Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it? - Page 13 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #361 of 451 Old 04-20-2013, 03:28 PM
Member
 
treyrhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 77
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I look forward to the changes in the accuracy of the color space. Who could argue against resolving currently out-of-gamut values?

I also look forward to implementation of 4K in the computer monitor market.
treyrhodes is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #362 of 451 Old 04-20-2013, 03:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Jetmeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 481
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Whether we need it or want it is irrelevant the manufacturers will push it on us.

They better have some way of shutting off the BS upconversion as I don't want it.....................

I want to watch in native resolution without artifacts and there will be plenty when asking this tv

to create so much from so little..............................

This tech is essentially an upconverting tech because with the mountains they would need to move

in infractructure for internet, sat and cable to handle native 4k .......its basically impossible for the masses.


Cramming 10 lbs of stuff in a 5 lb bag with some new MEGA compression codec is not the answer either...............

same problems as upconversion............................

Real native 4k would be nice buts its a pipe dream.....................

I have found a dozen articles stating the obvious..........................


http://www.zdnet.com/4k-uhd-tv-needs-big-pipes-not-a-pipe-dream-7000010632/

http://www.zdnet.com/4k-uhd-tv-needs-big-pipes-not-a-pipe-dream-7000010632/
Jetmeck is offline  
post #363 of 451 Old 04-20-2013, 03:38 PM
Senior Member
 
Jetmeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 481
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Gun View Post

To get this thread back on topic....

I have spent some time recently (a week ago) with a Sony 84" running an Oppo BDP-103 . Got to play around with the combination for hours; using different BR material, try the native blu-ray resolution, let the TV upconvert it, let the Oppo upconvert it, different display modes, tried 3D-mode using the passive Sony glasses, played video games on it...really gave them both a good workout.

Guys, depending on how far away you sit and the size of your screen, Quad-HD rocks. IMHO, it's a must-have for passive 3D. And the Oppo 4K-upscaling is superior and very noticeable when viewed from 8 to 10 feet away, and obvious from closer up.

And native 4K content in 3D is like...holey moley. Stunning. Gave me the Big Want. rolleyes.gif

Honestly, that Oppo player impressed me as much as the monster Sony panel. Together, wow. Now the panel needs to come down an order of magnitude in price, is all... ;-)

But that Oppo is worth it's price now, if you are running a 4K display of any size, again IMHO.

So, 'need' it? For passive 3D, definitely. Got a big screen & close seating? Then yessir, 4K is for you.

'Want' it? Oh my, yes...


Went to my local Nebraska Furniture Mart and they had Sony 4k 84" amongst all the 1080P sets...................

at normal viewing distances I saw little if any differences............now if I put my nose up to the screen yea 4k looked better.
Jetmeck is offline  
post #364 of 451 Old 04-20-2013, 03:45 PM
Member
 
Drewdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
IMHO Unlike most upgrades 4k or 2160p can avoid the "chicken vs egg" phenomenon by not needing 4k shows to buy a 4k set and visa versa.

4k sets are 2160p and upscale both 1080 and 720 evenly (unlike 720 on a 1080 set) so having a 4kTV would improve most if not all HD content especially using the technics employed in making DVDs look virtually HD.

4k programming can be displayed on either a 720 or 1080 set scaled down (on a 4k STB) but retaining the increased chroma resolution in a 2160 4:2:0 format. The result should be equivalent to 4:2:2 or possibly 4:4:4 for 720 or 1080 and thus look better than standard HD.

All IMHO so I may be wrong. cool.gif
Drewdawg is offline  
post #365 of 451 Old 04-20-2013, 08:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
zoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 17
I watched 1080p upscale demo at Sony store on their 4k set. I thought it was pretty impressive. IMHO rather than using 4k upscale player with your 1080p switch HDMI AV receiver, it shall be better to let your tv upscale?
What do u guys think?
zoro is offline  
post #366 of 451 Old 04-22-2013, 05:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 1,815
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 312 Post(s)
Liked: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Here is a chart which should help people understand if they will get any benefit at all from 2160 - let alone 1080:


Great update, I've got a copy of the old one and have had good use of it explaining to resolution to people - great to have a 4K-line as well on it.

Glad to see my theater will have full use of 4K, so I will definitely plan for that later on.

