4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 3692 Old 11-09-2011, 12:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
xrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

It's the same story as when there was talk of 1080p native screens coming out, with everyone saying you would need a minimum of a 50" screen and have to sit very close to see any benefit, which was absolutely not the case.

480p source to 1080p source was a massive improvement for me.

480p display (50" plasma)to 1080p display (50" Plasma) was very very minor except when I moved our seating position much closer to the display (from 10'+ down to 5' or less). Then the improvement gained some importance.

Both displays are gone now and I have a 60" PDP with viewing from 15'. I can't see 4K display improving much for my situation.

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
xrox is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 3692 Old 11-09-2011, 12:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
xrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

xrox you're leaving us hanging Have a link to the paper, or maybe a summary of these findings?

jeff

Looks like Sony,Panasonic, and Sharp were involved.

LINK

If you can't access it I can post selected data from it with reference later. Although most of it is OT with this thread. I just thought I'd mention the 6H measurement which is somewhat surprising.

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
xrox is offline  
post #273 of 3692 Old 11-09-2011, 04:35 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,290
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

Panasonic presented a paper at SID 2010 that did a survey of 83 housholds (270+ people) and found the median viewing distance for watching TV is 6H which is double the HDTV standard.

I don't find that surprising at all. What I find surprising is people's continued belief that some large number of households which to radically change this equation as opposed to my belief that it's a small fraction.

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. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is online now  
post #274 of 3692 Old 11-09-2011, 05:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

Panasonic presented a paper at SID 2010 that did a survey of 83 housholds (270+ people) and found the median viewing distance for watching TV is 6H which is double the HDTV standard.

Height of a 42" is 20". 6H is 120" which is the 10' I've been talking about. That is not surprising.

Like I said, the KEY is size and distance is interchangeable. If 4K makes no difference to you then either you have to sit nearer (which most people wouldn't) or get bigger screen. That's why 4k makes sense for monitors that are 2' away.
specuvestor is offline  
post #275 of 3692 Old 11-09-2011, 06:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Logic is impeccable here: HD Ready is an industrial badge to promote HD, it has nothing to do with the HD standard. In the standard there are two resolutions 720p@60Hz and 1080i@30Hz. 720was deemed good enough with progressive sources and 60Hz. But 1080 was established as vision-limited resolution, going beyond it makes no sense.

You can consult Sony document to see that there is some benefit under optimistic assumptions (people with eagle eyes). Real benefit starts below 2.6H. This obviously assumes full quality content which is quite a convoluted issue. For example standard 1920x1080 video sources are prefiltered to equivalent resolution of 1440x1080.

Unfortunately that is not very likely, especially lossless is limited to audio. Video will be highly compressed.

Yes on HD Ready so you can't use the logic that 1080 is maximum resolution for visual acuity which is why they jumped to 1080. It's another circular argument that you are conjuring. If 720 is an intermediate resolution, what makes you think 1080 is also not an intermediate resolution? 720 exist for a reason (for you to find out) and 1080 chosen to accommodate broadcast, PC, NTSC, PAL and movie industry. I've never read that 1080 was created because the wise men in these industries believe it is the maximum perceivable resolution.

BTW it should be 720p@60fps and 1080i@30/25fps. Both has similar throughput/ bandwidth needs.

In the same breath, lossy and compression was created for a reason: bandwidth and hardware technology. This has been the case for more than a century on why movies were originally 16fps or MS DOS on 32/64KB with memory limit fixed at 640KB. If the world is perfect and there are no constraints, everything would be lossless. And everyone has a 120" Kuro with zero black tech and 4K, with no cables or power worries

And bandwidth for all devices will be improving in an increasingly connected world.

Like I said in the 70" thread, if you know the history then you can understand the reasons without hindside bias. And I did say 4K is probably the limit for visual acuity in TV so it is not a perpetual improvement thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

In fact the sad part of this evolution is that it will likely end about 4k if we assume TV size will peak around 80". Anything above 4k at 10' is like arguing for >3MP camera for a 4R photo (it's the sensor and processor that's more important). 8k, if it ever come, is a novelty or for the cinemas.

