8K by 4K or Octo HD - the real SUHDTV technology - Page 19 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 18Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #541 of 725 Old 05-17-2013, 06:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 211
Are there any animals who have eyes that might better appreciate 8K than humans do?

If a hawk or a falcon was watching Animal Planet in 8K could they appreciate more resolution with motion than we do?

Are there any animals with a wider field of view than us humans so that they could sit real close to an 8K screen and see great resolution at the extreme sides of the image?

All of this leads me to think that 8K should happen so we can give it to our animal pets.

Some might say that we should become like the animals so we could better appreciate 8K but reflecting on some of the ridiculous posts around here I think that many posters have already become animals!

Sincerely yours,
AVsoraus
vinnie97 likes this.
Artwood is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #542 of 725 Old 05-20-2013, 02:00 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,520
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 65
^Typical Artwood-brand nonsense. OHD is not about watching 8K with magnifying glass. For traditional viewing scenarios OHD has healthy resolution overhead enabling new features e.g. zooming and panning which generally means breaking with the paradigm of transmitted resolution=display resolution. OHD is also enabler of nontraditional scenarios which can not be fully imagined today, e.g. interactive walls.
vilfrard likes this.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #543 of 725 Old 05-29-2013, 06:24 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,520
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 65
8K is the ultimate format and it can be manipulated on a PC: An eye-catching NAB demo of an 8K workflow was shown on the Quantel booth where a 65mm IMAX sequence scanned to 8192 x 6144 was played back and rescaled to 4K in realtime over the Pablo Rio finishing platform. Powered by Nvidia Maximus GPUs the system was capable of nine layers of 4K grading without rendering. 4K output was enabled by a AJA Corvid Ultra (pictured) card and the whole workstation represented the first time Quantel has offered a software-only solution.“It was just fun to show how a desktop PC could play back 8K off the disk,” said Owen. “It was pulling 100GBps off the drives in real time, playing it, manipulating it, adding LUTs and then sizing it down to a 4K proxy display on the screen in real time.”

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #544 of 725 Old 05-30-2013, 10:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 211
If you can indeed barely get a 171 inch display through a seven foot door into a house--at what distance from the 171 inch screen would you have to sit to get the full impact of the 8K resolution?

And just to forestall anyone from claiming that I'm asking a ridiculous question--I doubt that there will be screens larger than 171 inches.

That may be a ridiculous size but if you know how far away to sit from a 171 inch to enjoy full 6K resolution then you'll knoiw how far you'll have to be away for smaller sizes which will be EVEN less!

Someone be BRAVE and say how far you have to be aWAy from a 171 inch screen to maximize the perception of 8K resolution so we might be able to ascertain if 8K makes sens in the home or just won't do it!

Maybe you have to have a home theater built like a theater with a much higher ceiling and I have no problem with that.

I'm not against 8K--I do think that you have to have a really big screen.

My question is HOW big say if you're 9 feet away--I think that that is the distance that a lot of people sit from their diusplays--though I know that there are many who sit closer.
Artwood is offline  
post #545 of 725 Old 05-30-2013, 10:32 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,520
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

If you can indeed barely get a 171 inch display through a seven foot door into a house--at what distance from the 171 inch screen would you have to sit to get the full impact of the 8K resolution?
I'm not against 8K--I do think that you have to have a really big screen.

The question itself makes no sense. 8K is not about distance since even at 1PH 4K is full enough. 8K carries healthy overhead for new scenarios: zooming, panning and interactive. For example interactive walls.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #546 of 725 Old 05-30-2013, 10:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,637
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 553 Post(s)
Liked: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

If you can indeed barely get a 171 inch display through a seven foot door into a house

Well, {chuckle}, it was already nuts, so I left out that a 7 ft. door is likely 3' wide, which will give you a slanted height of 91.38" to tip the thing through (if it were infinitely thin). You can do the fun math I laid out previously if you want.

Quote:
Someone be BRAVE and say how far you have to be aWAy from a 171 inch screen to maximize the perception of 8K resolution so we might be able to ascertain if 8K makes sens in the home or just won't do it!

