Reasons To Be Optimistic about 4k: Viewing Distances and Viewing Conditions. - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 143 Old 05-11-2013, 05:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Se my Edit of my post higher up. Shows that this is just some useless B***s**t chart some amateur HT guy has made.
coolscan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 143 Old 05-11-2013, 09:34 AM
 
Auditor55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA.
Posts: 8,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Se my Edit of my post higher up. Shows that this is just some useless B***s**t chart some amateur HT guy has made.

I believe there is some merit to the chart. I know some AVS members might be a little miffed by it because they don't won't to be given a dose of reality. 4K TV's is a joke and a scam on the public right now. Only in world of some narcissistic AVS folks is 4K a factor, but not in the world of reality. I seen an 84 inch LG 4K TV for 17,000 dollars advertised at a brick and mortar retailers. What a joke? I mean who's coming up in there to buy a 17,000 4K set , there is no 4K content, so what fool is going by that set. That TV is a "white Elephant, they will never be able to sell them, they're wasting money on advertisement and also causing a great deal of consumer confusion. Anyway, buying a 17,000 84 inch 4K and sitting 3 feet from it stupid, why would you spend 17,000 only to sit in the cheap seats.

I would agree that 4K is fine for front project system with large screens in dedicated movie rooms,where cable, broadcast and satellite programming is not a factor. However, the lack any real content 4k content and inability of human eye to discern the difference between 2K and 4K from intelligent viewing distances is going to doom this format. Its just too early for it.

Just because you see some greedy companies like Sony, LG and some others introducing 4K TV's into the market doesn't mean they're going to succeed. Remember LCOS, SXRD? A complete failure, I just received a letter in the mail regarding a class action suit against Sony. Sony is notorious for introducing failed formats. Remember that 10 inch OLED in the Sony stores, it had a price around 9,000, smh!!

Also, optical disc is dead, 4K blu ray is a joke, its not going to happen any time soon or at all. Unfortunately, streaming is the future, I'm sure ultra greedy companies like Comcast/NBC and AT&T love that, can't wait to see how high your internet bill is going go up in order to stream 4K movies. We already get a separate charge , at least a dollar more for HD movies vs. SD movies. I guess it will be 2 dollars more for a 4K (so-called Ultra HD) movie streamed.

When you see the Superbowl broadcast in 2160p then that will be the time to buy a 4K set. Right now Fox broadcast in 720p, ESPN 720p, NBC 1080i and CBS 1080i, still no 1080p and some of you think they're just going of all a sudden start broadcasting in 2160p, that's just delusional.
vinnie97 likes this.
Auditor55 is offline  
post #93 of 143 Old 05-11-2013, 09:45 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
Optical disc is not dead (yet), though I know you like to engage in hyperbole. 4k blu-ray doesn't exist.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #94 of 143 Old 05-11-2013, 10:02 AM
 
Auditor55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA.
Posts: 8,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

Optical disc is not dead (yet), though I know you like to engage in hyperbole. 4k blu-ray doesn't exist.

Its dead!! As much as I love blu ray, I'm not going to purchase every movie on blu ray. They can't be rented anymore except through Netflix and Netflix has been making noise about dropping optical disc.

Simply put, there is no medium for 4K, if you think 4K TV's will succeed without content you're really living in a dream world where some AVS members like to reside.
Auditor55 is offline  
post #95 of 143 Old 05-11-2013, 10:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,900
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Quote:
Based on the resolving ability of the human eye (with 20/20 vision it is possible to resolve 1/60th of a degree of an arc), it is possible to estimate when 4k resolution will become apparent for the average eyeball. Using the Home Theater Calculator spreadsheet as a base, I created a chart showing, for any given screen size, how close you need to sit to be able to detect some or all of the benefits of a higher resolution screen.

http://carltonbale.com/?s=4K&x=0&y=0

Time to put this in the garbage forever where it belongs. mad.gif

What is "1/60th of a degree of an arc", do you suppose he means an arcminute or an arcsecond?

"In the garbage" is too strong, but otherwise: bingo coolscan. Yes, as far as I can tell that chart is based upon static image measurements and not a poll of folks sitting around and watching movies. The eye is not a CCD array, despite what many try to imply. The brain/eye is designed around edge detection, and when things move in particular there are edges that appear to slice a pixel in half. And this is only the very very tip of the iceberg of eye discussions.

