4K… I have Seen The Light - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 576 Old 10-01-2012, 09:08 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

I don't know if you follow the other (8K) topic, but we discussed this there: NHK did a study with 1080p, 2160p and 4320p with viewing distances of 0.75, 1.5, 3 and 4.5 image heights:
1-1-1-1.gif
Differences, differences...

Those charts just show how much of an issue not being able to see the difference between HD and 4K in the average living room. The average seating distance in the USA is 9 feet. With a 60" 4KTV that puts the the distance at 3 PHs, the point where HD and 4K converge.

How are you going to convince people that to get the true benefit of 4K, they are going to have to move their couch up to at least half the distance of where it is today?
Lee Stewart is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 576 Old 10-01-2012, 02:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Randomoneh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

...at 3 PHs, the point where HD and 4K converge.
If 1080p and 2160p converge, that is, if there is no perceivable difference between 1080p and 2160p - why 4320p looks different from those? That is impossible according to every theoretical discussion out there - "If at certain point there is no difference between 2K and 4K - of course 8K won't look any better!" - that's how most discussions go.
Randomoneh is offline  
post #273 of 576 Old 10-01-2012, 02:30 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

If 1080p and 2160p converge, that is, if there is no perceivable difference between 1080p and 2160p - why 4320p looks different from those? That is impossible according to every theoretical discussion out there - "If at certain point there is no difference between 2K and 4K - of course 8K won't look any better!" - that's how most discussions go.

And those discussions are based on what? Have all those participating in the discussions even seen 8K? All we do is extropolate or speculate. So I will do such . . . the reason why 8K also doesn't converge at 3 PHs is that it simply has more detail that can be seen at 3 PHs than 4K or HD do.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #274 of 576 Old 10-02-2012, 08:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post


Those charts just show how much of an issue not being able to see the difference between HD and 4K in the average living room. The average seating distance in the USA is 9 feet. With a 60" 4KTV that puts the the distance at 3 PHs, the point where HD and 4K converge.
How are you going to convince people that to get the true benefit of 4K, they are going to have to move their couch up to at least half the distance of where it is today?

 

For a 60" tv, I agree with you.    4K only matters, IMHO, for projectors and 'super size' (84" etc.) tv's.

millerwill is online now  
post #275 of 576 Old 10-02-2012, 01:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

For a 60" tv, I agree with you.    4K only matters, IMHO, for projectors and 'super size' (84" etc.) tv's.
Those charts are for "sense of realness" and "sense of being there" (not really 'measurable' things compared to resolution), not for the amount of resolvable detail in the different formats from a particular viewing distance. Surely what matters is size of display and viewing distance and whether you could see more detail from a 4K TV of that size at that distance than you could with 1080p one.

Also, no numbers are given on for the amount people in the study, also, there'd be more to "sense of realness/being there" etc. than just the pixel width and height of the content on a particular TV (eg. frame rate, colour, etc.)..
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #276 of 576 Old 10-02-2012, 01:42 PM
Senior Member
 
Randomoneh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Those charts are for "sense of realness" and "sense of being there" (not really 'measurable' things compared to resolution), not for the amount of resolvable detail in the different formats from a particular viewing distance.
That's exactly what these charts are for. Resolvable detail in different resolutions at different viewing distances compared to image height.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Surely what matters is size of display and viewing distance and whether you could see more detail from a 4K TV of that size at that distance than you could with 1080p one.
And that's exactly what is being tested here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Also, no numbers are given on for the amount people in the study
I agree, we'll see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

also, there'd be more to "sense of realness/being there" etc. than just the pixel width and height of the content on a particular TV
Of course, but this parameter is being tested here.
Randomoneh is offline  
post #277 of 576 Old 10-02-2012, 01:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

That's exactly what these charts are for. Resolvable detail in different resolutions at different viewing distances compared to image height.
.
Have another look at what it says on the charts. "sense of realness", "sense of being there". Neither of those is a proper test for amount of resolvable spatial detail at a particular viewing distance.

Like when they do eye tests, they don't just say to someone "rate this [still] picture from 1 to 10 for "sense of realness"" or "being there" and "rate this other [still] picture on a scale of 1 to 10 for "sense realness" or "being there", then say "well the amount of spatial resolution your eyes can resolve at this distance is...." from that.