I don't look at it quite that way. You're saying the further back you get, the smaller the dots, hence the better "realization" of the resolution. Fair enough, but I would rephrase it to the argument presented already: How far away can you get and still see 8K vs. mumbleLessThan8K? I'll only give the same instinctive guess that only a few of us have given: Don't go by any static acuity eye measurements.

Quote:
I'm not against 8K--

Yes you are, if it's LCD, and I'm betting it's gonna be. smile.gif

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #547 of 725 Old 05-30-2013, 10:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 211
Quit avoiding the resolution question--to be sure it will help when it comes to panning zooming and panning and 3D.

What I'm really asking is the plain old watch the TV resolution diminishing rate of returns question.

People can easily see how 1080p is better than 480p--with 4K that difference is much less--to see it you have to either sit real real close or look at a real BIG display or some combination of the two.

How much MORE does that come into play with 8K displays? Especially when it comes to just plain old watching TV?

You won't hear proponents of 8K talk about that here because they really want to sell 8K and KNOW that just for plain old TV watching to get the most out of 8K the display has to be MASSIVE X MASSVE X SIT CLOSE!

In my opinion the only thing that will drive 8K would be 3-D. Look for it in 2036!

P.S. the question still stands--how close would you have to sit to a 171 inch to be able to SEE with 20/20 vision the maximum effect of 8K resolution?

If no one answers that question then don't believe anything else the sales force has to say!
Artwood is offline  
post #548 of 725 Old 05-30-2013, 11:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
borf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I'll say 5.5' for an 8k 171" screen.
(extrapolating 4k to 171" gets 11' and 8k pixels are half the size)









http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57566079-221/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/
borf is offline  
post #549 of 725 Old 05-30-2013, 12:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,637
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 553 Post(s)
Liked: 881
Has everyone dissing 4K actually seen 4K?????

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #550 of 725 Old 05-31-2013, 06:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
whitetrash66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 20
8K is interesting to me.... i have a 133" screen and a sony 1080P projector, and the picture is very VERY sharp. I have also seen the 4K 65" sony with a 4k demo, and the pq is amazing, but not too far away. My 133" screen, though, would definately benefit. But 8K? even I don't know if there is a point, and i'm a guy who has been very seriously considering sonys 4k vw1000. If 4k is as sharp as everyone says, and if my 1080p projector already looks fantastic, would i even notice a difference in 8k? how much sharper could it be? its hard to imagine these things when you can't see them with your own eyes.
whitetrash66 is offline  
post #551 of 725 Old 05-31-2013, 07:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by borf View Post

I'll say 5.5' for an 8k 171" screen.
(extrapolating 4k to 171" gets 11' and 8k pixels are half the size)

*http://www.avsforum.com/content/type/61/id/216326/width/350/height/700*


http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57566079-221/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/
Please take notice on the validity and origins of that chart posted in another thread almost at the same time you posted.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1309492/4k-by-2k-or-quad-hd-lots-of-rumors-thoughts/3120#post_23372831
Quote:
(extrapolating 4k to 171" gets 11' and 8k pixels are half the size)
I don't really know what you mean by that, but to avoid misunderstandings. 8K pixels are quarter of 4K, not half.
coolscan is offline  
post #552 of 725 Old 05-31-2013, 08:23 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,520
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitetrash66 View Post

8K is interesting to me.... i have a 133" screen and a sony 1080P projector, and the picture is very VERY sharp. I have also seen the 4K 65" sony with a 4k demo, and the pq is amazing, but not too far away. My 133" screen, though, would definately benefit. But 8K? even I don't know if there is a point, and i'm a guy who has been very seriously considering sonys 4k vw1000. If 4k is as sharp as everyone says, and if my 1080p projector already looks fantastic, would i even notice a difference in 8k? how much sharper could it be? its hard to imagine these things when you can't see them with your own eyes.

Get off your narrow point of view and see how the Japanese quantify the advantages of 8K by the "sense of being there" and the "sense of realness" biggrin.gif.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #553 of 725 Old 05-31-2013, 10:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 211
borf is my hero and speaks the truth!

I will say this: If you're 5.5 feet away from a 171 inch screen--man you'd feel like you were in the movie!

