Interest In A 1080 vs 4K Shootout? Can We Get to the Heart of the Matter? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 101 Old 10-16-2013, 11:05 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 162
I realize there are a nearly unending number of variables in play here, so please: let's try to keep this dialog constructive and open. Maybe, just maybe, we can come to a fairly equitable set of guidelines if enough are interested in such a demonstration.

Brief personal explanation:

I just recently completely a 157" screen in my garage I use in conjunction with a 1080 Panny PJ, as some are aware. Now, I'm not here to beat my chest about it- there are a TON of other executions on AVS and elsewhere that outperform it in every regard- just sayin' FYI.

That said, I simply could not ignore the reality that at 20 or so feet, I was/am extremely challenged to extract all of the detail. Basically, if I begin to move closer to the screen, I discern more of the content. Simple as that.

Now, before anyone makes the determination that I'm crazy, blind, near-blind, or any combination of the aforementioned, please understand I just had my vision checked 7 months ago and I'm 20/15 according to my doc. I am 100% confident my sight is at least as acute as most and certainly that of the "normative" 20/20.

SO then, after being substantially unmoved by the 4k displays I've seen in various arenas...crucially, that's at a REASONABLE viewing distance, I am to the point where I'd really like to partake in a controlled A/B A/B/X of both 1080 and 4k if it is at all doable. Ok, maybe just for fun as we may discover. smile.gif

Again, I realize this could/will be extremely arduous, for many reasons. Still, I'd like to lend the ear/wisdom of the many experts here to ascertain if such a project could be undertaken with anything resembling an equitable playing field.

I'm just going to throw out the problems/areas-requiring-attention that I see and their possible resolutions...heck, if we really don't have interest in this to begin with there's no sense in wasting mine or anyone else's time in the first place.

Here I go...gulp.

I. Source material:

A. Blu ray sounds nice and easy...with of course the massive distinction/exception that it's 1080, natively. tongue.giffrown.gif

My thoughts...

1. Reality: for now and the foreseeable future, there will be little to no 4k media, so blu ray as a comparable source is fine.

2. Still, doesn't it have to be native vs native? The upscaling of 1080 onto a 4K display surely puts the 4K PJ/display at a bit of a disadvantage. Shall it be native 4k material for the 4k display device or nothing?

Your thoughts? I realize there is indeed 4k media available so the latter could easily be done. Heck, we could do BOTH. smile.gif

II. Display/PJ Selection and Calibration

A. To me this seems to be the largest obstacle. How on earth do you select "comparable" 1080 and 4 K display devices? Of course common sense dictates it should be an identically tech'd PJ vs PJ or an identically tech'd flat panel vs flat panel.

B. But then, stay within one manufacturer, right? That way you can (likely) calibrate them much closer/have much more similar screen types? I realize this is a bit of an "obvious" assumption, but many more here know much more than I in this regard. smile.gif

C. Most imperatively: can we achieve: indistinguishable color, brightness, contrast, etc? Or at least nearly indistinguishable- especially from a 2.5 PH (or whatever we decide upon) distance?

Even more basically: can we dial in two identically-sized displays extremely closely so that they can be fairly judged JUST from a detail/resolution standpoint? This of course may be impossible. Asking nonetheless.

III. Viewing distance/comparison methodology

A. I of course cannot speak for anyone else but the 2.5 picture height distance is a winner for me. I realize some sit closer. I also realize some won't ever sit that close in their life. Still, it seems to me that it's a very reasonable starting point...splitting the difference between the aforementioned while getting pretty close for a good number more.

My 157" screen for instance puts me at 17.5 feet for the 2.5 PH which is the THX "recommended" distance for my screen. Honestly, many times it seems too close to me, but, there you go. Thoughts?

B. Are their any drawbacks to the screens being equidistant from our defined viewing distance for the sake of comparison? Thoughts?

C. Darkened room seems obvious to me. Thoughts?


IV. "Other"

A. I'm running a bit short on time but I wanted to get this out there. I am convinced these mono e mono comparisons are going to be popping up everywhere at some point so I guess I/we could let others do the heavy lifting and simply enjoy (ok, let's be honest, as this is AVS: ARGUE ABOUT) the results, but where's the fun in that (using someone else's results, that is wink.gif )?

