Joe Kane on 4K - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 146 Old 05-07-2013, 12:44 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,050
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 709

Video guru Joe Kane discusses the emerging display technology known as 4K, UltraHD, or as he prefers for consumer products, 2160p, including the difference between professional and consumer formats, aspect ratios, how big the screen must be to see any benefit, expanded color gamuts, increased bit depths, compression algorithms, HDMI 2.0 versus DisplayPort 1.2, how the new format has the potential to inspire an entirely new television system, answers to chat-room questions, and more.

 

imagic and ZeGhostbear like this.

Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 146 Old 05-07-2013, 02:02 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,165
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 612 Post(s)
Liked: 1656

Henceforth, I will not use the term 4K to refer to consumer formats that feature 3840 pixel horizontal resolution. That is a great description of the differences between true 4K and 2160p/UHDTV, as well as the reason the misnomer persists. 

treyrhodes likes this.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
post #3 of 146 Old 05-07-2013, 03:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
ZenerDiode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milpitas, CA, US
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If you were to call 1080p "1K", then 2160p would indeed be "4K", since it is 4 times the resolution.
ZenerDiode is offline  
post #4 of 146 Old 05-07-2013, 04:01 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,165
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 612 Post(s)
Liked: 1656
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenerDiode View Post

If you were to call 1080p "1K", then 2160p would indeed be "4K", since it is 4 times the resolution.

4K is double the resolution of 2K. Doubling the resolution quadruples the pixel count. As Joe explained in the interview, the terms 2K and 4K come from the horizontal resolution of professional video, whereas the term 1080p comes from the vertical resolution of consumer HD video.


Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
post #5 of 146 Old 05-07-2013, 04:28 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,050
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenerDiode View Post

If you were to call 1080p "1K", then 2160p would indeed be "4K", since it is 4 times the resolution.


Actually, 1080p is closer to 2K (1920 horizontal resolution), which is close to commercial 2K (2048 horizontal resolution). 4K is actually double the horizontal AND vertical resolution of 2K, which means four times the number of pixels.


Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is online now  
post #6 of 146 Old 05-07-2013, 04:50 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 127

Another good one, Scott.

 

From an authoring standpoint I can see why Joe's concerned about the (mostly semantic) difference between 4K and 2160p. I think the distinction between the two could be too subtle to really matter to consumers though. (Like imagic though, I'll try to use "2160p" when referring to the consumer flavor of 4K in the future... assuming that's the format which is widely adopted.)

 

I'm not sure why there's a problem sending "true" 4K via HDMI, but I can see why scaling current 4K-mastered content to 2160p could be somewhat problematic for home video producers in the short term. Future productions will probably solve that though by mastering at 8K or some flavor of "2160p" (IOW, 3840 pixels by "x" number of vertical pixels for a given aspect ratio)... Or they could just use film! (Hey, there's a concept!) Unless there's something done to bring production and consumer content into better consistency though, I suppose we'll end up going through this whole "8K" vs. "4320p" thing again in another 10 years. biggrin.gif

 

(If you capture and archive on film btw, rather than digital video, then you can just rescan the film at whatever resolution you need for the finished video content... ie 2K, 4K, 8K, 1080p, 2160P, 4320p, or whatever. In terms of "future-proofing", it potentially makes things alot easy in the long run, and the end result is almost always nicer to look at. That's why "I Love Lucy" is still with us btw. smile.gif )

 

Re # of bits... at times it's a little unclear whether Joe is referring to the bit-depths of the display or of the content. That makes a big difference in terms of the # of bits needed because, unlike the CRTs of yester-year, modern displays often have a more linear light intensity response which can require alot more bits to make up the perceptual deficit near black; while (consumer) video content is nonlinear (ie "gamma-corrected/compressed"), which requires fewer bits. (There was a fairly in-depth discussion about the differences between the two not too long ago here in the Display Calibration forum btw. My comments in that thread were posted before I was aware of the new ITU-R BT.1886 display standard btw.)

