How is 4K Ultra HD "Four Times the Resolution" of 1080p? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-12-2014, 02:06 PM - Thread Starter
"Don't PM Me Bro"
 
RandyWalters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: El Segundo, Calif
Posts: 17,514
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 497
This 4K resolution stuff is a bit beyond my expertise so i hope this isn't a stupid question. For the past 7 or so years that we've had 1080p TVs, the TV makers all used the TV's 1080p vertical resolution in their advertising and marketing info to describe their 1080p models. But i'm wondering why the TV makers are now advertising their 4K TVs has having "Four times the resolution of Full HD TV" television? Since the current 1080p TVs have a panel resolution of 1,920 x 1080 pixels, and the actual panel resolution of a 4K TV is 3,840 x 2,160 pixels, why are they claiming that the 4K TV is "four times the resolution" when the vertical resolution number (that they've always used) is actually only twice the resolution of a traditional 1080p TV?

I understand that a 1080p panel has about 2 million pixels while the 4K panel has about 8 million pixels, but it seems to me that having four times the number of actual pixels is not the same as having "four times the resolution". Is this just misleading marketing double-speak? Like how the burgers and sandwiches shown in the Carls Jr and Jack in the Box commercials are all literally twice as tall as the ones you actually get in the restaurant? Or am i missing something and 2160p is really considered to be four times the resolution of 1080p (ie the sum of the product of 3,840 x 2,160) ?






_________________

Randy
TC-P55ST60, TC-P50GT50, TC-P46G10, TH-42PZ700U, TH-42PX50U, HP LC2600N, TiVo Series3, TWC Cisco 8742HDC DVR, Onkyo TX-SR333, URC R40 Remote.
Pic of My A/V setup - http://cdn.avsforum.com/f/f1/900x900..._Img_4867.jpeg
Gallery - http://www.avsforum.com/g/a/2082686/randywalter...
RandyWalters is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-12-2014, 02:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,810
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyWalters View Post

Or am i missing something and 2160p is really considered to be four times the resolution of 1080p (ie the sum of 3,840 x 2,160) ?
Yes you are correct, it is four times the resolution of full HD.
coolscan is online now  
Old 01-12-2014, 03:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,392
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 324 Post(s)
Liked: 612
Vertical resolution is certainly only improved twofold.

But it is absolutely correct to say, "4x the resolution of HD" overall.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is online now  
Old 01-12-2014, 05:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,128
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyWalters 
This 4K resolution stuff is a bit beyond my expertise so i hope this isn't a stupid question. For the past 7 or so years that we've had 1080p TVs, the TV makers all used the TV's 1080p vertical resolution in their advertising and marketing info to describe their 1080p models. But i'm wondering why the TV makers are now advertising their 4K TVs has having "Four times the resolution of Full HD TV" television? Since the current 1080p TVs have a panel resolution of 1,920 x 1080 pixels, and the actual panel resolution of a 4K TV is 3,840 x 2,160 pixels, why are they claiming that the 4K TV is "four times the resolution" when the vertical resolution number (that they've always used) is actually only twice the resolution of a traditional 1080p TV?

I understand that a 1080p panel has about 2 million pixels while the 4K panel has about 8 million pixels, but it seems to me that having four times the number of actual pixels is not the same as having "four times the resolution". Is this just misleading marketing double-speak? Like how the burgers and sandwiches shown in the Carls Jr and Jack in the Box commercials are all literally twice as tall as the ones you actually get in the restaurant? Or am i missing something and 2160p is really considered to be four times the resolution of 1080p (ie the sum of 3,840 x 2,160) ?



_________________


''display resolution'' - applies to fixed pixel array displays such as PDP and LCd. The term ''display resolution'' is usually used to mean ''pixel dimension'', the number of pixels in each dimension. So the pixel dimension of a 1080p TV = 2.073.600. 2160p has four times the resolution pixel dimension of 1080p.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution
8mile13 is offline  
Old 01-12-2014, 05:53 PM
Senior Member
 
Luke M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 484
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Well, the term resolution can have either meaning (pixel pitch or pixel count), so both 2x and 4x are correct if you ask me. If they wanted to be perfectly clear, they could say "8 megapixels", like they do for digital cameras.
Luke M is offline  
Old 01-12-2014, 07:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,793
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 631 Post(s)
Liked: 925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke M View Post

Well, the term resolution can have either meaning (pixel pitch or pixel count), so both 2x and 4x are correct if you ask me. If they wanted to be perfectly clear, they could say "8 megapixels", like they do for digital cameras.