specuvestor is offline  
post #276 of 3692 Old 11-10-2011, 10:10 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
walford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 16,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
AFAIK all increases in screen resolution have been led by the Japanese since they wanted bigger screens without having grainy content due to the short viewing distances present in their small homes.
Also since the small number of manufacturers of digital tuner chips compete each year with their new top of the line chips for the US TV industry we will see the top of the line domestic TV models all have 3D, 4K up scaling for 720p or 1080i sources, and "Smart" internet connection features.
And I believe that it will take 3-5 years for these tuner chips to be used in all TVs for the US market, just as it took about 3 years for all US TVs to have 16:9 aspect ratios so they could properly display HD content from the local broadcasters and not just 4:3 aspect ratio digital content down scaled from HD resolutions.
walford is offline  
post #277 of 3692 Old 11-15-2011, 04:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

Yes on HD Ready so you can't use the logic that 1080 is maximum resolution for visual acuity which is why they jumped to 1080. It's another circular argument that you are conjuring. If 720 is an intermediate resolution, what makes you think 1080 is also not an intermediate resolution? 720 exist for a reason (for you to find out) and 1080 chosen to accommodate broadcast, PC, NTSC, PAL and movie industry. I've never read that 1080 was created because the wise men in these industries believe it is the maximum perceivable resolution.

Exactly, confusion is due to the lack of knowledge, you missed the story how the ATSC system was designed. The ATSC system was designed at MIT and they did careful experiments to establish the resolution. They came to the conclusion that 1080p is maximum optimum. This story was reported and published a.o. by SMPTE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

BTW it should be 720p@60fps and 1080i@30/25fps. Both has similar throughput/ bandwidth needs.


The ATSC 720p was in turn lobbied with some bickering and horse trading by the industry. At the time there were no 1080 displays available and this resolution was thought very difficult to achieve. Then mainly broadcast people were objecting against keeping interlaced and some were in favor of progressive. It was too much to propose the 1080p then for broadcast due to insufficient compression tech. Some broacasters wanted to differentiate from others. In the end 720p/60 was accepted as second option since the bandwidth was same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

In the same breath, lossy and compression was created for a reason: bandwidth and hardware technology. This has been the case for more than a century on why movies were originally 16fps or MS DOS on 32/64KB with memory limit fixed at 640KB. If the world is perfect and there are no constraints, everything would be lossless. And everyone has a 120" Kuro with zero black tech and 4K, with no cables or power worries

In the real damned world everything has its price . Lossless is unrealistic but realistic is near-lossless. For example broadcasters record end edit material in contribution quality which 10-20x compression. But on the way to consumer compression is pushed just the content to be good enough for Joe Sixpacks. Reducing compression and improving motion rendering would bring more than the 4K to PQ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

Like I said in the 70" thread, if you know the history then you can understand the reasons without hindside bias. And I did say 4K is probably the limit for visual acuity in TV so it is not a perpetual improvement thing.

No, this limit is not 'probably' but surely 2K for TV viewing conditions . 4K is fine for computer monitor viewing conditions.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #278 of 3692 Old 11-15-2011, 04:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dsinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,731
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 90
^ When the standards were set with 1080 max, what were the assumptions as to how big the sets would be and the average viewing distances?
dsinger is offline  
post #279 of 3692 Old 11-15-2011, 05:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,208
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Probably not many watch their portable devices from 1-2 screen heights away. I suggest you get a ruler and do some real-world testing of that. I suppose it's somewhat possible on iPad although my crude testing suggests that the ergonomics of 1 screen height are pretty much impossible. I'm not seeing too many people holding their phone 5-6 inches away from their faces to manipulate or view the screen, yet I see the benefits of the iPhone screen from a good distance farther.

good for you because I have 20/15 vision and I don't see rez difference between my iphone 3GS and 4s at a "normal" distance. Color and black levels for sure, but certainly not resolution at 18".

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 #280 of 3692 Old 11-15-2011, 05:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,208
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

It's getting really tedious to see a couple of posters jump in on this topic saying that 4K displays are pointless, when anyone that has seen them can say that the numbers they're throwing out are inaccurate. There are benefits from 4K far beyond the distances they're quoting.

It's the same story as when there was talk of 1080p native screens coming out, with everyone saying you would need a minimum of a 50" screen and have to sit very close to see any benefit, which was absolutely not the case.


You should have to sit even closer to your iPhone than 1-2 screen heights away, as it's a 330 PPI display, and a 50" 4K TV is only 88 PPI.

