This article says 4k is stupid we dont need it. - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 12:04 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Alan Gouger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
This article says 4k is stupid we dont need it
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7...vs-are-stupid/
This may not go over big on AVS, we are trend setters ahead of the technical curve. Id jump on 8k if it were reality.

What are your thoughts!

"Have no doubt, manufacturers are going to start pushing 4K (some already are). The thing is, though, you don't need 4K, because in the home, 4K is stupid"
Alan Gouger is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 12:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SOWK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wauwatosa, WI
Posts: 4,072
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 212 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

This article says 4k is stupid we dont need it
This may not go over big on AVS, we are trend setters ahead of the technical curve. Id jump on 8k if it were reality.

What are your thoughts!

"Have no doubt, manufacturers are going to start pushing 4K (some already are). The thing is, though, you don't need 4K, because in the home, 4K is stupid"

With my 150" wide screen and 1.16sw seating distance, I would love 8K

1080p is starting to look a little DVDish on my setup.
SOWK is offline  
post #3 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 12:12 PM
Senior Member
 
Billybobjimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I think if this individual had his way he'd still be sat in a cave thinking this is ideal, i'll keep it as it is.

Strive to improve, thats what i say

21inch hitachi
Billybobjimbob is offline  
post #4 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 12:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,022
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 353
R Harkness is offline  
post #5 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 12:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Perhaps we don't need it for small directview TV's or ones viewed from a larger than optimum 4k viewing ratio............but for sit down purposeful viewing at the correct ratio for 4k bring it on!

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 #6 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 01:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Lawguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 11
We need it on large screens that have close seating distances. Otherwise, we don't need it. I would benefit from it.

Most people don't need it.

Affable Nitwit
Lawguy is offline  
post #7 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 01:03 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 168 Post(s)
Liked: 502
For my screen size/seating distance, I dont think I would get much out of 4k, BUT I certainly dont think it is "stupid". For those with bigger screens and/or closer seating, 4k, or 8k for that matter would certainly be a very welcome thing I am sure.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #8 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 02:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
danieledmunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bermuda
Posts: 989
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I completely agree with the article, those new Sony VW1000ES owners may as well sell me their projector for a discount price as it is now useless

danieledmunds is offline  
post #9 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 02:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
stumlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by danieledmunds View Post

I completely agree with the article, those new Sony VW1000ES owners may as well sell me their projector for a discount price as it is now useless

Agree. Given how they are "used" now and how 4K is "stupid", we'll take it off their hands for...4K

Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia, activate the machine!
stumlad is offline  
post #10 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 02:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DigitalGriffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: PA USA
Posts: 1,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If you are at recommended THX viewing angle (Viewing Fulstrum), then it is impossible to benefit from anything over 1920x1080. Our eye arc resolution simply does not support it.

Sorry Alan. I respect you. But 4K is just a way to pump new equipment we don't need. It will die a slow painful death like SACD and DVD-A

The ONLY place 4K could be useful would be passive 3D.

Personally I'm voting for higher frame rate support with lower lag. DFI works, but it looks "faked"

Speaker design is rather an art. There is no such thing as the perfect painting. Likewise there is no such thing as a perfect speaker. It's part science and part personal preference.
DigitalGriffin is offline  
post #11 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 02:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 1,024
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 33
My projector does double-duty as a computer monitor and every time I sit down to use it it bugs me that the 30" screen on my desk has more pixels than the 120" screen at my sofa. As far as I concerned, 4K is long overdue.

For movies though, I think I'd rather see a wider color gamut.

Copyright is not property, it is merely a temporary loan from the public domain.
JerryW is offline  
post #12 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 02:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Toknowshita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 46
It's overkill for probably close to 100% of the ht crowd. I see 4K blu-ray being a LD-like format. Plus I really don't want to upgrade my collection for another format. I am not knocking it, but 1080p looks fine to me on my 100-in screen at 10 ft away. I am all for 4k+ at the large screen multiplexes, but I really question how many ht addicts are going to benefit from the jump in resolution. Another thing to consider is how well is 1080 content going to scale since it is not a simple mapping. I see 4k being a marketing push much like 3D. Not saying it is bad but I don't think it is something the average viewer needs. Now the jump from SD to 1080p HD was substantial considering screen sizes got larger. But when you consider the average user struggles to accommodate a 60in screen, I just don't see 4k having a dramatic impact on a 60in 4k screen on the sales floor next to a 60in
1080p set.

Toknowshita is offline  
post #13 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 02:34 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
fcwilt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Smith Mountain Lake, VA
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Horseless carriages are stupid too!

Regards, Frederick C. Wilt
fcwilt is online now  
post #14 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 03:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Toknowshita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Of course on a forum dedicated to creating the ultimate experience 4k would be viewed as a sure-fire hit. Our passion for the best in tech does not carryover to the masses.