I'm sure I left much out in the above, please feel free to add other obvious and not so obvious hurdles.

This could be very fun AND put absolutely nothing to rest...what else could we ask for on AVS?! wink.giftongue.gifbiggrin.gif


thanks for listening and contributing!

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 offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 101 Old 10-16-2013, 12:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,584
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 227
If I were setting up a comparison, I would be inclined to run it on the same display, allocating half for 4K and the other half for 1080p. For the 1080p half, use pixel doubling. (one pixel = 2x2 pixels on 4K)
This is better resolving than a 1080p native display, but eliminates so many other variables, it seems like a worthwhile trade-off.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #3 of 101 Old 10-16-2013, 12:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 2,890
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 206
Is 4k vs 2K going to turn into the same argument about whether all amps sound the same? Anyone who can see a difference will have to prove it in a double blind test or else they'll be told it's all in their head.
KidHorn is offline  
post #4 of 101 Old 10-16-2013, 12:32 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
You raise valid points. 4K vs. 2K side-by-side display comparison has many problems. Obviously one needs native 4K content and its 2K downscaled version. But getting 'identical' 4K and 2K displays is rather big question mark. Sony seems to me to be the only one still making 65"@4K and 65"@2K TVs but it is not clear it they use LCD panels in the same technology.

A simpler and more practical route would to be use single 4K display with specially prepared content showing half picture in 4K and second half in downscaled 2K version or even sequentially changing between the 4K and 2K parts. High-end video editing wizards could easily make such test content.

4K vs. 2K in cinema conditions has been evaluated in detail with conclusion that there is added value within specific viewing distance ranges. Conclusion of consumer research in this study (page 12): Focus group research confirms that real-world theater-goers can see the 4K difference. Movies were presented to a theater audience in both 2K and 4K, without identifying which was which—and without saying anything about the technical differences between the pictures. Audience members were not told to expect a resolution difference in these "unaided" tests. Even under these demanding circumstances, respondents consistently gave 4K higher marks for every aspect of picture quality. Respondents also gave 4K higher scores than 2K on every measure of expected consumer behavior including, "This is something I would tell my friends about," "This is worth paying more for," and "I would go out of my way to go to a theater that offered this type of picture quality."
2gully and Sabidox like this.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #5 of 101 Old 10-16-2013, 12:36 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

Is 4k vs 2K going to turn into the same argument about whether all amps sound the same? Anyone who can see a difference will have to prove it in a double blind test or else they'll be told it's all in their head.

Is that an unreasonable request?

Should not a difference be identifiable? That's (an ABX) an "ideal" to me, but if it cannot be perfected (or agreed to be "close enough") I guess we'll ALL make our best attempts at being civil, right? wink.gifbiggrin.gif

If we indeed can get these displays close enough for a decent side by side, I don't know that an ABX is at all out of the question. I'd like to think we have the resources and manpower between all of us.

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 offline  
post #6 of 101 Old 10-16-2013, 12:37 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

Is 4k vs 2K going to turn into the same argument about whether all amps sound the same? Anyone who can see a difference will have to prove it in a double blind test or else they'll be told it's all in their head.
Sounding different is one thing, making subjective claims that one sounds better is quite another.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #7 of 101 Old 10-16-2013, 12:39 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

You raise valid points. 4K vs. 2K side-by-side display comparison has many problems. Obviously one needs native 4K content and its 2K downscaled version. But getting 'identical' 4K and 2K displays is rather big question mark. Sony seems to me to be the only one still making 65"@4K and 65"@2K TVs but it is not clear it they use LCD panels in the same technology.

A simpler and more practical route would to be use single 4K display with specially prepared content showing half picture in 4K and second half in downscaled 2K version or even sequentially changing between the 4K and 2K parts. High-end video editing wizards could easily make such test content.