Under construction: the Larch theater
Nightlord is offline  
post #367 of 451 Old 04-22-2013, 06:13 AM
Senior Member
 
Jetmeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 481
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Great update, I've got a copy of the old one and have had good use of it explaining to resolution to people - great to have a 4K-line as well on it.

Glad to see my theater will have full use of 4K, so I will definitely plan for that later on.



Yep thanks for that chart of viewing distance versus whether you can see a noticable difference.

It backs up exactly what I said about the LIVE demo I saw of 80 inch sets.................


80 inch is the size I have in my rec room and yes the chart shows you need to be 6-7 feet

from it to get any benefit.......from 4k.

That is what I saw in real time and I actually think this chart is a bit favorable to this tech

and I was looking at real 4k content.

When he switched to upconverted bluray/dvd material I was even less impressed.


Guys/gals we have seen good and bad upconversion............this tech is the mother of all

upconversion as in it will be asked to create the most from so little than anything before.

Your asking for problems...............native 4k content would solve this but the hurdles for that

to be mainstream may impossible and a long time coming if at all.


I'd like to say to those who insist on saying people said there was no difference between 720 and 1080.............

Eventually you get to a point of what can a person's eye discern...........on a smaller screen at home.

Diminishing returns would be another way of putting this..............

Extra large projectors would benefit but I am talking pure tv here.
Jetmeck is offline  
post #368 of 451 Old 04-22-2013, 06:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 1,815
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 312 Post(s)
Liked: 138
Yeah, for tvscreens you'd need to sit close AND get used to larger sizes... Drawback is that it's a big black rectangle when not in use... they ought to be designed for continual running as a "painting".

140" diagonal is not so strange for a PJscreen... that's 100" wide 16/9 if my memory serves me.

Under construction: the Larch theater
Nightlord is offline  
post #369 of 451 Old 04-22-2013, 10:48 AM
Senior Member
 
Jetmeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 481
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Yeah, for tvscreens you'd need to sit close AND get used to larger sizes... Drawback is that it's a big black rectangle when not in use... they ought to be designed for continual running as a "painting".

140" diagonal is not so strange for a PJscreen... that's 100" wide 16/9 if my memory serves me.


I look forward to my whole wall being a tv someday and when turned off it disappears.
Jetmeck is offline  
post #370 of 451 Old 04-22-2013, 11:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,526
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post

...

They better have some way of shutting off the BS upconversion as I don't want it.....................

I want to watch in native resolution without artifacts and there will be plenty when asking this tv

to create so much from so little..............................

This tech is essentially an upconverting tech because with the mountains they would need to move

in infractructure for internet, sat and cable to handle native 4k .......its basically impossible for the masses.

...

People really like the upconversion the 4k Sony vpl-vw1000es projector does. And these are serious home theater people. And JVC's e-shift is a sort-of upconversion and people like that too. I saw e-shift myself and together with a Darblet, it's really a stunning improvement.
And, I'd never watch a DVD that hasn't been upconverted to 1080p on my 10' wide 16:9 screen. The upconversion from 480 to 1080 has really been perfected and is excellent. I expect the 1080 to 4k upconversion will have the same level of math and hardware design applied to it.

My point is, don't count upconversion out as long as it's done at the display and, as you say, you can turn it off!
erkq is offline  
post #371 of 451 Old 04-22-2013, 03:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Jetmeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 481
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

People really like the upconversion the 4k Sony vpl-vw1000es projector does. And these are serious home theater people. And JVC's e-shift is a sort-of upconversion and people like that too. I saw e-shift myself and together with a Darblet, it's really a stunning improvement.
And, I'd never watch a DVD that hasn't been upconverted to 1080p on my 10' wide 16:9 screen. The upconversion from 480 to 1080 has really been perfected and is excellent. I expect the 1080 to 4k upconversion will have the same level of math and hardware design applied to it.

My point is, don't count upconversion out as long as it's done at the display and, as you say, you can turn it off!


Don't think you understood my point....................

I have and could post a dozen articles saying the opposite............

There is good and bad conversion, we have all seen it....................

480 to 1080 versus 1080 to 2150..................just a bit more info there...................

People want and will expect native content ...................the mountains they would need to move in infrastructure

for cable, sat and internet would be phenomenally expensive and possible technically impossible

..................as to right now making native 4k for the masses a pipe dream at best.

