Which Elements of UHD are Most important for Improving Image Quality? - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
View Poll Results: Which Elements of UHD are Most important for Improving Image Quality?
Higher pixel count 97 20.77%
Higher dynamic range 297 63.60%
Wider color gamut 247 52.89%
Higher frame rate 90 19.27%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 467. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 52Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 112 Old 04-24-2015, 08:45 PM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post
Agreed. Frankly, give me my first 3 with 1080p in OLED or a Laser Projector system and I'm good as gold.
No doubt a 2K laser projector with those things would be great, but UHD becomes actually important at large projected screen sizes for clarity. So really, why not get all of them? We will, one day. Hopefully soon.
barrelbelly likes this.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 112 Old 04-24-2015, 08:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CherylJosie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,375
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 732 Post(s)
Liked: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by popalock View Post
...I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about when it comes to the "V" side of the hobby.
Sincerely doubt that!
popalock likes this.
CherylJosie is offline  
post #33 of 112 Old 04-24-2015, 08:52 PM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1394
If every movie had a 60p and a 24p version for the "I love motion blur and horrible judder" crowd, that would be terrific. But motion interpolation is pretty good, and I think it's easier to fake interpolated frames than it is to fake other aspects of image quality with upscaled / upsampled processing hacks, like fake HDR or wider gamut would be. Although I'm curious what fake HDR would look like, if someone doesn't make a media player classic filter I will. Just out of curiosity. It will probably suck but maybe not, if there's some decent research papers or plugins I can be "inspired" by or reverse engineer. I'm sure a lot of TVs will end up adding fake color or dynamic range. Probably the dynamic range extensions would be easier to do, within moderate, than altering the colors of a scene without making things look ugly or fake.
CherylJosie and popalock like this.

Last edited by RLBURNSIDE; 04-25-2015 at 07:58 AM.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
 
post #34 of 112 Old 04-24-2015, 09:41 PM
Senior Member
 
MarkB49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 12
You sold me Scott:
HDR


I watched over 1 1/2 hours of your TWIT live Special : NAB 2015 Day 1


Packed with ALOT of info including HDR.
MarkB49 is offline  
post #35 of 112 Old 04-24-2015, 11:06 PM
Senior Member
 
shift_grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)
Liked: 27
I think I would be good with 30 fps. I don't care for frame interpolation myself, even on low.
shift_grind is offline  
post #36 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 12:17 AM
Member
 
dimi123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 17
I hope that HFR never makes it to home theater. I've watched the last two Hobbit movies in HFR and couldn't be more disappointed. The soap opera effect was driving me crazy and I couldn't concentrate on the movie. It ruined the whole experience for me.
WHATTHEDILEO and Javs like this.
dimi123 is offline  
post #37 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 01:56 AM
Senior Member
 
TorTorden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 149
Absolutely, wider color gamut for me, easily the top pick.
Secondary higher contrasts which is basically what HDR is a stepping stone towards, as we all know I imagine, more native contrast means we get to see more and it improves on immersion at least for me many times more than faux 3d ever has.

That's not said I do not want and don't expect the rest either, more pixels does indeed make stuff sharper and I am a myopic guy with -5 prescription on my good eye :\ luckily this is easily corrected
In fact I think having more pixels than say your eyes can perceive will give the brain that push from seeing a pixelated picture to just being more thoroughly fooled.
After 4k, well lets just say we got a long way to go just to make proper 4k\UHD resolution content before we start talking about 8k.

HFR, yes please, granted I haven't seen the hobbit with this, but I know more frames is also great for immersion, nothing pulls me out of a game more than dropping below a certain threshold.
As for the anti soap opera people, well even interpolating tech has gotten pretty good the last few years, and real frames and interpolated frames are as physically different to the viewer as the pixel difference between 1080p and UHD.
TorTorden is offline  
post #38 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 03:47 AM
Advanced Member
 
James Freeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 517 Post(s)
Liked: 341
1. HFR
In my opinion the most important aspect of motion picture.
100 years of same old ugly 24 fps, its time to move on and eliminate the blur and judder.
HFR => Faster Shutter Speed => better temporal resolution => No Blur.
Pause an action/movement segment (even the slowest one) in a 24 movie and HD is out of the building.

