Joe Kane on 4K - Page 5 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #121 of 146 Old 09-23-2013, 08:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AVfile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 1,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Why? Most movies and programs are recorded at 23.976Hz. Those that aren't are 50/60Hz. There is no need to transmit the signal to a digital display higher than that. The display can do the frame repetition to 72Hz and beyond.

- AVStefan
If you like someone's post, just use the Like button to give thanks.
AVfile is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 146 Old 11-15-2013, 12:34 AM
Member
 
Xevious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Joe Kane is a ******. If people like him are deciding the standards something is then no wonder we have interlaced HDTV. He said a bunch of flat out wrong things and from how he doesn't even seem to understand what an aspect ratio is from what he was saying.. ****ing IDIOT.
David Susilo likes this.
Xevious is offline  
post #123 of 146 Old 11-15-2013, 01:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ScottJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 1,380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xevious View Post

He said a bunch of flat out wrong things

Care to give an example or two?
ScottJ is online now  
post #124 of 146 Old 11-15-2013, 01:32 AM
Member
 
Xevious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Ok just to list a few...

1) You can't push a 4k width resolution over HDMI. Wrong.
2) HDMI (newest spec at the time 1.4) doesn't support > 30Hz at 3840x2160. Of course he said Frames per second.. not even the same thing. It does support > 30Hz but its less than 60. Do to existing video frame rates it does make sense why specs for 24.976, 25 and 30/29.97 Hz were chosen..
3) There is no way to retain aspect ratio when going from 4096x$height to 3840x$height (which is ********). Does this guy know what aspect ratio means? Sure you will lose a bit of picture but that doesn't mean you have to change the aspect ratio like he kept saying over and over and over again.
4) Other people already mentioned what you see/notice has to do with how much of your field of view the display takes up (so if your close enough to a smaller screen its going to be as good as a huge screen at the same resolution just taking resolution as a factor).
5) You can't see the pixels on a 55 inch 1080p screen regardless of how close you get (lol that is a joke... also already mentioned)

And this guy is supposed to be a guru? Give me a break. I mean if it was just some random guy I would not give them a hard time but we are talking about a 'guru' here who works in the industry...

Honestly the guy who was asking the questions seemed to know wtf he was talking about way more than Joe Kane...

I mean honestly I feel that this chart:

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.png

Is only true if you have like 20/30 or 20/40 vision (not 20/20) According to that you have to be a bit <=2.5 feet away on a 50 inch 4k display to get the full benefit and the benefit of 4k just starts to become noticeable @ 6 feet or so. The thing is at 7 feet from my 50 inch 4k display I can see 90% of the detail that I can at 2 feet and its probably about 98% for me detail for me at around 5 feet. considering at about 16 inches away from a 22 inch 4k display I can see the pixels making up anti-aliasing on my X-windows 72 DPI fonts and still very clearly see pixelation on anti-aliased fonts (that its not perfect or at the limit of my eyes) even up to almost 3 feet and that is a 22 inch display

I did my 7 feet away test by playing http://box.houkouonchi.jp/4k/4K-Chimei-inn-60mbps.mp4.

I played it once with -vf scale=1920:1080 and regular (and this is being downsampled from 4k so better quality i would say than a lot of 1080p) and even then the difference was very obvious. I kept the display at 4k as the TV scalers are not the best... Now I am not saying that everyone has as good as vision as me. With correction I am almost at 20/15 (not quite) but so better than average even then there is a huge difference between 5 feet and 2.5 feet for getting what I would consider 'full benefit.' For someone who is considered to have good (20/20) vision then I would expect this to be atleast 4 feet. I think the TV manufacturor's know better because who would ever buy a 4k under 70 inch if that chart was true? who watches TV from <3 feet away from their TV?

Also I disagree on the whole 'you need a 10 foot wide screen' thing to notice imperfections and videos and stuff. I think its just people who just aren't very observant. Maybe because have played first person shooters since 1992 (when I was 7 years old) it has helped me with visual acuity. I know on that Chiemei innolex test video I think the quality is quite good but I do see compression artifacts/loss of quality all over on that video.