The old iPhone screen was 165 PPI, I guess there was no point to, or benefit from going to a "retina" screen. All marketing hype?


Well, regarding "marketing hype": yes somewhat, in my opinion. I own and use both phones.

It's human nature to have "the best" and strive for better whether the benefits are perceived or real, and if people need to inch their screens a bit closer to their grills to "enjoy" the increased rez, you can bet some will do it. Does that mean it offers an improved experience 99.5% of the time when they're using it normally? Of course it doesn't.

But of course the new iphone has a better display, period. The colors pop much, much, more, they're more saturated and contrast is superior. Check, check, and check.

That said, my photos- from a resolution standpoint anyway- are indistinguishable on either device from a reasonable distance. Less than a foot though, no way.

I don't think any reasonable person flatly rejects 4K...they're just arguing that it's a shame other PQ aspects are not being addressed/realized that would have a much more meaningful impact on the vast majority of applications.

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 #281 of 3692 Old 11-15-2011, 05:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,208
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsinger View Post

^ When the standards were set with 1080 max, what were the assumptions as to how big the sets would be and the average viewing distances?


I believe it had less to do with forecasting how large tvs would get and much more upon how far we sit away from the screen for a given screen dimension, "x".

For instance, I'm at 11'-12' with my 60" Kuro and I cannot imagine sitting any closer. I think there's some here who would maintain that a 60" 4K display would increase PQ (all else being equal of course ) at the same 12', but I'd have to (literally) see it to believe it as there's absolutely no way my ojos are wringing all of the detail out of current arrangement. That much becomes immediately apparent as soon as I get 6-7" away. And again, I'm not some blind bird either at 20/15.


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 #282 of 3692 Old 11-15-2011, 09:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsinger View Post

^ When the standards were set with 1080 max, what were the assumptions as to how big the sets would be and the average viewing distances?

Researchers approach things in generic way . Assumption for the viewing distance was taken as 3-4xH where H is the picture height. One may say this is close but not too close to the TV and the set can be as big as you wish .

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #283 of 3692 Old 11-15-2011, 07:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Exactly, confusion is due to the lack of knowledge, you missed the story how the ATSC system was designed. The ATSC system was designed at MIT and they did careful experiments to establish the resolution. They came to the conclusion that 1080p is maximum optimum. This story was reported and published a.o. by SMPTE.

Can you please provide the link where SMPTE say 1080 was chosen due to visual acuity? ATSC is a development naturally from NTSC spec but in digital HD they also take into account PAL spec as well to develop a GLOBAL standard. US is important and anchor in HD spec simply because of her massive Hollywood and TV content. If the Japanese had more content (and they pioneered HD) HD could be anywhere between 950-1150 IIRC. 1080 and 720 takes into account the easy scaling of 576 and 480, albeit compromised 10% either way, and 16:9 is just the square of 4:3. In trying to reach a global standards, you not only need to have knowledge but also understand WHY they reach this conclusion ie to compromise between various EXISTING standards, simply because the world is not perfect Digital frame rates are also constrainted by history.

http://www.bonolabs.com/Two%20Million%20Pixels.pdf

"The Grand Alliance (GA) was a consortium created in 1993 at the behest of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to develop the American digital television (SDTV, EDTV) and HDTV specification, with the aim of pooling the best work from different companies. It consisted of AT&T, General Instrument Corporation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Philips Consumer Electronics, David Sarnoff Research Center, Thomson Consumer Electronics, and Zenith Electronics Corporation. The Grand Alliance DTV system is the basis for the ATSC standard."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Alliance_(HDTV)
specuvestor is offline  
post #284 of 3692 Old 11-15-2011, 08:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

No, this limit is not 'probably' but surely 2K for TV viewing conditions . 4K is fine for computer monitor viewing conditions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Well, regarding "marketing hype": yes somewhat, in my opinion. I own and use both phones.

It's human nature to have "the best" and strive for better whether the benefits are perceived or real, and if people need to inch their screens a bit closer to their grills to "enjoy" the increased rez, you can bet some will do it. Does that mean it offers an improved experience 99.5% of the time when they're using it normally? Of course it doesn't.

But of course the new iphone has a better display, period. The colors pop much, much, more, they're more saturated and contrast is superior. Check, check, and check.

ok so now it seems that 4k and retina displays are hype... maybe even OLED is hype. I think we have seen much review on the latter 2 to come to a general conclusion whether can one really see a difference.