4K vs. 2K in cinema conditions has been evaluated in detail with conclusion that there is added value within specific viewing distance ranges. Conclusion of consumer research in this study (page 12): Focus group research confirms that real-world theater-goers can see the 4K difference. Movies were presented to a theater audience in both 2K and 4K, without identifying which was which—and without saying anything about the technical differences between the pictures. Audience members were not told to expect a resolution difference in these "unaided" tests. Even under these demanding circumstances, respondents consistently gave 4K higher marks for every aspect of picture quality. Respondents also gave 4K higher scores than 2K on every measure of expected consumer behavior including, "This is something I would tell my friends about," "This is worth paying more for," and "I would go out of my way to go to a theater that offered this type of picture quality."

Yeah this is much too deep of water for me to tread. Personally I cannot escape the thought that downscaling an image to replicate 1080 on a 4K display is wrought with the same issues (or worse, potentially) that upscaling a 1080 image on a 4k display possesses.

I could be completely incorrect of course but I'd appreciate a brief explanation as to why if someone can provide such a thing.

thanks

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 offline  
post #8 of 101 Old 10-16-2013, 12:45 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 162
this "one display" option just seems too easy to me. wink.gifsmile.gif

Surely there has to be (a) drawback(s)?

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 offline  
post #9 of 101 Old 10-16-2013, 12:50 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

Sounding different is one thing, making subjective claims that one sounds better is quite another.

Well unless "different" equates to a precisely identical subjective discrepancy...one HAS to be better or worse. There is no such thing as "different but equal" don't you know? tongue.gifbiggrin.gif

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 offline  
post #10 of 101 Old 10-17-2013, 09:06 AM
Member
 
housequestion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 127
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
I'd take a look at this historically.

The argument for DVD over VHS was huge. Smaller cases, no need to rewind the movie, it doesn't really degrade over the usable life, more durable in many instances, a huge gain in picture quality and a huge gain in picture along with an aspect ratio that was more like a theatre.

The argument for BluRay over an upscaled DVD wasn't that great. A slight gain in picture quality. This came at the price of Hollywood permanently increasing the cost of movies and some restrictions to how you can use the output on the video

Now you'll get a slightly improved picture though in most cases what you see will just be upscaled. Some sources, such as netflix, will never support 4k. Cable doesn't support it and likely wouldn't for a long, long time.

It's great that the technology is out there, but it's fixing a problem that has already been fixed.

That doesn't even take into account the hardware change. 1080P TV's have become a dominant format largely because of their form factor. If the modern 1080P panels had the same form factor as an old CRT, you'd still have CRT as the dominant medium. Flat screens became the dominant medium because of their form factor. Lots of the general public bought them for that. That gave the economies of scale to bring down prices to levels that cause the scale reinforcing loop.

With a 4K TV, there aren't non-enthusiasts who would bother.
housequestion is offline  
post #11 of 101 Old 10-17-2013, 10:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 2,890
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by housequestion View Post

Some sources, such as netflix, will never support 4k. Cable doesn't support it and likely wouldn't for a long, long time.

Why do you think this?

I thought H.265 was going to reduce the bandwidth requirements considerably.
KidHorn is offline  
post #12 of 101 Old 10-17-2013, 10:38 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 housequestion View Post

With a 4K TV, there aren't non-enthusiasts who would bother.

Yeah, but regarding the 4K sets they are on the road of parity with the 2K sets pricewise. When this happens everybody will buy 4K. Then 4K content starts appearing.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #13 of 101 Old 10-17-2013, 10:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 2,890
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Yeah, but regarding the 4K sets they are on the road of parity with the 2K sets pricewise. When this happens everybody will buy 4K. Then 4K content starts appearing.

I agree. I expect that within 5 years, the only TVs available will be 4K. It won't be cost effective to make 2k TVs any more.
KidHorn is offline  
post #14 of 101 Old 10-17-2013, 01:22 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 KidHorn View Post

I agree. I expect that within 5 years, the only TVs available will be 4K. It won't be cost effective to make 2k TVs any more.

In 5 years 8K displays are to be expected since LCD is breaking resolution-price dependence. Thus, 8K should appear after 4K even
if it is not needed, just because bigger number is more appealing to consumers. Same as 20 megapixel compact cameras are
seen as better than 10 megapixel ones (while opposite is truer).

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #15 of 101 Old 10-20-2013, 03:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,353
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 398 Post(s)
Liked: 761

Why not produce a 1920x1080 image for testing on 1080p TV's.

