4K Resolution Is Visible vs 1080p on 55″ TV from 9′ Viewing Distance - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 111 Old 12-16-2013, 02:52 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Heinz68's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 53
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Will this stop some arguments? I don't think so. smile.gif
Quote:
Earlier this month, we set out to investigate if the extra resolution offered by 4K over 1080p is visible at normal viewing distance, as part of an Ultra HD and OLED television showcase event organised by British retailer Richer Sounds. A 55-inch 4K UHD (ultra high-definition) TV was lined up alongside a 1080p HDTV of the same size, each displaying content that’s 1:1 pixel-matched to its native screen resolution. Both TVs had their identities masked by custom-built cabinets which were spray-painted black. Standing 9 feet away (enforced using crowd control posts), attendees were then asked to pick out the 4K television after sampling the displayed material.

The results are now in, and an overwhelming majority of participants correctly identified the 4K TV, indicating that there exists a perceptible difference even from as far as 9 feet away on a 55in screen. Out of 49 attendees who submitted their pick to enter a prize draw, only one thought that the 1080p set was the 4K display.

Regardless of what anyone (and that includes us) say or think, 4K TV is coming, with or without widely available native 4K content. Eventually the price premium between a 4K set and a 1080p HDTV will become negligible, and the latter will go the way of 720p, HD-ready displays into the scrapheap of phased-out technologies.
Read more and pictures at HDTVtest uk

Hope to get soon 50 inch 4K TV/monitor for my PC and gaming. All I know from 4' viewing distance it's going to make big difference.
Randomoneh likes this.
Heinz68 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 111 Old 12-16-2013, 07:38 AM
Advanced Member
 
Phil17108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Orange County California
Posts: 961
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Is 4k coming? Faster then anyone may have though 6 months ago, I saw 65 inch one at Sam's club, for 45 hundred. In a year most of the manufactures well have them out and in 2 about the only 1080 left are going to be from off brands using up the stock of panels left over from the changer over to 4K, and you know where the price is going. Glad I won't be in the market for a new TV for a few years.
Phil17108 is offline  
post #3 of 111 Old 12-17-2013, 07:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 223
I believe that 4K is coming. I think perceiving a resolution difference over 1080p at 9 feet is IMPOSSIBLE!

If they make smaller sizes than 55 inches there will be tests saying you can see a difference with them too--who believes such sales force trash?

I'm not against 55 inch 4K--I just think you need to be about 2 feet from it to get the resolution difference.

I think to really get the most out of 4K at 9 feet that you need AT LEAST 110 inches.

I'm all for 4K--I just say to appreciate it you need to go MASSIVE!
Artwood is offline  
post #4 of 111 Old 12-17-2013, 07:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Aliens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,927
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinz68 View Post

Will this stop some arguments? I don't think so. smile.gif

Well, you did leave out four noted caveats, which I won’t point out but others can read in the article. wink.gifsmile.gif

The brain is a powerful organ, but it is very limited when it comes to perception. Brain Games was an excellent series and exposed just how flawed our perceptions really are.

Enough pixels already! TVs, tablets, phones surpass limits of human vision, experts say


Looking for a new Ultra HD TV or a top-of-the-line smartphone? Experts agree: tech fans crazy for sharper resolution are sometimes paying for more pixels than their eyes can actually see.

When it comes to televisions touting new 4K technology, "a regular human isn't going to see a difference," said Raymond Soneira, head of display-testing firm DisplayMate.

In 2010, when Apple unveiled the iPhone 4, Steve Jobs explained that with the phone's breakthrough "Retina" screen, the eye could no longer distinguish between individual pixels on the display when viewed from an ordinary distance. The promise wasn't just a sharp screen, but a screen so sharp that further refinements would be unnoticeable.

Yet the number of pixels-per-inch (PPI) on mobile devices has been on the rise. The iPhone's pixel density has stayed the same at 326 PPI, but Android-powered competitors such as the HTC One and the LG G2 have screens that rate well over 400 PPI.

Meanwhile, as shoppers line up with their holiday carts, stores are starting to carry "Ultra HD" TVs — also called 4K. These sets have a resolution of 3840 x 2160, or four times as many pixels as ordinary high-definition TVs. But even those standard HD sets, at the distance viewers regularly watch them, can be considered "retina" resolution. The number of pixels is quadrupled for 4K TVs, but experts say that in most cases, the human eye cannot even perceive the difference.