The industry is putting money into 4k scanning, 4k digital, and hardware. Though I do not think it will be soon, but let's wait and see the verdict on this one, in view of the theoretical skeptism. From what I've read and by most accounts I think all 3 developments are not hype.

I agree reduced compression and indeed improvement in bit depth, gradation, chroma sampling will be perceivable improvement to PQ. The difference between transmission and blu ray already verifies that. But don't mistake 4K resolution improvement with transmission constraints, or seating/ TV size constraints. If one insist in sitting 15' away viewing a 46" TV then one shouldn't complain about 4k being useless. Or if one like bluish white then don't say REC709 is useless or dull.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

That said, my photos- from a resolution standpoint anyway- are indistinguishable on either device from a reasonable distance. Less than a foot though, no way.

Maybe you should ask why by examining the source. Though I agree it is a matter of fact that contrast is more perceivable than resolution.
specuvestor is offline  
post #285 of 3692 Old 11-15-2011, 11:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,290
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

Maybe you should ask why by examining the source. Though I agree it is a matter of fact that contrast is more perceivable than resolution.

I find the opinions of someone that can't see the resolution difference of a Retina Display vs. a non-Retina Display hardly worthy of any serious comment.

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. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is online now  
post #286 of 3692 Old 11-15-2011, 11:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

The industry is putting money into 4k scanning, 4k digital, and hardware. Though I do not think it will be soon, but let's wait and see the verdict on this one, in view of the theoretical skeptism.

However it does looks like "appetiser" is coming:

"For those unaware, Super Hi-Vision is an ultra high definition format that, according to Engadget, won't hit homes for another few years. That said, the Olympics is a rather special occasion. Engadget reports that the NHK and BBC have confirmed that there will be some SHV public screenings select UK, Japanese and US cities. At the moment, it looks like there will be four locations in the UK and three in Japan but just one in the U.S., in Washington D.C."
specuvestor is offline  
post #287 of 3692 Old 11-16-2011, 04:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,208
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post


I find the opinions of someone that can't see the resolution difference of a Retina Display vs. a non-Retina Display hardly worthy of any serious comment.

That's really too bad...perhaps you should spend more time comprehending text and less time running off your virtual mouth.

I never said there wasn't a difference between the two. Matter of fact I stayed precisely the opposite. Read it again.

What I DID say was that I cannot discern a difference from from a RESOLUTION standpoint from 18" and beyond which I have discovered is pretty much my using distance 95 times out of 100. And I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts no one else can either, again, imperatively, all other aspects being equal.

Good one, what else would you like me to help you with?

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 #288 of 3692 Old 11-16-2011, 04:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

ok so now it seems that 4k and retina displays are hype... maybe even OLED is hype. I think we have seen much review on the latter 2 to come to a general conclusion whether can one really see a difference. The industry is putting money into 4k scanning, 4k digital, and hardware. Though I do not think it will be soon, but let's wait and see the verdict on this one, in view of the theoretical skeptism. From what I've read and by most accounts I think all 3 developments are not hype.

Bit of demagogy when you mix 4K and retina displays. I said and said, it depends on the viewing conditions. For 1H viewing 4K and retina is fine.
For the 3H not.

Industry is of course in full swing to flood people with 4K. This is same as industry is cranking up megapixels in compact cameras.

Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

I agree reduced compression and indeed improvement in bit depth, gradation, chroma sampling will be perceivable improvement to PQ. The difference between transmission and blu ray already verifies that. But don't mistake 4K resolution improvement with transmission constraints, or seating/ TV size constraints. If one insist in sitting 15' away viewing a 46" TV then one shouldn't complain about 4k being useless. Or if one like bluish white then don't say REC709 is useless or dull. Maybe you should ask why by examining the source. Though I agree it is a matter of fact that contrast is more perceivable than resolution.

Hmm, I do not see your point. To get into 4K one has to sit below 3H, this is not standard TV viewing condition. In the non-TV viewing the 4K may be good for other apps e.g. game playing, magazine reading or virtual sex . Maybe future displays are more like paper than current heavy glass. Japanese developing the 8K may have such other apps in mind. For such scenarios I am saying, yes, 8K is absolutely necessary.

