4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 34 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #991 of 3692 Old 03-04-2012, 06:11 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
Rendered game itself doesn't take too much space RELATIVELY. It is the "movie" sequences that gobbles up space. You know they are switching modes between these 2 when the screen blanks for a while.
specuvestor is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #992 of 3692 Old 03-04-2012, 08:12 PM
Senior Member
 
Russell Burrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: no mans land aka mexican dmz
Posts: 422
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

Rendered game itself doesn't take too much space RELATIVELY. It is the "movie" sequences that gobbles up space. You know they are switching modes between these 2 when the screen blanks for a while.

All game data needs space, that being true some of it needs a tiny amount and some of it is gigabyte hungry.

Was going to post some links with data but the outdoors festival turned out into a shootout two blocks from City Hall and five blocks away also with ak74s, mp4s and maybe some grenades.

Just another day where shootouts are close to a daily thing.

DIY beats store purchased.
Russell Burrows is offline  
post #993 of 3692 Old 03-05-2012, 12:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell Burrows View Post

Things like triple area bounce uses a lot of data versus dual bounce on rendering subsurface light scattering for better and more realistic CGI be it movies or games.

Why would that need more data on the Blu-ray disc? Surely for games it's a realtime calculation? For movies it needs no more data on the BD either - it would be based solely on how complex it was to compress the final render with mpeg.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #994 of 3692 Old 03-05-2012, 11:39 AM
Senior Member
 
Russell Burrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: no mans land aka mexican dmz
Posts: 422
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Why would that need more data on the Blu-ray disc? Surely for games it's a realtime calculation? For movies it needs no more data on the BD either - it would be based solely on how complex it was to compress the final render with mpeg.

When games first began it was a battle to fit all of the data into a given target.
A larger data size target means developers can focus on other issues instead of trying to fit all of the data inside a too small target.

I.e. trying to fit a game like Final Fantasy XIII into a 50GB blu ray disc was no problem for PS3 development but was a headache trying to fit the same data into a single DVD disc for Xbox 360 development.

As a general rule the more resolution the more data space you need.
More effects, textures, on screen enemies,etc. equals more data.

A 50 GB disc is just going to be barely ok for 2013/2014 and too small beyond that just like the then massive size of a CD was left behind for the then massive storage of a DVD and the then massive storage of a blu ray BD25 is now left behind in favor of a BD50.

Rinse, repeat.
Games are growing and discs sizes are growing is what history shows us.

DIY beats store purchased.
Russell Burrows is offline  
post #995 of 3692 Old 03-05-2012, 12:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 56
But the lighting effects wouldn't need more data on the disc because they're realtime effects in a game.

Quote:


More effects, textures, on screen enemies,etc. equals more data.

Also, while more textures needs more data on the disc, more enemies might not, if they could copy the polygons and textures of another.

eg. you could have 1 soldier made of a certain amount of polygons and certain textures. You could then duplicate that a few hundred times for an army of soldiers, and it wouldn't need any more data on the disc (unless you didn't want each one to look identical).
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #996 of 3692 Old 03-05-2012, 12:10 PM
Senior Member
 
Russell Burrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: no mans land aka mexican dmz
Posts: 422
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

But the lighting effects wouldn't need more data on the disc because they're realtime effects in a game.


Also, while more textures needs more data on the disc, more enemies might not, if they could copy the polygons and textures of another.

eg. you could have 1 soldier made of tons a certain amount of polygons and certain textures. You could then duplicate that a few hundred times for an army of soldiers, and it wouldn't need any more data on the disc (unless you didn't want each one to look identical).

Identical enemies, weapons, towns, etc. is a no,no when trying to promote a game.

You can reuse some assets but endlessly killing the exact same identical enemy in the same location gets boreing.

Also destructability of walls, buildings, etc. adds to the space requirements.

BRB in a few hours.................

DIY beats store purchased.
Russell Burrows is offline  
post #997 of 3692 Old 03-05-2012, 02:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 226
PC gaming has been 1080p and beyond for years. You are grossly over-estimating the amount of additional data required for assets. Simply using the same assets as used for the current generation of console games, and rendering at 1080p with high levels of AA & AF results in significantly improved image quality.