 

1. (directed two posts up, not to you, but a generalized gripe): If possible, avoid wikipedia in forum discussions; it is only as credible as 4 bored college kids drinking beer.  At least, don't post it as an authority on anything at all pretending that it's peer reviewed.

 

2. We've been around and around this one.  Imagine a 100x100 display next to a 200x100 display.  Both displays are the same physical size.  The 2nd one has twice the information as the 1st, and you are afforded twice the ability to resolve any image within it.  The 2nd is twice the resolution of the first.

 

The problem came about when people started discussing resolution in terms of DPI (or PPI).  This was always fraught with peril because some devices had non square pixels.  In the display example above, the pixels are dimensionally each twice as high as they are wide.  The linear DPI vertically is half that of horizontally; so which "DPI" would you use to describe the resolution of the device?

 

The answer is: you don't use either.  You describe it in terms of the overall image.


rodtsasdt 111111report*
P-1 CUR ALLOC 20195.....5805M
HELLO GREGORY
tgm1024 is online now  
Old 01-13-2014, 01:17 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,392
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 324 Post(s)
Liked: 612
Wikipedia has more "peer review" than almost any reference source in the history of man. That said, given articles that are less read/researched tend to get less benefit from that review.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is online now  
Old 01-13-2014, 06:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,128
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 

1. (directed two posts up, not to you, but a generalized gripe): If possible, avoid wikipedia in forum discussions; it is only as credible as 4 bored college kids drinking beer.  At least, don't post it as an authority on anything at all pretending that it's peer reviewed.

Wow, ''as credible as 4 bored college kids drinking beer''. What folks on Wikipedia do is copy technical information from authoritative sources, just like everybody else on the internet does..
8mile13 is offline  
Old 01-13-2014, 06:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,793
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 631 Post(s)
Liked: 925
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Wikipedia has more "peer review" than almost any reference source in the history of man. That said, given articles that are less read/researched tend to get less benefit from that review.

 

No, "peer review" means a review among peers only.  It is not peer reviewed when anyone can view it, modify it, (Even anonymously!) and cite sources that don't exist or say something different from what they're purported to say, or cite agenda driven sources, or misread the intent of a source, or or or....  And the toughest case: be 80% true, which is a nightmare to argue out.


rodtsasdt 111111report*
P-1 CUR ALLOC 20195.....5805M
HELLO GREGORY
tgm1024 is online now  
Old 01-13-2014, 06:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,793
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 631 Post(s)
Liked: 925
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 

1. (directed two posts up, not to you, but a generalized gripe): If possible, avoid wikipedia in forum discussions; it is only as credible as 4 bored college kids drinking beer.  At least, don't post it as an authority on anything at all pretending that it's peer reviewed.
 
Wow, ''as credible as 4 bored college kids drinking beer''. What folks on Wikipedia do is copy technical information from authoritative sources, just like everybody else on the internet does..


Do you read the cited sources to make sure?


rodtsasdt 111111report*
P-1 CUR ALLOC 20195.....5805M
HELLO GREGORY
tgm1024 is online now  
Old 01-13-2014, 06:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 2,962
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Liked: 238
4x the resolution sounds better than 2x. I believe that's the driving force behind the statement.

In reality, I think 2x is more what people will perceive. Sans the argument if we can actually see any difference at all.

To be nitpicky. Sum is addition. Product is multiplication.
KidHorn is offline  
Old 01-13-2014, 07:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,793
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 631 Post(s)
Liked: 925
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

4x the resolution sounds better than 2x. I believe that's the driving force behind the statement.

In reality, I think 2x is more what people will perceive.  Sans the argument if we can actually see any difference at all.

 

No, again:  Imagine 100x100 vs 200x100 displays (note, 100 pixels high in both cases, same physical size).  People will perceive twice the information in the 2nd display.