Asking someone to rate a picture on a scale of 1 to 10 for "realness"/"being there" isn't accurate for spatial resolution measurement.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #278 of 576 Old 10-02-2012, 02:16 PM
Senior Member
 
Randomoneh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Asking someone to rate a picture on a scale of 1 to 10 for "realness"/"being there" isn't accurate for spatial resolution measurement.
And what is!? Even asking "which image looks better" (double-blind, lot of participants, lot of separate measurements for every participant) would be enough. There is absolutely no reason to ask participants "in which image do you perceive higher resolution" because every difference between can be attributed to resolution, since everything else stays the same.

And as I've said before: differences should be even more obvious when comparing between different panels with different resolutions - instead of simulating resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Like when they do eye tests (...) they say...
No, they don't.
Randomoneh is offline  
post #279 of 576 Old 10-02-2012, 02:27 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Psychophysical effects of Super Hi-Vision

 We conducted research on the psychophysical effects of the field of view and pixel density to show that the SHV system is capable of providing a strong sense of being there and realness. In FY2011, we evaluated the preferred viewing distance and the sense of being there and the sense of realness for different spatial resolutions in motion video with an 85-inch SHV full-resolution direct-view LCD (see Section 1.1.3) in a home viewing environment(1). The experiments using video with three levels of spatial resolution (2K:1920x1080, 4K:3840x2160, 8K:7680x4320) showed that the preferred viewing distance did not depend on the resolution or content and ranged from 1.5 to 4 times the screen height, with the most preferred distance being 2.5 times the screen height. Furthermore, the sense of being there and the sense of realness were higher for 8K than for 2K or 4K for viewing distances less than three times the screen height (Figure 1).

http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/english/aboutstrl1/r1-1-1.htm

This goes with the two charts above.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #280 of 576 Old 10-02-2012, 02:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

And what is!? Even asking "which image looks better" (double-blind, lot of participants, lot of separate measurements for every participant) would be enough. There is absolutely no reason to ask participants "in which image do you perceive higher resolution" because every difference between can be attributed to resolution, since everything else stays the same.
And as I've said before: differences should be even more obvious when comparing between different panels with different resolutions - instead of simulating resolution.
Doing some sort of resolution test charts on the TV screen. eg. at one point do two lines blur into one, basically switching between original image and video and downsampled images video, without telling the viewing which is which. Both test chart type videos as well as lots of other video types could be tested. You ask the viewer which is showing the most detail (not most real/being there).

Another way is like how they did with the EBU test - have 3 TVs positioned at the same distance from the viewer, one showing each resolution. But unlike them, you could randomly put the different resolutions on the different TVs. Also, unlike with the EBU test, you should make sure the test is unbiased. Also, you should probably do an independent standard eye-test of each of the participants, and take that and age into account in the tests (eg. do they all have at least 20:20 vision)?.
Quote:
showed that the preferred viewing distance did not depend on the resolution or content
It's hard to believe it didn't depend on the content - surely how it was shot would affect how you viewed it. It would also have depended on the fact that the TV was only 60Hz too.
reanimator likes this.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #281 of 576 Old 10-02-2012, 03:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Randomoneh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Also, you should probably do an independent standard eye-test of each of the participants, and take that and age into account in the tests (eg. do they all have at least 20:20 vision)?.
This is done on all previous NHK tests, I don't see any reason why that wouldn't be the case this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Doing some sort of resolution test charts on the TV screen. eg. at one point do two lines blur into one
Great, do synthetic tests, but for real-life situations, to simulate how different those resolutions are for regular use (movies, images, games), use regular content - people, nature, objects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Another way is like how they did with the EBU test - have 3 TVs positioned at the same distance from the viewer, one showing each resolution. But unlike them, you could randomly put the different resolutions on the different TVs.
Can you link me to it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

It's hard to believe it [preferred viewing distance related to image height] didn't depend on the content
It didn't depend on resolution and that's expected. People tend to choose viewing distance based on immersion (number of degrees of FOV), [angular] resolution is just a bonus. If you have a 200x100 video, you aren't going to stand 30 feet away so it wood look good.
Randomoneh is offline  
post #282 of 576 Old 10-02-2012, 04:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