PS3 games are as large as they are, because there is a lot of pre-rendered video used (because the platform isn't capable of rendering it in realtime) and data duplication to help reduce seek times because the Blu-ray drive access is so slow compared to the DVD/HDD access that the 360 has, or HDD/SSD of a PC. This is also why so many PS3 games have mandatory installs, because the optical drive just can't keep up.

For example, Batman Arkham City is 16.5GB on PC, and 7.6 of that is pre-rendered footage. (which looks terrible compared to the actual game, but it's easier for them to just throw in the same video from the consoles)

Alan Wake is 7.63GB and 4.29GB of that is video.

Rage only uses as much space as it does (21.2GB) because of its unique virtual texturing system, which basically means that all lighting in the game was pre-baked and considerably more of the world had "unique" textures, though they all looked terrible.

The Witcher 2 on the other hand, has some of the best texturing seen in a game to date, and yet it's only 14GB.

50GB discs are more than enough for the next generation of games, and digital distribution is not going to be an issue. (in countries where reasonable connection speeds are available, and/or platforms where pre-loading is used)


Consoles have always been tight on memory, so I doubt you're going to start seeing games next generation that somehow exceed the memory capabilities of today's PC hardware. (16GB+ RAM, 3GB VRAM)
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #998 of 3692 Old 03-05-2012, 04:53 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
Rendered image depends on processing power of the GPU and graphics engine of the software. OTOH "video" requires lower processing but higher storage. You can stream video from the disc but you will have lag if you try to read rendering instruction on the fly from the optical disc.

The oft quoted Final Fantasy is infamous for loads of "video"
specuvestor is offline  
post #999 of 3692 Old 03-06-2012, 12:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Anyway.... U.S. internet is unimpressive. That's all I was getting at.

To be honest... those comparisons between countries are out of proportion. Most of the places which are topping US are rat dens size- and population-wise. Rescaling for those, US comes very impressive to the top.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #1000 of 3692 Old 03-06-2012, 12:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

I didn't ignore anything. You mentioned consumers are going to go ga ga over 4K. Thats complete nonsense. A 4K set setup next to a 2K set at bestbuy is not going to show much of a difference to sarah and john who have yet to even buy a bluray player. Like i said, you have too much faith in these types of consumers. Not going to happen. And neither the hobbit nor avatar 2 is going to change them. And if you never had a bluray "blow you away" then either you're lying to support your argument, need a new display, or you're exactly the consumers im talking about. Theres plenty of bluray movies that have spectacular PQ. I get every bit as wowed as the day i first bought BD. I can recommend you some if you like. All of sudden 1080p is bad now. Please.

Add to this there are serious doubts about the discs future. Download and streaming is the way to go but then there is strong incentive to reduce the bitrate. So you will be getting 4K@6Mbit/s and you will be claiming it is better than 2K@6Mbit/s, this will make me .

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #1001 of 3692 Old 03-06-2012, 05:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,908
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 249 Post(s)
Liked: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck; View Post

To be honest... those comparisons between countries are out of proportion. Most of the places which are topping US are rat dens size- and population-wise. Rescaling for those, US comes very impressive to the top.

Just remove California and New York state for a moment, what is there left
8mile13 is offline  
post #1002 of 3692 Old 03-06-2012, 06:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Richard Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

And now about the 4K using HEVC. It is clear that 4K needs higher bit rate than 2K, the question is how much say it is 3x higher. Then the 2K compressed to the same bit rate will be visually nondistinguishable form the 4K in the TV viewing scenario .

Where did you get your information on the "TV viewing scenario"? You refer to it a lot when you argue against 4K but do you remember where you heard about it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

There is one more thing: modern compression standards are toolboxes where you can compress to any bitrate. Thus, it will be obviously possible to compress the 4K to 2x 2K or even to the same bit rate as 2K but don't tell the 4K will look better then.