BTW, SMPTE report about the HDTV was published in their journal in 1980, there is no free access to the report-

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #289 of 3692 Old 11-16-2011, 05:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,208
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

ok so now it seems that 4k and retina displays are hype... maybe even OLED is hype. I think we have seen much review on the latter 2 to come to a general conclusion whether can one really see a difference.

The industry is putting money into 4k scanning, 4k digital, and hardware. Though I do not think it will be soon, but let's wait and see the verdict on this one, in view of the theoretical skeptism. From what I've read and by most accounts I think all 3 developments are not hype.

I agree reduced compression and indeed improvement in bit depth, gradation, chroma sampling will be perceivable improvement to PQ. The difference between transmission and blu ray already verifies that. But don't mistake 4K resolution improvement with transmission constraints, or seating/ TV size constraints. If one insist in sitting 15' away viewing a 46" TV then one shouldn't complain about 4k being useless. Or if one like bluish white then don't say REC709 is useless or dull.


Maybe you should ask why by examining the source. Though I agree it is a matter of fact that contrast is more perceivable than resolution.

The source in my case would be an 8 megapixel photo shot with the iphone 4S. And I don't necessarily know if retina screens and 4K screens are all "hype", I just see little use for either of them when considering the way we currently utilize 3" cell phone screens and 42-60" televisions.


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 #290 of 3692 Old 11-16-2011, 12:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,290
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

That's really too bad...perhaps you should spend more time comprehending text and less time running off your virtual mouth.

I never said there wasn't a difference between the two. Matter of fact I stayed precisely the opposite. Read it again.

What I DID say was that I cannot discern a difference from from a RESOLUTION standpoint from 18" and beyond which I have discovered is pretty much my using distance 95 times out of 100. And I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts no one else can either, again, imperatively, all other aspects being equal.

Good one, what else would you like me to help you with?

I read you perfectly fine the first time. My virtual mouth would run off exactly the same way another time. People clearly love the Retina Display resolution; obviously they must all be snowed by the Reality Distortion Field.

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. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is online now  
post #291 of 3692 Old 11-16-2011, 12:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
tory40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

BTW, SMPTE report about the HDTV was published in their journal in 1980

Nineteen eighty.......!?


Somebody get a rope...




To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

tory40 is offline  
post #292 of 3692 Old 11-16-2011, 04:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Bit of demagogy when you mix 4K and retina displays. I said and said, it depends on the viewing conditions. For 1H viewing 4K and retina is fine.
For the 3H not.

Industry is of course in full swing to flood people with 4K. This is same as industry is cranking up megapixels in compact cameras.

Hmm, I do not see your point. To get into 4K one has to sit below 3H, this is not standard TV viewing condition. In the non-TV viewing the 4K may be good for other apps e.g. game playing, magazine reading or virtual sex . Maybe future displays are more like paper than current heavy glass. Japanese developing the 8K may have such other apps in mind. For such scenarios I am saying, yes, 8K is absolutely necessary.

BTW, SMPTE report about the HDTV was published in their journal in 1980, there is no free access to the report-

Do you realize what is 1H for retina iPhone? I am old but not that old Concept behind retina display is similar to what we are debating here: anything above 326ppi is useless as that is the max resolution of the retina at close distance. It is of course not without its fair share of debate but I think generally accepted. 4K at 70" is <100ppi.

So in your view even at 3H is not sufficient for 4K then, even though the Sony article that you "said and said" has range between 2.3-3.2H. And technically there is additional benefit due to movie aspect ratio reducing resolution with black bars. 3H may not be MOST people's sitting position but when u say "standard" i assume something like THX distance. What people "prefer" and what is "standard" are 2 different things. Hence I said if u like bluish white, it has nothing to do with standard. If you refuse to go "standard" then complaining the tech doesnt help is moot. BTW incidentally that's Sharp's recommendation as well:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockaway1836 View Post

Was just poking around Sharp's website and came across this.
http://www.sharpusa.com/ForHome/Home...Vs/BIG-TV.aspx
At the bottom of the page is their recomended viewing distance.

Like I said it is unlikely people shift their current 10' sitting position so larger and 4K comes together.

It's a simple comparison but DSC market which essentially creates content is different from the TV industry drastically. The amount of investments required are disproportionate. But hard to argue that one can't see a difference between a picture taken by a 4MP DSLR and a 8MP handphone. The proof of the pudding must be perceptible and not hidden in some secret ingredients/ theory.