 

 

 


rodtsasdt 111111report*
P-1 CUR ALLOC 20195.....5805M
HELLO GREGORY
tgm1024 is online now  
Old 01-13-2014, 09:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 2,962
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Liked: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

No, again:  Imagine 100x100 vs 200x100 displays (note, 100 pixels high in both cases, same physical size).  People will perceive twice the information in the 2nd display.



Has anyone ever done this? Doubling one resolution and not the other. How can you say with any certainty how people would perceive that? My guess is the image would look more distorted instead of sharper.
KidHorn is offline  
Old 01-13-2014, 09:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,793
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 631 Post(s)
Liked: 925
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

No, again:  Imagine 100x100 vs 200x100 displays (note, 100 pixels high in both cases, same physical size).  People will perceive twice the information in the 2nd display.

 

Has anyone ever done this? Doubling one resolution and not the other. How can you say with any certainty how people would perceive that? My guess is the image would look more distorted instead of sharper.

 

Well, that would be a very bad guess.  LOL.  What would cause the "distortion"?  Going from a non square x:y image source to a 1:1 pixel device could cause issues, but my example wasn't discussing that.

 

Back in the 80's I worked with a few printing devices that had weird pixel aspect ratios (PAR).  In the cases I remember they did this natively because the printer's horizontal addressing was often less susceptible to beat frequencies than its vertical.

 

Here's a microsoft explanation of PAR.  Pixel Aspect Ratio

 

Here's an interesting discussion of the PAR issue (as relates to NTSC DV---a 10:11 PAR) when using photoshop.

https://www.video2brain.com/en/lessons/understanding-pixel-aspect-ratios

 

If you search for Pixel Aspect Ratio, you'll see a lot of examples where tough calculations need to be made for such things.

 

But overall it doesn't matter at all if even one device exists with a non square pixel.  What matters is that you understand that UHD contains 4 times the resolving information that "full" HD does.


rodtsasdt 111111report*
P-1 CUR ALLOC 20195.....5805M
HELLO GREGORY
tgm1024 is online now  
Old 01-13-2014, 10:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,793
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 631 Post(s)
Liked: 925

Look, we've all used "resolution" colloquially, such as in "the whoozit has a resolution of 300 dpi", but the use of resolution by the display manufacturers is correct.


rodtsasdt 111111report*
P-1 CUR ALLOC 20195.....5805M
HELLO GREGORY
tgm1024 is online now  
Old 01-13-2014, 10:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,128
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 
Originally Posted by tgm1024 


1. (directed two posts up, not to you, but a generalized gripe): If possible, avoid wikipedia in forum discussions; it is only as credible as 4 bored college kids drinking beer.  At least, don't post it as an authority on anything at all pretending that it's peer reviewed.

 
Wow, ''as credible as 4 bored college kids drinking beer''. What folks on Wikipedia do is copy technical information from authoritative sources, just like everybody else on the internet does..


Do you read the cited sources to make sure?

ehh..no.

I consider Wikipedia to be a trusted source. In case its wrong there are Always many folks here at AVS who can make a correction..

It makes lots of sence to me that when folks talk about display related resolution what they basically are talking about is the total number of pixels aka Pixel Dimensions in a display. Do i really need a cited source for that? Why exactly do i need a cited source for easily understandable stuff like that?
8mile13 is offline  
Old 01-13-2014, 10:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,793
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 631 Post(s)
Liked: 925
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 
Originally Posted by tgm1024 


1. (directed two posts up, not to you, but a generalized gripe): If possible, avoid wikipedia in forum discussions; it is only as credible as 4 bored college kids drinking beer.  At least, don't post it as an authority on anything at all pretending that it's peer reviewed.

 
Wow, ''as credible as 4 bored college kids drinking beer''. What folks on Wikipedia do is copy technical information from authoritative sources, just like everybody else on the internet does..


Do you read the cited sources to make sure?

ehh..no.

I consider Wikipedia to be a trusted source.

 

Right.  And everyone counting on everyone else to read through the sources is what causes the problem.  And some of the sources are books in a library and not easily verifiable.

 

It's clear that most folks don't agree with me about wikipedia; I've accepted it.  Sign of the times I suppose.