I know people who seem to think the text size on a 1440p monitor is 'to small' but honestly it seem to me that if that is the case then that person should probably be wearing glasses. Here is what text/windows looked like on my 22 inch 4k display I used since 2006:

http://box.houkouonchi.jp/vp2290b_60hz/dsc_2011.jpg

Smaller text than windows on 203 PPI which is way higher than a 1440p (109 ppi or lower) display. I also have no problems with texts that small on my macbook pro retina from normal viewing distances either which is even smaller (220 ppi). http://isthisretina.com/ calculator is still off for me but atleast its closer than that chart...
David Susilo and catonic like this.
Xevious is offline  
post #125 of 146 Old 11-15-2013, 02:37 AM
Member
 
Xevious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 23
I will apologize for coming on to the guy harshley and being rude... I just get flat out angry when so-called 'experts' or 'gurus' state flat out incorrect information.

Its like people who haven't done research on the subject themselves but have been told something so they just believe it and regurgitate it to others. Kind of standard practice when it comes to your every-day joe but I expect more from someone who works in the industry.


Its like all the people that think you need some modern/recent graphics card to be able to drive a 4k display or think the max resolution that video card manufacturer's specs are the maximum it can run (and it states 2560x1600). People just take it at face value without knowing anything about what causes the actual limitations. I ran a 4k display at 60Hz even off a very old geforce gt 6600 AGP (not even PCI-E) which cost about $100. Hell the company that made the graphics card (pny I think) stated it only had a 2048x1536 maximum resolution as it was like pre 2560x1600 even. People don't understand the makers just look at whatever the highest resolution somewhat easily obtainable and since the video card can run that display they just use that as the 'max.'

Oh.. found the page:

http://www.pny.com/products/verto/mainstream/6600gtagp8x.asp

Ran 3840x2400@60Hz just fine.
David Susilo likes this.
Xevious is offline  
post #126 of 146 Old 11-22-2013, 02:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 293
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

I have a 400mm F2.8, But its impossible to find or if one could find or afford an 500mm or 600mm F2.8. You have to settle for F4.0 for those.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #127 of 146 Old 11-22-2013, 03:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 324
and that's my point exactly. 4K projectors have 2x zoom at f/1.8 or f/2.0 (depending on the projector) and to manufacture a lens with that large of an aperture with 2x zoom is insanely expensive. My 70-200 f/2.8L lens is $2500 (it was $3000+ a decade ago)/ So how a good quality 4K projector can be priced below $4000 I don't think it's going to happen. Even to this day, the cheapest HD projector with good glass lens still cost $5,000 street (at least in Canada).

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

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

my (yet to be completed) BD list
my home theatre

David Susilo is online now  
post #128 of 146 Old 11-22-2013, 03:43 PM
Senior Member
 
Jetmeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Yet another example of another expert pointing out the extremely large screen sizes needed and the need to sit uncomfortably

close to see any difference. This doesn't even take into account the unsurmountable content issues.

CR and dozens of other articles have all said the exact same thing.


Coolscan and imagic.......we have had our problems but dam I guess you two know more than all the other experts combined ?

Get real. I have done my own side by side comparisons and completley agree with Consumer Reports.

4k is not ready for prime time, may never be if you expect actual 4k content without waiting hours to download it.
Jetmeck is offline  
post #129 of 146 Old 11-22-2013, 03:46 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
Low volume lens making sure would be an expensive path........however volume production for projector lenses would see the economies of scale drop the cost siginificantly. Not to mention consumer projector manufacturers will be aiming to make smaller imaging chips which in turn will make the lenses required smaller as well.

The marketing speil to build 'apperent value' and create higher profit margins will always be a part of the marketing game....is a Bentley really workh X times more than a Merc S class for it's primary purpose?!

http://optics.synopsys.com/learn/learn-intro-optics-design.html#HowDesign

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 offline  
post #130 of 146 Old 11-22-2013, 04:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 324
Imaging chip should not be made smaller as it will then make the screen-door effect more apparent making the 4K resolution moot.

Also, have you tried 4K yourself? Like I've been posting over and over again, once you're sitting from THX optimum viewing distance, the advantage of 4K is clear as day.

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

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

my (yet to be completed) BD list
my home theatre

David Susilo is online now  
post #131 of 146 Old 11-22-2013, 05:23 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
I have seen 4K displayed(not at home!)....and I agree with 4K source material and viewing from the appropriate distance it is excellent.

It's more cost effective(yeild permitting) to make a smaller chip, the interpixel gap ratio to pixel size will remain the same, size shrinks in propotion, screen door should not be more apparent as the ratio is maintained. Light output may be reduced....but it's a matter of making the light beam spot smaller and more intense...there would be a trade off somewhere...to find the best compromise.

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 offline  
post #132 of 146 Old 11-23-2013, 02:32 AM
Senior Member
 
Jetmeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

Imaging chip should not be made smaller as it will then make the screen-door effect more apparent making the 4K resolution moot.