............Larger sets are needed to take advantage and right now those 80" plus LCD 1080P are 6k and above

and look how long LCD has been around and still 6k...................?

Now your gonna add 4k and expect the price to magically drop ......again on the larger sets where you will actually notice a

slight difference.............................


At best this is an upconvertng tv that is upconverting twice as much info than ever done and little to no native 4k will be availlable.

The larger sets that are needed will be high for a long time just look at today's prices without 4k.

This a bad plan and I have seen a Sony 84 incher beside a 1080P set at normal viewing distances your wasting your money......................

Go see one for myself and don't buy the hype....compare a larger set to the Sony.
Jetmeck is offline  
post #372 of 451 Old 04-22-2013, 04:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Gradius2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iquique, Chile
Posts: 411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 14
4K is nice and all, but isn't the future.

8K is. So yes, for now, manufactures will do a lot $$$ for those going for 4K right now, when the time is right (10 years from now)... 8K will pop up.

[]s,
Fernando
Gradius2 is offline  
post #373 of 451 Old 04-22-2013, 05:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,526
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradius2 View Post

4K is nice and all, but isn't the future.

8K is. So yes, for now, manufactures will do a lot $$$ for those going for 4K right now, when the time is right (10 years from now)... 8K will pop up.

8k!! Ha! We need that like we need a hole in the head. Let's get less compression on downloaded material first, so it at least looks like BD. Then maybe add a wider color gamut. What the heck do we need more resolution for? I can see... maybe... 4k. But 8k? How close do you want to sit?? 1sw with 2k is very pleasing but could be better. So, yeah... I can see 4k... maybe.
erkq is offline  
post #374 of 451 Old 04-23-2013, 01:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 134 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewdawg View Post

IMHO Unlike most upgrades 4k or 2160p can avoid the "chicken vs egg" phenomenon by not needing 4k shows to buy a 4k set and visa versa.

4k sets are 2160p and upscale both 1080 and 720 evenly (unlike 720 on a 1080 set) so having a 4kTV would improve most if not all HD content especially using the technics employed in making DVDs look virtually HD.

4k programming can be displayed on either a 720 or 1080 set scaled down (on a 4k STB) but retaining the increased chroma resolution in a 2160 4:2:0 format. The result should be equivalent to 4:2:2 or possibly 4:4:4 for 720 or 1080 and thus look better than standard HD.

All IMHO so I may be wrong. cool.gif

Unless you're rocking FIOS, I strongly suspect that pretty much all cable HD would look a lot worse than it does now.

Evenly upscaling 720 isn't something I even thought about... but even ESPN would probably look worse than on a 1080 display, I'm afraid. Now if DirecTV offers ESPN in 4k...
BiggAW is offline  
post #375 of 451 Old 04-23-2013, 02:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 845
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Here is a chart which should help people understand if they will get any benefit at all from 2160 - let alone 1080:



For example, my screen is about 108 or so inches. We will use the 100 inch line on the chart to make it easy. This means to even begin to notice any benefit from 2160, I need to sit closer than 14 feet from the screen. To get the full benefit means I have to sit closer than 7 feet from the screen.

For the kid in me, that's not a problem. I sit 6-8 feet away from my 1080p projector at 100", and when 4k becomes the norm I think you'll see a lot of people going up to screens at the store to compare them side by side (closer than they'd sit at home), for some that will make the sale, for others it won't.

Aside from passive 3d, there's a whole world of computer uses, videogames, browsing, watching multiple shows (I do this often, I read forums while watching vids). 1080p is nice but is starting to get archaic, PCs have been up to 5k using multi-monitor configs for some time now, it'd be nice to not have to stitch several monitors together to achieve it.

I also believe that despite Hollywood not being able to catch up to 4k right away, that people, whether gadget freaks like us or not, often do want the latest thing, especially if it's affordable. And that was a good point about 4K in movie theaters, it will be much better at such sizes, for sure.

I agree that OLED >> 4K in the <60 inch market, but I have a 100" inch screen for 850$ and if I could have that as a rollable, printed OLED with 100x the contrast and the same price, of course I'd buy it. Projectors have downsides too.

