8K by 4K or Octo HD - the real SUHDTV technology - Page 16 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #451 of 670 Old 02-08-2013, 10:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Richard Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

The 3.16PH is under rather stringent requirements
rather pushed by Sony one of the main promoters of 4K, consult figures p. 8 and 9 and it is maxed out.
3.16 PH is based on 60 pixels per degree which is 20/20 vision. That is simply nominal vision and as this article explains some people are born with better vision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

2.5 PH seems to be realistic compromise.
That was based on a 2004 article from Mark Schubin who refers to 20/20 vision on his blog:
Quote:
Human visual acuity is often measured with a common Snellen eye chart, as shown at left above. On the line for “normal” vision (20/20 in the U.S., 6/6 in other parts of the world), each portion of the “optotype” character occupies one arcminute (1', a sixtieth of a degree) of retinal angle, so there are 30 “cycles” of black and white lines per degree.
...
HDTV should, under the same theory, be viewed from a smaller multiple of the screen height (h). For 1080 active lines, it should be 7.15 x 480/1080, or about 3.2h.
...
Another is questions about that theory of “normal” vision. First of all, there are lines on the Snellen eye chart (which dates back to 1862) below the “normal” line, meaning some viewers can see more resolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

8K is targeted to be 'ultimate', 4K is going to be transitional.
You can always aim higher and that is the problem with the idea of trying to aim for an ideal goal. Super Hi-Vision is flawed in that as an ideal goal it is both unrealistic due to cost and yet given enough time it is still likely not sufficient for all possible applications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

But 8K makes no sense for traditional scenario. It may, and this is the plan of the Japanese make sense for nonstandard scenarios. For example, some kind of simulator rigs with 180 deg field of vision.
That would require a higher resolution since 8K UHDTV is designed for a 100 degree field of vision.
Richard Paul is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #452 of 670 Old 02-08-2013, 10:34 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

3.16 PH is based on 60 pixels per degree which is 20/20 vision. That is simply nominal vision and as
this article explains some people are born with better vision.

If you like to go to details: (1) it depends on contrast, visual measurements are done under infinite contrast assumption and this is not the case for displays (2) compressed sources with reduced resolution are used. Thus, the 44 pix/deg value is most practical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

You can always aim higher and that is the problem with the idea of trying to aim for an ideal goal. Super Hi-Vision is flawed in that as an ideal goal it is both unrealistic due to cost and yet given enough time it is still likely not sufficient for all possible applications.
That would require a higher resolution since 8K UHDTV is designed for a 100 degree field of vision.

Display density/pixel no is not an issue in long term, at least in the case of LCD. 2K displays are going to be norm in pocket devices.
8K is really designed to 100 deg vision but it has a headroom, so should be fine for 180 too. But in principle computer monitors may easily go above the 8K if one reminds pictures of the stock slaves surrounded by 8x2K displays biggrin.gif.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #453 of 670 Old 02-09-2013, 02:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rightintel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,336
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Noob question: Is the 2K video we're getting now compressed in any way, and if so, would decompressed 2K look as good as compressed 4K?

Xbox Live: General PATT0N
rightintel is offline  
post #454 of 670 Old 02-09-2013, 04:18 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1002
^Yes, 2k video is compressed. The least compression occurs on the Blu-ray format, but it is compressed nonetheless. The second question is more difficult to answer as it depends upon the level of compression and how transparent (throwing away bits that won't be missed) the particular codec is to the viewer (the new codec proposed for 4K should be able to compress at a higher ratio with no visible loss in quality).

PS. Nice avatar and sig.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #455 of 670 Old 02-09-2013, 05:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,872
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

^Yes, 2k video is compressed. The least compression occurs on the Blu-ray format, but it is compressed nonetheless. The second question is more difficult to answer as it depends upon the level of compression and how transparent (throwing away bits that won't be missed) the particular codec is to the viewer (the new codec proposed for 4K should be able to compress at a higher ratio with no visible loss in quality).

PS. Nice avatar and sig.

Good grief. Doesn't anyone believe in just raw bits anymore?