2. HDR
Yes, this one is a BIG factor in life like image.

3. Higher Resolution
99.99999% of what we have today is 2K.
Nobody complained in 100 years of not seeing the actress's black heads on hear nose...

3. Wide Gamut
Although 90% (or more) of day-to-day color fits easily in the rec.709;
Movies are definitely not day to day lives, they are artistic expression.


I am a strong believer that the first two are at least 95%+ of the overall PQ, the other two are not essential and can be considered the icing on the cake.

Life is HFR and HDR but not always wide gamut nor high resolution.
James Freeman is offline  
post #39 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 04:19 AM
Member
 
lupoal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Milano, Italy
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 15
imho...
  1. HFR
  2. HDR
  3. UHD
  4. WCG
let me quote Freeman --> Life is HFR and HDR but not always wide gamut nor high resolution.
lupoal is offline  
post #40 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 05:40 AM
Weary Enthusiast
 
WHATTHEDILEO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Metro-Detroit, MI
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 52
I voted for HDR here (which is otherwise a vote for high contrast ratio), because watching material on my Kuro I have been most struck by the significant difference in white and black going from VHS (pale yellow/lt grey) --> DVD (dirty white/dark grey w/ green tinge) --> BD (pure white & pure black... comparatively). But my Sony HW35ES projector is unable to show the purest blacks on the screen - BD blacks definitely look dark green again, as though I'm watching DVD quality. What I'm witnessing is a limitation of my projector, but it tells me that I am sensitive to observed shortcomings in dynamic range, wherever the limitation exists (source material or playback device).

After HDR, I would appreciate more colors, because I hate the color banding that I see during any scene that fades to, or from, black. When I notice it, this annoyance takes me out of the story briefly, so an improvement will genuinely make the story more immersive. It is my understanding that WCG would give us the colors we need to made those transition bands imperceptible.

WHATTHEDILEO
Some people LOVE MUSIC.
Some people LOVE the SOUND of music.
If you don't know the difference, then you LIKE MUSIC.
My slow-cooking 11.4 channel Theater Room quest

Last edited by WHATTHEDILEO; 04-25-2015 at 05:53 AM.
WHATTHEDILEO is offline  
post #41 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 05:41 AM
Weary Enthusiast
 
WHATTHEDILEO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Metro-Detroit, MI
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 52
I'm nervous that high frame rate is neck & neck with pixel count so far in this poll, because so far I am not a fan of high frame rate. High pixel count cannot be a negative attribute - at it's worst it is simply wasted data (potential compression artifacts would not be directly due to pixel count attribute). I feel HFR might be a genuine negative.

I've heard that we need to get used to high frame rate because we don't need to be limited to producing content at 24fps, and if e go higher we will have better tracking of fast action. I don't know how to express my opposition, because HFR makes you feel like you are watching it happen right in front of you. We yearn for that sensation from our ears, so why wouldn't we want that from our eyes?

But when I see a fight scene in HFR, or a tense moment in HFR, it doesn't seem real in the sense that I am watching it happen in front of me... it seems real in the sense that I'm watching actors go through a reenactment right in front of me.

Maybe HFR will eventually strike the balance between effective motion capture and cinematic sense. But so far, the only big budget experiments seem to have explored HFR for the sake of 3D.

WHATTHEDILEO
Some people LOVE MUSIC.
Some people LOVE the SOUND of music.
If you don't know the difference, then you LIKE MUSIC.
My slow-cooking 11.4 channel Theater Room quest

Last edited by WHATTHEDILEO; 04-25-2015 at 05:57 AM.
WHATTHEDILEO is offline  
post #42 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 06:35 AM
Advanced Member
 
James Freeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 517 Post(s)
Liked: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by WHATTHEDILEO View Post
But when I see a fight scene in HFR, or a tense moment in HFR, it doesn't seem real in the sense that I am watching it happen in front of me... it seems real in the sense that I'm watching actors go through a reenactment right in front of me.
Excellent point.