Then again, I am 100% sure that 1080p is nowhere near close to saturated, for example I watch mostly 720p shows rather than 1080p, despite being on a projector, because I simply do not have time to wait for 1080p content to download at my current speeds, and also I enjoy frame interpolation which my PC isn't fast enough to do yet at 1080p, without dropping frames. I'd be very happy if I could at least max out my current projector, content-wise before I get the itch to upgrade and they're affordable enough to make me do it.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #376 of 451 Old 04-27-2013, 05:09 PM
Member
 
Drewdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post

Unless you're rocking FIOS, I strongly suspect that pretty much all cable HD would look a lot worse than it does now.

Evenly upscaling 720 isn't something I even thought about... but even ESPN would probably look worse than on a 1080 display, I'm afraid. Now if DirecTV offers ESPN in 4k...

But I do have FiOS and it does indeed rock. cool.gif
Drewdawg is offline  
post #377 of 451 Old 04-28-2013, 11:04 AM
Senior Member
 
Speed Daemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
I think that there's always room for improvement. On the production side, the Holy Grail was to surpass 35mm film resolution. Sooner or later we'll want to see that sort of resolution in our homes, whether or not some chart says that we will benefit from it. After all, consumerism is driven by the never ending quest for larger numbers to attain.

Right now the state of the art of digital television is essentially a digitized version of the same old analog TV technology that we've had since the 1930s. I'd rather see a complete makeover as the next step. If the industry wanted to, it could put an end to raster scanning and all of the nasty temporal artifacts that come with it. We could also start agreeing on a unified international standard with no ties to the past. I'd be more inclined to go out and buy now equipment if I could shoot and display for example a 4096x2304 image at 70fps, no matter where on earth I was. Now that would be cool! Don't forget the LCD shutter that flashes the entire frame at once on my TV.

You get what you pay for.  For professional advice, pay the professional rate.
Speed Daemon is offline  
post #378 of 451 Old 05-01-2013, 04:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 134 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewdawg View Post

But I do have FiOS and it does indeed rock. cool.gif

Maybe a 4k TV is in your future then. smile.gif Count me in as jealous!
BiggAW is offline  
post #379 of 451 Old 05-01-2013, 04:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Rejhon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 8,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Here is a chart which should help people understand if they will get any benefit at all from 2160 - let alone 1080:



For example, my screen is about 108 or so inches. We will use the 100 inch line on the chart to make it easy. This means to even begin to notice any benefit from 2160, I need to sit closer than 14 feet from the screen. To get the full benefit means I have to sit closer than 7 feet from the screen.
Some new information:

Based on Blur Busters investigations, this chart dramatically changes if the bitrates are lower.
Compression artifacts are MUCH bigger than a pixel.

I can see a problem with 1080p @ 5 Mbps about 10 feet from a 50" HDTV.
However, the quality of 4K @ 20 Mbps about 10 feet from a 50" HDTV looks much better!
When we're sending LESS than 2 to 3 bits of data per pixel per second for H.264 encodes (1080p @ 5Mbps = approx 2.5 bits per pixel per second) the chart above actually shifts more in favour of 4K because of the compression artifacts. Macroblock sizes (compression artifact) are often 8x8 pixels and 16x16 (there are various sizes allowed by H.264 beyond). This is MUCH more visible than a single pixel; so the mathematics actually changes quite a bit.

This means, there's still a huge benefit to using a 50 inch 4K HDTV with a sofa 10 feet away, because we all know that the streaming providers are reluctant to throw 1080p at high bitrates, but will be forced to send 4K at higher bitrates. There is little disagreement with proportional bitrate scaling, that 4K @ 20 Mbps looks much better than 1080p @ 5 Mbps. (Or say, 4K @ 16 Mbps being compared to 1080p @ 4 Mbps).

Releasing 50 inch 4K sets for cheap (like the $1500 SEIKI 4K HDTV) still benefits industry as a whole because this pressures content providers to provide higher bitrates for material, which drives innovation everywhere in the chain (including home theaters, which then drive more permanent media sales, etc).

Therefore, we should not scare people from buying small 4K HDTV's, especially if the cost premium becomes almost free in the future.
There are a lot of other fun applications too:
- 4K consoles in future. Motion controller video gaming. You'll be standing closer to the TV, where you can see the detail better.
- Photo viewing with kids sitting on floor in front of TV, playing "Where's Waldo" on the amazingly fine details.
- Low bitrate video where compression artifacts are now smaller.