Well vinnie97, one of the kindest and most helpful and respected members here, was banned for silly reasons. And now vinnie_RIP is banned as well. The mark of an inexperienced moderator is to forget that their role is one of resource, not one of petulant authority and further that the members are doing the forum organization a favor by being here, not the other way around. They know darn well they screwed up here.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #456 of 670 Old 02-09-2013, 05:40 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1002
Until (and if) there's fiber to every curb, fuhgetaboutit. wink.gif Lossless compression (in the digital audio realm) is a lovely thing, btw!
vinnie97 is offline  
post #457 of 670 Old 02-09-2013, 05:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,872
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

Until (and if) there's fiber to every curb, fuhgetaboutit. wink.gif Lossless compression (in the digital audio realm) is a lovely thing, btw!

Whenever possible, I use PNG for images. I would use FLAC for music, but the data size/bandwidth impact is steep for local storage on (or streaming to) my phone.

Well vinnie97, one of the kindest and most helpful and respected members here, was banned for silly reasons. And now vinnie_RIP is banned as well. The mark of an inexperienced moderator is to forget that their role is one of resource, not one of petulant authority and further that the members are doing the forum organization a favor by being here, not the other way around. They know darn well they screwed up here.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #458 of 670 Old 02-09-2013, 05:55 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1002
Understood...I like to use FLAC for CD backup, and then convert said backup files to a much tinier format of my choice (such as Opus) for my portable/phone.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #459 of 670 Old 02-10-2013, 03:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,061
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 382
When there is fiber to every home, video transmission will still be compressed. It's not only about available bandwidth.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #460 of 670 Old 02-11-2013, 10:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 197
What would uncompressed video look like?

Would it look so great that people would go into convulsions looking at it?

Would it make 8K OLED look like dog mess?

If they showed it at CES would the whole building collapse?

If DirecTV was forced into having one totally uncompressed channel would they go bankrupt because they couldn't take it?
vilfrard likes this.
Artwood is offline  
post #461 of 670 Old 02-11-2013, 11:08 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1002
Uncompressed is overkill. Lossless is ideal (but even that is overkill most of the time).
vinnie97 is offline  
post #462 of 670 Old 02-11-2013, 11:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,061
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 382
You don't want uncompressed or even losslessly compressed HD. You really, really don't, The transmission would be so big it would be hugely prone to dropouts. And the quality would be -- at best -- marginally better than, say, a 10:1 compression. One issue we do have these days appears to be that transmissions at the source are being compressed too much that with further downstream transcoding and compression they don't look very good. (e.g. too many Fox football broadcasts.)

But the idea that you want to send gigabit broadcasts around -- or even half-gigabit ones -- is silly. Something would have to receive all that data on consumer-grade devices, decode it in real time and display it. And with cable glitches, and satellite reception issues, and the need for forward-error correction, that would be ugly hard to do well. And needlessly expensive.

In some fantasy world where 100% of video was delivered in ways that the transport mechanism itself was unconstrained (e.g. fiber-based cable TV and perhaps satellite that used your internet to deliver 100% of its VOD so all its capacity could be HD broadcast, no SD), you would still likely not send anything -- even 4K -- that would be at 100 megabits/second. It would not be worthwhile to do so for any perceptible quality. It would just get harder and harder to add more bits for no gain.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #463 of 670 Old 02-11-2013, 11:41 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1002
Sigh, when I stated "overkill most of the time," that meant I was aware of that. I was only speaking from an ideal perspective on a random network, if you demand nothing short of perfection (perception be damned), lossless video is the natural choice over uncompressed (just as it is in audio). Beyond that, I would be happy with Dolby Digital Plus audio for the majority of instances given its transparency to the master even in laboratory settings. I am no stranger to compression and its remarkable knack for being able to discard bits of no perceptible use. smile.gif
vinnie97 is offline  
post #464 of 670 Old 02-11-2013, 04:37 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,061
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 382
I am aware that you are aware of things Vinnie. smile.gif

The reason I replied was to explain to people that something like 10:1 video compression is actually better for almost every purpose. No one will be able to see the difference and the advantages in transport and electronics are pretty overwhelming.

That probably applies up to 30:1 or so to be honest...

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #465 of 670 Old 02-12-2013, 12:15 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 60
8K might be a piece of cake if future brings something like Holo-Holo.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #466 of 670 Old 02-13-2013, 08:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 197
What would 8K look like after DirecTV compresses it? I guarantee you that they will compress it so much that it will like like 1081P but they'll still claim it is great because 1081p is better than 1080p!

They'll charge a lot for it, too!
Artwood is offline  
post #467 of 670 Old 02-13-2013, 08:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jim McC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oconomowoc, WI.
Posts: 5,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

What would 8K look like after DirecTV compresses it? I guarantee you that they will compress it so much that it will like like 1081P but they'll still claim it is great because 1081p is better than 1080p!