 

When Joe suggests that 24-bits per color component are needed to properly show Rec. 2020 wide gamut content, I assume he's referring to the bit-depth of the display or projector (which is likely linear), rather than "gamma-corrected" (ie nonlinear) Rec. 2020 content.

 

Is there a still image of the "Comparing 4K to 2160p" graph btw that I can DL somewhere off the web?

 

Great discussion folks.


ADU
ADU is offline  
post #7 of 146 Old 05-07-2013, 05:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Enjoyed the interview! Nice job, Scott.

DavidHir is offline  
post #8 of 146 Old 05-07-2013, 06:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sdg4vfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 1,310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 92
+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 ...
tempest790 and facesnorth like this.
sdg4vfx is offline  
post #9 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 12:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,736
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Very interesting episode. I know that Joe has written a few articles about 4K for Widescreen Review magazine. He goes a bit more in depth about many of the topics talked about in this episode. They've been featured in the magazine for the last few issues. Definitely check those out if you're interested to see what else he has to say. I'd love it if you could get him to come back and talk about his opinion on 4K Blu-ray.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #10 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 06:17 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,165
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 612 Post(s)
Liked: 1656

The one part of the interview that I disagree with was the segment regarding the relationship of screen size, viewing distance, and perception of detail. I am skeptical of the notion that a 55" screen is insufficiently large to exploit the increased quality that 2160p provides, regardless of what distance it is viewed at.

 

Viewed at a distance that is a one-to-one ratio versus the diagonal measurement, individual pixels on a 1080p screen are clearly visible, as is stair-stepping in diagonal lines—which is technically not an artifact but rather a resolution limitation. I happen to use my own 55 inch HDTV in precisely that manner, as a giant computer monitor, which is why cannot accept the claim that 2160p would not have any benefit. 

 

During that segment Joe mentions a 1080p "iPhone"— Apple has yet to make create such a phone, but HTC's new "One" phone has a 1080p screen and it was recently tested—as if it was a typical HDTV.  Here's the line that caught my eye:

 

Quote:
"Impressively, the HTC One can actually resolve a 1 pixel on/off 1080p pattern, though you really have to stick your nose to the screen to be able to tell. It doesn't seem to have any overscan." Brent Butterworth, Sound+Vision

 

For what it's worth, I can see stair-stepping on my "retina" iPad at normal viewing distances, if I pay close-enough attention. Granted, I have practice scrutinizing graphics and video because of my career but the point is that if I can pick it up, it's the very definition of humanly possible.

 

In exactly 2 weeks I will qualify for a phone upgrade and I will grab a Galaxy S4. It will be my first 1080p OLED display and I can't wait to scrutinize it in every manner possible.

 

My position is that viewing distance and screen size are inextricably linked, and a fully immersive experience is possible when viewing a screen close-up. Furthermore I feel that two screens of the same resolution and contrast, both calibrated to the same standard, will look the same if viewed from a distance that is a multiple of the diagonal measurement of the screen. To a single person, seated in the center in an optimum viewing position, a 60 inch screen viewed from 5 feet away will look fundamentally the same as a 120 inch screen viewed from 10 feet away.

 

The only thing that could explain a different result in practical tests is the fact that the majority of the population is farsighted, at a ratio of 2 to 1 versus nearsighted. 


Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
post #11 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 07:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,736
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

The one part of the interview that I disagreed with was the segment regarding screen size, viewing distance, perception of detail... and the notion that a 55" screen is insufficiently large to exploit the increased quality that 2160p provides. 

During that segment Joe mentions a 1080p "iPhone"— Apple has yet to make create such a phone, but HTC's new "One" phone has a 1080p screen and it was recently tested—as if it was a typical HDTV.  Here's the line that caught my eye:


My position is that viewing distance and screen size are inextricably linked, and a fully immersive experience is possible when viewing a screen close-up. Furthermore I feel that two screens of the same resolution and contrast, both calibrated to the same standard, will look the same if viewed from a distance that is a multiple of the diagonal measurement of the screen. To a single person, seated in the center in an optimum viewing position, a 60 inch screen viewed from 5 feet away will look fundamentally the same as a 120 inch screen viewed from 10 feet away.