 

And half at 1080, the other half at 540.

 

And have people record the distance where the two videos (or image stills) seem the same.

 

And cut that distance in half.

 

That way, everyone with a 2K set can gauge on their own TV sizes what distances would matter should they upgrade to 4K.


Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #16 of 101 Old 10-23-2013, 05:50 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 mastermaybe View Post

If we indeed can get these displays close enough for a decent side by side, I don't know that an ABX is at all out of the question. I'd like to think we have the resources and manpower between all of us.
James

Your prayings were listened And tests were made in an immaculate way like they would have been done in heaven.

And the results read: "So was there a difference between the 4K and 1080p images? The simple answer is yes—the 4K films did show a noticeable bump in image detail compared to their HD counterparts. But there's a caveat: These differences were not present on all movies, and were visible only when viewed less than 2 feet from the screen, and even then only on certain scenes. When I moved back about 7 feet from the displays, differences between 4K and HD content were not discernable to any meaningful degree. In all cases, the differences between the two formats were in the very finest details in the image."

So now relax since you are saved from doing the tests, if not from the 4K totally biggrin.gif.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #17 of 101 Old 10-23-2013, 05:55 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 162
^ LMAO. I came here basically to iterate the same.

All code for: "No, there's not really a discernable difference in the slightest at any reasonable distance where one would actually use the television."

But the thought of these poor guys pausing media on a half dozen screens diving in- back and forth- and saying to themselves "wait I see something...no, I don't it's really the same as the 1080" are nothing if not simultaneously sad and hilarious.

Now, where's the next 5 articles essentially conjured up by those with a vested interest in the propagation of this "technology" that are virtual textual glasses of UHD kool-aid?

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 offline  
post #18 of 101 Old 10-23-2013, 06:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,353
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 398 Post(s)
Liked: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

If we indeed can get these displays close enough for a decent side by side, I don't know that an ABX is at all out of the question. I'd like to think we have the resources and manpower between all of us.
James

Your prayings were listened And tests were made in an immaculate way like they would have been done in heaven.

 

STOP RIGHT THERE.  I noticed a few things right away.

 

1. It was not like they were done in heaven.  Please everyone, actually read that article yourselves and don't take the above quote for gospel.  The "do I notice it" were the observations of one person.  "Done in heaven".  You've GOT to be kidding me.

 

2. It was done by Consumer Reports.  This is my own personal (yet learned) bias.  I don't care if you believe me or not, but I cancelled CR a long time ago because I discovered one glaring hole after another in a large percentage of their reports.  Outside this article, if you read CR, please look carefully at how they draw conclusions, and how they misread statistics.

 

3. In his bottom set of paragraphs, he was watching a 1080p version upconverted.

EDIT: His first comments there on watching a 1080p movie on a 1080p set at first and how everything is "sharp as a tack".  Not a side by side.

 

4. Weren't most of the movies in the side by side test upconverted?

 

5. (Honest question): What were some of those movies actually shot in?  I know there's a lot of 4K shooting going on now especially with the Red cameras, but aren't a number of older digital movies (and TV shows) shot in 2.5K?  I thought someone here pointed that recently.

 

All the above caveating aside, I am more than willing to view motion as far less resolution-discernable than static images, (and have said so numerous times) but only because of my own studies on it over the years.  But not from that article.


Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #19 of 101 Old 10-23-2013, 06:19 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Ok.

1. READ the article. I DID, it appears you did not. Have an issue with how anything was done? STATE it. Don't simply throw out a baseless generalization like we should take your word over CR's...well, just because. That's absurd. rolleyes.gif

2. UNDERSTAND how comprehensive the testing is/was.

3. PROCESS why at least two of the authors on this site, I, and others fiercely disagree with you.

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 offline  
post #20 of 101 Old 10-23-2013, 06:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,353
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 398 Post(s)
Liked: 761

Besides. I want 8K.  Just 'cause.  And I like Kool-Aid.


Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #21 of 101 Old 10-23-2013, 06:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,353
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 398 Post(s)
Liked: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Ok.

1. READ the article. I DID, it appears you did not.
Huh.  I didn't say you didn't, I'm telling folks to make sure they do.  But if we're doing mind reading, ok.  Apparently "you did not."  What's next?  "Liar liar pants on fire?"
 