What would happen if a hippie was doing LSD and was 5.5 feet away from a 171 inch screen that was showing 8K in 3-D?!!!
Artwood is offline  
post #554 of 725 Old 05-31-2013, 11:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
borf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Please take notice on the validity and origins of that chart posted in another thread almost at the same time you posted..

I saw the commotion coolscan. I suspect the dismissive attitude is more of a reaction to Geoffrey Morrison's "Why 4k is stupid" title than to the validity of Bale's chart. You might accept the chart without agreeing with Morrison imo. I'm not for or against 4K just taking advantage of some one who did homework. You can argue the chart (as you have) but to be honest I didn't see anyone present any actual evidence to refute it, just a lot of complaining. (side note, if you want to go by pixel area instead of pixel dimensions you need to sit 2.5' from the screen not 5.5' but that doesn't help your case)
borf is offline  
post #555 of 725 Old 06-01-2013, 07:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,637
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 553 Post(s)
Liked: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by borf View Post

(side note, if you want to go by pixel area instead of pixel dimensions you need to sit 2.5' from the screen not 5.5' but that doesn't help your case)

Are people getting confused by this? I've lost track of who has said what already. But be clear. To the side whether or not 4K should be referred to as 2x or 4x the "resolution of 2K (I've argued why it's 4x), when calculating Z distances from the screen to equate pixel densities, you pay attention to only one of either of the XY dimensions, not the pixel area. That is: more or less: a big fat 1"x1" pixel at 5 ft. looks like a 2"x2" pixel does at 10 ft.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #556 of 725 Old 06-01-2013, 03:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
borf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

you pay attention to only one of either of the XY dimensions, not the pixel area.

I agree, we should look at pixel size (not area) when judging "perceived" resolution. That's why 4k is only 2x the resolution of 2k (to us). 4k pixels are 1/2 the size and 1/4 the area but size is what's perceived. Check out the chart above. The equivalent viewing distance decreases by half when going from 2k to 4k (a 4x pixel density increase). Why? I would say it's because you need to move twice as close to see pixels twice as small.
borf is offline  
post #557 of 725 Old 06-01-2013, 04:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,637
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 553 Post(s)
Liked: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by borf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

you pay attention to only one of either of the XY dimensions, not the pixel area.

I agree, we should look at pixel size (not area) when judging "perceived" resolution. That's why 4k is only 2x the resolution of 2k (to us). 4k pixels are 1/2 the size and 1/4 the area but size is what's perceived. Check out the chart above. The equivalent viewing distance decreases by half when going from 2k to 4k (a 4x pixel density increase). Why? I would say it's because you need to move twice as close to see pixels twice as small.

No, there's still a terminology clash here. Actually, conceptual as well. The statement "4K is only 2x the resolution of 2K" is false, but only because of the term "resolution". You're connecting two disparate notions. 4K has 4 times the information of 2K, hence 4 times the ability to resolve. But we're back to a semantic argument (regarding the term resolution) that we don't need to enter again.

This has nothing to do with saying what distance we need to be to have various sized pixels look the same.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #558 of 725 Old 06-01-2013, 07:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
borf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

You're connecting two disparate notions. But we're back to a semantic argument (regarding the term resolution) that we don't need to enter again.

Yes I though it was clear we were talking about "perceived" resolution. I am aware this has nothing to do with the technical term.
4k is technically 4x the resolution no doubt, but perceptually (as pertains to acuity) it's obviously not. Maybe we can agree on that.
borf is offline  
post #559 of 725 Old 06-02-2013, 05:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,637
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 553 Post(s)
Liked: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by borf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

You're connecting two disparate notions. But we're back to a semantic argument (regarding the term resolution) that we don't need to enter again.

Yes I though it was clear we were talking about "perceived" resolution. I am aware this has nothing to do with the technical term.
4k is technically 4x the resolution no doubt, but perceptually (as pertains to acuity) it's obviously not. Maybe we can agree on that.

Not exactly that: The objection I had was that it seemed like a connection was being made between using resolution the way the manufacturers were, and a mathematical mistake regarding perception were the distance from the screen got hacked in half an additional time.

Doesn't matter, we're on the same page, that's the bottom line.