Further, while eye saccade moves everything in the FOV and does aid in resolving static images, it's the motion of objects against other objects that changes with video and those edges are formed differently.

I like that chart. But I don't like it because it concludes anything. It's merely an interesting stake in the sand. But it really should come with a caveat across the bottom.

Further, I'm absolutely in the camp that you'll notice 4K effects far sooner than that chart implies. With imaging, you don't need to see something, to see something.

No @#$%tard zone.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #96 of 143 Old 05-11-2013, 11:15 AM
 
Auditor55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA.
Posts: 8,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Auditor55 is offline  
post #97 of 143 Old 05-11-2013, 12:31 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Its dead!! As much as I love blu ray, I'm not going to purchase every movie on blu ray. They can't be rented anymore except through Netflix and Netflix has been making noise about dropping optical disc.

Simply put, there is no medium for 4K, if you think 4K TV's will succeed without content you're really living in a dream world where some AVS members like to reside.
Don't presume to tell me where I live. 4k isn't even on my personal radar.

You forgot about Blockbuster and Redbox (albeit highly limited) when it comes to disk rentals.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #98 of 143 Old 05-11-2013, 01:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,857
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I spoke to the Sony representative when seeing their 4K TV. According to him, their 4K player has not been finalized as to how it will work. He mentioned downloading content to it. I told him most people have caps on their data and he wasn't aware of this. I suggested that the movies be put on BR disks that the player could read and send to a built in hard drive. This way the movies could be sold in the store- Fry's of course liked the idea because they would be able to sell them. He said the disks can hold 100 GB and said it was a good idea and would pass it on to the people working on it. Seems to me the upcoming PS4 would be able to do this also. It's a hell of a lot faster to load a hard drive from BR disks then to download.
Bill is offline  
post #99 of 143 Old 05-11-2013, 02:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,900
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post

I spoke to the Sony representative when seeing their 4K TV. According to him, their 4K player has not been finalized as to how it will work. He mentioned downloading content to it. I told him most people have caps on their data and he wasn't aware of this. I suggested that the movies be put on BR disks that the player could read and send to a built in hard drive. This way the movies could be sold in the store- Fry's of course liked the idea because they would be able to sell them. He said the disks can hold 100 GB and said it was a good idea and would pass it on to the people working on it. Seems to me the upcoming PS4 would be able to do this also. It's a hell of a lot faster to load a hard drive from BR disks then to download.

There are theoretical caps with both FIOS and Comcast----I think they do this and keep it vague because they want to reserve the right to throttle down the mooks who download .5 TB of porn a month.

But those have just *got* to be relaxing. I cannot imagine them maintaining a cap that originated largely in the pre-streaming era. It's just not doable. Comcast used to say things like "it's around 4 GB a month". I can't imagine what their unspoken hissyfit threshold is now, but it's gotta be much looser.

Heck, my cell phone has a 4 GB cap.

No @#$%tard zone.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #100 of 143 Old 05-11-2013, 04:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,857
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I've seen 250GB per month. Putting the movies on BR makes it moot.
Bill is offline  
post #101 of 143 Old 05-11-2013, 08:31 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: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 197
I never believed that chart either but let me ask this: is it possible for someone else on planet earth to make an ACCURATE chart?

If the answer is no then that's when I know you're just part of the sales force.

If the answer is yes then please tell me--at what distance from an 84-inch do you need to be to receive the benefit of 4K?

Don't protest too much that old dumb chart if you can't make or recommend another one.
vinnie97 likes this.
Artwood is offline  
post #102 of 143 Old 05-12-2013, 08:27 AM
 
Auditor55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA.
Posts: 8,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

I never believed that chart either but let me ask this: is it possible for someone else on planet earth to make an ACCURATE chart?

If the answer is no then that's when I know you're just part of the sales force.

If the answer is yes then please tell me--at what distance from an 84-inch do you need to be to receive the benefit of 4K?

Don't protest too much that old dumb chart if you can't make or recommend another one.

Good idea.

Someone should provide a chart that is accurate. Forget about belief, lets just deal with the facts. However, as I said before I think the chart is accurate or close to it. In fact, in the two CNET articles I linked above, that very chart was used by the author of the article.