I have noticed that too when watching the three Hobbits in HFR.
HFR exposes the minute behvior which our brain interprets the act/face as fake/lie and not real, we were born to detect that naturally.
With HFR the line between a good performance and an "almost convincing" one will be VERY clear.
No more acting or mediocrity in HFR, acting in a behavioral level would be necessary to not brake the suspension of disbelieve.
HFR Drama movies would be extremely difficult for the actors because it's where any subtle wrong expression would give the performance away and ruin the moment.
WHATTHEDILEO and Dhalmo like this.
James Freeman is offline  
post #43 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 07:10 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,022
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 975 Post(s)
Liked: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
you may read the question again...

Which Elements of UHD are Most important for Improving Image Quality

is black level different with FHD?
Exactly. Higher spatial resolution, greater dynamic range, wider color gamut, and higher frame rates are aspects that are defined, not only by the display, but by the content itself. These are things that are being improved from capture to display and at every step of the workflow between. They have the potential to improve PQ regardless of the display technology being used. Can the same thing be said about black levels? Truely black black levels have been achievable on the content creation side for quite some time. It's quite easy to encode a zero in both RGB and YUV. Displaying one when the display is required to output any light at all is another matter. But that's not something that can be improved on the content creation side.
HockeyoAJB is offline  
post #44 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 07:13 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JazzGuyy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oro Valley AZ
Posts: 3,253
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 348 Post(s)
Liked: 346
What about gamma? Some of the proposals I have seen include fixing the gamma issues so that shadow detail is not lost. The current gamma encoding is a dinosaur.

JazzGuyy is offline  
post #45 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 07:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 3,796
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1100 Post(s)
Liked: 1059
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post
Option 5 which only addicted forum members can see, (lower black level) is not an element of UHD. It is an element of display device technology and is not source dependent. Nor is not including it an error in Scott's construction of this poll.
I've been clean for years...

And I never said the poll was flawed. My point is maybe black level should be included. For years Panasonic and Samsung put serious money and research behind chasing that particular rabit and even the most enthusiastic of F8500/VT/ZT owners would have to admit that they never quite caught Pioneer in that measure. More pixels, more nits and more Hz can only do so much to combat the inherent flaws of the tech that 99% of the display industry is based on.

To turn your argument around: why should I care about any element of UHD if all we're doing is throwing a new shade of eye-shadow and some shiny lip gloss on the same old pig?

What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems to be more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer...

-- Excerpt from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
sage11x is offline  
post #46 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 08:09 AM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Freeman View Post
Excellent point.

I have noticed that too when watching the three Hobbits in HFR.
HFR exposes the minute behvior which our brain interprets the act/face as fake/lie and not real, we were born to detect that naturally.
With HFR the line between a good performance and an "almost convincing" one will be VERY clear.
No more acting or mediocrity in HFR, acting in a behavioral level would be necessary to not brake the suspension of disbelieve.
HFR Drama movies would be extremely difficult for the actors because it's where any subtle wrong expression would give the performance away and ruin the moment.
The line I bolded makes no sense at all. It's actually the opposite. What's fake is putting a static image up for 41 ms at a time (24hz sample and hold), then skipping to the next one with actors with sustantially different positions, which your mind then blurs together during integration. This isn't visual, it's perceptual and part of how the brain works. 24hz, on top of the blurring inherent in the source video, adds blur from sample and hold which is generated in your mind. Go over to Blurbusters.com to learn more. The point is, reducing the amount of time an image is held allows your brain to interpolate the frames better on its own. And that's less taxing and jarring because getting more samples yields a more faithful-to-the-original signal. People who say high frame rate looks fake are projecting their bias from years of watching fake 24hz movies and then imagining that that fakeness is what's real. It's a complete inversion, and easily provable. The motion blur that's cakes into each 24hz frame from longer exposure also reduces clarity, which is the reason for upgrading beyond SD and into FHD and UHD. Not addressing the main cause of loss of clarity and definition during motion is absurd, for movies. Movies = motion.

