you like someone's post, just use the Like button to give thanks.
AVfile is offline  
post #116 of 146 Old 09-21-2013, 08:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 442
Professionally for production no one is using a CRT anymore. They still are used by some hobbyists and are still in use in various places for simulation and places like planatariums.

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #117 of 146 Old 09-21-2013, 02:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,909
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich 
Professionally for production no one is using a CRT anymore. They still are used by some hobbyists and are still in use in various places for simulation and places like planatariums.
You forgot the third world..
8mile13 is offline  
post #118 of 146 Old 09-21-2013, 04:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Blasst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: So.California
Posts: 3,500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappie View Post

here is a new interview with joe, we made in germany after he had visiting ifa in berlin and ibc in amsterdam. the interview is made of course in englisch. ;-) and of course - we are discussing over ultra hd / 4k

Long video yet I watched it all the way through. Thanks for posting.

One question......where did you get the Lord of the Rings poster? I've not seen that one before.wink.gif

The Mod Squad: New vs. Classic TV Series Opening
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Blasst is offline  
post #119 of 146 Old 09-22-2013, 02:18 AM
Newbie
 
mgonska's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blasst View Post

Long video yet I watched it all the way through. Thanks for posting.

One question......where did you get the Lord of the Rings poster? I've not seen that one before.wink.gif
hi, first of all thanks for your feedback on the video. The LotR images at the wall were sold by Sideshow Collectibles (which are related to Sideshow Weta). You probably can find information on them here: http://www.sideshowtoy.com
mgonska is offline  
post #120 of 146 Old 09-23-2013, 06:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 158
If the resolution limitation of 60/50hz is true that is really awful.

Good god...already have built-in reason for HDMI 2.x
sigh.

James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
Reply AVS Forum Podcasts

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off