By the way, the author from CNET pretty much lambasted 4K TV as stupid and I happen to agree with him.
Auditor55 is offline  
post #103 of 143 Old 05-12-2013, 08:32 AM
 
Auditor55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA.
Posts: 8,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

Don't presume to tell me where I live. 4k isn't even on my personal radar.

You forgot about Blockbuster and Redbox (albeit highly limited) when it comes to disk rentals.

There's about one Blockerbuster in each city these days, as for Redbox, they have about 18 blu rays for rent. Do you really think we're going to see 4K blu rays in Redbox . Face it sir, optical disc is dead!!
Auditor55 is offline  
post #104 of 143 Old 05-12-2013, 08:33 AM
 
Auditor55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA.
Posts: 8,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post

I spoke to the Sony representative when seeing their 4K TV. According to him, their 4K player has not been finalized as to how it will work. He mentioned downloading content to it. I told him most people have caps on their data and he wasn't aware of this. I suggested that the movies be put on BR disks that the player could read and send to a built in hard drive. This way the movies could be sold in the store- Fry's of course liked the idea because they would be able to sell them. He said the disks can hold 100 GB and said it was a good idea and would pass it on to the people working on it. Seems to me the upcoming PS4 would be able to do this also. It's a hell of a lot faster to load a hard drive from BR disks then to download.

Kind of sounds like that failed format, Divx, from back in the day.
Auditor55 is offline  
post #105 of 143 Old 05-12-2013, 10:01 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

There's about one Blockerbuster in each city these days, as for Redbox, they have about 18 blu rays for rent. Do you really think we're going to see 4K blu rays in Redbox . Face it sir, optical disc is dead!!
You're impossible. Newsflash: Blockbuster has a mail-in service like Netflix.

Redbox doesn't even incorporate 3D, it would be YEARS before they'd add 4K at which point optical disc could very well be dead. It's not dead, yet.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #106 of 143 Old 05-12-2013, 06:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,857
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

There's about one Blockerbuster in each city these days, as for Redbox, they have about 18 blu rays for rent. Do you really think we're going to see 4K blu rays in Redbox . Face it sir, optical disc is dead!!

Then what do you suggest for 4K movies? One can rent 3D Blu-rays online, If one didn't want to buy a 4K movie on BR I'm sure someone will rent them on the web. The people who own a 4K setup in the beginning will probably be buyers. Having spent that kind of money, saving a little on a rental seems not a concern, Plus you have a backup for when that hard drive fails but it wouldn't hold many of these movies anyway.
Bill is offline  
post #107 of 143 Old 05-14-2013, 05:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,900
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

There's about one Blockerbuster in each city these days, as for Redbox, they have about 18 blu rays for rent. Do you really think we're going to see 4K blu rays in Redbox . Face it sir, optical disc is dead!!
You're impossible. Newsflash: Blockbuster has a mail-in service like Netflix.

Redbox doesn't even incorporate 3D, it would be YEARS before they'd add 4K at which point optical disc could very well be dead. It's not dead, yet.

Not everyone has broadband.

Not everyone can even get broadband anytime soon.

Poor bastards.

No @#$%tard zone.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #108 of 143 Old 05-16-2013, 10:20 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: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 197
I think that Redbox is the division line beween class and no class.
Artwood is offline  
post #109 of 143 Old 05-18-2013, 05:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,900
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 567
This site:

http://www.broadbandmap.gov/technology

is pretty cool. It gives you a way of looking at the map and determining just where the connectivity availability is. It's actually pretty interesting.

There's no way Jose that physical medium is dead for movies.

No @#$%tard zone.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #110 of 143 Old 05-19-2013, 06:53 AM
Advanced Member
 
CheYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

This site:

http://www.broadbandmap.gov/technology

is pretty cool. It gives you a way of looking at the map and determining just where the connectivity availability is. It's actually pretty interesting.

There's no way Jose that physical medium is dead for movies.

Wow, I wouldn't have guessed so much of the US was without broadband. Of course those areas without probably represent <10% of the total population.

edit: Looks like 94% of the US population has access to broadband, so about 18 million people are without.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/0824/Got-broadband-Access-now-extends-to-94-percent-of-Americans

CheYC is online now  
post #111 of 143 Old 05-20-2013, 07:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,900
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by CheYC View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

This site:

http://www.broadbandmap.gov/technology

is pretty cool. It gives you a way of looking at the map and determining just where the connectivity availability is. It's actually pretty interesting.