"There's going to be some density beyond which you can't do any better because of the limits of your eye," said Don Hood, a professor of ophthalmology at Columbia University, in a phone interview with NBC News.

Manufacturers like Sony and Samsung have their new 4K TVs as a revolution in imaging. Sony's website describes their displays -- which range in price from $3,000 to $25,000 -- as "four times clearer than HD." Samsung's $40,000 85-inch TV promises "a new form of fulfillment" with its "simply breaktaking resolution."

"Sony believes that the 4K picture quality difference is evident when seen in person, and we invite consumers to see and experience the difference for themselves because seeing is believing," Sony said in an email to NBC News in response to experts who questioned the practicality of the company's 4K displays. Samsung did not respond to similar inquiries.

Are these marketing claims plausible? And just what are the limits of the human eye's ability to perceive resolution? Here's an easy way to visualize it:
A person's field of vision covers about 200 degrees, a little more than a semicircle. At arm's length their index finger's fingernail will appear to be about the width of one of those degrees. Imagine that fingernail covered in 120 alternating black and white stripes — being able to discern those stripes at that distance is just about the theoretical limit of the human eye.

In reality, though, hardly anyone has such superb vision. In fact, most people would be unable to discern pixels or lines twice that size. And whether a phone or tablet display meets that standard depends on how far it it is from the viewer. In a living room, a viewer's 40- to 60-inch TV is positioned at a fixed distance, probably seven to nine feet away. Unless pixel-hungry TV fans buy far larger set, or push their couches much closer, any increases in resolution simply won't be perceived.

So why are companies pushing for the extra pixels? Are the extra dots really going to make 'Law and Order: SVU' any more entertaining?

"History has shown that people make something technologically possible, then someone figures out how to capitalize on it," said University of Utah neuroscientist Bryan Jones, who was among the first to put Apple's original Retina display under the microscope. "But for TVs," he continued, "I don't see a point."

Other experts NBC News spoke to concurred: "It's barking up the wrong tree," said Hood.

"It's a waste of time, if you ask me," said New York University neuroscientist Michael Landy.
"There was a bigger case for 3D than there is for 4K," said Soneira.

"And consumers will soon realize that they aren't seeing much, if any, visual resolution and sharpness improvements," Soneira continued. The sets will likely be better than today's in other ways, he noted, "but the higher pixel count will not be the reason."
So if piling on more pixels isn't the next big thing — despite what TV makers and retailers will try to tell shoppers over and over again — what is? Experts said there are plenty of ways displays could improve.

Soneira pointed to newly developed "quantum dot" technology for displays that is already leading to far better color representation on some devices. Jones and Landy favor advancements in dynamic range, leading to displays capable of showing light and shadow in movies and games the way we see them in real life.

"When you're in a scene where there's indoor stuff, outdoor stuff, glossy materials reflecting other lights ... that dynamic range is huge," explained Landy. "Consumer-grade displays don't get that stuff right."

"Some of the great masters, the painters, they knew things about light and shadow," adds Jones. "They kind of knew instinctively how the retina works." In other words, perhaps the secret to a better TV is hidden in the smile of the Mona Lisa.
CruelInventions and RayWK like this.
Aliens is offline  
post #5 of 111 Old 12-17-2013, 08:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

Enough pixels already! TVs, tablets, phones surpass limits of human vision, experts say
In real-world practical terms, I spent some time with one of the new iPad minis recently. It's the first display I have seen where the pixels are not immediately obvious to me.
They were on my iPad 3 with Retina display, and are on the iPhone 4-5s.

The mini seems to just fall into the right point where the resolution is high enough, and the distance I use the device at is far enough (further than an iPhone) where I don't immediately see the pixel-based nature of the display.
I can however see the limitations of its resolution on small text if I look for it though, so I would not say no to even more resolution.
Ever since Apple went "Retina" with the iPad 3, I've been saying that they really needed to triple the resolution of the screen rather than only doubling it. (3072x2304 rather than 2048x1536)
264 PPI is not enough on a display that size, at the distance an iPad is used.