If you can get a quote from the SMPTE report would be good so we can all learn some wise men actually foreseen it. Like I said I've never seen anyone, including xrox or poynton, allude to 1080 selected because of visual acuity.

Ironically my tone in this thread has changed from tempering optimistic expectations from one extreme to tempering pessimism for 4k
specuvestor is offline  
post #293 of 3692 Old 11-16-2011, 11:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

Do you realize what is 1H for retina iPhone? I am old but not that old Concept behind retina display is similar to what we are debating here: anything above 326ppi is useless as that is the max resolution of the retina at close distance. It is of course not without its fair share of debate but I think generally accepted. 4K at 70" is <100ppi.

Visual system has a lot of intricacies so one has to be very precise about the conditions and scenarios of viewing. To illustrate this I bomb you with this: print in glossy magazines has at least 1200 ppi and up to 2400 ppi. Now think why is this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

So in your view even at 3H is not sufficient for 4K then. even though the Sony article that you've been talking about has range between 2.3-3.2H. And technically there is additional benefit due to movie aspect ratio reducing resolution with black bars. 3H may not be MOST people's sitting position but when u say "standard" i assume something like THX distance.

Yes 3.2H, but note this is under more optimistic visual system assumption and likely Sony is pushing optimistim here. 2.5H is realistic. I agree with the black bars, they decrease the picture height in the range of 20%. About the sitting position this can be easily seen in cinemas, which rows people select. Indeed less than 3H might be OK for minority, maybe those with some loss of sight?

Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

It's a simple comparison but DSC market which essentially creates content is different from the TV industry drastically. The amount of investments required are disproportionate. But hard to argue that one can't see a difference between a picture taken by a 4MP DSLR and a 8MP handphone. The proof of the pudding must be perceptible and not hidden in some secret ingredients/ theory.

for the 4K vs. 2K a better comparison would be 16 megapixel vs. 10 megapixel
compact cameras. 16 is nonsense due to blind market forces, marketing and ignorant consumers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

If you can get a quote from the SMPTE report would be good so we can all learn some wise men actually foreseen it. Like I said I've never seen anyone, including xrox or poynton, allude to 1080 selected because of visual acuity.
Ironically my tone in this thread has changed from tempering optimistic expectations from one extreme to tempering pessimism for 4k

I have to try digging this out but this is archeology. Regarding 4K it is very healthy to temper the optimism just to avoid getting into the mental trap similar to the megapixels in digital cameras.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #294 of 3692 Old 11-16-2011, 11:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Sony Story: ...Sony hopes to get its cool back with ultralow-power, glasses-free, 3-D sets that double today's resolution, though they're not expected to be mainstream until at least 2013.

And all this from the company which is: Sony is a life insurance company with a money-losing TV business, .

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #295 of 3692 Old 11-17-2011, 06:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,208
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I read you perfectly fine the first time. My virtual mouth would run off exactly the same way another time. People clearly love the Retina Display resolution; obviously they must all be snowed by the Reality Distortion Field.

Oh, so you read perfectly well but then choose to make asinine, unfounded statements anyway? Brilliant.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

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 #296 of 3692 Old 11-17-2011, 06:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,208
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 164
I'd be very interested to know, if NOT based primarily (or at least significantly) upon human vision acuity, where precisely 1080 DID spawn from.

this ought to be interesting.

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 #297 of 3692 Old 11-17-2011, 07:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
^^^ which I had answered partially at post #287. Conversely how does 480 or 720 spawn from? It doesn't need to be visual acuity based but it will hit a human limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Visual system has a lot of intricacies so one has to be very precise about the conditions and scenarios of viewing. To illustrate this I bomb you with this: print in glossy magazines has at least 1200 ppi and up to 2400 ppi. Now think why is this?

Yes 3.2H, but note this is under more optimistic visual system assumption and likely Sony is pushing optimistim here. 2.5H is realistic. I agree with the black bars, they decrease the picture height in the range of 20%. About the sitting position this can be easily seen in cinemas, which rows people select. Indeed less than 3H might be OK for minority, maybe those with some loss of sight?

for the 4K vs. 2K a better comparison would be 16 megapixel vs. 10 megapixel
compact cameras. 16 is nonsense due to blind market forces, marketing and ignorant consumers.