The only thing that could explain a different result in practical tests is the fact that the majority of the population is farsighted, at a ratio of 2 to 1 versus nearsighted. 

I agree with Mr. Kane on that subject. It's also not just his opinion. He mentions that he's showed this phenomenon to many well trained industry people and they all completely agreed with him. Pixel size does matter to get the most detail from the source. Not only is 55" diagonal not enough for 2160p, but it isn't even large enough to appreciate 1080p to the full extent. I'm not saying it won't look good, but there is some detail you're going to miss out on. The same can be said about 2160p at that size. Will it look better? Sure, but he's talking about get THE MOST out of the picture.

A lot of people might look at that and think it's just people who own projectors being snobby, but I think it's far from that. Like I said, it isn't his specific opinion on the matter. When he's shown people who encode video and need to see errors in their work it was only obvious to them when the pixels were MUCH larger. Pixel density and size does make a difference.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #12 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 07:13 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Scott Greczkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Newington, Connecticut
Posts: 1,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Great show, I love listening to Joe talk, I could listen to him all day.

On the recent Home Theater Cruise got to sit in on all of Joe's presentations and there still wasn't enough time for Joe to tell us all he wanted to say.

Scott
SatelliteGuys.US / MultiChannel News
Scott Greczkowski is offline  
post #13 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 07:21 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,165
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 612 Post(s)
Liked: 1656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post


I agree with Mr. Kane on that subject. It's also not just his opinion. He mentions that he's showed this phenomenon to many well trained industry people and they all completely agreed with him. Pixel size does matter to get the most detail from the source. Not only is 55" diagonal not enough for 2160p, but it isn't even large enough to appreciate 1080p to the full extent. I'm not saying it won't look good, but there is some detail you're going to miss out on.

A lot of people might look at that and think it's just people who own projectors being snobby, but I think it's far from that. Like I said, it isn't his specific opinion on the matter. When he's shown people who encode video and need to see errors in their work it was only obvious to them when the pixels were MUCH larger. Pixel density and size does make a difference.

This is a situation where two professionals disagree with each other. I have 20 years of experience as a photographer and 15 years as a videographer and editor. I spent a decade of my photography career specializing in large-format imagery as well as hyper-resolution capture. I have the equipment to, and I have captured, gigabyte images.

 

I've spent countless hours scrutinizing pixels, and I have to say that I don't agree that there is some advantage to viewing large pixels from a distance. It's the first time I've heard such an extraordinary claim. It's roughly akin to saying that billboards look much sharper/better than advertisements in magazines, because the dot pattern used to print them is larger.

 

Something else is causing a discrepancy, it's not some special quality attributable to "large pixels". I don't know the actual answer, I just know that the basic claim being made is fundamentally wrong. So long as the ratio of the screen size to viewer distance is the same—and all other factors are also the same including saturation, brightness, sharpness , contrast ratio etc.—then the human eye is going to perceive the same amount of fundamental detail from the scene. That goes for tablets, TVs, and/or IMAX screens.

 

I don't deny the results of Joe's demonstrations and the validity of people's reactions to them. I simply disagree with the conclusion. Because that's the rationale behind the claim that a 55 inch 2160p television does not represent an improvement over 1080p at the same size. I wish that two megapixels was enough to "do everything".  If 1080p is all the resolution one needs for a 55 inch TV, then two megapixels is also enough to make a 55 inch photo print—that has never been the case in practice. 

 

In fact, two megapixels is not even enough image data for an 8 x 10 print. Eight megapixels comes much closer to being an ideal resolution for immersive imagery; it is a much closer match to the visual acuity of a typical human eye. It is an appropriate resolution for both poster prints and for flat-panel screens, even smaller ones. 

 

And frankly I don't see Joe actually disagreeing with my contentions, once he gets to the one hour point and he starts discussing how thanks to video games and DSLR photos, users will finally be able to appreciate the full resolution of their toys. That's the world I'm already immersed in—except for the upgrade to 2160p. 


Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
post #14 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 08:24 AM
Member
 
MLXXXp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Regarding the discussion starting at 0:59:28 about DisplayPort and HDCP:

According to Wikipedia:
"DisplayPort 1.1 added optional implementation of industry-standard 56-bit HDCP"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#DRM

And for those who want to get technical:
High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection System v1.3 - Amendment for DisplayPort
MLXXXp is offline  
post #15 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 09:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tuxedocivic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ladysmith, BC
Posts: 4,340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 420
I agree with iMagic that it can be observable. People used to say this all the time about 720 vs 1080 on 42" screens. And I'm saying this as a PJ owner. Even if you consent that you can't make out the individual pixels on a 55", adding more resolution DOES make the image more lifelike. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to believe. Perhaps it comes down to people's vision. I'm blessed with very good vision.
tuxedocivic is online now  
post #16 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 09:58 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
You are not watching a TV to watch pixels.
You are watching an image created on a screen, preferably downsampled from a higher resolution camera sensor.
More pixels and smaller pixels makes a better more detailed image on a screen.

To say that a 55" UHD screen is too small to appreciate the increased image quality is not only ignorant for a so called expert to say, it is stupid to say now when we have UHD TVs to check if such a statement has any value.

A large number of people that work in the film making/post production business have bought the Seiki 50" UHD TV which now cost $1099. They all report back the pleasure of watching their True 4K content in full resolution and the increased quality that it displays. And all of them have HD monitors beside it and can clearly see a big difference.

Anybody that still try to argue that UHD TVs is a wasted resolution better fork out for one of this cheap UHD TVs and see for themselves.

PS; Super 35mm Cine film that are scanned even at 6K resolution will only resolve max. 3.5K of real detail, so it is not resolution alternative to real digital motion cameras with sensors that have resolution higher than 4K.
Digital Stills images that are shown on a HD display have always been captured with a camera with sensors several times the resolution of HD and downsampled, that's why they look so good.
coolscan is offline  
post #17 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 09:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 146
It's no wonder why these threads are 12 posts long...place me in the camp of it not mattering for 98% of the populace who own 55" tv's (or less) and watch them from 8+ feet. Crazy, I realize, but, well, whatever.

That not withstanding, I guess I'm missing the seemingly high-stakes loss of going from "real" 4k (4096) to 3840. I mean we're already going all the way down to 1920 (from 4096, I'm assuming) and things look pretty darn good. How much worse- if even detectable- will the difference of a couple hundred lines make? Both (3840 and 1920) are not evenly divisible of course, with the latter also dropping further in resolution.

Just found it to be a bit odd that Kane readily dismissed the difference between 2160 and 1080 at reasonably large screen sizes, but somehow (again, it appears anyway) there's going to be a perceivable difference with 4096 going to 3840?

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 #18 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 09:59 AM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Great episode. I am also a projector owner, so I am interested in the new technologies. I am actually happy they seem a ways off having recently bought everything I have. smile.gif
cybrsage is offline  
post #19 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 10:30 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 mastermaybe View Post


Just found it to be a bit odd that Kane readily dismissed the difference between 2160 and 1080 at reasonably large screen sizes, but somehow (again, it appears anyway) there's going to be a perceivable difference with 4096 going to 3840?

James
Vertical resolution is what the brain mostly use for experiencing image quality.
The difference between 4K Cine and 4K UHD consumer is 256 pixels horizontal. The hight is the same 2160.
The only loss of quality between them can occur if one take a 2K Cine film and wants to up-convert it to UHD, because it is mathematical odd. Better to crop 128 pixels horizontal off the 2K first and then up-convert so the up-conversion is exactly 4x> 1920x1080.
(there are of course a lot of different filmed 2K formats so the pixel count may vary)
coolscan is offline  
post #20 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 12:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
JRock3x8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northwest Indiana
Posts: 567
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 28
4k is such a sexy and short nickname - I bet it sticks regardless of the accuracy of the name.