The problem with the term "resolution" is that people have latched it to the term "DPI". I'm not against that, it's perfectly sensible. I use it that way too....it'd be stupid not to these days. It's actually how the term has become dual-defined over time and how it's been mostly used for as long as I can remember. I'm just establishing that it's just that the manufacturers do need a way of explaining that you get 4 times the information (read as "clarity", etc.), so they're using resolution----even if they don't know it's more of a old fashioned "purist" way of looking at it.

Maybe what they should have used is another obtuse term: Megapixels, since the customer is already vaguely aware of what that means.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #560 of 725 Old 06-02-2013, 07:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
borf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

you get 4 times the information (read as "clarity", etc.)

After thinking about it, I'm converted...at equivalent viewing distances (pixel sizes being equal) 4k yields four times as many pixels.
Seems like a perfectly acceptable way of looking at it and a sound base for the "4x clarity" thing, so good one!
borf is offline  
post #561 of 725 Old 06-02-2013, 08:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,637
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 553 Post(s)
Liked: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by borf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

you get 4 times the information (read as "clarity", etc.)

After thinking about it, I'm converted...at equivalent viewing distances (pixel sizes being equal) 4k yields four times as many pixels.
Seems like a perfectly acceptable way of looking at it and a sound base for the "4x clarity" thing, so good one!

Thanks. LOL..... The way I usually explain it is to imagine that the DPI doubles in one direction only. That would be "2x information/resolution/clarity/etc." Eh. There are better battles to fight in these parts.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #562 of 725 Old 06-02-2013, 11:38 AM
Member
 
forsureman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
There is twice as many pixels in 4k but you see they measure the picture diagonally, so it won't be either 2x or 4x better but some odd number based on how the extra pixels improve the diagonal picture.
forsureman is offline  
post #563 of 725 Old 06-02-2013, 02:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 211
Whatever happened to the hippie looking at the 171-inch?
Artwood is offline  
post #564 of 725 Old 06-02-2013, 03:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by forsureman View Post

There is twice as many pixels in 4k but you see they measure the picture diagonally, so it won't be either 2x or 4x better but some odd number based on how the extra pixels improve the diagonal picture.
eek.gif > confused.gif > confused.gif > Irony or complete confusion?

Strange that this still has to be discussed and corrected.

For consumer displays standard.
  • HD = 2 Megapixel rounded > 1920 x 1080 = 2073600 pixel > x 4 = 8294400 pixel.(4K)
  • 4K-UHD1 = 8 Mega pixel rounded > 1920 x 2 + 1080 x 2 = 3840 x 2160 > 8294400 pixel.(4K)
  • 8K-UHD2 = 33 Megapixel rounded > 3840 x 2 + 2160 x 2 = 7680 x 4320 > 33177600 pixel.(8K)
  • 1920 x 8 + 1080 x 8 = 7680 x 4320 > 33177600 pixel.(8K)

Resolution is always the sum of all pixels in the display.
No resolution is ever measured diagonally, only display size is measured diagonally.
coolscan is offline  
post #565 of 725 Old 06-03-2013, 08:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,637
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 553 Post(s)
Liked: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by forsureman View Post

There is twice as many pixels in 4k but you see they measure the picture diagonally, so it won't be either 2x or 4x better but some odd number based on how the extra pixels improve the diagonal picture.


WHAT????????

LOL! Oh man. Take math again. Doubling the diagonal of a rectangle, doubles the width and height, and quadruples the area.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #566 of 725 Old 06-03-2013, 09:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,637
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 553 Post(s)
Liked: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by forsureman View Post

There is twice as many pixels in 4k but you see they measure the picture diagonally, so it won't be either 2x or 4x better but some odd number based on how the extra pixels improve the diagonal picture.
eek.gif > confused.gif > confused.gif > Irony or complete confusion?

No irony.

It's simply mathematical ignorance. No worries, geometric visualizations isn't everyone's long suit.

Look at a rectangle in your mind. Now look at the diagonal. Now stack 3 additional rectangles so that you have 2 horizontally and 2 vertically (4 in total). Look at the diagonals. They're twice the original.

Diagonals: doubled.
Width: doubled.
Height: doubled.
Area: quadrupled.
My patience: hacked in half.

LOL............