HEVC is designed to have comparable image quality at half the bitrate of MPEG-4 AVC High Profile. As such 50 Mbps HEVC is comparable to 100 Mbps MPEG-4 AVC High Profile.
Richard Paul is offline  
post #1003 of 3692 Old 03-06-2012, 09:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
rockaway1836's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Myrtle Beach SC
Posts: 514
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Here's an article posted by Penton- Man over on Blu-ray.com

http://www.twice.com/article/481186-...r_Big_LCDs.php
rockaway1836 is offline  
post #1004 of 3692 Old 03-06-2012, 11:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

Where did you get your information on the "TV viewing scenario"? You refer to it a lot when you argue against 4K but do you remember where you heard about it?

The TV viewing scenario is assumed in every research and testing related to HDTV. There are tons of papers on subjective quality testing and there the
viewing distance used is 3PH - 4PH, to have a taste of this look e.g. recent paper here p. 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

HEVC is designed to have comparable image quality at half the bitrate of MPEG-4 AVC High Profile. As such 50 Mbps HEVC is comparable to 100 Mbps MPEG-4 AVC High Profile.

That is not so simple. Take the H.264 as an example. There is Blu-ray H.264 said to have excellent PQ @25 Mb/s and broadcast H.264 @10 Mb/s also said to have excellent PQ. The problem here is that modern compression standards are toolboxes which can compress to any bitrate with clever masking of artefacts, but for highest PQ the (subtle) artefacts are visible like in Blu-ray vs. broadcast.

For the discussion here, the 2K 100 Mb/s H.264 can be compressed intraframe practically transparent. 4K HEVC @ 50Mb/s won't do it. What will look better, the 2K or 4K?

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #1005 of 3692 Old 03-07-2012, 03:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

For the discussion here, the 2K 100 Mb/s H.264 can be compressed intraframe practically transparent. 4K HEVC @ 50Mb/s won't do it. What will look better, the 2K or 4K?

Definitely 4K. It might look more juddery, but in resolution terms and lack of encoding artefacts it should look the best. Though your comparison didn't mention screen sizes or viewing distance.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #1006 of 3692 Old 03-07-2012, 04:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Definitely 4K. It might look more juddery, but in resolution terms and lack of encoding artefacts it should look the best. Though your comparison didn't mention screen sizes or viewing distance.

My comparison always referrs to the TV viewing scenario 3-4PH. Skipping the 4K and 2K for the moment, the 4K H.264 @100 Mb/s roughly corresponds to the Blue-ray PQ level. It is hard to see 4K HEVC @50Mb/s would look noticeably better in this scenario. This is overall an issue of high PQ, e.g. how a video with PQ better than Blue-ray looks and what it takes to add to the Blue-ray to get it? Better than Blu-ray is a) contribution, b) transparent quality. What one needs to add is are extremely fine details of texture giving it real finish, specific gloss or shine. You can not preserve while significantly reduce the bit rate at the same time.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #1007 of 3692 Old 03-07-2012, 05:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Skipping the 4K and 2K for the moment, the 4K H.264 @100 Mb/s roughly corresponds to the Blue-ray PQ level.

Actually no, it would look a lot better than 1080p Blu-ray (depending on viewing distance & display size) which uses H.264 at a maximum of about 48 Mbps for 2D.

Quote:


My comparison always referrs to the TV viewing scenario 3-4PH.

So you want them to use exactly the same size displays as far away as possible? With 4K displays they'll be able to move closer - there's no point in them moving closer now, when their current TVs are only 1080p - they'd only get a more blurry picture or see the pixels. When they have 4K TVs with 4K content, they'll be able to, and probably will move closer (viewing distance to screen height can be less). eg. NHK recommends a viewing distance of 1.5x picture height for 4096x2160 displays.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #1008 of 3692 Old 03-07-2012, 02:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,219
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

To be honest... those comparisons between countries are out of proportion. Most of the places which are topping US are rat dens size- and population-wise. Rescaling for those, US comes very impressive to the top.