There's no way Jose that physical medium is dead for movies.

Wow, I wouldn't have guessed so much of the US was without broadband. Of course those areas without probably represent <10% of the total population.

edit: Looks like 94% of the US population has access to broadband, so about 18 million people are without.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/0824/Got-broadband-Access-now-extends-to-94-percent-of-Americans

I'm actually surprised myself that the number is so low.

What you're not reading into this is that the numbers of people actually adopting it is far lower. In 2011, that same article sites a report saying that it was about 64% of those that could adopt it were adopting it. If that 64% was accurate now (it must be higher), then the true adopters would be 64% of 94% or about 60% of the populace with access.

Note: broadband is freakshow expensive for many people. And I believe that these numbers are including DSL, which from my personal experience for years is already in the "eh" category without the burden of streaming content regularly.

No @#$%tard zone.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #112 of 143 Old 05-20-2013, 08:06 AM
Advanced Member
 
CheYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I'm actually surprised myself that the number is so low.

What you're not reading into this is that the numbers of people actually adopting it is far lower. In 2011, that same article sites a report saying that it was about 64% of those that could adopt it were adopting it. If that 64% was accurate now (it must be higher), then the true adopters would be 64% of 94% or about 60% of the populace with access.

Note: broadband is freakshow expensive for many people. And I believe that these numbers are including DSL, which from my personal experience for years is already in the "eh" category without the burden of streaming content regularly.

Definitely agree with you here, adoption rate is much lower and it's most likely due to the ridiculous cost of this now established/streamlined service.

CheYC is online now  
post #113 of 143 Old 01-02-2014, 03:28 AM
Member
 
Sabidox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12

i have a Sony X9 65 inch 4k and i sit 6 feet away and guess what it looks stunning, much better than my 55 inch Sony W90 with the same viewing distance

 

and yes i can tell the difference and yes 1080p up-scaled to 4k (by the TV) looks better and sharper 

 

no more reviews and reports, your eye is your judge and its you who will make the final verdict

 

enough said

jjnbos likes this.

Sony XBR-65X9004A 4K - Toshiba Qosmio i7 - PS3 - PS4 - Sony BDV-E6100 Home Theater - Sony Xperia Z1-Sony HDR GW 77v -  IPad Air - IPad Mini Retina - Macbook Pro Retina - Iphone 5S  - Lenovo Idea Pad S - Dre Beats Studio - Dre Beats Pill
Sabidox is offline  
post #114 of 143 Old 01-02-2014, 12:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabidox View Post

i have a Sony X9 65 inch 4k and i sit 6 feet away and guess what it looks stunning, much better than my 55 inch Sony W90 with the same viewing distance and yes i can tell the difference and yes 1080p up-scaled to 4k (by the TV) looks better and sharper 
no more reviews and reports, your eye is your judge and its you who will make the final verdict
enough said

You tell trivial things: from 6 feet 4K@65" should look better than 2K since VD is less than 3PH. Upconverted 4K may look better if subjective PQ improvement algorithms are used. The point of discussion in this forum are claims that 4K looks better at VD>>3PH

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #115 of 143 Old 01-04-2014, 09:40 PM
Member
 
Sabidox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post


You tell trivial things: from 6 feet 4K@65" should look better than 2K since VD is less than 3PH. Upconverted 4K may look better if subjective PQ improvement algorithms are used. The point of discussion in this forum are claims that 4K looks better at VD>>3PH

 

well its not about its trivial or not,  its my personal experience. even if i sit further away (VD >> 3PH) its the same, 4K IS MORE SMOOTH AND YOU CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE,

 

if you like a related article, check this out:  http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-resolution-201312153517.htm


Sony XBR-65X9004A 4K - Toshiba Qosmio i7 - PS3 - PS4 - Sony BDV-E6100 Home Theater - Sony Xperia Z1-Sony HDR GW 77v -  IPad Air - IPad Mini Retina - Macbook Pro Retina - Iphone 5S  - Lenovo Idea Pad S - Dre Beats Studio - Dre Beats Pill
Sabidox is offline  
post #116 of 143 Old 01-04-2014, 09:41 PM
Member
 