Part of the reason cell phone displays need such a high resolution is because they are viewed at closer distances, and many of them are using pentile or equivalent pixel structures which only gives them two subpixels per pixel rather than three.
We really need to be counting the number of subpixels rather than the number of pixels a display has.


With 48 out of 49 participants being able to correctly identify which display was the 4K one, it seems that either the these "experts" are looking at the wrong data when reaching their conclusion about whether or not 4K is worth it, or the test was somehow flawed.
When I am clearly seeing the limits of 1080p resolution on my current display, and we have data from the NHK which shows that there should be a clear benefit to 4K, I'm leaning towards the former.

That's not to say we shouldn't also be looking for brightness, contrast, color, and motion improvements from new displays.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #6 of 111 Old 12-17-2013, 10:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 2,961
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Liked: 238
I get that the test probably wasn't 100% scientific, but 48 out of 49 is pretty impressive.

I really don't buy the argument that 1080 can't be topped. If I watch TV and then look out the window, what I see out the window is sharper. So there's clearly room for improvement.
Randomoneh likes this.
KidHorn is offline  
post #7 of 111 Old 12-17-2013, 10:53 AM
Senior Member
 
William L Carman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oceanside, California (San Diego County)
Posts: 303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Exactly! I couldn't agree more.
William L Carman is online now  
post #8 of 111 Old 12-17-2013, 11:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,603
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 60
The fact that the text on the 4K TV looks a lot brighter could also have affected it? Shouldn't they have matched the two TVs in terms of brightness, contrast etc. a bit better?
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #9 of 111 Old 12-17-2013, 01:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dsinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

Well, you did leave out four noted caveats, which I won’t point out but others can read in the article. wink.gifsmile.gif

The brain is a powerful organ, but it is very limited when it comes to perception. Brain Games was an excellent series and exposed just how flawed our perceptions really are.

Enough pixels already! TVs, tablets, phones surpass limits of human vision, experts say


Looking for a new Ultra HD TV or a top-of-the-line smartphone? Experts agree: tech fans crazy for sharper resolution are sometimes paying for more pixels than their eyes can actually see.

When it comes to televisions touting new 4K technology, "a regular human isn't going to see a difference," said Raymond Soneira, head of display-testing firm DisplayMate.

In 2010, when Apple unveiled the iPhone 4, Steve Jobs explained that with the phone's breakthrough "Retina" screen, the eye could no longer distinguish between individual pixels on the display when viewed from an ordinary distance. The promise wasn't just a sharp screen, but a screen so sharp that further refinements would be unnoticeable.

Yet the number of pixels-per-inch (PPI) on mobile devices has been on the rise. The iPhone's pixel density has stayed the same at 326 PPI, but Android-powered competitors such as the HTC One and the LG G2 have screens that rate well over 400 PPI.

Meanwhile, as shoppers line up with their holiday carts, stores are starting to carry "Ultra HD" TVs — also called 4K. These sets have a resolution of 3840 x 2160, or four times as many pixels as ordinary high-definition TVs. But even those standard HD sets, at the distance viewers regularly watch them, can be considered "retina" resolution. The number of pixels is quadrupled for 4K TVs, but experts say that in most cases, the human eye cannot even perceive the difference.

"There's going to be some density beyond which you can't do any better because of the limits of your eye," said Don Hood, a professor of ophthalmology at Columbia University, in a phone interview with NBC News.

Manufacturers like Sony and Samsung have their new 4K TVs as a revolution in imaging. Sony's website describes their displays -- which range in price from $3,000 to $25,000 -- as "four times clearer than HD." Samsung's $40,000 85-inch TV promises "a new form of fulfillment" with its "simply breaktaking resolution."

"Sony believes that the 4K picture quality difference is evident when seen in person, and we invite consumers to see and experience the difference for themselves because seeing is believing," Sony said in an email to NBC News in response to experts who questioned the practicality of the company's 4K displays. Samsung did not respond to similar inquiries.

Are these marketing claims plausible? And just what are the limits of the human eye's ability to perceive resolution? Here's an easy way to visualize it:
A person's field of vision covers about 200 degrees, a little more than a semicircle. At arm's length their index finger's fingernail will appear to be about the width of one of those degrees. Imagine that fingernail covered in 120 alternating black and white stripes — being able to discern those stripes at that distance is just about the theoretical limit of the human eye.