This is done on all previous NHK tests, I don't see any reason why that wouldn't be the case this time.
Great, do synthetic tests, but for real-life situations, to simulate how different those resolutions are for regular use (movies, images, games), use regular content - people, nature, objects.
Can you link me to it?
.
See page 3 & 4 for TVs:
http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_308-hdtv.pdf

Quote:
It didn't depend on resolution and that's expected
I said content - ie. how it was shot. - what type of camera motion (if any) etc. If there's lots of camera motion (like Shaky-cam at low fps) they'd probably move away from the screen, if it's a fixed camera, with high fps, with objects not near the camera, they probably wouldn't.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #283 of 576 Old 10-04-2012, 05:27 PM
Member
 
kevinsert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Turkey
Posts: 141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i dont understand this..who would buy these tv's? even i have red epic and shoot 5K footage i think apple cinema display is enough for me.i saw sony's 4K tv its awesome but who the f.. gives that much money for a tv if you dont have any 4K camera lol..its just funny for me smile.gif
kevinsert is offline  
post #284 of 576 Old 10-04-2012, 10:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
zoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 17
I have seen 4k restored LOA in the theater and Sony 84 inch 4ktv and I want both;)
zoro is offline  
post #285 of 576 Old 10-05-2012, 07:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
BSTNFAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chelmsford, MA
Posts: 581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 15
For me, the currently available content that takes advantage of the 4K technology is BD3D and can now be Full 1080P to both eyes in passive mode.
BSTNFAN is offline  
post #286 of 576 Old 10-05-2012, 08:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,070
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Liked: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by BSTNFAN View Post

For me, the currently available content that takes advantage of the 4K technology is BD3D and can now be Full 1080P to both eyes in passive mode.
YEP! You will, however, still see the gaps. I haven't seen a passive 3D that didn't look all "scanliney" (best way for me to describe it.)

WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #287 of 576 Old 10-05-2012, 09:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 2,638
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Extract from ubergizmo com article 10/2/2012, "Toshiba pushes 4K REGZA HDTVs at CEATEC 2012" (link)...
Quote:
"At Japan’s biggest technology trade show Toshiba was demonstrating 4K REGZA televisions with a maximum size of 84″. The company was showing content shot in 4K, but also content that was up-scaled (magnified) from a regular 1080p source and believe me, the demo looked absolutely stunning. Obviously, the footage used during such trade shows is carefully selected and tuned to feature eye-popping colors and contrasts but in the grand scheme of things, it is clear that 4K is much more compelling that stereo-3D will ever be, especially for TVs that are 55″ and more.

But Toshiba wasn’t here to promote its LCD panels. Instead, the company representatives were focusing on CEVO 4K, the internal image processor that can take a 1080p movie and re-scale it to 4K while adding some details on the fly.

Using a simple magnification results in blurry video, so it is critical that any up-scaling of the image is produced with the best possible algorithm so that additional data can be “injected” to visually appear sharper and “4K”-looking. The same thing was done to DVD videos when 1080p first appeared.

With a good up-scaler, Toshiba can argue that consumers don’t need to wait for native 4K content. Of course, we’ve seen that movie before and in the end, sooner or later, 4K will come – now the only question is how fast will the prices drop?"

The argument will be made that if one sits "just slighter closer than full 1080 pixel visibility" (e.g., notionally at a 2.5H to 3H viewing distance) from a 4K2K display, the "pixel detail" of a same size 1080 display is removed . . . but you are still viewing from sufficiently beyond the full 2160 pixel visibility point (notionally a 1.5H viewing distance) that "well upscaled" 1080 source is qualitatively indistinguishable from corresponding native 2160 source material.

Of course, it remains to be seen just how effectively Toshiba and others can deliver on that promise! biggrin.gif
_

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

SoundChex is online now  
post #288 of 576 Old 10-06-2012, 04:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post


The argument will be made that if one sits "just slighter closer than full 1080 pixel visibility" (e.g., notionally at a 2.5H to 3H viewing distance) from a 4K2K display, the "pixel detail" of a same size 1080 display is removed . . . but you are still viewing from sufficiently beyond the full 2160 pixel visibility point (notionally a 1.5H viewing distance) that "well upscaled" 1080 source is qualitatively indistinguishable from corresponding native 2160 source material.