 

And by the way, no it's not the case that "What folks on Wikipedia do is copy technical information from authoritative sources, just like everybody else on the internet does.." as you put it.  What they do is interpret what they read and put that down.


rodtsasdt 111111report*
P-1 CUR ALLOC 20195.....5805M
HELLO GREGORY
tgm1024 is online now  
Old 01-13-2014, 12:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,392
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 324 Post(s)
Liked: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

No, "peer review" means a review among peers only.  It is not peer reviewed when anyone can view it, modify it, (Even anonymously!) and cite sources that don't exist or say something different from what they're purported to say, or cite agenda driven sources, or misread the intent of a source, or or or....  And the toughest case: be 80% true, which is a nightmare to argue out.

I don't think you understand how Wikipedia actually works. I think you have a fairly good understanding of how it functions on the surface, but not how the most important entries in Wikipedia are actually produced and edited. It's highly flawed, but highly reviewed. And nearly nothing about important people, places, events or things is in there without sourcing.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is online now  
Old 01-13-2014, 12:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,793
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 631 Post(s)
Liked: 925
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

No, "peer review" means a review among peers only.  It is not peer reviewed when anyone can view it, modify it, (Even anonymously!) and cite sources that don't exist or say something different from what they're purported to say, or cite agenda driven sources, or misread the intent of a source, or or or....  And the toughest case: be 80% true, which is a nightmare to argue out.

I don't think you understand how Wikipedia actually works. I think you have a fairly good understanding of how it functions on the surface, but not how the most important entries in Wikipedia are actually produced and edited. It's highly flawed, but highly reviewed. And nearly nothing about important people, places, events or things is in there without sourcing.

 

I've been in and out of Wikipedia for a very long time.  I do fully understand how it works.  I'd argue that what you understand is the theory of wikipedia.  The "sourcing" you're talking about is up to interpretation and often not checked.  How many times have you seen NPOV arguments in the talk pages?  I've seen it a ton of times.  I understand precisely how wikipedia works.

 

This is an uphill battle for me, so take it or leave it.  But if you're not double checking all the sources they provide, then you're doing what almost everyone else is doing, and making a terrible set of assumptions: That there are others double checking everything somehow in a NPOV way.

 

I'll grant that strictly data driven articles in technology are easier to verify, but even those require careful interpretation (just look at the arguments here at AVS).  And regarding things like History (including history of technology), Medicine, Politics, or even technological current events like Bitcoin, you get things controlled by a small number of people agenda driven.  I've even seen someone I know get entered as a notable person solely because he had a bunch of friends bring it forward and maintain it.  Every time I see a link to a wikipedia page, I myself have to do the leg work of digging out the wikipedia citations and verifying them.  That's a disaster, despite the open-source-y Kumbaya pot smoking theories.


rodtsasdt 111111report*
P-1 CUR ALLOC 20195.....5805M
HELLO GREGORY
tgm1024 is online now  
Old 01-13-2014, 04:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eapleitez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 15
It's 4 times the resolution. It is as simple as the number of pixels of resolution is 4 times that of 1080p. Think of it this way: 4 1080p screens can fit inside a 4K screen.
laridae and XPSTester like this.

_____________________________
eapleitez is offline  
Old 01-14-2014, 04:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 2,962
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Liked: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Well, that would be a very bad guess.  LOL.  What would cause the "distortion"?  Going from a non square x:y image source to a 1:1 pixel device could cause issues, but my example wasn't discussing that.

Back in the 80's I worked with a few printing devices that had weird pixel aspect ratios (PAR).  In the cases I remember they did this natively because the printer's horizontal addressing was often less susceptible to beat frequencies than its vertical.

Here's a microsoft explanation of PAR.  Pixel Aspect Ratio

Here's an interesting discussion of the PAR issue (as relates to NTSC DV---a 10:11 PAR) when using photoshop.
https://www.video2brain.com/en/lessons/understanding-pixel-aspect-ratios

If you search for Pixel Aspect Ratio, you'll see a lot of examples where tough calculations need to be made for such things.

But overall it doesn't matter at all if even one device exists with a non square pixel.  What matters is that you understand that UHD contains 4 times the resolving information that "full" HD does.

You can't compare a printer to a TV. Printers start at 300 dpi while TVs are typically under 100. Plus a printout is dull while a TV is illuminated. Making pixels more visible.