To be honest, removing the rest of the world and just looking at U.S. internet speeds, they are unimpressive. We have all this amazing technology, millions and millions of fiber miles, and single-digit megabit speeds to the home.

If you find that impressive, I would be happy to demonstrate to you my amazing flea circus.

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 #1009 of 3692 Old 03-07-2012, 05:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 226
So the new iPad has finally been announced, has a million more pixels than current HDTVs, and keeps the 9.7" screen size.

1080p TVs are going to look so bad in comparison to this.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #1010 of 3692 Old 03-07-2012, 05:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Richard Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

The TV viewing scenario is assumed in every research and testing related to HDTV. There are tons of papers on subjective quality testing and there the
viewing distance used is 3PH - 4PH, to have a taste of this look e.g. recent paper here p. 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

My comparison always referrs to the TV viewing scenario 3-4PH.

The "TV viewing scenario" that you refer to looks like nothing more than the recommended viewing distance for 2K (1080i/p) displays. What is the point of posting about the "TV viewing scenario" if it is just the recommended viewing distance for 2K displays? How is that relevant to a thread on 4K?


Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

That is not so simple. Take the H.264 as an example. There is Blu-ray H.264 said to have excellent PQ @25 Mb/s and broadcast H.264 @10 Mb/s also said to have excellent PQ. The problem here is that modern compression standards are toolboxes which can compress to any bitrate with clever masking of artefacts, but for highest PQ the (subtle) artefacts are visible like in Blu-ray vs. broadcast.

For the discussion here, the 2K 100 Mb/s H.264 can be compressed intraframe practically transparent. 4K HEVC @ 50Mb/s won't do it. What will look better, the 2K or 4K?

I can see that you want less compressed video but any lossy video codec has a point of diminishing returns when it comes to the bitrate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Skipping the 4K and 2K for the moment, the 4K H.264 @100 Mb/s roughly corresponds to the Blue-ray PQ level. It is hard to see 4K HEVC @50Mb/s would look noticeably better in this scenario.

Personally I think 2160p24 video with the same level of picture quality as what is possible with Blu-ray sounds great.
Richard Paul is offline  
post #1011 of 3692 Old 03-07-2012, 11:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,219
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

So the new iPad has finally been announced, has a million more pixels than current HDTVs, and keeps the 9.7" screen size.

1080p TVs are going to look so bad in comparison to this.

I heard the new iPad is useless since it exceeds the limits of the human visual system.

Oh, I ordered one by the way.

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 #1012 of 3692 Old 03-07-2012, 11:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Actually no, it would look a lot better than 1080p Blu-ray (depending on viewing distance & display size) which uses H.264 at a maximum of about 48 Mbps for 2D.

You do not understand basics: in the investigations of PQ normalized viewing distance is used, for HD it is 3-4PH. Thus the rest you write is irrelevant and this is obvious if you know what normalized means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

So you want them to use exactly the same size displays as far away as possible? With 4K displays they'll be able to move closer - there's no point in them moving closer now, when their current TVs are only 1080p - they'd only get a more blurry picture or see the pixels. When they have 4K TVs with 4K content, they'll be able to, and probably will move closer (viewing distance to screen height can be less). eg. NHK recommends a viewing distance of 1.5x picture height for 4096x2160 displays.

Moving closer to the display is a clear argument in favor of 4K. The problem is this is not a standard TV viewing scenario. Try to arrange your sitting room such that your head on the sofa is at 1,5 PH from the display. Fact that the NHK recommends 1.5 PH is obvious when you look at the foolproof data showing that 4K has no advantage over the 2K for distance bigger than 2.5PH - and that with highest quality sources which are far from consumer quality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

The "TV viewing scenario" that you refer to looks like nothing more than the recommended viewing distance for 2K (1080i/p) displays. What is the point of posting about the "TV viewing scenario" if it is just the recommended viewing distance for 2K displays? How is that relevant to a thread on 4K?