Does watching sports at 60hz look fake to you? Smoother motion is more realistic and accurate, and I don't think one should judge what high frame rate is capable of based on The Hobbit, which is a fantasy movie with tons of CGI and makeup and other fake elements and so on.

HFR drama movies would be harder to act in? Ever hear of Soap Operas? They are all in high frame rate, and launched many successful careers with shows having fanatical viewers over decades. I don't personally like them, but lots of people do, and they are definitely character-driven with tons of closeups. A good actor should be a good actor whether you see them live (unlimited frame rate) on a broadway stage or in a TV show or in a movie. Sure not most actors are broadway caliber, but an actor sucking or being bad at facial expressions or inflections would be bad regardless of high frame rate or not.

I don't agree with your premise. And making actor's jobs easier is not the reason they chose 24hz in the first place, so retconning that as a good reason to keep it just masks the reasons why it was chosen, so that the projectors at the time (1920s) wouldn't catch fire and the film stock wouldn't cost studios a lot of money. Sure 60p is more than double the bandwidth and storage costs of 24p, and that multiplies the cost for things like animation movies that are completely CGI, but they are making off with a mint anyway and their product would actually be better with 60p (many people who hate FI don't mind it or even like it with animations, because it's terrific). And the movie studios and directors are then freed from punitive restrictions on panning speed and action that 24p forces on them. I really don't get why 24p is often brought up as "director's vision" when in fact it's the opposite, it imposes all kinds of restrictions on action that otherwise would make movies have way more flexibility during shooting.
Dhalmo, barrelbelly and Frank714 like this.

Last edited by RLBURNSIDE; 04-25-2015 at 08:27 AM.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #47 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 08:09 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Venice, Florida, USA
Posts: 21,464
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1418 Post(s)
Liked: 1012
Sage11x. You shouldn't care. There are many more important things to care about. Why have you structured and asked a closing question whose answer is intuitively obvious to the most casual of observers?


Further, earlier in the thread I once again criticized Scott (in good fun) for his faulty construction of this poll and I felt it necessary to note that not including option 5 was not yet another poll construction error.


Scott, without any acknowledgement of course, has fixed the poll to allow voting for more than one choice.

Last edited by mark haflich; 04-27-2015 at 11:56 AM.
mark haflich is offline  
post #48 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 08:20 AM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
I've been clean for years...

And I never said the poll was flawed. My point is maybe black level should be included. For years Panasonic and Samsung put serious money and research behind chasing that particular rabit and even the most enthusiastic of F8500/VT/ZT owners would have to admit that they never quite caught Pioneer in that measure. More pixels, more nits and more Hz can only do so much to combat the inherent flaws of the tech that 99% of the display industry is based on.

To turn your argument around: why should I care about any element of UHD if all we're doing is throwing a new shade of eye-shadow and some shiny lip gloss on the same old pig?
Disagree, TVs being ultra wide screen, have perfect blacks, infinite contrast, perfect out of the box greyscale calibration, being flat or curved, large or not, are all independent parameters of what should belong in the signal or video source material.

Anyway, the UHD standard is pretty much set now, isn't it? We're getting all these things, so it's all good. You can also get perfect black HDR / UHD tvs later on this year if you have the money, buy an OLED. But no standard should force the industry to enforce a given display technology, which might be superior in some ways but inferior in others (price?). I'd rather see UHD succeed and bring costs down for these emerging technologies even if it means accepting one more round of LCD's dominance in the home. So what? As long as you have a choice to spend money for a better product, that's all you need. And it's a self-correcting problem anyway, because over time technology improves across the board, prices go down, contrast and dynamic range and bit depth go up, up, up, and that's just progress being made. We don't need to have every TV support rec 2020 and 4000 nits with infinite contrast and zero motion blur, right away, to start benefitting from UHD Bluray's improved pixel quality.