Quote:
Have an issue with how anything was done? STATE it.

You may have seen the original post of 2 items.  I've added a few more.  If you did read the items, then I did state it.

 

Quote:
Don't simply throw out a baseless generalization like we should take your word over CR's...well, just because. That's absurd. rolleyes.gif

BS.  I pointed out that it's a bias of mine.  Take it or leave it.  You're obviously leaving it.  What's absurd is your baseless generalization of "Kool-Aid".
 

Quote:
2. UNDERSTAND how comprehensive the testing is/was.

Apparently you "didn't read the article".
 

Quote:
3. PROCESS why at least two of the authors on this site, I, and others fiercely disagree with you.

I'm not your shrink.  I'm not a mind reader.

 

Further, there may be others, but don't manipulate things.  Regarding that article, TWO people so far (not "at least two") coupled with more exaggeration "I, and others fiercely disagree with you", are not evident yet.  They may be, but those are currently exaggerations regarding this article.  Others will chime in, but they didn't above.


 


Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #22 of 101 Old 10-23-2013, 07:01 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 tgm1024 View Post

STOP RIGHT THERE.  I noticed a few things right away.
1. It was not like they were done in heaven.  Please everyone, actually read that article yourselves and don't take the above quote for gospel.  The "do I notice it" were the observations of one person.  "Done in heaven".  You've GOT to be kidding me.
2. It was done by Consumer Reports.  This is my own personal (yet learned) bias.  I don't care if you believe me or not, but I cancelled CR a long time ago because I discovered one glaring hole after another in a large percentage of their reports.  Outside this article, if you read CR, please look carefully at how they draw conclusions, and how they misread statistics.

It was side-by-side test with top panels in controlled conditions. The person who did has very considerable expertise. You may wish to read this mint-fresh report about the CR test facilities and procedures. If this is not heaven-on-earth for testing TVs then I don't know what is.

Accusation of bias is rather improbable in this case. What kind of interest would the CR have in total bombing of the 4K? If anything, they would rather be pro-4K promoting it to refresh the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

3. In his bottom set of paragraphs, he was watching a 1080p version upconverted.
4. Weren't most of the movies in the side by side test upconverted?
5. (Honest question): What were some of those movies actually shot in?  I know there's a lot of 4K shooting going on now especially with the Red cameras, but aren't a number of older digital movies (and TV shows) shot in 2.5K?  I thought someone here pointed that recently.

He had Sony 4K media player with content (though it plays only on Sony TVs). Other sources were the finest 2K sources one can get. You can not get better content than this. Maybe there is something bit better in the future but I do not see any way his impressions could be invalidated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

All the above caveating aside, I am more than willing to view motion as far less resolution-discernable than static images, (and have said so numerous times) but only because of my own studies on it over the years.  But not from that article.

There could be some difference in motion especially with 4K@60Hz and quality panels. But overall conclusion is unlikely to be changed.

Another aspect of this story are impressions of people who have seen demos at various exhibitions and are swearing the diference was significant. One can suspect the 4K content shown there was uncompressed and the 2K content was compressed. The test in the article is only with consumer-level compressed sources but everything: content, players and displays are of this year finest crop:

For comparison with regular HD viewing, we had several top-rated 1080p TVs on hand, including flagship plasmas from Panasonic (the 65-inch TC-P65VT60) and Samsung (the 60-inch PN60F8500, plus LG’s midlevel 55LA7400 LED/LCD TV. Oppo's BDP-103 Blu-ray player, set to output 1080p video, was our signal source.

Using a distribution system, the Oppo was connected to all three 1080p HDTVs, plus the 55-inch Sony Ultra HD set, so we could evaluate 1080p content upconverted to the set’s Ultra HD resolution. All the TVs were calibrated to Consumer Report’s usual test standards for highest image fidelity, with any nonessential features, such as noise reduction and image enhancements, turned off or minimized as needed.