Also I feel like Joe's points aren't really for the end user but rather for the behind the scenes disc producers and such. He more or less said that at one point during the conversation.

More interesting to me is the new color palette. Color on current displays always feels lacking to me. I take a lot of photos with my DSLR camera and colors always feel just a bit flat on current displays. Can't wait to see the new color gamut.

I know you guys didn't get to it but streaming 4k over our current pipes just isn't going to make anyone happy, especially the way "broadband" has come to be defined in the US. Only the cable companies (my experience is with Comcast) seem to get it right. U-Verse is just god awful terrible. They're going to have to come up with a permanent disconnected storage method, disc or SD card or whatever...
JRock3x8 is offline  
post #21 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 02:01 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

That not withstanding, I guess I'm missing the seemingly high-stakes loss of going from "real" 4k (4096) to 3840. I mean we're already going all the way down to 1920 (from 4096, I'm assuming) and things look pretty darn good. How much worse- if even detectable- will the difference of a couple hundred lines make? Both (3840 and 1920) are not evenly divisible of course, with the latter also dropping further in resolution.

Just found it to be a bit odd that Kane readily dismissed the difference between 2160 and 1080 at reasonably large screen sizes, but somehow (again, it appears anyway) there's going to be a perceivable difference with 4096 going to 3840?

 

Can't speak on Mr. Kane's behalf, but I believe the main thing he's concerned about is the potential loss in clarity/detail that can result from scaling/resampling an image to a new resolution that's so close to the original starting resolution of the image. I think he's afraid that HV producers will just "opt to crop" instead, like one of the other posters above suggested. You probably have to be involved in video/image production to really appreciate that sort of problem though.

 

Although the algorithms used for scaling are probably better now than they used to be, resampling/scaling is still an inherently destructive process for images, esp. when scaling between two such similar resolutions (ie 4096  -> 3840). It's really tough to do a good job of interpolating/distributing such small differences in resolution across the image without the picture becoming somewhat blurry.

ScottJ likes this.

ADU
ADU is offline  
post #22 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 02:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,736
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

This is a situation where two professionals disagree with each other. I have 20 years of experience as a photographer and 15 years as a videographer and editor. I spent a decade of my photography career specializing in large-format imagery as well as hyper-resolution capture. I have the equipment to, and I have captured, gigabyte images.

I've spent countless hours scrutinizing pixels, and I have to say that I don't agree that there is some advantage to viewing large pixels from a distance. It's the first time I've heard such an extraordinary claim. It's roughly akin to saying that billboards look much sharper/better than advertisements in magazines, because the dot pattern used to print them is larger.

Something else is causing a discrepancy, it's not some special quality attributable to "large pixels".
 I don't know the actual answer, I just know that the basic claim being made is fundamentally wrong. 
So long as the ratio of the screen size to viewer distance is the same—
and all other factors are also the same including saturation, brightness, sharpness , contrast ratio etc.—then
 the human eye is going to perceive the same amount of fundamental detail from the scene. 
That goes for tablets, TVs, and/or IMAX screens.


I don't deny the results of Joe's demonstrations and the validity of people's reactions to them. I simply disagree with the conclusion. B
ecause that's the rationale behind the claim that a 55 inch 2160p television does not represent an improvement over 1080p at the same size.
 I wish that two megapixels was enough to "do everything". 
 
If 1080p is all the resolution one needs for a 55 inch TV
, then two megapixels is also enough to make a 55 inch photo print—t
hat has never been the case in practice
.
 


In fact, two megapixels is not even enough image data for an 8 x 10 print
. Eight megapixels c
omes much closer to being an ideal
 resolution f
or immersive imagery;
 it i
s a much closer match to the 
visual acuity of a typical human eye. 
It is an appropriate resolution for both poster prints and for flat-panel screens, even smaller ones. 