I don't know how people would perceive pixels that are 2 units high for every unit wide (or the converse), but until someone actually builds a TV and tests it, neither do you.
KidHorn is offline  
Old 01-14-2014, 06:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,793
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 631 Post(s)
Liked: 925
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

You can't compare a printer to a TV. Printers start at 300 dpi while TVs are typically under 100. Plus a printout is dull while a TV is illuminated. Making pixels more visible.

I don't know how people would perceive pixels that are 2 units high for every unit wide (or the converse), but until someone actually builds a TV and tests it, neither do you.

 

I think you lack a fundamental understanding of computer graphics and imaging (and video).  NTSC DV is 10:11 (non-square), as stated, and passive 3D on a 2K set is 1920x540, and those pixels are effectively twice as high as wide.  They're done with gaps, but that's a detail related to the filtering.

 

Subtractive light models (as with printers) or additive light (as with all displays other than e-ink) are all subject to resolution for this discussion.  Your "making pixels more visible" doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

If you wish to hold your ground on this and fight the uphill battle against the world, be my guest.  But you'll lose.

laridae likes this.

rodtsasdt 111111report*
P-1 CUR ALLOC 20195.....5805M
HELLO GREGORY
tgm1024 is online now  
Old 01-15-2014, 04:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 2,962
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Liked: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I think you lack a fundamental understanding of computer graphics and imaging (and video).  NTSC DV is 10:11 (non-square), as stated, and passive 3D on a 2K set is 1920x540, and those pixels are effectively twice as high as wide.  They're done with gaps, but that's a detail related to the filtering.

Subtractive light models (as with printers) or additive light (as with all displays other than e-ink) are all subject to resolution for this discussion.  Your "making pixels more visible" doesn't make a lot of sense.

If you wish to hold your ground on this and fight the uphill battle against the world, be my guest.  But you'll lose.

OK, so back on topic.

You're basically stating 3D TV has half the pixels of non 3D HDTV. So it should look half as sharp. So how is it that of all the complaints about 3D TV that I've read. I have yet to read someone complain that it's only half as sharp as non 3D TV? I view lots of 3D movies and to me it doesn't appear half as sharp.
KidHorn is offline  
Old 01-15-2014, 06:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,793
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 631 Post(s)
Liked: 925
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I think you lack a fundamental understanding of computer graphics and imaging (and video).  NTSC DV is 10:11 (non-square), as stated, and passive 3D on a 2K set is 1920x540, and those pixels are effectively twice as high as wide.  They're done with gaps, but that's a detail related to the filtering.

Subtractive light models (as with printers) or additive light (as with all displays other than e-ink) are all subject to resolution for this discussion.  Your "making pixels more visible" doesn't make a lot of sense.

If you wish to hold your ground on this and fight the uphill battle against the world, be my guest.  But you'll lose.

OK, so back on topic.

You're basically stating 3D TV has half the pixels of non 3D HDTV. So it should look half as sharp. So how is it that of all the complaints about 3D TV that I've read. I have yet to read someone complain that it's only half as sharp as non 3D TV? I view lots of 3D movies and to me it doesn't appear half as sharp.

 

It is the chief complaint of Passive 3D.  Every other scanline is sent to one eye, the remaining scanlines to the other.  They alternate with Left/Right information all the way down the display.  Google 1920x540 or passive 3d half resolution.

 

You need to stop fighting this.


rodtsasdt 111111report*
P-1 CUR ALLOC 20195.....5805M
HELLO GREGORY
tgm1024 is online now  
Old 01-15-2014, 08:25 AM - Thread Starter
"Don't PM Me Bro"
 
RandyWalters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: El Segundo, Calif
Posts: 17,514
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Vertical resolution is certainly only improved twofold. But it is absolutely correct to say, "4x the resolution of HD" overall.

Thus my confusion, TV makers have always used the vertical resolution to describe their TVs (ie: 1080p) so since these newfangled UHD TVs are 3,840 x 2,160 i was wondering why they're not calling it "2K" instead of "4K". I thought maybe they might now be using the horizontal resolution to describe these new UHD TVs (since 3840 is almost 4K) but that didn't make sense since they always used the vertical resolution number over the years. I still couldn't figure out where the "4K" thing was coming from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

4x the resolution sounds better than 2x. I believe that's the driving force behind the statement.
In reality, I think 2x is more what people will perceive. Sans the argument if we can actually see any difference at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eapleitez View Post

It's 4 times the resolution. It is as simple as the number of pixels of resolution is 4 times that of 1080p. Think of it this way: 4 1080p screens can fit inside a 4K screen.