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon

www.BlurBusters.com

BlurBusters Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur by 90%+ on LCD for games and computers

Rooting for upcoming low-persistence rolling-scan OLEDs too!

Mark Rejhon is offline  
post #380 of 451 Old 05-02-2013, 08:50 AM
Advanced Member
 
etrin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
well I am a little confused about the statement that you would need a 120" set to see any improvement, is this true?
Maybe I just don't get that statement without taking into consideration viewing distance.
Doesn't everyone have at least a 20+ foot room to watch tv in.

Either way its like 3D.
What will make a new market.

3D was a dud and even the BS marketing they tried couldn't sell it and its dying quickly, and a 4k 120 in $9000 tv won't sell either.
How about better imaging for what we do have. Better TV feeds and CHEAPER blu ray movies would be a big seller
wait they don't do cheap for their movies and tv just crappier.

Wow can you see that comcrap tech explaining to someone why the 4K from them looks speared and blocky.
Well its your crap $6000 tv... get a good one.
etrin is offline  
post #381 of 451 Old 05-02-2013, 09:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,526
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by etrin View Post

well I am a little confused about the statement that you would need a 120" set to see any improvement, is this true?
Maybe I just don't get that statement without taking into consideration viewing distance.
Doesn't everyone have at least a 20+ foot room to watch tv in.
...

You are absolutely correct... it is the viewing angle that's important. So it's a combination of the screen size and viewing distance that determines if the 4k improvements are visible.
erkq is offline  
post #382 of 451 Old 05-02-2013, 10:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Rejhon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 8,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by etrin View Post

well I am a little confused about the statement that you would need a 120" set to see any improvement, is this true?
False, when we're talking about over-compressed television broadcasts (Comcast, UVerse, etc) and with streaming (Netflix, ITunes, etc).

The armchair eye specialists forget to tell you that -- content makers are going to skimp on bitrates -- you're still going to see compression artifacts in 4K. So that 50 inch sized 4K television isn't going to be worthless when it eventually costs only $50 extra over 1080p eventually.

The transition to 4K will help force higher bitrates, which is more important than resolution (you don't want to watch 4K @ 5Mbps, it won't look as good as 1080p @ 5Mbps .... But everyone agrees 4K @ 20 Mbps looks better than 1080p @ 5 Mbps). Even when broadcasting 1080p upconverts -- an indirect way of forcing content makers to send you Blu-Ray league bitrates (ignore the resolution for the moment, the 1080p blu-ray bitrates is more important -- I'll take that; whether actual resolution is 1080p or 4K -- the 20 Mbps H.264 bit rate will look far better regardless even at sofa viewing distance from a 50 inch HDTV!).

Not everyone can afford to cancel TV / streaming subscriptions, and solely purchase 4K physical media (where benefits are great on 120" screens).
Not everyone can afford a 120" screen -- and you do not need 120" to benefit from 4K given broadcaster/streaming bitrates.

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon

www.BlurBusters.com

BlurBusters Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur by 90%+ on LCD for games and computers

Rooting for upcoming low-persistence rolling-scan OLEDs too!

Mark Rejhon is offline  
post #383 of 451 Old 05-02-2013, 02:41 PM
Senior Member
 
Speed Daemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by etrin View Post

well I am a little confused about the statement that you would need a 120" set to see any improvement, is this true?
Not particularly.

This doesn't have a thing to do with the technology itself. It's really about people with very narrow agendas (which may or may not have anything to do with you) who aren't really answering your question.

That chart might be true for a certain pixel density, but since that's not specified, it's pretty much useless as any kind of guide. The people who bemoan compression artifacts fail to mention that those artifacts don't somehow transform one resolution into another. That's not how things work. Going way back to the early days of EIA and NTSC television, a lot of assumptions were made based on testing people who weren't TV owners. Those figures remained gospel even after it was obvious that people who grew up watching TV could easily see things that their ancestors didn't see right off the bat.. It's all about ego, and seldom about real data.