Sabidox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post


You tell trivial things: from 6 feet 4K@65" should look better than 2K since VD is less than 3PH. Upconverted 4K may look better if subjective PQ improvement algorithms are used. The point of discussion in this forum are claims that 4K looks better at VD>>3PH

even with VD>>3PH. i confirm its better and more visible

 

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-resolution-201312153517.htm


Sony XBR-65X9004A 4K - Toshiba Qosmio i7 - PS3 - PS4 - Sony BDV-E6100 Home Theater - Sony Xperia Z1-Sony HDR GW 77v -  IPad Air - IPad Mini Retina - Macbook Pro Retina - Iphone 5S  - Lenovo Idea Pad S - Dre Beats Studio - Dre Beats Pill
Sabidox is offline  
post #117 of 143 Old 01-05-2014, 10:10 AM
Advanced Member
 
sytech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Face it sir, optical disc is dead!!

LOL. Let me know how dead it is when you try to download a 30GB PS4/XB1 game or a 60GB 4K movie. Optical media will be around for at least one more generation until Google gets it 1GB fiber installed.
sytech is offline  
post #118 of 143 Old 01-07-2014, 01:36 AM
Senior Member
 
jjnbos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 60
I find this endless bickering about if you can see the difference to be amusing. I have the Sony 55 x900 and did the obvious experiment, (and I'm just an ignorant marine geophysicist with a PhD from Cal doing research in image processing ;-) In short I watch everything I can in 4k native and 1080p formats (which boils down to not so much except breaking bad, Lawerence of Arabia, and a few other movies).

Sit at home about 9' from the screen in a dark room. And do an A/B comparison.

People its easy to see the difference. It's not subtle. Not at all.

"How can this be?" thunders the angry crowd that spent $20k on now obsolete 1080 rigs.

With out getting a huge nerd fest going; 90 years ago a guy named Nyquist at Bell Labs did in fact prove that if you sample something (e.g a photograph or sound recording) at twice the resolution that you actually want, then you ****CAN**** recreate the original.

Unfortunately he didn't say how.

The sad truth of all these resolution charts and such is that they boil down to what the Nyquist frequency is, and then people say that proves something. Anybody that works with signal processing will tell you that in real life it's impossible to avoid the endless and ever increasing list of artifacts created when when working are near Nyquist. Which means in plain terms that while your eye may not be able to see a 4k pixel (or your ear hear a 80 kHz sound) you need to sample at something like 4 to 10x Nyquist or face obvious artifacts. Which means you can multiply all those max distances by AT LEAST 2x, (in short you will easily see the difference at 10'). Those nut jobs with analog sound rigs are not really nuts, they just care too much about those really high notes...

Can some engineer with endless time and energy and money come up with a damn good image/sound/signal close to the Nyquist limit? Sure. Does anybody do that? No. Did 70mm film movies get made with incredible care and then get cheaply duplicated? yes. Will Directv/cable companies do anything for a nickel? yes. Is your everyday blue ray anywhere even close to what it could be? no. Will sleazy compression and so on make 4k streaming a sad comparison to what an uncompressed 4k could have been? of course.

How am I qualified to make these unsupported claims? When I first worked at Ampex in the 1980s, I was dumbfounded at how good NTSC looked "in the lab" and what crap it was at home. "" 1080p. If the handful of companies that control the content, distribution, and hardware had wanted to get studio grade NTSC to your home, you might still be happy with it. Nobody that hasn't seen an NTSC Ikegami in the studio believes that, but it's true.

So the point of this rant is that by doubling the oversampling we basically make it easy to get an easily observed improvement for a) sound technical reasons (Nyquist never said how to recreate that original and it's never done in real life so you need to greatly oversample) and b) the sad fact that corporations exist to make money. Make it easier/cheaper for them to make better PQ than bad PQ and then and only then it happens. Doubling the spatial sampling rate means 4k at the home is so much better 1080p at everyday distances, and in the end it won't cost a penny more.

But don't take my word.