Now i'm getting where the 4K term is coming from - they're adding up the vertical height of ALL FOUR of these 1080p screens, and no longer using the actual vertical resolution of the panel the way they did with the 1080p models. 4K does sound better than 2K in the advertisements.

Ok so while it's correct to state that a UHD TV has four times the resolution (4 times the number of actual pixels), is it also correct to add up the vertical resolution of all four screens (= 4360) to be able to use the "4K" term? Or should they be using the previous convention of using the actual vertical resolution of 2160 and call it a "2K" display? 2K doesn't sound so bad.

For that matter, i think it might have been better to refer to these UHD TVs as "4X" instead of "4K", as 4X would accurately reflect the TV having four times (4X) the resolution of a traditional 1080p TV. It would be less confusing to us consumers too.


These images helped me visualize what eapleitez alluded to:




Randy
TC-P55ST60, TC-P50GT50, TC-P46G10, TH-42PZ700U, TH-42PX50U, HP LC2600N, TiVo Series3, TWC Cisco 8742HDC DVR, Onkyo TX-SR333, URC R40 Remote.
Pic of My A/V setup - http://cdn.avsforum.com/f/f1/900x900..._Img_4867.jpeg
Gallery - http://www.avsforum.com/g/a/2082686/randywalter...
RandyWalters is offline  
Old 01-15-2014, 08:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,793
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 631 Post(s)
Liked: 925
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyWalters View Post

Now i'm getting where the 4K term is coming from - they're adding up the vertical height of ALL FOUR of these 1080p screens, and no longer using the actual vertical resolution of the panel the way they did with the 1080p models. 4K does sound better than 2K in the advertisements.

 

NO. 4K comes from the HORIZONTAL pixel measurement.  In the film industry 4K was traditionally 4096.  However, to make it an even multiple of 1920, they used 3840 and used the 4K label to describe it.  There are some in the industry mildly upset about this as well, because it complicates how they describe the industry (movie) cameras (often 4096 wide) used to shoot this stuff.

 

What seems to be confusing you (and many others) is that they switched from 1080 (a vertical measurement) to 4K (a horizontal measurement).  And yes, this whole thing is profoundly annoying.

 

When you see 1080, think "2K" (and vice-versa) because 1080 in the 16:9 case is 1920 wide.  So "full" HD = "1080" = "2K".  A little nutty at first, PARTICULARLY because 1080 looks like 1/4th of 4096.  But they're differing dimension axes entirely.

 

So the following are synonyms you can use conversationally:

 

"Full HD" = "1080" (which is vertical) = "2K" (which is horizontal but measures 1920x1080 for a 16:9 screen)

"UHD" = "2160" (which is vertical) = "4K" (which is horizontal and measures 3840x2160 for a 16:9 screen)

 

Note: "Full HD" is usually called merely "HD", though that is technically incorrect because "HD" was originally 720 vertical.  ......which was also in current implementations is 768 vertical.....but try to ignore that because it's confusing as hell.  (LOL!)  Get the sense that this industry can't help but shoot itself in the ass?

 

Note: this has nothing to do with KidHorn's misunderstandings.


rodtsasdt 111111report*
P-1 CUR ALLOC 20195.....5805M
HELLO GREGORY
tgm1024 is online now  
Old 01-15-2014, 09:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
xrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

The 4K or 2K or whatever terminology is now used in the scientific research literature as well. I've always interpreted it as the following:

Horizontal

K = kilo (1000)
2K = 2000
4K = 4000
8K = 8000

It is meant to describe the general # of pixels in a pixel row.