In reality, though, hardly anyone has such superb vision. In fact, most people would be unable to discern pixels or lines twice that size. And whether a phone or tablet display meets that standard depends on how far it it is from the viewer. In a living room, a viewer's 40- to 60-inch TV is positioned at a fixed distance, probably seven to nine feet away. Unless pixel-hungry TV fans buy far larger set, or push their couches much closer, any increases in resolution simply won't be perceived.

So why are companies pushing for the extra pixels? Are the extra dots really going to make 'Law and Order: SVU' any more entertaining?

"History has shown that people make something technologically possible, then someone figures out how to capitalize on it," said University of Utah neuroscientist Bryan Jones, who was among the first to put Apple's original Retina display under the microscope. "But for TVs," he continued, "I don't see a point."

Other experts NBC News spoke to concurred: "It's barking up the wrong tree," said Hood.

"It's a waste of time, if you ask me," said New York University neuroscientist Michael Landy.
"There was a bigger case for 3D than there is for 4K," said Soneira.

"And consumers will soon realize that they aren't seeing much, if any, visual resolution and sharpness improvements," Soneira continued. The sets will likely be better than today's in other ways, he noted, "but the higher pixel count will not be the reason."
So if piling on more pixels isn't the next big thing — despite what TV makers and retailers will try to tell shoppers over and over again — what is? Experts said there are plenty of ways displays could improve.

Soneira pointed to newly developed "quantum dot" technology for displays that is already leading to far better color representation on some devices. Jones and Landy favor advancements in dynamic range, leading to displays capable of showing light and shadow in movies and games the way we see them in real life.

"When you're in a scene where there's indoor stuff, outdoor stuff, glossy materials reflecting other lights ... that dynamic range is huge," explained Landy. "Consumer-grade displays don't get that stuff right."

"Some of the great masters, the painters, they knew things about light and shadow," adds Jones. "They kind of knew instinctively how the retina works." In other words, perhaps the secret to a better TV is hidden in the smile of the Mona Lisa.

Both you and NBC omitted an important fact and that is how much NBC and their affiliates have invested in 2k. Discouraging 4k protects that investment. They don't want public pressure to move to 4k.
Randomoneh likes this.
dsinger is online now  
post #10 of 111 Old 12-17-2013, 02:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dsinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

The fact that the text on the 4K TV looks a lot brighter could also have affected it? Shouldn't they have matched the two TVs in terms of brightness, contrast etc. a bit better?

I read the entire story not just the exert that was posted here. HDTV professionally calibrated both sets before the test.
dsinger is online now  
post #11 of 111 Old 12-17-2013, 02:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
drfreeman60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Memphis TN
Posts: 1,805
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 47
No matter how much NBC (or any other network) and their affiliates invest in 2K technology, there is zero reason to invest in anything greater. The FTC spent fifteen years drawing up the specs for digital TV at 1080i or 780p then left it to the discretion of the network or their affiliate as to what standard to select. Also, after they announced the specs, it was still a further five years before anything was implemented. If there were a 4K broadcast spec, how long do you believe it would take for the FTC to plan hearings and invite ALL of the interested parties to the table to state their case for improved standards or whether to leave things status quo?

I'm 62 years old. By the time there is a standardized 4K spec, I will probably be too old to tell the difference at any distance.

David Freeman
drfreeman60 is offline  
post #12 of 111 Old 12-17-2013, 02:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aliens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,927
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsinger View Post

Both you and NBC omitted an important fact and that is how much NBC and their affiliates have invested in 2k. Discouraging 4k protects that investment. They don't want public pressure to move to 4k.

Every major carrier invested, not just NBC, so I don’t see the slant. I agree that none of them are ready to invest in 4K when they just invested so much for HD. I’d love to have a 4K, but it will be a long time before content becomes widely available, heck, even available, and the switchover takes place; if ever. Primarily, because by the time the thought enters the minds of the executives in charge of ordering that, something else will have taken its place. Or, a new means of transporting it will arrive. Technology is advancing in leaps and bounds and I can’t get enough of it. biggrin.gif
Aliens is offline  
post #13 of 111 Old 12-17-2013, 02:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sytech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 280 Post(s)
Liked: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

I think perceiving a resolution difference over 1080p at 9 feet is IMPOSSIBLE!