Of course, it remains to be seen just how effectively Toshiba and others can deliver on that promise! biggrin.gif
_

I quite agree.

A good example of that was when some Greek members here (often refereed to on here as 'The Athens Experiment) did a test of a 1080 vs 720 pj using the same manufacturer so they could use close as possible the same pj where the only difference was the resolution (not perfectly the same, but pretty close in this case IIRC), they found that no one could tell which one was the 1080 model until they were sat closer then 1.5 x the screen width of the 16:9 screen (closer then 2.7H).

One of the other advantage of 4K other than distinguishable resolution is that the reduced pixel size will allow closer seating than some technologies may currently permit with respect to pixel or screendoor visibility. At 2H 1080 with an A lens has pixel visibility in some scenes with DLP, but 4K will remove that even without the use of a lens.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #289 of 576 Old 10-06-2012, 05:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 3,751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 18
This "but can you see a difference" discussion causes me to insert my experience w/my now el-cheapo Mits HC4900, which is that I de-focus the pj just a couple ticks, and this effectively blurs the pixel structure WITHOUT NEGATIVELY IMPACTING THE IMAGE at least for Blu-ray discs of movies.

I'm all for more realism in images, but I'll not likely bother with a 4K projector until there's a similar leap in source resolution.
Laserfan is offline  
post #290 of 576 Old 10-07-2012, 10:00 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

One of the other advantage of 4K other than distinguishable resolution is that the reduced pixel size will allow closer seating than some technologies may currently permit with respect to pixel or screendoor visibility. At 2H 1080 with an A lens has pixel visibility in some scenes with DLP, but 4K will remove that even without the use of a lens.
Gary

Exactly !

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #291 of 576 Old 10-07-2012, 01:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DanFrancis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Aurora, IL, USA
Posts: 1,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 23
I looked at the screen in a commercial cinema yesterday containing a Barco DP4K-32B - literally AT the screen and there was no visible pixel structure- now I realize that this was probably not focused to within an inch of it's life (like we would do) BUT definite benefit to the 4K DCI chipset.

Dan

Dan Francis
Head of Sales US
C'SEED Entertainment Systems GMBH
www.cseed.tv
df@cseed.tv
DanFrancis is offline  
post #292 of 576 Old 10-08-2012, 03:24 AM
Senior Member
 
Randomoneh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanFrancis View Post

I looked at the screen in a commercial cinema yesterday containing a Barco DP4K-32B - literally AT the screen and there was no visible pixel structure- now I realize that this was probably not focused to within an inch of it's life (like we would do) BUT definite benefit to the 4K DCI chipset.
Dan
Then technically its resolution wasn't fully utilized. If you were to project black & white square (1 black pixel, 1 white pixel, 1 black pixel, 1 white...) pattern with that same projector, you would probably see a blurry gray mess or fully gray projection. MTF 0, right?
Randomoneh is offline  
post #293 of 576 Old 10-08-2012, 06:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DanFrancis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Aurora, IL, USA
Posts: 1,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 23
couldn't say, I did not do the projector setup or calibration- I paid to see a movie with my family, and afterwords wen to the screen to see if I could see pixel structure that close.

Dan

Dan Francis
Head of Sales US
C'SEED Entertainment Systems GMBH
www.cseed.tv
df@cseed.tv
DanFrancis is offline  
post #294 of 576 Old 10-08-2012, 06:39 PM
Member
 
HankRearden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I work with 4k most everyday at work. The biggest problem will be content, we make most of ours so we don't see it as an issue. But for a consumer this will be the deciding factor for some time.

The amazing part for me is the realism, undetectable pixels and immersive abilities is incredible. I would invite anyone who is interested to view a short documentary on our equipment at

http://youtu.be/nlr9uM3xJ8k

and discovery planet did a special also here

http://youtu.be/wNEWNF3O814
HankRearden is offline  
post #295 of 576 Old 10-10-2012, 04:00 PM
Member
 
mattg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I read about the 4k on this site and found that there was one on display only a mile or so from my job in Palo Alto at the Sony store in the Stanford mall. I had to go there anyway so I made it a point to stop by.

The first set I saw was a 65" HX950. It was playing an animated movie (of course) but it was a very impressive picture. At $5k it would be a tough call between that and a Sharp Elite.