I say 720p smile.gif
Jim McC is offline  
post #468 of 670 Old 02-15-2013, 06:18 AM
Senior Member
 
esdwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I am going to see a whale passing by my house before we see DirectTV feeding with true 8K content. They already compress 2K to absolute maximum and with cost of satellite transponders lease increasing I do not see how they cam squeeze another channel to the stream unless they degrade quality of less popular channels to free space for this unnecessary 8k gizmo.

So many gets excited about going to 4, 8 or 16k forgetting that the quality of 2k broadcast is slowly decreasing and there is so much that can be done to bring this quality back where its supposed to be in first place. This "sell sell sell" objective just makes us customers suffer forcing to spend on gear upgrades and trading our movie collections from one disk generation to another.

Mark my words when in a few years when 4 or 8k hits the market, the 2k broadcast quality will be equal to today SD so it will be much easier for providers to convince average Joe to upgrade to next gen super high definition bs.

History shows same happened with audio when studios and merchants convinced 95% of he market that 128kbps mp3 is as good as cd and 32kbps sirius sat radio quality us better than regular fm. It's a joke.

Same process is most likely going to happen to video and on some markets it has already started.

I rather to spend 2 hours watching true HD quality 2k movie on my blue ray disk rather than paying premium for ability to watch pseudo-8k broadcast or vod which effective quality will probably be equal or less to today's bd.
esdwa is offline  
post #469 of 670 Old 02-15-2013, 08:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,872
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by esdwa View Post

History shows same happened with audio when studios and merchants convinced 95% of he market that 128kbps mp3 is as good as cd

What are you talking about? That never happened.

Well vinnie97, one of the kindest and most helpful and respected members here, was banned for silly reasons. And now vinnie_RIP is banned as well. The mark of an inexperienced moderator is to forget that their role is one of resource, not one of petulant authority and further that the members are doing the forum organization a favor by being here, not the other way around. They know darn well they screwed up here.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #470 of 670 Old 02-15-2013, 09:45 AM
Senior Member
 
esdwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

What are you talking about? That never happened.

Yes, it did with plunging down CD sales after mp3 format was popularized. Remember what iTunes used to sell and how long it took them to make files with higher bitrates available? The fact that you or me are part of conscious, smart 5% of the consumers does not mean rest of them think the same way.
esdwa is offline  
post #471 of 670 Old 02-15-2013, 09:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,872
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by esdwa View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

What are you talking about? That never happened.

Yes, it did with plunging down CD sales after mp3 format was popularized. Remember what iTunes used to sell and how long it took them to make files with higher bitrates available? The fact that you or me are part of conscious, smart 5% of the consumers does not mean rest of them think the same way.

I know what you're trying to say, but nevertheless that was AAC, a completely different animal than MP3. And also WMA for non-apple. MP3 had no DRM. And the MPEG was clear from the get go (though it was also a bit of a crock): Their claim was that MP3/320 was "CD Quality".

Further, there were a lot of claims regarding the suffering CD sales. Wired magazine used to bring these up a lot: CD album prices artificially high, a reluctance to sell singles, Napster (and later P2P), and (this theory was my personal favorite:) People were "losing interest" in buying music. Take your pick.

Well vinnie97, one of the kindest and most helpful and respected members here, was banned for silly reasons. And now vinnie_RIP is banned as well. The mark of an inexperienced moderator is to forget that their role is one of resource, not one of petulant authority and further that the members are doing the forum organization a favor by being here, not the other way around. They know darn well they screwed up here.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #472 of 670 Old 02-15-2013, 10:03 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1002
128 kbps in modern formats (especially AAC) actually is close to CD transparency (and reaches it for a lot of people). wink.gif I require more headroom to allay my fears of audible quality loss with serious listening, but psychacoustics have come a long way from the early to mid 90s.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #473 of 670 Old 02-15-2013, 10:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,872
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

128 kbps in modern formats (especially AAC) actually is close to CD transparency (and reaches it for a lot of people). wink.gif I require more headroom to allay my fears of audible quality loss with serious listening, but psychacoustics have come a long way from the early to mid 90s.

No, I'll not go that far. I don't care what MPEG-2 testing was done: AAC/128 is no where near CD quality IMO.

IME, AAC is "vastly better" than WMA, and WMA is (merely smile.gif) "better" than MP3.

And I always rip everything to MP3. LOL.....