I have to try digging this out but this is archeology. Regarding 4K it is very healthy to temper the optimism just to avoid getting into the mental trap similar to the megapixels in digital cameras.

Are you asking printed media dots per inch (dpi) vs digital display pixels per inch (ppi)?

I'm using your own Sony document that you hold up as authoritative. It's up to you how you want to interpret it. I read it as it is possible that within that range 4k is perceptible.

I am saying the 4MP DSLR will look better on a 4R if you mistaken my intent. Numbers are not everything.
specuvestor is offline  
post #298 of 3692 Old 11-17-2011, 08:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

^^^ which I had answered partially at post #287. Conversely how does 480 or 720 spawn from? It doesn't need to be visual acuity based but it will hit a human limit

480 is a very old story, very little to do with visual acuity.720 I told already, some infighting and horse trading. 1080 based on subjective testing and background acuity research.

Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

Are you asking printed media dots per inch (dpi) vs digital display pixels per inch (ppi)?

What I am trying to explain you is that visual system is very tricky and lots depends on the viewing scenario. Thus for 3-4H1080 is fine, for 1-2H 4K is OK. But in the glossy magazine scenario 1500 ppi are necessary for things looking fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

I'm using your own Sony document that you hold up as authoritative. It's up to you how you want to interpret it. I read it as it is possible that within that range 4k is perceptible. I am saying the 4MP DSLR will look better on a 4R if you mistaken my intent. Numbers are not everything.

Yes, under optimistic scenario 4K difference should be visible up to 3.2H and this is max. So realistically 2.5H is safe and 2.5H is extreme viewing scenario for TV. If you say 4MP DSLR will look better on a 4K the the question is what is the viewing scenario. I am saying 4K computer monitors are abolutely needed for digital photography work.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #299 of 3692 Old 11-17-2011, 10:21 AM
 
sintech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

480 is a very old story, very little to do with visual acuity.720 I told already, some infighting and horse trading. 1080 based on subjective testing and background acuity research.



What I am trying to explain you is that visual system is very tricky and lots depends on the viewing scenario. Thus for 3-4H1080 is fine, for 1-2H 4K is OK. But in the glossy magazine scenario 1500 ppi are necessary for things looking fine.



Yes, under optimistic scenario 4K difference should be visible up to 3.2H and this is max. So realistically 2.5H is safe and 2.5H is extreme viewing scenario for TV. If you say 4MP DSLR will look better on a 4K the the question is what is the viewing scenario. I am saying 4K computer monitors are abolutely needed for digital photography work.

Give it up. You and the report you keep referencing are only for 4K projection in a movie theater setting. Fact is, everyone here can tell the differences between a 4K picture and 1080p on their 70-80" set at normal viewing distances.
sintech is offline  
post #300 of 3692 Old 11-17-2011, 10:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,208
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

^^^ which I had answered partially at post #287. Conversely how does 480 or 720 spawn from? It doesn't need to be visual acuity based but it will hit a human limit



Are you asking printed media dots per inch (dpi) vs digital display pixels per inch (ppi)?

I'm using your own Sony document that you hold up as authoritative. It's up to you how you want to interpret it. I read it as it is possible that within that range 4k is perceptible.

I am saying the 4MP DSLR will look better on a 4R if you mistaken my intent. Numbers are not everything.

Re the decision on 1080 content: Yeah, I guess I kinda sorta didn't buy the earlier explanation (post 287).

If it's reasonable to conclude that we'll eventually be consuming all (or nearly all) 1080 content- which is easily conceivable to me in the next 5 years, especially considering how much 1080P content is already avail- why would any of what you proposed matter in the slightest?

And even if there's some truth to your assertion that the number is some kind of hybrid between differing "standards" (for lack of a better term) do you not think it's unbelievably coincidental to find the resolutions you listed to be fantastically similar to one another (1080, 950-1150)? Where do you suppose those came from?

Sure 1080 may be some kind of "compromised" figure, but where did the points that comprise that compromise () emanate from? Something tells me the answer is very, very, straightforward.

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  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Tags
Samsung Bd D7000 3d Blu Ray Disc Player Silver , Samsung Pn51d8000 51 Inch 1080p 3d Ready Plasma Hdtv 2011 Model , Displays , Pioneer Pdp 5080 Hd
Gear in this thread

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