Toknowshita is offline  
post #15 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 03:03 PM
 
AV Science Sales 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Alan. What are you going to do if you ever get serious about HT and get say a 24 ft wide screen?
AV Science Sales 4 is offline  
post #16 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 03:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalGriffin View Post

If you are at recommended THX viewing angle (Viewing Fulstrum), then it is impossible to benefit from anything over 1920x1080. Our eye resolution simple does not support it.

Sorry Alan. I respect you. But 4K is just a way to pump new equipment we don't need. It will die a slow painful death like SACD and DVD-A

The ONLY place 4K could be useful would be passive 3D

I've gone through the math, and with "normal" seating distances for FP, 4k could definitely be a benefit.

Why not, let's do it again. Let's start with some metrics from an expert:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/19840...y_updated.html

According to that, we can resolve down to 0.6 arc minutes (0.01 degrees) per pixel. If you sit in the middle of the THX/SMPTE/Fox recommended viewing distance of 3 picture heights, that comes out to be about 19 degrees of vertical viewing angle.

So if we divide 19 degrees by 0.01 degrees/pixel, you get 1900 pixels, well above the 1080 pixels we have with Blu-ray. If we follow Dr Soniera's logic from that article, 1080p is less than 1/3 of what's necessary for a "retina display" at a SMPTE/THX/Fox recommended 3 picture height seating distance.

Now if we consider that a good number here find 3 picture heights too far and like to sit closer to two picture heights it's even worse, for that you need 2650 pixels, which is beyond even what 4k can provide.

To look at it a different way, how far away do you have to sit for anything over 1080p to be "impossible to benefit from"?

Well we have 1080 pixels * 0.01 degrees/pixel = 10.8 degrees. That comes out to be 5.26 picture heights which is outside THX's farthest acceptable distance of 5.18, not to mention anybody's farthest recommended distance of around 4 picture heights.

As an anecdote, I can easily see artifacts on my 1080p display from the "limited" resolutions. The biggest things are hard lines "jumping" as they move rather than just moving, and to a degree some jaggies on certain content.

Just to illustrate something more, the author (I assume this is referencing a cnet article, Alan's link is dead) does have a point. If you figure an average person having a 50" TV, and sitting 10' away, that works out to be about a 5x picture height seating distance, which as noted above is right on the cusp of where more resolution can't be resolved.

You may note that Dr. Soniera and the author of the cnet article use different number for visual acuity, some tests have shown that people can resolve much, much more than one arc minute:

"The one arcminute criterion can be described as 30 cycles per degree (cpd). In a paper published in the April issue of the Society of Motion-Picture and Television Engineers Motion Imaging Journal, NHK scientists reported that viewers could readily distinguish between pictures with 78 cpd and 156 cpd, the latter being more than five times greater than the 20/20 criterion."

For reference 156cpd (cycles per degree) is 312 pixels per degree, even if we go with just 78 (156 pixels/degree, or 0.0064 degrees/pixel), that would come out to be 2964p, or nearly 8k.

So I say "Bring on the 4K!"

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #17 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 03:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Toknowshita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 46
It's funny. I have a 100in HDTV screen and it's considered small here. Im curious how big the bank accounts are for the typical member here. Im not against new tech I just don't think 4k is going to have that wow factor on the sales floor. It's a new feature to create a desire to upgrade. I doubt that 4k at typical distance and screen size is going to have the wow effect. There's a reason that it is being rolled out with projectors first. You need a huge screen to appreciate the difference at typical viewing distance. And not to mention we don't have any native content. I wasn't overly impressed with upscaled DVDs. I don't see upscaled BDs being much of an improvement over a non-upscaled version.

Toknowshita is offline  
post #18 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 03:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Eden NY
Posts: 6,012
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Some scenes are tough but with good source material I can see a difference with 4K Lite switched on and off at 1.6 SW distance. So, I guess I don't believe that article....

Geof
Geof is offline  
post #19 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 03:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Toknowshita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post


I've gone through the math, and with "normal" seating distances for FP, 4k could definitely be a benefit.

Why not, let's do it again. Let's start with some metrics from an expert:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/19840...y_updated.html

According to that, we can resolve down to 0.6 arc minutes (0.01 degrees) per pixel. If you sit in the middle of the THX/SMPTE/Fox recommended viewing distance of 3 picture heights, that comes out to be about 19 degrees of vertical viewing angle.

So if we divide 19 degrees by 0.01 degrees/pixel, you get 1900 pixels, well above the 1080 pixels we have with Blu-ray. If we follow Dr Soniera's logic from that article, 1080p is less than 1/3 of what's necessary for a "retina display" at a SMPTE/THX/Fox recommended 3 picture height seating distance.