Uh, I am not trying to be insulting, but I think this test just proved you wrong. I don't consider 55" Home theater size anymore, when you can get 70"-90" set so cheap. For myself, I will wait for 75" or 80" 4K OLED to buy.
Randomoneh likes this.
sytech is offline  
post #14 of 111 Old 12-17-2013, 02:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dsinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

Every major carrier invested, not just NBC, so I don’t see the slant. I agree that none of them are ready to invest in 4K when they just invested so much for HD. I’d love to have a 4K, but it will be a long time before content becomes widely available, heck, even available, and the switchover takes place; if ever. Primarily, because by the time the thought enters the minds of the executives in charge of ordering that, something else will have taken its place. Or, a new means of transporting it will arrive. Technology is advancing in leaps and bounds and I can’t get enough of it. biggrin.gif

What I considered the "slant" was that (to my knowledge) NBC is the first to publish an article like that. Regarding content availability perhaps this is where "over the top" via internet actually starts to take off with that becoming a significant source of content along with 4k BD.
dsinger is online now  
post #15 of 111 Old 12-17-2013, 02:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,603
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsinger View Post

I read the entire story not just the exert that was posted here. HDTV professionally calibrated both sets before the test.
Look at the two pictures. The 4K one clearly has brighter text.

If you read the full article you'd have seen:
Quote:
we had some difficulty matching the displays such that resolution was the only difference
Quote:
we managed to dial out most of the discrepancies, but when you’re comparing two displays side-by-side specifically looking for a difference (which is the whole point of the exercise), even the slightest discrepancy gets magnified
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #16 of 111 Old 12-17-2013, 03:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Look at the two pictures. The 4K one clearly has brighter text.
It's also on-axis to the camera, and the other set is at an angle. While there may have been slight differences in things like color accuracy, brightness is trivial to set close enough that people viewing the displays won't see a difference.
Nugget likes this.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #17 of 111 Old 12-17-2013, 04:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,802
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 633 Post(s)
Liked: 929
It needs to be single 4k screen split down the middle with (nearest neighbor) 2k on one side. Not perfect, but less imperfect than two different displays.

Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!
tgm1024 is online now  
post #18 of 111 Old 12-18-2013, 09:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sytech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 280 Post(s)
Liked: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

It needs to be single 4k screen split down the middle with (nearest neighbor) 2k on one side. Not perfect, but less imperfect than two different displays.

How would they do that though? The 2K would be upscaled to 4K and even if it is not, it is using the smaller pixel structure on the 4K screen.
Randomoneh likes this.
sytech is offline  
post #19 of 111 Old 12-18-2013, 10:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

How would they do that though? The 2K would be upscaled to 4K and even if it is not, it is using the smaller pixel structure on the 4K screen.
"Nearest Neighbor" scaling is the simplest scaling you can do. For 1080p to 4K, all it does is turn one source pixel into four output pixels. (2x2) This should be almost identical to a natively lower resolution panel, though the "pixel grid" over the image will be less visible due to the higher resolution panel. (so it will be better than a 1080p native panel)
Randomoneh likes this.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #20 of 111 Old 12-18-2013, 12:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,802
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 633 Post(s)
Liked: 929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

How would they do that though? The 2K would be upscaled to 4K and even if it is not, it is using the smaller pixel structure on the 4K screen.
"Nearest Neighbor" scaling is the simplest scaling you can do. For 1080p to 4K, all it does is turn one source pixel into four output pixels. (2x2) This should be almost identical to a natively lower resolution panel, though the "pixel grid" over the image will be less visible due to the higher resolution panel. (so it will be better than a 1080p native panel)

 

I'd still like to know your assessment on what would happen if you NN'd down 4K 4:2:0 to 2K.  At that point there would only be 1 chroma "pixel" for the 2x2 grid in the 4K space.  That "crocked" chroma would then be assigned to a single pixel in the 2K space, making the 2K 4:4:4 but with 4:2:0 chroma information.  I think.  To be comparable to blu-ray properly, would it have to start with 4K/4:4:4, NN down to 2K:4:4:4 and THEN chromsubsample down each side to 4:2:0?


Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!
tgm1024 is online now  
post #21 of 111 Old 12-18-2013, 01:18 PM
Member
 
UofA fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 77
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

I believe that 4K is coming. I think perceiving a resolution difference over 1080p at 9 feet is IMPOSSIBLE!

If they make smaller sizes than 55 inches there will be tests saying you can see a difference with them too--who believes such sales force trash?

I'm not against 55 inch 4K--I just think you need to be about 2 feet from it to get the resolution difference.

I think to really get the most out of 4K at 9 feet that you need AT LEAST 110 inches.

I'm all for 4K--I just say to appreciate it you need to go MASSIVE!

Its obvious you have never seen a 4K set or you need your eyes checked. I saw one at best buy. and from 9 ft back it looked better than any picture my vt25 is capable of displaying. I was very impressed. Hell, my wife even noticed the difference.
Randomoneh likes this.
UofA fan is offline  
post #22 of 111 Old 12-18-2013, 01:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,802
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 633 Post(s)
Liked: 929
Quote:
Originally Posted by UofA fan View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

I believe that 4K is coming. I think perceiving a resolution difference over 1080p at 9 feet is IMPOSSIBLE!

If they make smaller sizes than 55 inches there will be tests saying you can see a difference with them too--who believes such sales force trash?

I'm not against 55 inch 4K--I just think you need to be about 2 feet from it to get the resolution difference.

I think to really get the most out of 4K at 9 feet that you need AT LEAST 110 inches.

I'm all for 4K--I just say to appreciate it you need to go MASSIVE!

Its obvious you have never seen a 4K set or you need your eyes checked. I saw one at best buy. and from 9 ft back it looked better than any picture my vt25 is capable of displaying. I was very impressed. Hell, my wife even noticed the difference.

 

I've mentioned this before, but my eyes were ~14 feet back from both an XBR-65X900A(4K) and an XBR-65HX950(2K) and could see a noticeable difference.  Not from the same feeds, but I'd say it was a definite improvement. They'll call us liars, but I can live with it.


Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!
tgm1024 is online now  
post #23 of 111 Old 12-18-2013, 03:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I'd still like to know your assessment on what would happen if you NN'd down 4K 4:2:0 to 2K.  At that point there would only be 1 chroma "pixel" for the 2x2 grid in the 4K space.  That "crocked" chroma would then be assigned to a single pixel in the 2K space, making the 2K 4:4:4 but with 4:2:0 chroma information.  I think.  To be comparable to blu-ray properly, would it have to start with 4K/4:4:4, NN down to 2K:4:4:4 and THEN chromsubsample down each side to 4:2:0?
You can't really use NN when downscaling, only upscaling. Ideally you would start with a high quality 4K source (preferably uncompressed) scale it down and then encode both to 4:2:0
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #24 of 111 Old 12-18-2013, 03:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aliens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,927
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I've mentioned this before, but I my eyes were ~14 feet back from both an XBR-65X900A(4K) and an XBR-65HX950(2K) and could see a noticeable difference.  Not from the same feeds, but I'd say it was a definite improvement. They'll call us liars, but I can live with it.

I don’t believe anyone would call you a liar, at least I would hope they wouldn't, but I think you would concede that using the same feed, side by side with both sets calibrated, would be a better comparison.

I don’t post this to argue one way or another, just for information.

Four 4K TV facts you must know
Aliens is offline  
post #25 of 111 Old 12-18-2013, 08:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,051
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 378
Unfortunately I think almost nothing can be hung on this test.

The article said they couldn't totally match the gamma/contrast of each display, which certainly can alter image quality.

And the evidence seems to be there in the photos accompanying the article. On the 2nd photo, taken directly in front of both displays, the UHD display looks clearly different: brighter and/or higher contrast.
Since for that reason alone it would be the display we should expect most people to pick as looking "better" or "sharper," this test just can't hold much water.

Which is unfortunate since clearly the authors were cognizant of these issues and tried to minimize such variables.
R Harkness is online now  
post #26 of 111 Old 12-18-2013, 09:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 223
Come on Sales Force--defend the test!