While HDTV is a great improvement to the TV standards that go way back to 1941, it's far from perfect. There is room for improvement. And when it comes it will benefit us all. People with trained eyes will appreciate the increased resolution, and all the benefits that come with it. And the vast majority of viewers who "know" quality by the numbers printed on the box will also get their wish. Yes, bragging rights is a huge marketing segment! And even though the numbers snob might not actually appreciate the full benefits that those numbers quantify (crudely), the fact remains that others will.

So don't worry. More resolution is coming, no matter what the haters say. Before you know it you'll be able to buy a cellphone with a 4K display, even if you'll need a magnifying glass (not included) to notice. Might as well enjoy it. While the primary source of 4K content right now is "HD" still photos, you can bet that will change soon. And you can decide for yourself if it's worth it or not.

You get what you pay for.  For professional advice, pay the professional rate.
Speed Daemon is offline  
post #384 of 451 Old 05-02-2013, 04:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,526
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

...
no matter what the haters say.
...

You were making a fair amount of sense until there. People who disagree with you aren't "haters". They simply disagree with you.

I, personally, would rather see colorspace, color accuracy, compression artifacts and gamma improved before more resolution is offered.

And, no, I'm not a "hater". That's a really negative young-speak pop-culture term.
erkq is offline  
post #385 of 451 Old 05-02-2013, 05:42 PM
Senior Member
 
Speed Daemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Thanks to erkq for proving my point, as if on cue! LOL

You get what you pay for.  For professional advice, pay the professional rate.
Speed Daemon is offline  
post #386 of 451 Old 07-22-2013, 04:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sdg4vfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 1,333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

... I, personally, would rather see colorspace, color accuracy, compression artifacts and gamma improved before more resolution is offered.

And, no, I'm not a "hater"...

+1 on both counts.

4K/UHD's advantages for passive 3D are obvious. Beyond that ...

Even if the 4K/UHD spec includes a "better" color range/gamut (P3, etc.) it likely won't improve color quality issues. The current limitations are not that HD TV's use Rec709 colorspace, it is the consumer delivery systems/formats. Obviously the streaming formats are wickedly compressed. But even Blu-Ray, the best consumer delivery system, carries less than 20% of full Rec709 color space information. BR decks "fabricate" an expanded colorspace from the data/info on the BR disks but it's not particularly accurate or truly full range (it has holes, or gaps, in it).

For work I have an uncompressed Rec709 video system hooked up to my Panasonic Plasma - and the picture-quality difference between the uncompressed source and a BR source is huge! Even my 11yo daughter can easily see it. I'd love to see an uncompressed version of all my BR movies wink.gif

It's just my preference, but I'd much rather spend money on a new uncompressed (or slightly compressed) HD consumer-video-delivery system than a new 4K/UHD TV. I can't help wondering what good is more resolution and a "bigger" color space if the only sources I have are as compressed as my old HD TV sources. Or maybe more compressed - if the new HDMI 2.0 spec's throughput is less than 4x the current HDMI spec then UHD will be more compressed than HD, and, it's difficult to imagine 4x the throughput on streaming services anytime soon.
sdg4vfx is offline  
post #387 of 451 Old 07-26-2013, 09:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,608
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
Liked: 1426
4K is so yesterday. 8K is already obsolete. 12K is here:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1483254/12k-three-4k-displays-gaming-rig-renders-1-5-billion-pixels-per-second-for-just-17-000

That's a lot of pixels....I need them all. smile.gif

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #388 of 451 Old 07-28-2013, 02:58 AM
Senior Member
 
Speed Daemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdg4vfx View Post

Even if the 4K/UHD spec includes a "better" color range/gamut (P3, etc.) it likely won't improve color quality issues. The current limitations are not that HD TV's use Rec709 colorspace, it is the consumer delivery systems/formats. Obviously the streaming formats are wickedly compressed. But even Blu-Ray, the best consumer delivery system, carries less than 20% of full Rec709 color space information. BR decks "fabricate" an expanded colorspace from the data/info on the BR disks but it's not particularly accurate or truly full range (it has holes, or gaps, in it).
Excellent point!

After viewing some older TV series that are only really practical (and affordable) for me to stream, I've come to appreciate both how much is being sacrificed over the nominal 4:4:4 coming out of the camera, and at the same time how remarkably acceptable such grossly compressed (Netflix/eyeIO) content can be. I mean, for shows that are about the story and not eye candy, it's pretty amazing how good things look over a basic rate DSL connection, for instance.

