Which Elements of UHD are Most important for Improving Image Quality? - Page 4 - 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 #91 of 112 Old 05-01-2015, 06:59 AM
Member
 
zzoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 96
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I see a lot of people under-rate the high pixel (4K). I agree that one may not see the difference with small TVs. However TVs get bigger and bigger. I believe that 4K will be a great plus for cinema theater, or home theater with 120" or bigger.

In 1986, I watched on 14" TV, now 130" with projector. In 5-6 years, I'll probably increase the screen size to 150-160".

People that under-value the high pixel, are you satisfied with 480p or 720p videos ?
turls likes this.
zzoo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 112 Old 05-01-2015, 10:33 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,454
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1772 Post(s)
Liked: 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzoo View Post
I see a lot of people under-rate the high pixel (4K). I agree that one may not see the difference with small TVs. However TVs get bigger and bigger. I believe that 4K will be a great plus for cinema theater, or home theater with 120" or bigger.

In 1986, I watched on 14" TV, now 130" with projector. In 5-6 years, I'll probably increase the screen size to 150-160".

People that under-value the high pixel, are you satisfied with 480p or 720p videos ?
that's misleading. are you happy with black and white? 12fps?


FYI, I am satisfied with 1080p, I'm not satisfied with 24fps


the point is, at a certain point more is just more, and not an obvious improvement. resolution is getting close to that. with my projector, I could appreciate more pixels(but I'm not unsatisfied with 1080p either), with my tv, I honestly don't think I could appreciate more pixels. it's absolutely 'perfect' to my eyes from my viewing location already. and if I could, I'd only appreciate those pixels if they were of equal or greater quality than what I already have. ie, I wouldn't trade in a top of the line 1080p plasma for a cheap Chinese made 4k lcd. more to point, I wouldn't trade in 1080p with HFR, or better color for 4k with 24fps and rec709.


personally, I'm at a point right now where the size of my screen is no-longer limited by resolution. it's limited by room size, and my own comfort. so while 4k wouldn't be a bad thing, it's not the most important thing, not by a long shot, for me.


really though, it's the PACKAGE that makes the new standard appealing. I don't think I'd go through the trouble to rebuying sources and displays unless I got AT LEAST HFR, WCG, and 4k
HockeyoAJB likes this.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1130K, 7.1/5.1.2 audio
Sources: HTPC(Enby), PS3, XBOX360, Wii
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #93 of 112 Old 05-01-2015, 12:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,494
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 779 Post(s)
Liked: 265
it's not like moving closer is the solution for this. yeah at a point you can see the difference between FHD and UHD but do you prefer to sit in the first row in a cinema? i don't do that.

at one point you have to move your head and at that point it's useless to me...
mightyhuhn is offline  
 
post #94 of 112 Old 05-01-2015, 06:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 440 Post(s)
Liked: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzoo View Post
I see a lot of people under-rate the high pixel (4K). I agree that one may not see the difference with small TVs. However TVs get bigger and bigger. I believe that 4K will be a great plus for cinema theater, or home theater with 120" or bigger.

In 1986, I watched on 14" TV, now 130" with projector. In 5-6 years, I'll probably increase the screen size to 150-160".

People that under-value the high pixel, are you satisfied with 480p or 720p videos ?
Because pixel count alone doesn't say how much detail you will actually get. Even if they used the best, highest resolution cameras, the best lenses, even if they used no filters. Do you think you will be getting the full 3.84K worth of resolvable detail throughout the picture when things are moving and therefore blurred (even with the best source)? There's also the fact that probably most existing films, even when nothing is moving (including camera), probably won't contain 3.84K worth of detail. "TVs get bigger and bigger" - and this will increase the amount objects 'jump' from frame to frame - it will increase the judder/strobing - and HDR will make it more obvious too. People on the forum quite a while ago analysed various frames from HD films and I think found a number of them, that were shot on film, even though encoded at 1920x1080 weren't resolving/giving any more detail than 720p.

So blurred images (due to motion - object/camera - with insufficient frame rate) don't give you "4K" or 3.84K of resolvable detail - even if the cameras was capable of it when there's no motion. And shortening the shutter time will increase the judder/strobing. It's also been shown in the EBU subjective tests that the improvement in PQ due to frame rate was higher than other parameters (when they tested various frame rates up to 240 fps).