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #567 of 725 Old 06-03-2013, 11:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 2,715
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 102
This slightly-out-of-date graphic (because it focused on the Digital Cinema 4096x2160 (17:9) aspect ratio for "4k2k" rather than 3840x2160) can be helpful if you think of the same seating position 6' from 3 displays with picture heights 24", 48", and 96" (diagonal picture sizes approx 50", 100", and 200", respectively). The pixels are the same size on all three displays (and of course, the "central" 1920x1080 block of pixels is also the same size on all three displays).



However, I'm not sure NHK thinks of 0.75 x Picture Height as the "Standard Viewing Distance" (which appears originally to have been thought equivalent to "max resolution") for 8k4k displays any longer--this NHK+JEITA demo living room at CEATEC Japan 2012 looks like viewers are seated almost 3 x PH from the display).



Also note "modified" Hamasaki 22.2 speaker configuration to accommodate non-acoustically transparent, direct view display (and missing 'imaginary' ceiling. . . and center overhead speaker!) cool.gif
_

[Home Office system schematic]
"My AV systems were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many speakers. And they have . . . A PLAN."

SoundChex is online now  
post #568 of 725 Old 06-03-2013, 12:39 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

This slightly-out-of-date graphic (because it focused on the Digital Cinema 4096x2160 aspect ratio for "4k2k" rather than 3840x2160) can be helpful if you think of the same seating position 6' from 3 displays with picture heights 24", 48", and 96" (diagonal picture sizes approx 50", 100", and 200", respectively). The pixels are the same size on all three displays (and of course, the "central" 1920x1080 block of pixels is also the same size on all three displays).



However, I'm not sure NHK thinks of 0.75 x Picture Height as the "Standard Viewing Distance" (which appears originally to have been thought equivalent to "max resolution") for 8k4k displays any longer--this NHK+JEITA demo living room at CEATEC Japan 2012 looks like viewers are seated almost 3 x PH from the display).


_

I agree that 0.75 PH is probably too close for most anyone, but 3.0 PH too far for 4K to be an improvement over 1080p. ~1.5 to 2.0 PH, though, is nice for some (I sit just under 2.0 PH from a 4K display), and 4K is certainly 'worth it' at this distance.
millerwill is offline  
post #569 of 725 Old 06-03-2013, 10:22 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,520
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

I agree that 0.75 PH is probably too close for most anyone, but 3.0 PH too far for 4K to be an improvement over 1080p. ~1.5 to 2.0 PH, though, is nice for some (I sit just under 2.0 PH from a 4K display), and 4K is certainly 'worth it' at this distance.
'

0.75 is not probably too close, it is definitely too close as anyone can check with the computer monitor. Even 1.5-2.0 PH is too close if one takes standard living room viewing scenario (if you are not a monk watching x-rated in your solitary confinement biggrin.gif). To figure out realistic conditions for 4K one has to start with the typical living room comfortable viewing distance in the range of 10 feet. Then, assuming the viewing distance of about 2.5 PH where the benefits of 4K are still evident, one arrives at a 100"-class display. One could notice that already demonstrated 110" 4K LCD would be ideal here.

From traditional viewpoint a 100-incher is gargantuan, better fitting to a special HT space than to a living room. But it may become acceptable for a videophile segment as the 80"+ class is becoming acceptable now.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #570 of 725 Old 06-04-2013, 07:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

'

0.75 is not probably too close, it is definitely too close as anyone can check with the computer monitor. Even 1.5-2.0 PH is too close if one takes standard living room viewing scenario (if you are not a monk watching x-rated in your solitary confinement biggrin.gif). To figure out realistic conditions for 4K one has to start with the typical living room comfortable viewing distance in the range of 10 feet. Then, assuming the viewing distance of about 2.5 PH where the benefits of 4K are still evident, one arrives at a 100"-class display. One could notice that already demonstrated 110" 4K LCD would be ideal here.

From traditional viewpoint a 100-incher is gargantuan, better fitting to a special HT space than to a living room. But it may become acceptable for a videophile segment as the 80"+ class is becoming acceptable now.

Looks like we are again talking about different things, you about general purpose tv and me more about an HT setting. For the latter, 2 PH, or even less, is not uncommon at all.
millerwill is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Tags
Lcd Hdtv , Displays , Plasma Hdtv , Panasonic

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off