On to the star of the show. Yes, at 84" it is large, but I've seen many such sets lately including the Sharp 90" playing a good movie in a dark environment. So size was not an issue. This thing was absolutely stunning, there is no other word for it. The blacks were black, the color was saturated, the uniformity (even on dark screens) was perfect.

But what really stood out was the resolution. Showing the obligatory European street scene, it was easy to read building signs that would have been nothing but a blur on any other set.

For context my set is a Pioneer plasma model 5072 with a resolution of 165x 768. Despite not being 1080p, it is still one of the best pictures I've yet seen. Viewing at 10 or 11 feet, there is no screen door effect, although I'm sure I am missing subtle details and textures.

I had my eyes checked last week to get a pair of good reading glasses. I do a LOT of up-close computer work for many hours each day, but at 52 years old my vision still checked out at better than 20/20.

Perhaps in a controlled test I wouldn't be able to tell a 2k from a 4k at a given distance, but the overall effect of that much detail was spectacular. It made an even bigger impression than when I saw HD for the first time. Others may not think resolution matters past a certain viewing distance, but I can definitively say that it made a huge impression on me.

Besides, given the proper source material (a big unknown), I would be very comfortable watching this 84" set in place of my 50" plasma at the same distance. Heck, I'd probably move the couch closer! At $25k I bet they sell more than a few to the many tech billionaires in my area. Thank goodness for early adopters with deep pockets. In 5 years I'm looking forward to getting one for $6k or so...it will be a steal.

Check one out if you can. Once you see it live, the academic arguments go out the window.
mattg is offline  
post #296 of 576 Old 10-11-2012, 09:56 PM
Senior Member
 
PubFiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I think people under rate 4k, I have a 1080p 54 inch TV and as far back as I can sit in my medium sized living room I can still notice jagged edges in games and such. Anyone who sits closer definitely sees it. If we want to produce really good quality content we need to have resolution at nyquist, roughly 2.3 x retina. When ever we get there people can start saying it does not matter but until we hit that people need to stop trying to impede progress.

The second thing is that displays that are very large can be very cheap. I have seen 60 inch plasmas hit $1200 maybe lower.

As the OP touched on the real crime is that HDMI was such a crappy standard with no future proofing. HDMI barely took off and we have already outrun its potential. On computers that can easily run 1080p at 120hz most graphics cards and displays are using the older DVI-D standard. Isnt that sad? The old standard is better than the new one. Everyone who is a customer is sick of these display standards that basically are designed to force us to buy all new equipment every 5 years or so. There is no excuse for that. HDMI does not need to be updated it needs to be replaced with displayport or a better tech that has the possibility of upgrading without a cable change to something like 8k at 240hz. That way we dont need to switch out cables. In the end it really hurts the industry because tons of people will find it very hard to justify upgrading a TV when it also means their reciever, media players, and even cables will all need replaced.
PubFiction is offline  
post #297 of 576 Old 10-11-2012, 10:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Jetmeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Displayport is for computers and hdmi for tvs. I doubt you will ever find a tv in the future with displayport.
Jetmeck is offline  
post #298 of 576 Old 10-11-2012, 10:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 2,638
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 79
At CES 2012, HDMI org said (link) that their "target release date of the next version of the HDMI specification is the second half of 2012". Trade press articles in early 2012 hinted that "major changes" to the HDMI specifications were under consideration.

Due sometime soon...??? cool.gif
_

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

SoundChex is online now  
post #299 of 576 Old 10-11-2012, 10:31 PM
Senior Member
 
Jetmeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
4k you say. They are not done trying to get 3d into the mainstream home market.

As with 3d, 4k will die a slow death. Just not needed.

People getting new tvs which happen to have 3d is the only way they are getting into homes.

Until they get rid of the glasses it is doomed to fail.

Might sell some 4k tvs to those rich tech guys you mentioned but not
mainstream.
Jetmeck is offline  
post #300 of 576 Old 10-12-2012, 06:00 AM
Senior Member
 
Randomoneh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post

4k will die a slow death.
Must be the worst prediction I've read in here.
But hey, we'll see, yeah?
Cravit8 likes this.
Randomoneh is offline  
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

Tags
Cedia

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