Also, have you tried 4K yourself? Like I've been posting over and over again, once you're sitting from THX optimum viewing distance, the advantage of 4K is clear as day.



You are exaggerating............side by side comparisons made by myself and CR say so.

I could post dozens of articles saying exactly what Consumer Reports said....................

I don't understand why people cannot be honest about this.

Its like telling your neighbor yeah my car just like yours gets 10 mpg more than yours even though they are identical.

When 99% of the experts all agree on something iTs called a CONSENSUS........................
Jetmeck is offline  
post #133 of 146 Old 11-23-2013, 04:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 324
I make it simple for you. Come to my HT and let's watch a movie together, then make up your mind cool.gif

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

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

my (yet to be completed) BD list
my home theatre

David Susilo is online now  
post #134 of 146 Old 11-23-2013, 09:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

and that's my point exactly. 4K projectors have 2x zoom at f/1.8 or f/2.0 (depending on the projector) and to manufacture a lens with that large of an aperture with 2x zoom is insanely expensive. My 70-200 f/2.8L lens is $2500 (it was $3000+ a decade ago)/ So how a good quality 4K projector can be priced below $4000 I don't think it's going to happen. Even to this day, the cheapest HD projector with good glass lens still cost $5,000 street (at least in Canada).

You can't really use prices of photographic lenses as an argument that projector lenses for 4K projectors, that are good enough, will be prohibiting expensive.
Prices on optics doesn't really reflect the cost of manufacturing good quality optics.
In this day and age, with computer simulated optical designs and laser guided robotic machines grinding and building optics, they don't need to be so epxpensive as the prices of Camera lenses seems to show.

Photo lenses are priced based on what the manufacturer believe they can get for them and how much they can hype the quality. Photographers are gullible people.

Lets look at some examples of Lens prices.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens is at $399.99 reckoned optically as almost as good as the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Lens at $1,619.00, and the same optics that is in the 50mm L, is probably in the Canon CN-E 50mm T1.3 L F Cine Lens at $4700.
The largest difference between these three lenses with such large price difference are the lens mechanics.

They are still cheap compared to the Arri / Zeiss 50mm LDS Master Prime T1.3 at $22,850, which is not much sharper at all.


The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L Mark II is reckoned as one of the sharpest Canon lenses and maybe the sharpest zoom ever, even compared to Cine Zooms.
A Fujinon HK7.5x24 24-180mm T2.6 Premier PL 4K+ Cine Zoom cost $87,300.

Anybody really think that the cost of manufacturing the optics of the Fujinon is really reflected in the price compared to the Canon?

Sigma make a really sharp 18-35mm f/1.8 and sell it for $799, while Canon want around $1200 for their EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and Nikon 17-55mm ƒ/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX takes the "high" road at whopping $1400.

When they find a solution to using RGB lasers in projectors they can also benefit by using smaller diameter optics that don't need to have larger aperture than f/4 - f/6, which will lower the cost of manufacturing optics significantly.

I hope the projector manufacturers are wise enough to keep the imagine chips large as that will benefit the resolution quality.

At least with 4K you are guarantied to get at least a minimum of 2 megapixel resolution, something you don't get with 2K~HD projectors. wink.gif

For the future, if the rumour that printing OLED has had a breakthrough recently, in ten years time we might be able to throw out our projectors and just buy a roll of OLED screen with 500PPI and mount it. cool.gif
coolscan is offline  
post #135 of 146 Old 11-23-2013, 09:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 324
Photographers are gullible people? Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! Tell that to the film makers etc! Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!! We are the cheapest bunch of people! Bwahahahahahaha!!

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

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

my (yet to be completed) BD list
my home theatre

David Susilo is online now  
post #136 of 146 Old 11-24-2013, 03:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,687
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xevious View Post

I will apologize for coming on to the guy harshley and being rude... I just get flat out angry when so-called 'experts' or 'gurus' state flat out incorrect information.

Its like people who haven't done research on the subject themselves but have been told something so they just believe it and regurgitate it to others. Kind of standard practice when it comes to your every-day joe but I expect more from someone who works in the industry.


Its like all the people that think you need some modern/recent graphics card to be able to drive a 4k display or think the max resolution that video card manufacturer's specs are the maximum it can run (and it states 2560x1600). People just take it at face value without knowing anything about what causes the actual limitations. I ran a 4k display at 60Hz even off a very old geforce gt 6600 AGP (not even PCI-E) which cost about $100. Hell the company that made the graphics card (pny I think) stated it only had a 2048x1536 maximum resolution as it was like pre 2560x1600 even. People don't understand the makers just look at whatever the highest resolution somewhat easily obtainable and since the video card can run that display they just use that as the 'max.'