This is not just the recommended distance. This is fundamental distance selected based on human behavior and for this distance the HD system has been designed. The 3-4PH distance was selected as a natural minimum at which people will watch their TVs in the living room. At the same time it has been established that natural viewing angle at this distance is 30 deg. Taking these numbers and data about the resolution of the human visual system for nonstationary targets one arrives at 2K pixels as maximum which the human system can see . Beyond that humans can not see and thus the 4K does not make sense for this scenario. If you still say that this is not relevant to 4K that I don't know what is. Obviously, the 4K makes sense for viewing scenarios where the distance is less than 3H: computer monitors, game rigs, home theater front rows but this is not TV watching.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

I can see that you want less compressed video but any lossy video codec has a point of diminishing returns when it comes to the bitrate.
Personally I think 2160p24 video with the same level of picture quality as what is possible with Blu-ray sounds great.

Above scenarios assume the source quality is perfect. With highly compressed sources there is another level of problems due to the source. What I am saying is that instead of going to highly compressed 4K go to the less compressed 2K and compare - and this is the biggest blunder for the inustry driving 4K .

People who are not learned in compression claim that with the new wonder codecs they will get pristine PQ at low bitrate. This is nonsense. What the modern codecs do is that they do not break, and provide still-acceptable compression, at lower bit rates comparing to older codecs. But for higher and ultimate quality they still require fatter bitrates and are not much different from older codecs. Thus for example there is HDTV running @10Mb/s which is advertised as 'excellent' but everybody knows that for a very good PQ one has to go to the Blu-ray level of 25Mb/s and more. Plus adding the fact that Blu-ray is non-real time compression which is adjusted and optimized multiple times to get the best result.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I heard the new iPad is useless since it exceeds the limits of the human visual system.

This sad statement illustrates that demagogy is born out of ignorance and lack of education. Human visual system resolution is not static since human eyes do not operate like digital cameras. Quite opposite, resolution
of the human visual system is highly dependable on the viewing scenario. iPad viewing scenario is akin to print reading
where the viewing distance is 1-1.5PH, images are mostly static, content analysis is done sequentially by the central part of retina in multiple scanning mode with the participation of eyeballs movements and the acquisition of images is optimized by precise feedback from head movements and motoric system adjustiing position of images. It is well-known that in such conditions resolution of the visual system is very high, where there is in addition high contrast it goes up to the 2400 dpi as one can see in glossy magazines. The iPad is thus a perfect example of the intention to match the display resolution to the viewing scenario. One can also see that this first step and that there is still significant headroom for the electronic displays matching the glossy print PQ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Oh, I ordered one by the way.

Hopefully you will notice that the iPad usage is different from TV. If not, hang the iPad on the wall and watch from the 3-4PH.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #1013 of 3692 Old 03-08-2012, 03:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Hopefully you will notice that the iPad usage is different from TV. If not, hang the iPad on the wall and watch from the 3-4PH.

Sucks for you if your TV is smaller than an iPad in your field of vision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I heard the new iPad is useless since it exceeds the limits of the human visual system.

Oh, I ordered one by the way.

As did I. Can't wait for it to turn up. There are a number of reports out now with people saying it's the best display they've ever seen. Not that it's the best mobile/tablet screen, that it's the best display period, due to the combination of resolution, sharpness and colour reproduction.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #1014 of 3692 Old 03-08-2012, 09:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
saprano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bronx NY
Posts: 3,396
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

So the new iPad has finally been announced, has a million more pixels than current HDTVs, and keeps the 9.7" screen size.

1080p TVs are going to look so bad in comparison to this.



I don't know what to say anymore. You seriously have to be joking.

home theater addict
saprano is offline  
post #1015 of 3692 Old 03-08-2012, 09:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
saprano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bronx NY
Posts: 3,396
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 249
Quote:


Hopefully you will notice that the iPad usage is different from TV. If not, hang the iPad on the wall and watch from the 3-4PH

I don't think they take this into consideration.

Apple sheep? We already have 4K sheep.

home theater addict
saprano is offline  
post #1016 of 3692 Old 03-08-2012, 12:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,219
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

This sad statement illustrates that demagogy is born out of ignorance and lack of education. ...