Let's let displays play catch up to the video signal for a while. They already are anyway. But a sub-2k 1080p OLED at Best Buy is already pretty darn close to being reference at reproducing what rec.709 can provide. So it's time to kick it up a notch or two on the content side.
mark haflich likes this.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #49 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 08:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
xvfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 410 Post(s)
Liked: 242
Why is it perfect blacks always feels to me like a collectors item or an extremely rare baseball card…


Quote:
Originally Posted by James Freeman View Post
1. HFR
In my opinion the most important aspect of motion picture.
100 years of same old ugly 24 fps, its time to move on and eliminate the blur and judder.
HFR => Faster Shutter Speed => better temporal resolution => No Blur.
Pause an action/movement segment (even the slowest one) in a 24 movie and HD is out of the building.

2. HDR
Yes, this one is a BIG factor in life like image.

3. Higher Resolution
99.99999% of what we have today is 2K.
Nobody complained in 100 years of not seeing the actress's black heads on hear nose...

3. Wide Gamut
Although 90% (or more) of day-to-day color fits easily in the rec.709;
Movies are definitely not day to day lives, they are artistic expression.


I am a strong believer that the first two are at least 95%+ of the overall PQ, the other two are not essential and can be considered the icing on the cake.

Life is HFR and HDR but not always wide gamut nor high resolution.
Thats because it was black and white on a tiny screen. Colour… what is this witchcraft…
xvfx is offline  
post #50 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 10:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
EvLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 594
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 339 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Scott, I would break out bits (that includes bit depth, and also bit rate for compression) into its own category separate from WCG and HDR. Both WCG and HDR can be done without the extra bits, but in order to prevent luminance banding (with HDR) or color banding (with WCG) you need more bits. Even with standard range 709 banding is an issue due to the 8-bit encoding and limits on bit rate.
EvLee is offline  
post #51 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 02:52 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,540
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 536 Post(s)
Liked: 941
[SARCASM] I think the most important thing UHD brings to the table is better DRM. As we all know one of the reasons content quality is so poor is because of Piracy and with the new and improved DRM measures of UHD Piracy will finally be eliminated, allowing the movie and TV production companies to make better shows. [/SARCASM]

To me UHD doesn't matter. 1080 is fine, for now.
Lazarus Dark likes this.

🔥🔥🔥 Sent from my Samsung Note 7 Using Ove Glove™ 🔥🔥🔥
olyteddy is offline  
post #52 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 03:23 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 2,970
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1629 Post(s)
Liked: 4383
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvLee View Post
Scott, I would break out bits (that includes bit depth, and also bit rate for compression) into its own category separate from WCG and HDR. Both WCG and HDR can be done without the extra bits, but in order to prevent luminance banding (with HDR) or color banding (with WCG) you need more bits. Even with standard range 709 banding is an issue due to the 8-bit encoding and limits on bit rate.
Yeah, I thought about separating out bit depth, but I decided not to because I assume greater bit depth will be included in HDR and WCG. Perhaps that's an erroneous assumption, but if so, HDR and WCG will look terrible, and I believe the content creators and display manufacturers know it. As for compression bit rate, that's not a function of UHD per se, but only how it's delivered. It's critically important, to be sure, but I don't think it's relevant to this particular question.

Scott Wilkinson
Editor, AVS Forum
Scott Wilkinson is offline  
post #53 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 03:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
Lazarus Dark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 216
I want HFR most. Watching the Hobbit films in HFR eliminated the problem of fights and action so fast and stuttery I can't even tell what I'm looking at. And it's one of those situations where now that I've seen films without horribly blurry action, every other film I see, I can't help but be more distracted than ever by the blurry, stuttery mess of Low Frame Rate aka 24fps. So even for the best films, I end up being slightly disappointed now because I can't help but think, "If only they had used HFR it would have looked better. So, yes HFR has ruined my movie experience... at least until others start adopting it. (I would love for someone to try variable frame rate please. Shoot the static scenes in 24p for the "film" look, but shoot the fast pans and action scenes in HFR. Combine it and output the whole thing as a HFR file. It may take just a bit of work to make it feel seemless, but filmmakers should not be afraid to try new techniques -- Thank you Peter Jackson for stepping out and doing the dirty work, so others can follow and learn from it.)