Vertical

p = progressive scan (vertical scanning of pixel rows)
720p
1080p
2160p

It is meant to describe the number of pixel rows (lines of resolution...etc)

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
xrox is offline  
Old 01-15-2014, 09:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,810
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyWalters View Post

Thus my confusion, TV makers have always used the vertical resolution to describe their TVs (ie: 1080p) so since these newfangled UHD TVs are 3,840 x 2,160 i was wondering why they're not calling it "2K" instead of "4K". I thought maybe they might now be using the horizontal resolution to describe these new UHD TVs (since 3840 is almost 4K) but that didn't make sense since they always used the vertical resolution number over the years. I still couldn't figure out where the "4K" thing was coming from.
It is more a matter of what term started to being used first, becomes popular and easy to write and becomes a general term for mutual understanding, but is not so much about correct technical language.

1080p came to the world of TV before there was any digital cinema, where later 2K has been used to differentiate between the TV term of 1080p and the digital cinema term of 2K.

4K cinema arrived before consumer UHD screens was released, so 4K was in use among everybody interested in such long before they settled for any "official" TV term for 4K.

The first term used for 4K and 8K in TV/Broadcast description came from the research and development lab of Japanese state television station NHK, which used Hi-Vision and Super Hi-Vision.
But those terms didn't catch on because it is easier to write 4K or 8K.

Surprising that there is still a possabilty to have a ongoing thread about this in 2014. biggrin.gif
coolscan is online now  
Old 01-15-2014, 10:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,793
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 631 Post(s)
Liked: 925
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

The 4K or 2K or whatever terminology is now used in the scientific research literature as well. I've always interpreted it as the following:

Horizontal

K = kilo (1000)
2K = 2000
4K = 4000
8K = 8000

It is meant to describe the general # of pixels in a pixel row.


Vertical

p = progressive scan (vertical scanning of pixel rows)
720p
1080p
2160p

It is meant to describe the number of pixel rows (lines of resolution...etc)

 

The vertical section is correct, except to clarify that progressive merely means that each scanline follows the previous one, as opposed to interlacing where every other scanline is drawn (followed by another "half frame" drawing the missing ones).

 

The K (Kilo-) prefix (along with similar Mega-, Giga-, Tera-, etc.) has undergone some transformations recently.

 

Kilo, as used in the metric system, is from a greek word meaning "thousand".

 

But something interesting happened when computers came about.  Note, this is historically driven.

 

Computers use bits---binary (base 2) digits---because the smallest possible unit of storage is either an on or an off, a 1 or 0, high or low, true or false, or whatever variation you like of two possible values.  The closest pertinent binary number to 1000 is 1024.  This comes from all the possible numbers in a base two representation of 10 digits (bits).  0000000000 to 1111111111 is 0 to 1023 in base 10.  So Kilobyte ended up meaning 1024 bytes, or 1K.  4K was thus 4x1024, or 4096.  3840 being a bastardization of course.

 

Mega, means million.  As in MegaOhms MegaWatts, and the like, all based upon 1000x1000.

 

However, computers needed a sensible number representing a base two "version" of million being 1024x1024.  Basically 20 base two digits, yielding 00000000000000000000 to 11111111111111111111, or 0 to 1048575.  So a MegaByte ended up being 1048576 bytes.  A GigaByte is 1024x1024x1024 (or 1,073,741,824) bytes.

 

This is as it was (and should be).

 

HOWEVER, this was deemed confusing, and disk drive manufacturers, being farging cheap bastages, started touting things like Gigabyte drives being merely 1,000,000,000 bytes, so the computer industry (read as IEEE & ISO) "tried" to adopt a new set of prefixes that are God Awful sounding.  Kibi- being 1024, Mebi- being 1048576, etc.  Almost no one who doesn't want to sound like they're mentally afflicted uses these.  But you'll see it.  Frankly, the design of those prefixes is steeped in generalized f-tardary.


rodtsasdt 111111report*
P-1 CUR ALLOC 20195.....5805M
HELLO GREGORY
tgm1024 is online now  
Old 01-15-2014, 10:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,793
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 631 Post(s)
Liked: 925
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Surprising that there is still a possabilty to have a ongoing thread about this in 2014. biggrin.gif

 

Yep.  This industry is routinely in the nurse's office for stapling their balls to their thigh¹.

 


¹ Yes, stolen from Jon Stewart.


rodtsasdt 111111report*
P-1 CUR ALLOC 20195.....5805M
HELLO GREGORY
tgm1024 is online now  
 
Thread Tools


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