Watching anything you can in true 4k and 1080p on the same set. I'd recommend any random breaking bad episode because they are cheap and easy to find on Blueray, and all the episodes are in 4K on the Sony media server…

peace out dudes
jjnbos is offline  
post #119 of 143 Old 01-07-2014, 03:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabidox View Post

i have a Sony X9 65 inch 4k and i sit 6 feet away and guess what it looks stunning, much better than my 55 inch Sony W90 with the same viewing distance

and yes i can tell the difference and yes 1080p up-scaled to 4k (by the TV) looks better and sharper 

no more reviews and reports, your eye is your judge and its you who will make the final verdict

enough said

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjnbos View Post

I find this endless bickering about if you can see the difference to be amusing. I have the Sony 55 x900 and did the obvious experiment, (and I'm just an ignorant marine geophysicist with a PhD from Cal doing research in image processing ;-) In short I watch everything I can in 4k native and 1080p formats (which boils down to not so much except breaking bad, Lawerence of Arabia, and a few other movies).


The sad truth of all these resolution charts and such is that they boil down to what the Nyquist frequency is, and then people say that proves something. Anybody that works with signal processing will tell you that in real life it's impossible to avoid the endless and ever increasing list of artifacts created when when working are near Nyquist. Which means in plain terms that while your eye may not be able to see a 4k pixel (or your ear hear a 80 kHz sound) you need to sample at something like 4 to 10x Nyquist or face obvious artifacts. Which means you can multiply all those max distances by AT LEAST 2x, (in short you will easily see the difference at 10'). Those nut jobs with analog sound rigs are not really nuts, they just care too much about those really high notes...
I am thankful that real proof that 4K is better than HD at last comes from people that actually owns 4K TVs.
Quote:
But don't take my word.

Watching anything you can in true 4k and 1080p on the same set. I'd recommend any random breaking bad episode because they are cheap and easy to find on Blueray, and all the episodes are in 4K on the Sony media server…

peace out dudes

The real "stress test" would have been to film with one HD camera and one 4K+ camera side-by-side.
Then show the video from the HD camera on the HD screen and video from the 4K camera on the 4K screen.
Then you would have a fair comparison test.


Anyway...............
The nonsense arguments presented in charts and seating distances to argue that one can't see details at a certain distance to 4K is really more about the ability to separate pixels than actually telling anything about the increased resolving and captured details which should really be called the ability to resolve surface texture.

But the fact is that we don't want to see pixels. We want the brain to combine pixels into high quality pixel-free images.

Provided that the camera capture is 4K, it doesn't show more details or texture. It will be there in a HD capture too, at least in close-ups.
What it does is showing the texture in better quality.

Only in distance shots will 4K be able to show details that might not be visible in a 2K capture.

This was the conclusion in a test some years ago where some people shot 35mm and 70mm film side-by-side to see if the increased cost of 70mm was worth it.
They found at close-up and medium close-up, it was better but not so much better that is was worth it, when one included the extra cost and larger cameras compared to 35mm.
In wide shots and distance shots however, 70mm was so much better and could show details that was lost in the 35mm shots, so including the extra cost, 70mm was definitely worth using in features.

The tests was done at the time where the first digital film cameras was released so it hasn't been much used.

Here is a video from a lecture by Mark Schubin that present some different arguments than the annoying seating distance and chart arguments we are all so familiar with.
jjnbos likes this.
coolscan is offline  
post #120 of 143 Old 01-08-2014, 04:00 AM
Senior Member
 
jjnbos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post


I am thankful that real proof that 4K is better than HD at last comes from people that actually owns 4K TVs.
The real "stress test" would have been to film with one HD camera and one 4K+ camera side-by-side.
Then show the video from the HD camera on the HD screen and video from the 4K camera on the 4K screen.
Then you would have a fair comparison

Agreed, but I have only 1 tv and zero cameras at home :-)

And to be a little less glib, what I proposed made HD look much better than it would in your proposed test, because it got up scaled to 4k by the TV

So I guess we are all in agreement that before you spend. $4,000 on that new tv, spend $15 on a blue ray with breaking bad, and take it to a store that has a best available hd set next to a 4k set. You will in fact be amazed and confounded how good Walt can look. Even at 9'


That is an excellent video presentation in coolscan's post. It is an simple presentation of why Nyquist isn't the bottom line...
jjnbos is offline  
Reply Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

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