Now if we consider that a good number here find 3 picture heights too far and like to sit closer to two picture heights it's even worse, for that you need 2650 pixels, which is beyond even what 4k can provide.

To look at it a different way, how far away do you have to sit for anything over 1080p to be "impossible to benefit from"?

Well we have 1080 pixels * 0.01 degrees/pixel = 10.8 degrees. That comes out to be 5.26 picture heights which is outside THX's farthest acceptable distance of 5.18, not to mention anybody's farthest recommended distance of around 4 picture heights.

As an anecdote, I can easily see artifacts on my 1080p display from the "limited" resolutions. The biggest things are hard lines "jumping" as they move rather than just moving, and to a degree some jaggies on certain content.

Just to illustrate something more, the author (I assume this is referencing a cnet article, Alan's link is dead) does have a point. If you figure an average person having a 50" TV, and sitting 10' away, that works out to be about a 5x picture height seating distance, which as noted above is right on the cusp of where more resolution can't be resolved.

You may note that Dr. Soniera and the author of the cnet article use different number for visual acuity, some tests have shown that people can resolve much, much more than one arc minute:

"The one arcminute criterion can be described as 30 cycles per degree (cpd). In a paper published in the April issue of the Society of Motion-Picture and Television Engineers Motion Imaging Journal, NHK scientists reported that viewers could readily distinguish between pictures with 78 cpd and 156 cpd, the latter being more than five times greater than the 20/20 criterion."

For reference 156cpd (cycles per degree) is 312 pixels per degree, even if we go with just 78 (156 pixels/degree, or 0.0064 degrees/pixel), that would come out to be 2964p, or nearly 8k.

So I say "Bring on the 4K!"

That's also assuming that the content contains a highly detailed image. We have seen plenty of DVDs and BDs that aren't mastered at the highest quality. On the best BDs I just don't see how much better it needs to be for the average viewer.

Toknowshita is offline  
post #20 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 05:35 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Alan Gouger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalGriffin View Post


The ONLY place 4K could be useful would be passive 3D.

While I agree with some of your comments I am all for eliminating fixed pixel structure. The higher the fill the better. It results in smoother diagonal resolution less stair stepping, smoother film like appearance. Can resolve more detail. In this case 4k Lcos will resolve full 1920x1080 MTF.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalGriffin View Post

Personally I'm voting for higher frame rate support with lower lag. DFI works, but it looks "faked"

Agreed. I think 3D and non movie content will benefit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryW View Post


For movies though, I think I'd rather see a wider color gamut.

Im with you, I would gladly stay put with 2k resolution in trade for 10 or 12bit color.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

Alan. What are you going to do if you ever get serious about HT and get say a 24 ft wide screen?

I will make sure to sit further back so my field of view remains the same
Alan Gouger is offline  
post #21 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 05:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 6,288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 43
The article is basically correct for most regular TV/viewing distances. For HT, it is a different story. If you sit 1 screen width or less then 4k may be of benefit.

Call AVS For the Best Deals!!!


My new favorite game is Stop the Bots
Ericglo is offline  
post #22 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 05:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rwestley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 6,674
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Objects or products can't be stupid since they are not alive. I can't say the same for people. The author can call 4k a bad idea or a wrong idea but it can't be stupid.
rwestley is offline  
post #23 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 06:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Merillville, IN 46410
Posts: 3,707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita View Post

It's funny. I have a 100in HDTV screen and it's considered small here. Im curious how big the bank accounts are for the typical member here. Im not against new tech I just don't think 4k is going to have that wow factor on the sales floor. It's a new feature to create a desire to upgrade. I doubt that 4k at typical distance and screen size is going to have the wow effect. There's a reason that it is being rolled out with projectors first. You need a huge screen to appreciate the difference at typical viewing distance. And not to mention we don't have any native content. I wasn't overly impressed with upscaled DVDs. I don't see upscaled BDs being much of an improvement over a non-upscaled version.

Upscaled blu rays to 4k looks very good. I can see a big difference from my RS55 compared to my RS40. Plus, projectors are a very small market, no one I know has one anyways. So, I don't think 4K will be useless but it will be a very small market, just like projectors. I'm just afraid that it will not be affordable anytime soon. There isn't any 1080p led affordable projectors yet, but since I got a taste of upscaled 4k, I won't be looking at any 1080p led projectors. Guess, I won't see any affordable 4k led projectors producing 2000 calibrated lumens anytime soon either.
blee0120 is offline  
post #24 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 06:45 PM
 
HiFiFun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
First the original link is broken.
Second 4K is beneficial for 4K sources. Today that means photographs or 2560*1600 (dual DVI link) computer desktops.
Third many consumer projectors have a hard time reaching 1080 lines of resolution because of errors in alignment or in the optical path. 3 chip LCD/LCoS are the most challenging while single chip DLP with a quality glass lens would come close.
4K projectors are being introduced in the $25k and up marketplace for professional applications. This required level of precision costs big money.