Among the 4K movies preloaded on the media player were more recent films, including "Total Recall 2012," "The Karate Kid," "Salt," and "The Other Guys," and older titles such as "Taxi Driver" and "Bridge on the River Kwai." For comparison we purchased a Blu-ray disc of each of those films. (We chose Sony’s new "Mastered in 4K" version on Blu-ray if it was available.) With the older titles in particular, we were curious to see whether the 4K versions could actually wring out any more detail than we’ve seen on the Blu-ray releases.

We also viewed some of the non-film-based videos that came preloaded on the media player, even though no Blu-ray versions were available for direct comparison. These titles turned out to be very useful demonstrating Ultra HD's performance potential.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #23 of 101 Old 10-23-2013, 07:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,353
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 398 Post(s)
Liked: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

All the above caveating aside, I am more than willing to view motion as far less resolution-discernable than static images, (and have said so numerous times) but only because of my own studies on it over the years.  But not from that article.

There could be some difference in motion especially with 4K@60Hz and quality panels. But overall conclusion is unlikely to be changed.

Another aspect of this story are impressions of people who have seen demos at various exhibitions and are swearing the diference was significant. One can suspect the 4K content shown there was uncompressed and the 2K content was compressed. The test in the article is only with consumer-level compressed sources.

 

Well, my assertion is that motion (particularly native HFR) increases apparent resolution, which works for the 2K argument, so long as motion blur itself is mitigated.

 

Article: He alludes to this, but I'm concerned of movies not shot in native 4K.  There was discussion here of the (non-Red) cameras that were something like 2.5K.  I want to know more about this.

 

My CR bias is stated as such, and not worth diving into.  It was their testing practices that drew me to CR originally.  I was with them for years and years.  Be aware though, that their testing practices don't indicate that they're able to set up and interpret that testing properly, nor does it mean that they're reading statistics properly.  YMMV, feel free to ignore.  It's a bit of a drive-by shooting, but honestly, I'm not up for a historical rehash of where those opinions came from.

 

I became tentatively sold on 4K when I saw it in person.  In BB/mag they had a couch putting eyes approximately 7 feet from a 65" screen (XBR-65X900A) (far too close).  I backed up considerably to the 12ish feet I watch at home (mere pacing) and could see a distinct difference.  With a 2K TVs showing 2K material.  There was no side by side comparison of the same source material, so it was a skewed representation.

 

That said however, the Sony implementation of 4K FPR (2K upconvert) on the 65" was just astounding.  Smooth as silk, and at 1080 vertical, absolutely without any argument discernable.  No active flicker of course.  Bad wrinkle recently revealed though for folks reading this thread.  Recently it's reported from a Sony engineer (3rd hand on the xbr x900 forum) that the 55" has had it's FPR resolution reduced because of the reduced viewing angle of such tight lines.  I believe that's the only thing he could have meant by making the "lines" more visible.  The only conclusion is that the FPR is the same distance above the LCD array at both sizes, causing this trouble. I don't know if they reduced it to 540 or 720 (both are possible).


Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #24 of 101 Old 10-23-2013, 07:58 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Good luck, irkuck. Some things are simply worth neither the time or energy to refute.

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 offline  
post #25 of 101 Old 10-23-2013, 09:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 222
How about this related thread?
Consumer Reports Asks—and Answers—Is UHD Worth Buying Now?

For living room where mostly 8' or further why waste the money on 4k is beyond my thought process
resolution_chart.png

Mike R,P.E. clickable DIY hot links:

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.
..
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.


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.
..
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.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
mtbdudex is online now  
post #26 of 101 Old 10-23-2013, 09:55 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 162
^ look out, don't you know that's the meritless Carlton Bale graph that "relies" on 20/20 vision? tongue.gifwink.gif

You need the NHK (you know, a company with a VESTED interest in the propagation of 4k media and equipment) graph to tell you- amongst other things- that 1080 is NOT WORTHWHILE AT 10, 20, 30 or even FORTY FEET on a 50" screen. LMAO rolleyes.gif

It's 4k or nuttin (or really, AT LEAST according to them), don't you know?