Hopefully you will notice that the iPad usage is different from TV. If not, hang the iPad on the wall and watch from the 3-4PH.

Who's the demagogue on this topic? Oh, by the way, I have a Samsung TV you can use as a mirror in case you need some help figuring that out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

There are a number of reports out now with people saying it's the best display they've ever seen. Not that it's the best mobile/tablet screen, that it's the best display period, due to the combination of resolution, sharpness and colour reproduction.

Yeah, I saw those comments too. I hope I share their feelings, but regardless have no doubt the display will be amazing.

Mine should be in the first batch, my wife says she was hitting refresh and was pretty confident she got it in almost as soon as the store was back online. I guess we'll know soon enough.

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 #1017 of 3692 Old 03-08-2012, 03:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
saprano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bronx NY
Posts: 3,396
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 249
Hope you guys enjoy bunching your family and friends around that thing.

Some people are so far off the radar. Is it a nice screen with great rez? Yeah, but you can not compare that tiny screen to HDTV sizes. Completely different things. You will not get better detail or sharpness than an HDTV. It appears that way because peoples ugly faces are inches from it and it has a smaller pixel space. Like any other device of that size. Heck a 32" HDTV will appear sharper than a 60" for the same reasons. Adjust your distance from the 60" display to achievethe same sharpness as the 32." Likewise for the new ipad.

So we go from 4K displays to lower rez ipads. Wonderful.

home theater addict
saprano is offline  
post #1018 of 3692 Old 03-08-2012, 05:00 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
Before you continue on your tirade, point is that higher resolution than 1080p has PERCEIVABLE benefits. iPad is just the starter to taste the pudding.

Anyone knows what's the native source of games developed for the new iPad?
specuvestor is offline  
post #1019 of 3692 Old 03-08-2012, 05:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

Hope you guys enjoy bunching your family and friends around that thing.

Some people are so far off the radar. Is it a nice screen with great rez? Yeah, but you can not compare that tiny screen to HDTV sizes. Completely different things. You will not get better detail or sharpness than an HDTV. It appears that way because peoples ugly faces are inches from it and it has a smaller pixel space. Like any other device of that size. Heck a 32" HDTV will appear sharper than a 60" for the same reasons. Adjust your distance from the 60" display to achievethe same sharpness as the 32." Likewise for the new ipad.

So we go from 4K displays to lower rez ipads. Wonderful.

At the distance I sit from my TV, the iPad is smaller in my vision when I am holding it.
I would hope that most people's TVs appear bigger than an iPad screen.

And if they fill more of your vision than an iPad, then they need more resolution to have comparable image quality. Currently, they have a million fewer pixels.


No-one is saying that they are about to replace their TV with one, just that the image quality is going to make HDTVs look poor in comparison. (at least as far as resolution and sharpness are concerned)

And the iPad screen is not "lower rez"it's 264 PPI, whereas Toshiba's 55" 4K displays are only 80 PPI, less than a standard PC monitor. Even an "8K" display would only be 160 PPI.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #1020 of 3692 Old 03-08-2012, 10:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Richard Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

This is not just the recommended distance. This is fundamental distance selected based on human behavior and for this distance the HD system has been designed.

Where did you hear that? From what I have read on the development of ATSC it was limited by the technology of that time. For example it was limited by consumer CRT displays, MPEG-2 decoders, and OTA bandwidth. Also the ATSC organization is starting to develop ATSC 3.0 and one of the potential improvements they are considering is 4K video.


Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

The 3-4PH distance was selected as a natural minimum at which people will watch their TVs in the living room. At the same time it has been established that natural viewing angle at this distance is 30 deg. Taking these numbers and data about the resolution of the human visual system for nonstationary targets one arrives at 2K pixels as maximum which the human system can see . Beyond that humans can not see and thus the 4K does not make sense for this scenario. If you still say that this is not relevant to 4K that I don't know what is.

It is only relevant if you can prove it.
Richard Paul is offline  
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