And frankly I don't see Joe actually disagreeing with my contentions, once he gets to the one hour point and he starts discussing how thanks to video games and DSLR photos, users will finally be able to appreciate the full resolution of their toys. 
That's the world I'm already immersed in—e
xcept for the upgrade to 2160p. 

Those are all fine points but I still agree with Joe Kane. He has no reason to make false claims. He isn't pushing a product or backing a manufacturer. He works almost exclusively with insiders that create the content. If he says 10' wide to 100% appreciate 2160p I believe him. As a side note on why something like a 55" UHD TV wouldn't be all that practical for other than a computer monitor is that you're required to sit under 5 feet from the screen (at that size) to even be able to tell a difference between 2160p and 1080p. You're almost forced, in a family room setup, to go with something much larger for 2160p. To be honest a 10' wide screen isn't that large and if 2160p is something you're serious about as an early adopter that shouldn't be an issue. At that size, projection would be a much simpler and cheaper solution to implement to get all the benefits of the format.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #23 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 02:30 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,165
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 612 Post(s)
Liked: 1656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post


Those are all fine points but I still agree with Joe Kane. He has no reason to make false claims. He isn't pushing a product or backing a manufacturer. He works almost exclusively with insiders that create the content. If he says 10' wide to 100% appreciate 2160p I believe him. As a side note on why something like a 55" UHD TV wouldn't be all that practical for other than a computer monitor is that you're required to sit under 5 feet from the screen (at that size) to even be able to tell a difference between 2160p and 1080p. You're almost forced, in a family room setup, to go with something much larger for 2160p. To be honest a 10' wide screen isn't that large and if 2160p is something you're serious about as an early adopter that shouldn't be an issue. At that size, projection would be a much simpler and cheaper solution to implement to get all the benefits of the format.

For a 55 inch screen, sitting under 5 feet away is necessary to gain the maximum benefit of 2160p, assuming the viewer has 20/20 vision. The point where there is some noticeable benefit to 2160p is somewhere between 7 and 8 feet— again assuming 20/20 vision. However, 40% of population has better than 20/20 vision, for younger people that number could be as high as 90%. 

 

Now consider that these same younger people are the ones who are liable to watch a movie on the 2160p tablet. But supposedly that's a total waste! I beg to differ. The estimates regarding at what point 2160p provides a benefit are overly conservative. 


Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
post #24 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 02:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
JRock3x8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northwest Indiana
Posts: 567
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 28
if you go way back into the HTG archives, Joe Kane said that 1080p Blu-Rays were being produced from 2K masters (2K resolution scans of film) not 4K.

I believe the new "mastered in 4k" Blu-Ray discs that Sony is putting out are the first of their kind but since blu-rays can't out put the color gamut or the resolution of UHD, I'm not sure what the point is. But they're Sony...
JRock3x8 is offline  
post #25 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 02:33 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,050
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADU View Post

 

Can't speak on Mr. Kane's behalf, but I believe the main thing he's concerned about is the potential loss in clarity/detail that can result from scaling/resampling an image to a new resolution that's so close to the original starting resolution of the image. I think he's afraid that HV producers will just "opt to crop" instead, like one of the other posters above suggested. You probably have to be involved in video/image production to really appreciate that sort of problem though.

 

Although the algorithms used for scaling are probably better now than they used to be, resampling/scaling is still an inherently destructive process for images, esp. when scaling between two such similar resolutions (ie 4096  -> 3840). It's really tough to do a good job of interpolating/distributing such small differences in resolution across the image without the picture becoming somewhat blurry.


That was my understanding of Joe's comments as well. Scaling 4096 to 3840 is very difficult if not impossible to do without harming the image. I would much prefer simple cropping to reach a horizontal resolution of 3840.


Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is online now  
post #26 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 02:41 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,050
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRock3x8 View Post

if you go way back into the HTG archives, Joe Kane said that 1080p Blu-Rays were being produced from 2K masters (2K resolution scans of film) not 4K.

I believe the new "mastered in 4k" Blu-Ray discs that Sony is putting out are the first of their kind but since blu-rays can't out put the color gamut or the resolution of UHD, I'm not sure what the point is. But they're Sony...