On the other side of things, of course it would be nice to be able to get studio quality copies, especially for those of us who are used to working on the supply side of film and video production. One area where film has excelled has been in color reproduction. From the very first color TV systems, we've been saddled with TV color systems that give the color information only a fraction of the bandwidth of luminance information. While that may have been necessary to bring compatible color systems to the masses in a pre-digital era, right now there's nothing really major standing in the way of better high definition color encoding. Why don't we have a color gamut, at least for video production, that can reproduce all of what the human eye can see? There's really no excuse not to any more!

Blu-ray is going to be the last optical disc format. There's nothing in the pipeline to replace it. That could be a Good Thing if content distributors "think outside the box" and realize that they're no longer bound by the arbitrary constraints of a standardized delivery medium. So why not include a component video transport format? I suppose it will come down to supply and demand. Will there be enough demand for higher quality video at a given resolution? Are there any consumer groups speaking up for videophiles?
Quote:
It's just my preference, but I'd much rather spend money on a new uncompressed (or slightly compressed) HD consumer-video-delivery system than a new 4K/UHD TV. I can't help wondering what good is more resolution and a "bigger" color space if the only sources I have are as compressed as my old HD TV sources. Or maybe more compressed - if the new HDMI 2.0 spec's throughput is less than 4x the current HDMI spec then UHD will be more compressed than HD, and, it's difficult to imagine 4x the throughput on streaming services anytime soon.
According to everything I've read, the enabling technology for 4K delivery to the home is so-called "better" codecs, not more actual data. So it's more likely than not that the resolution numbers game will in fact be pretty pointless for the home viewer. At least if they're shooting full bandwidth 4K masters, there's at least some hope that one day we may be able to enjoy 4K (and beyond) with full fidelity. But just not any time soon. Can you imagine how it would have been to shoot "Lawrence of Arabia" not for theatrical release, but direct to NTSC TV only? Would Super Panavision 70 even exist if there weren't any theaters with matching projection capability?

Right now many theaters are showing "films" that are delivered electronically, and shown at 2K (or if you're lucky, 4K) resolution. The digital prints are heavily DRMed, so there's no chance of a projectionist stealing a copy. Delivery methods vary, but in general the movies don't arrive in real time. That has me thinking...If they're doing it foe thousands of movie theaters around the world, wouldn't it be pretty easy to use essentially the same basic system to deliver theatrical quality digital content to well-heeled home viewers as well? It's technically possible...

You get what you pay for.  For professional advice, pay the professional rate.
Speed Daemon is offline  
post #389 of 451 Old 07-29-2013, 03:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ryan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Rejhon View Post

Some new information:

Based on Blur Busters investigations, this chart dramatically changes if the bitrates are lower.
Compression artifacts are MUCH bigger than a pixel.....

This makes no sense on multiple levels.

First, pixels have nothing to do with artifacts. You either can see the individual pixels, or you cannot.

From 10', you are highly unlikely to be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p grids on an 50" screen. And even if you are eagle-eyed, you are highly unlikely to discern any difference between 1080p and 4k.

Second, if processing x-number of bits is causing artifacts, trying to process 4 times x-number of bits with finite resources is likely to result in more apparent artifacts.

As others have pointed out, 4k will result in noticeable improvements in cases where pixels are visible on an 1080p screen, but for a distance of 10', we are talking 100" or so at a minimum.

For anything smaller, 4k is just a marketing gimmick designed to upsell uneducated consumers, since the cost to manufacture 4k glass have dramatically fallen (and TV manufacturers need to keep selling something).
Ryan1 is offline  
post #390 of 451 Old 07-29-2013, 11:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 1,815
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 312 Post(s)
Liked: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post

Second, if processing x-number of bits is causing artifacts, trying to process 4 times x-number of bits with finite resources is likely to result in more apparent artifacts.

Evolution of computing power would negate that in 36 months. Doubt 4K will be in peoples homes any earlier anyway, so this really is a non-issue. The algorithms will probably not change one bit, just the minor tweak for the new chip and the pixel count, quite low cost.

Under construction: the Larch theater
Nightlord is offline  
Reply Community News & Polls

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