Well vinnie97, one of the kindest and most helpful and respected members here, was banned for silly reasons. And now vinnie_RIP is banned as well. The mark of an inexperienced moderator is to forget that their role is one of resource, not one of petulant authority and further that the members are doing the forum organization a favor by being here, not the other way around. They know darn well they screwed up here.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #474 of 670 Old 02-15-2013, 03:54 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1002
Opinions aside, double blind testing is the only way to verify, and the results will vary depending on the individual's hearing and sensitivity to artifacts of course (it's not unheard of for people taking the test to be unable to identify the master versus QuickTime AAC at said bitrate). wink.gif Perceptual encoding has come a long way no doubt.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #475 of 670 Old 02-15-2013, 04:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,061
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 382
The fact is VBR ~320kbps MP3s are absolutely indistinguishable (except perhaps by a few "golden ears") from CDs, which use roughly 4x that data. With something like AAC, you can go to closer to 8x compression and achieve the same thing.

This points out that compression is not necessarily even at all. And with video -- especially H.265/HEVC -- I suspect that 20x compression will be very, very hard to tell apart from the uncompressed 4x originals. But you will never see 20x compression. Today's uncompressed 2K is 1.5 Gbps. An uncompressed 4K signal would, therefore, be around 6Gbps. If you apply 20x compression, you are talking 300 Mbps, a consumer product that will never, ever exist anywhere, period.

If we get a "SuperBluRay", we will likely see a 75 Mbps bursty kind of bit rate, which will likely look freaking awesome. If broadcast is done at 20 Mbps, it will also likely look pretty good.

What appears likely, however, is that there will efforts to squeeze 4K into 30 Mpbs on BluRay discs and into 10 Mpbs on broadcast. While these will have some attributes that exceed the quality of existing 2K images, they will also be worse in some significant ways. In the event this occurs, actually selling 4K as a quality thing will be nigh impossible. Marketing it and giving it away, however, will remain very plausible.

(EDIT: This post originally contained a typo, caught by vtms and now corrected).

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #476 of 670 Old 02-15-2013, 04:32 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1002
^Good on you for whipping this thread back on-topic. biggrin.gif
vinnie97 is offline  
post #477 of 670 Old 02-16-2013, 12:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 197
ALL I know is back in 2006 Dish looked great and when they first started compressing more--the quality has never been the same since.

If you saw pre 2006 satellite quality you know it looked good then and doesn't look good now regardless of whatever blasted codec or compression algorithms are employed.

I think a super duper blu-ray would be great for 4K content--I wonder if Mark Cuban were to start a satellite company that instead of having a million channels--if it only had fifty--maybe something like that could make 4K visually a step up from 1080p but 8K? That ridiculousness just isn't going to happen!
Artwood is offline  
post #478 of 670 Old 02-16-2013, 06:23 PM
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
^ sounds great, but I doubt it's actually true (image quality looks worse now than it did 7 years ago- let's not even consider display quality progression).

Most of what I see of directv- this undoubtedly "absurdly compressed garbage"- looks fantastic- some of it is junk.

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 online now  
post #479 of 670 Old 02-17-2013, 06:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,872
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 563
Anyone else have the sense that now that once we've finally reached the point where many of us have all the bandwidth we need, we're suddenly thrown back into the 90's? Things seemed so rosey there for a minute....

Well vinnie97, one of the kindest and most helpful and respected members here, was banned for silly reasons. And now vinnie_RIP is banned as well. The mark of an inexperienced moderator is to forget that their role is one of resource, not one of petulant authority and further that the members are doing the forum organization a favor by being here, not the other way around. They know darn well they screwed up here.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #480 of 670 Old 02-17-2013, 07:11 AM
Advanced Member
 
vtms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 997
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

This points out that compression is not necessarily even at all. And with video -- especially H.265/HEVC -- I suspect that 20x compression will be very, very hard to tell apart from the uncompressed 4x originals. But you will never see 20x compression. Today's uncompressed 2K is 1.5 Gbps. An uncompressed 8K signal would, therefore, be around 6Gbps. If you apply 20x compression, you are talking 300 Mbps, a consumer product that will never, ever exist anywhere, period.
8K has 16x the resolution of 2K, not 4x. Anyway, from what I read, 25Mbps for 4K HEVC will be enough; so 100Mbps for 8K.
vtms is offline  
Reply Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

Tags
Lcd Hdtv , Displays , Plasma Hdtv , Panasonic

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