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 offline  
post #27 of 101 Old 10-23-2013, 10:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,353
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 398 Post(s)
Liked: 761

^ (yawn)


Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #28 of 101 Old 10-23-2013, 10:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,584
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

^ look out, that's the merit-less Carlton Bale graph that "relies" on 20/20 vision.
You need the NHK (you know, a company with a VESTED interest in the propagation of 4k media and equipment) graph to tell you- amongst other things- that 1080 is NOT WORTHWHILE AT 10, 20, 30 or even FORTY FEET on a 50" screen. LMAO rolleyes.gif
It's 4k or nuttin, don't you know?
James
That would be this chart:

E2H0qOr.png

When your goal is a perfect image the resolution requirements are very high. 400 pixels per degree is almost there.
I think the Carlton Bale chart is based on 60 pixels per degree, which gets you about 40% of the way there if you look at the NHK research.

Once you get to 100 pixels per degree, you're around 85% of the way there, and increased resolution starts to bring very little benefit. So while it may not be a perfect image, an ideal image would have about 70% more resolution than the Carlton Bale chart indicates.
I've been saying for a long time now that as a rough guide you want to double the numbers on that chart, which is pretty close to that. (120 PPD, or about 85-90% of a "perfect image")


Something else to keep in mind, is that 20/20 vision is average vision, not perfect vision. If I recall correctly, perfect vision in humans is 20/8.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #29 of 101 Old 10-23-2013, 10:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,353
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 398 Post(s)
Liked: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

When your goal is a perfect image the resolution requirements are very high. 400 pixels per degree is almost there.
If I understand his post correctly, the chart is based on 60 pixels per degree, which gets you about 40% of the way there.

Once you get to 100 pixels per degree, you're around 85% of the way there, and increased resolution starts to bring very little benefit. So while it may not be a perfect image, an ideal image would have about 70% more resolution (or distance) than the Carlton Bale chart indicates.
I've been saying for a long time now that as a rough guide you want to double the numbers on that chart, which is pretty close to that. (120 PPD, or about 85-90% of a perfect image)


Something else to keep in mind, is that 20/20 vision is average vision, not perfect vision. If I recall correctly, perfect vision in humans is 20/8.

 

I'm not sure on this.  Did CB clear up the difference between the two concepts?:

  • The angular resolution at which you can identify a shape (The process of an eye-chart...picking out the K from a list of visual similars that you cannot compare side by side)
  • The angular resolution at which you can no longer discern the difference from the same shape at a lesser angular resolution side by side

 

When he discusses the basis of the acuity of 20/20 vision, it sounds as if he's using the former to derive a conclusion of the latter.


Grow milkweed. The Monarch Butterfly requires it, and its numbers are dwindling fast.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #30 of 101 Old 10-23-2013, 11:27 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

That would be this chart:

E2H0qOr.png

When your goal is a perfect image the resolution requirements are very high. 400 pixels per degree is almost there.
I think the Carlton Bale chart is based on 60 pixels per degree, which gets you about 40% of the way there if you look at the NHK research.

Once you get to 100 pixels per degree, you're around 85% of the way there, and increased resolution starts to bring very little benefit. So while it may not be a perfect image, an ideal image would have about 70% more resolution than the Carlton Bale chart indicates.
I've been saying for a long time now that as a rough guide you want to double the numbers on that chart, which is pretty close to that. (120 PPD, or about 85-90% of a "perfect image")


Something else to keep in mind, is that 20/20 vision is average vision, not perfect vision. If I recall correctly, perfect vision in humans is 20/8.

Correcty. The one supplied by a company with a vested interest in the propagation of 4k (and beyond) media and product...and states that 1080 is never "enough" on a 50" display...even at FORTY PLUS FEET.

Yep, that's the one. Thanks. And well, not quite re human vision. 20/20 is "average" vision for a human that has no discernible/physical need for correction...that doesn't mean it's the "average", per se.

Again, the above "research" was conducted by an entity relentlessly pushing 4, and soon, 8 and even 16 k (which by the way is "enough" on a 50" screen at 15 feet, lmao).

How anyone can begin to take that NHK chart seriously is beyond me. All you really need to start with is the 50" example I provided. There is no human on planet earth fully resolving 1080 on a 50" screen at 20 feet, never mind 40. But it's not "enough" at 40 plus feet? Anyone care to explain why? Now, let's do this with unbiased science please, not a carlton bale, or NHK chart, if you please.


Go figure.

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 offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

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