The second best part of HFR is that it is literally twice the detail. People don't mention this part, but the Hobbit films looked better than even the 4k films I've seen like Skyfall and Amazing Spiderman in terms of detail... and the HFR version was only available in 2k! (add in the 3d, and essentially it was 4x the detail of any other films we've seen because now you are talking 96 frames of detail per second! 48fps left and right eye)
mo949 likes this.
Lazarus Dark is offline  
post #54 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 03:26 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,653
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3557
Scott, what is your own personal order of preference?
NorthSky is offline  
post #55 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 03:36 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Venice, Florida, USA
Posts: 21,464
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1418 Post(s)
Liked: 1012
Option 7. Thread hits and posts. Just kidding.
mark haflich is offline  
post #56 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 04:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 6,410
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1752 Post(s)
Liked: 1025
Before we go anywhere i would like to see some motion improvements (more frames), and i would like to see OLED succeed (what good is image quality in a LCd only world?). 1 HDR 2 WCG, higher pixel count is last on the list. I do not know if i will like the look of better motion and HDR though. Will i be able to turn it off ? btw we got more pixels first, HDR and WCG will follow. HFR 4K blu-ray movies not any time soon..
8mile13 is offline  
post #57 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 08:20 PM
Advanced Member
 
James Freeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 517 Post(s)
Liked: 341
HDR is nice and all but we're not going to see it for a lloonngg time on a UHD BR.
What we are going to get first (and for a long time) on UHD Blu-Ray is 2K masters blown up to 4k and P3 gamut in 10bit of course, no HFR (except maybe the Hobbit) or HDR.
In my opinion HDR is the least probable element in the movies on the new standard.

You fellows really think the studios are going to re-master millions of movies for you with HDR?
If you ask me, home video will NEVER be better than the cinema counterpart.
James Freeman is offline  
post #58 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 10:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
dargo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 734
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 65
You can keep 4K just give me 1080P with WCG and HDR and I'm sold.
dargo is offline  
post #59 of 112 Old 04-25-2015, 11:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mo949's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,932
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1184
A TV with ability to accurately depict Black, wide color gamut, banding free detail rich bit depth, and extra resolution...that's heaven. I'll even take the type of HDR achieved only by addititional brightness as it would be nice for daytime football, as long as I can turn it back down to cinematic levels at night (100 nits).

Any tv with DSE will not be able to be saved by any of these new advances.
mo949 is offline  
post #60 of 112 Old 04-26-2015, 01:51 AM
Member
 
jrob23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
I've been clean for years...

And I never said the poll was flawed. My point is maybe black level should be included. For years Panasonic and Samsung put serious money and research behind chasing that particular rabit and even the most enthusiastic of F8500/VT/ZT owners would have to admit that they never quite caught Pioneer in that measure. More pixels, more nits and more Hz can only do so much to combat the inherent flaws of the tech that 99% of the display industry is based on.

To turn your argument around: why should I care about any element of UHD if all we're doing is throwing a new shade of eye-shadow and some shiny lip gloss on the same old pig?
didn't Panasonic and Samsung equal Kuros though? I know it's almost hipster like to keep talking about how great Kuros are and the calibrators perpetuate that because let's be honest, they made so much money off them. So I am not a) buying that Kuros really measure that low or the equipment could read that accurately b) the 2014 Plasmas didn't beat them. Regardless, the difference is not perceivable to the human eye. Factor in size, color, 3d, etc and the Kuros were beat soundly.
jrob23 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Community News & Polls

Tags
frontpage , Polls

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