Oh.. found the page:

http://www.pny.com/products/verto/mainstream/6600gtagp8x.asp

Ran 3840x2400@60Hz just fine.
What 4K display takes DVI-I and shows 3840x2400@60Hz resolution ?
jogiba is offline  
post #137 of 146 Old 11-24-2013, 06:22 PM
Member
 
Xevious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by jogiba View Post

What 4K display takes DVI-I and shows 3840x2400@60Hz resolution ?

The ports on it are DVI-I which which almost all video cards have which support both digital (DVI-D) and anlog (DVI-A, usually with a DVI -> VGA adapter).

The display was an IBM T221 and viewsonic VP2290b (I have both). The display itself suppored 41 or 48 Hz output depending on model but it accepted a 60Hz input just fine (it just dropped some frames unless you overclock the display which some have done) My point was that the card could do it. If you want to nit-pick on the fact the display wasn't displaying 60Hz well there were others that could back then such as the: Toshiba P56QHD.
Xevious is offline  
post #138 of 146 Old 11-24-2013, 06:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,687
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xevious View Post

The ports on it are DVI-I which which almost all video cards have which support both digital (DVI-D) and anlog (DVI-A, usually with a DVI -> VGA adapter).

The display was an IBM T221 and viewsonic VP2290b (I have both). The display itself suppored 41 or 48 Hz output depending on model but it accepted a 60Hz input just fine (it just dropped some frames unless you overclock the display which some have done) My point was that the card could do it. If you want to nit-pick on the fact the display wasn't displaying 60Hz well there were others that could back then such as the: Toshiba P56QHD.
They are ten year old 22" monitors, I think most people here are looking for a 4K UHD TV like the 55" 4K UHD TV that sells for $850 at Sears or 39" 4K version to use as a monitor for about $500.
jogiba is offline  
post #139 of 146 Old 11-24-2013, 07:12 PM
Member
 
Xevious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by jogiba View Post

They are ten year old 22" monitors, I think most people here are looking for a 4K UHD TV like the 55" 4K UHD TV that sells for $850 at Sears or 39" 4K version to use as a monitor for about $500.

I think you missed the whole point of my posts. I also have the 39 inch and 50 inch seiki displays as well (my dad has two vp2290b's and 3 of the 39 inch seiki's also).
Xevious is offline  
post #140 of 146 Old 11-25-2013, 05:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,687
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xevious View Post

I think you missed the whole point of my posts. I also have the 39 inch and 50 inch seiki displays as well (my dad has two vp2290b's and 3 of the 39 inch seiki's also).
What 4K devices do you use with your 4K displays ?
jogiba is offline  
post #141 of 146 Old 11-27-2013, 06:51 AM
Member
 
jvh4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: MAssachusetts
Posts: 118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
I don't have any technical knowledge, so to comment on most of this would be to just regurgitate my research, which I will avoid.

I took Joe's comment on screen size for 4k to be very different from the debate taking place in this thread. It's just my interpretation, but I took Joe's meaning to be that in order for you to see everything a 1080p image has to offer, the screen should be 6' wide. This is very different from saying 1080p is useless on any screen less than 6' wide.

As far as whether 4K is worth it on an X-inch screen, I think most agree is depends on the person, the viewing distance, the viewing angle, etc. I haven't read anything about the brain side of things.

Doesn't your use matter just as much? If you're just standing there looking for pixels, then the resolution needs to be very high for you to feel the resolution is acceptable. If you're reviewing photos, the resolution can be a little lower, but still very high, because you are living in the detail, but your brain is simultaneous processing all of the data you are reviewing. Instead of processing just the number or size of pixels, you are looking for errors, or looking at color differences, etc.

Now take this out to the typical end user - watching TV or movies. Your brain is processing images, dialogue, sound effects, emotional response, and comprehension. Humans are actually very bad at multitasking. So, we all love to pop in our bluray and notice how gorgeous it is, and at various points during the movie you will notice how good something looks or sounds, but in the heat of the battle, or in the emotional vulnerability of a touching scene, I bet no one can see individual pixels.

Just a random thought I had today smile.gif If I can transition back to the technical, since that's what we are all passionate about . . .