That's going way back in the archives, probably to episode #2, which was 12/21/09. (Joe was also on episode #67 on 5/23/11, but he was talking about 3D and his home theater build on that show.) More recently, many studios have been creating masters at 4K and then downscaling to 1080p for Blu-ray. What's new on the Sony "Mastered in 4K" Blu-rays is xvYCC metadata that allows compatible Sony displays to reproduce an expanded color gamut.


Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is online now  
post #27 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 02:42 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,165
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 612 Post(s)
Liked: 1656
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRock3x8 View Post

if you go way back into the HTG archives, Joe Kane said that 1080p Blu-Rays were being produced from 2K masters (2K resolution scans of film) not 4K.

I believe the new "mastered in 4k" Blu-Ray discs that Sony is putting out are the first of their kind but since blu-rays can't out put the color gamut or the resolution of UHD, I'm not sure what the point is. But they're Sony...

I recently watched the first two discs in the Alien Anthology Blu-ray box set, which were created from 4K masters. That would be Alien and Aliens, and they looked fantastic. Some folks have questioned the value of 4K mastering for Blu-rays, but the same "resampling versus cropping" issue that was discussed applies to 2K and 1080p—Going from 4K to 1080p would result in clean scaling and no need to crop. That's an advantage right there.


Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
post #28 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 02:47 PM
Advanced Member
 
JRock3x8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northwest Indiana
Posts: 567
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 28
but Scott, I was under the impression that Blu-Ray only outputs REC-709 color anyways, so what's the point of mastering in another color palette?

Maybe I'm not listening closely enough to these things smile.gif It's a LOT to take in for a newbie. (but it's also AWESOME)
JRock3x8 is offline  
post #29 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 02:57 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRock3x8 View Post

but Scott, I was under the impression that Blu-Ray only outputs REC-709 color anyways, so what's the point of mastering in another color palette?

Maybe I'm not listening closely enough to these things smile.gif It's a LOT to take in for a newbie. (but it's also AWESOME)

 

For people without one of Sony's proprietary Triluminos 4K TVs, the only advantage in their new "Superbit" smile.gif 4K-mastered Blu-rays is probably the lower compression/higher bitrate in the video encodes,... and the fact that they might remaster a few older titles that sorely need it.

 

The more Mbps, the better the image will generally tend to look.


ADU
ADU is offline  
post #30 of 146 Old 05-08-2013, 02:59 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post


Those are all fine points but I still agree with Joe Kane. He has no reason to make false claims. He isn't pushing a product or backing a manufacturer. He works almost exclusively with insiders that create the content. If he says 10' wide to 100% appreciate 2160p I believe him. As a side note on why something like a 55" UHD TV wouldn't be all that practical for other than a computer monitor is that you're required to sit under 5 feet from the screen (at that size) to even be able to tell a difference between 2160p and 1080p. You're almost forced, in a family room setup, to go with something much larger for 2160p. To be honest a 10' wide screen isn't that large and if 2160p is something you're serious about as an early adopter that shouldn't be an issue. At that size, projection would be a much simpler and cheaper solution to implement to get all the benefits of the format.

 

For standard TV viewing on smaller screens, I can sort of see Joe's point on the viewing distance/angle thingie. But I tend to agree with Mark that there are potential uses/benefits to higher resolution screens in all sizes.

 

The benefits are obvious to graphic designers. Being able to model/texture a CG model in quad-view, or edit an 8 or 16 megapixel photograph on a 4k screen has obvious advantages. Anti-aliasing of fonts would also be improved for more basic apps like desktop publishing, text editing and spreadsheets. And I'm sure the gamers would dig the more immersive experience of a smaller 4K screen as well. So I see 4K eventually migrating to all but the very smallest of screen sizes.

 

Imagine how How the West Was Won, Ben Hur or Lawrence of Arabia would look at genuine 4K/2160p resolution on a nice big 2.35 CIH screen though... Makes you think.


ADU
ADU 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