As a result 4K flat panels make a lot more sense. Heard a rumor of a Sharp 90" panel due this summer. Probably not 4K though.
The golden technology is buy no technology before its time.
Give it a few more years...Yawn
HiFiFun is offline  
post #25 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 07:12 PM
 
AV Science Sales 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
The problem with getting 10 or 12 bit color is that its a hard marketing sell. To the average Now you can convert the number of bits to the nuber of different colors one dconsumer 8 bit, 10 bit, 12 bits? What's the bit deal? They are all small numbers. Now you can muck around a bit and market how many additional colors one could map with those extra bits if one wanted to use them that way but the number with a bits to a consumer is a k zillion at 8 bits and giving them a higher number doesn't mean much. Most consumers thing sets reproduce all the colors they can see anyway. Now make the number of pixels go from 2 million to 8 million that is something they can grasp. Now give them 8k and they could grasp that too. 16 million pixels. They buy cameras now at 14 million pixels throwing away their 6.7 million ones. Single to two digit millions is something they can grasp.


And let's get serious, if all else were equal and a 4K projector was offered to you for the same price as a 2K, even if there were no 4K sources available, which one would you get?
AV Science Sales 4 is offline  
post #26 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 09:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,503
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 166
Just the quid pro quo. If some people can freely bash 3D then others should be able to bash 4k.
Deja Vu is offline  
post #27 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 10:19 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Alan Gouger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiFun View Post

First the original link is broken.

Direct link added to original post.

Here it is as well.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7...vs-are-stupid/
Alan Gouger is offline  
post #28 of 62 Old 01-27-2012, 10:45 PM
Senior Member
 
wyen78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philly, PA
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
How many of you guys actually read the whole article?

A) He's only talking about tv's not projectors. He states that a case can be made for projectors and big screens.

B) He points out that it'd be useful in passive and glassless 3D tvs.
"Glasses-less (autostereoscopic) 3D displays have the same basic problem, with certain pixels reserved for certain eyeballs. Here, 4K and higher is also a good idea; one could say it's even a requirement."

His point is that 4k res on normal consumer tvs (up to 60in) that aren't passive or glassless 3D sets is not worth it. I concur.

The normal consumer isn't on these forums debating resolutions, buying 25K dollar projectors, or debating the arc minute resolution of the human eyeball. I saw one poster posit that the avg consumer has a 50 in flat screen. Nope, there are far more people on strict budgets than who can drop a G on a tv.

Is 4K really worth it on a plain 50in flat panel owned by a person who doesn't know what HDCP, EDID, or LCOS, means?

wyen78 is offline  
post #29 of 62 Old 01-28-2012, 06:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Florida and West Virginia, USA
Posts: 5,894
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 194
In the article the following statement is made:

"With the huge screens of most modern movie theaters, and the move toward digital projection, 4K makes a lot of sense. The prevalent 2K (2,048x1,080 pixels) digital cinema projectors are only slightly higher resolution than 1080p. I've seen a lot of these, and I can often see the pixel structure from most of the seats. You definitely don't with 4K, which is why it's a brilliant idea for movie theaters.

But 4K in the home is stupid. Here's why........"
However, if in your home theater if you sit close enough such that the subtended angle of the screen (or in other words the field of view of the screen) is similar to what you would experience in a commercial cinema, then the central argument of the article falls apart since the author specifically says in comparing 2K to 4K: "...I can often see the pixel structure from most of the seats. You definitely don't with 4K...".

I do agree that for small to moderate size flat panel HDTV, 4K doesn't really buy you anything for most typical viewing distances. However, with a 50"+ flat panel there may be some benefit when passive 3D technology is being used since the resolution drops in half when using 3D with such HDTVs. From what I saw on the VW1000 at CEDIA there was an obvious difference between 1080p and native 4K (i.e.., when the video source was native 4K). The difference with an a native 1080p vs. upscaled 1080p video displayed at 4K was more subtle.

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is offline  
post #30 of 62 Old 01-28-2012, 06:15 AM
Senior Member
 
wyen78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philly, PA
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Again, he's talking about the average consumer who is going to buy a 42-60in tv, he says it's a brilliant idea for movie theaters with their large screens and if your setup is more like a movie theater than a normal consumer home setup, logic should tell you that he'd agree that there is a place for 4K in your particular setup. And if you have a setup like that and are considering 4K projector right now....you are not the average consumer.

He does not say 4K is stupid for everything and even lists examples of where it could be useful....huge screens, passive 3D, glasses-less 3D.

wyen78 is offline  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

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