I think the key thing I took away from this video was this sense of disappointment that those who stand to make money off 4K are forcing it into the market before the technology is developed enough to do it justice. It will always be a chicken and the egg situation between technology pushing innovation and innovation pushing technology, but I can't help but wish they would wait to transition to 4K until the technology was adequate to "do it right". For example, Joe contended that the 4K standard for bit depth should be 12-16, but due to technology constraints, the standard will likely be 10. It also was disappointing to learn that at 4K there will likely be frame rate limitations due to the HDMI delivery system.
jvh4 is offline  
post #142 of 146 Old 12-16-2013, 04:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
spacediver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 742
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Ok definitely late to the party here, but I'm with Henninger on this one.

The key thing is the amount of visual angle that the distance between each pixel subtends on the retina.

If you're sitting 1 meter away from a 1 meter wide screen, the screen will subtend just over 53 degrees on your retina. If the screen has 100 pixels, then each pixel will subtend 0.53 degrees.

(this is accurate when talking about the middle of the screen. The angle between each pixel actually decreases as you move towards the edges of the display, but it decreases at the same rate regardless of the viewing distance).

To resolve these pixels visually, an observer has to meet two criteria:

1) they have to have a visual acuity of at least 0.53 degrees
2) they need to be able to focus at a viewing distance of 1 meter. So the eyes must not exceed their limits of accommodation and convergence.

If you take a 10 meter wide screen, and place it at a distance of 10 meters away, and this screen has 100 pixels across its width, then each pixel will subtend 0.53 degrees of visual angle.

As far as the retina is concerned, the images are identical in both situations, barring attenuation/interference of light as it makes its journey across the increased distance.

Now aesthetically speaking, I don't doubt that a larger screen at a larger viewing distance lends itself to a greater sense of immersion. The brain uses depth cues to get a sense of the actual size of the screen, independently of the size of the retinal image. So images on the screen will appear to have a grander scale.

But in terms of resolving detail, or being able to detect encoding errors, I just don't see how changing screen size while keeping retinal image size the same makes a damn bit of difference, so long as the eyes are not required to accommodate and converge beyond comfortable limits.

I may well be wrong - perhaps there is something else going on here. Joe seems like a smart guy, and his experiments with encoding errors is very interesting. I wish I could explain those results, but I can't, given my understanding of the geometry.
spacediver is online now  
post #143 of 146 Old 12-16-2013, 05:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ScottJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 1,380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacediver View Post

But in terms of resolving detail, or being able to detect encoding errors, I just don't see how changing screen size while keeping retinal image size the same makes a damn bit of difference, so long as the eyes are not required to accommodate and converge beyond comfortable limits.

I may well be wrong - perhaps there is something else going on here. Joe seems like a smart guy, and his experiments with encoding errors is very interesting. I wish I could explain those results, but I can't, given my understanding of the geometry.

That's what I find so fascinating about his experiment. It defies logic in some sense, yet if you believe what he says it was pretty clear that a smaller image made some artifacts invisible no matter how close you were to the screen.

We can talk about the science all day but I haven't heard anybody here who's actually tried an experiment like Joe Kane did. Everybody's piling on as if it's obviously nonsense but I give JK a little more credit than that. I think there's something here.
ScottJ is online now  
post #144 of 146 Old 12-16-2013, 05:23 PM
Advanced Member
 
spacediver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 742
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 65
What I found interesting is that he didn't comment on the theory behind why this may happen. I would have expected him to say something like:

"I know it doesn't seem to make sense, given the geometry and retinal size, but nevertheless, we found these surprising results"

But he made the claim as if the results were to be expected.

But I agree, I'm not ready to dismiss the results by any means.
spacediver is online now  
post #145 of 146 Old 12-18-2013, 07:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AVfile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 1,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacediver View Post

makes a damn bit of difference, so long as the eyes are not required to accommodate and converge beyond comfortable limits.

Maybe this is what he was on about. Having a suitable size to comfortably view the detail over extended periods of time.

- AVStefan
If you like someone's post, just use the Like button to give thanks.
AVfile is offline  
post #146 of 146 Old 12-18-2013, 08:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
spacediver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 742
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVfile View Post

Maybe this is what he was on about. Having a suitable size to comfortably view the detail over extended periods of time.

Thing is, he wasn't talking about comfort or aesthetics. He was specifically referring to the ability to detect encoding artifacts by trained observers. With small screens at a close distance, they were invisible. At moderate sizes/distances, they were perceptible if one attended carefully. At large sizes/distances, they were in-your-face obvious and aggravating.
spacediver is online now  
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