The next thing you'll hear is that you can perceive the resolution difference on a 7 inch 4K at 36 feet!
Artwood is offline  
post #27 of 111 Old 12-18-2013, 10:32 PM
Member
 
Tapioca Cold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
What is with everyone and this whole "viewing distance" argument?

So, you say, I maybe cannot tel the difference at 9 feet but what if I'm not exactly 9 feet? What if I move a foot or two closer? how about 3 feet closer? What if i was an inch away from MY TV and cleaning it?

The fact is this: WE don't want to see pixels!! Ever.

Why is everyone ohhing and ahhhing over apple's retina displays? Why does a phone/tablet need better resolution?

people say "oh that's different." No, it's not. We don't want to see pixels.

if I ever have a screen of any size I want it BURSTING with as many pixels as possible. I don't want just the right amount for a certain size at a certain distance.

I do not want to see pixels. AND if one dies then I will have even less of a job spotting it.
W8MM and Randomoneh like this.
Tapioca Cold is offline  
post #28 of 111 Old 12-19-2013, 12:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
Mark12547's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Salem, Oregon, United States
Posts: 686
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tapioca Cold View Post

So, you say, I maybe cannot tel the difference at 9 feet but what if I'm not exactly 9 feet? What if I move a foot or two closer? how about 3 feet closer? What if i was an inch away from MY TV and cleaning it?

 

Or, as I sometimes do, pause the action to take a closer look at something in the scene. Even then, I am trying to see individual pixels.


My very humble setup:
Man Cave:Vizio E500i-A1 "Smart TV" (50-in 1080p 120Hz LED/LCD, has Netflix app.), Blu-ray players (Sony BDP-S3100, old LG BD390), Roku (the original model: N1000), PC (Windows 7), Comcast Internet (25Mbps/5Mbps).
Bedroom:LG 32LV3400-UA TV (32-in 768p 60Hz LED/LCD), HD DVR (Motorola RNG200N), Xfinity Comcast cable (Digital Starter Package), DVD/VHS player.
Mark12547 is offline  
post #29 of 111 Old 12-19-2013, 01:29 AM
Member
 
challenger869's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Perception is in the eye of the beholder. Younger people will report seeing the majority of the improvement and for most of the older crowd it makes less sense. Even if you are 60 and can discern the difference today who's to say how much longer that will last.
The bottom line is, the real progress was transitioning to 1080P HD from NTSC. That is where you get the vast majority of bang for the buck and don't forget, all TVs are not the same a good quality 1080p makes all the difference. In other words, I think they can improve and max out the format going forward (it's like console games, it always seems like at the ladder days of a specific model, right as the replacement comes out, they squeeze out performance and graphics there are incredible and at least I didn't think was possible, almost makes a case with staying. Once one of these TV/Software/Hardware products is about to updated is when the full potential seems to be reached).
The bottom line, I think 4k will be a long roll out and think about it, it took 10 yrs for HD to fully come around and that was a case where you really got a lot for your money. Content will be the bottleneck. I doubt 100+ major (and 100+ smaller ones) or so content providers will be quick to throw out the tech they had to buy to go true 1080p and were also talking about capacity. That mean the entire fiber networks would be challenged to go all 4k and HD here and there. Even a PC is strained to run at 4k to run a game like COD.

In the end, I do think 4k will come about in some modest form. Unlike 3d for ex, which turnout to flop, but my expectations are it will take decades and a lot has to happened for it to happened. In the mean time we will get 4k HBO 4K ESPN and a few more but I think it stalls there for at least 5+ yrs and as we all know the prices have to drop in the future. I'm interested in how new monitor technologies will develop like OLED to name one.
challenger869 is offline  
post #30 of 111 Old 12-19-2013, 07:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

And the evidence seems to be there in the photos accompanying the article. On the 2nd photo, taken directly in front of both displays, the UHD display looks clearly different: brighter and/or higher contrast.
The display on the right is clearly not straight on to the camera, which would explain the brightness difference. Brightness matching on LCD displays is trivial. There won't have been a difference in person unless someone really screwed up.

Matching gamma is more difficult, but it should not have been that difficult to have them within perceptual limits of each other.
Chronoptimist is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

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