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 05-01-2015 at 06:30 PM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #95 of 112 Old 05-02-2015, 12:59 PM
Member
 
sighting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by truwarrior22 View Post
1. Hfr (nothings more distracting then blur)
2. Wcg (like crack for eyes)
3. Uhd (no big pixels please)
4. Hdr (icing on the cake)
1. Hfr
2. Uhd
3. Wcg
4. Hdr
sighting is offline  
post #96 of 112 Old 05-04-2015, 03:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,066
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 696 Post(s)
Liked: 281
Just posted some anecdotic materials regarding HFR in another thread.

A compilation of the original Showscan short programs would be a great showcase for UHD Blu-ray to illustrate the advantages of High Frame Rate.

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde
Frank714 is offline  
post #97 of 112 Old 05-04-2015, 10:48 AM
Bass Enabler
 
Scott Simonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 21,499
Mentioned: 185 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5973 Post(s)
Liked: 5036
@Scott Wilkinson

No option for 'all of the above'. All are equally important and should be the standard for UHD and not just higher pixel count.
Scott Simonian is offline  
post #98 of 112 Old 05-04-2015, 10:56 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 Scott Simonian View Post
@Scott Wilkinson

No option for 'all of the above'. All are equally important and should be the standard for UHD and not just higher pixel count.
No reason to have an "All of the above" option when you can select as many of them as you want. If you think that all 4 are equally important then select all 4 of them.
HockeyoAJB is offline  
post #99 of 112 Old 05-14-2015, 06:26 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 22
I know I'm late to this poll, but, I voted WCG just because I knew most would be HDR, even though, if I could, I would have voted for:

BOTH WCG & HDR!!

There is a real problem with HDTV in that there is no standard and so you can get HDTVs with grays for blacks and color all over the place, pale or bright with no range, it's terrible, most cheap LCD & LCD/LED HDTVs have crap for color. (I miss my Plasma HDTV). We really badly need UHD standards across the board, starting with WCG & HDR, even if it's just a step beyond what we have now, so that we get closer to film quality.

Shouldn't the goal be to get closer to film quality? I think most people just don't realize that digital is far and away from the color and dynamic range found with film. Brighter TVs are not better color, just brighter because they don't have to pass light through physical film. Most movies are still created on film, with digital effects added, just because film has great color (and resolution) than digital is still capable of.

So, UHD needs to emphasize the importance of improving digital from content to delivery and everywhere in-between for both commercial (theaters) and consumer market. It would be easy for them to say, if you meet these standards you can put the UHD logo on your device/delivery, and they can market it as "near film quality". This would make much more difference than emphasizing resolution, especially since the average consumer (those not reading this, nor involved in these types of forums), can't tell the difference between 720p & 1080p.

That being said, we also need some new energy star categories so we can make OLEDs and Lasers in TVs & projectors so that we can achieve these colors. We are saving so much energy in so many ways these days, it's not necessary to keep holding us back from our goal in digital medium, which is to eventually match the quality of film...with ridiculous standards to keep saving more energy with TVs & such.
benji888578 is offline  
post #100 of 112 Old 05-14-2015, 06:36 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
Just posted some anecdotic materials regarding HFR in ... another thread[/URL].

A compilation of the original Showscan short programs would be a great showcase for UHD Blu-ray to illustrate the advantages of High Frame Rate.
Showscan!

I remember going to the world expo in Vancouver BC in 1986 (my age is showing), they had a technology theme and the one I remember most was a Showscan theater, it was showing off a large 70MM widescreen with 60fps & a CD for digital sound synced to the movie (I think it was 6 channels). This was well before digital theaters came around, and the best you could get was 70MM film at 24fps with magnetic tape 6 ch. (matrixed) dolby surround. (This is not the same as 70MM IMAX, much smaller as the 70MM was measured as the width, wheras 70MM IMAX film goes sideways with 70MM being the height of the film. However, it was wider than 35MM, where 35MM needed anamorphic lenses to go wide, 70MM did not.)

I couldn't wait to see Showscan theaters, but, that was the last I'd heard of it until recent forum talk about HFR.
benji888578 is offline  
post #101 of 112 Old 05-14-2015, 09:20 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
popalock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lake Dallas, TX
Posts: 5,049
Mentioned: 157 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1317 Post(s)
Liked: 1814
Send a message via Skype™ to popalock
Quote:
Originally Posted by benji888578 View Post
Showscan!

I remember going to the world expo in Vancouver BC in 1986 (my age is showing), they had a technology theme and the one I remember most was a Showscan theater, it was showing off a large 70MM widescreen with 60fps & a CD for digital sound synced to the movie (I think it was 6 channels). This was well before digital theaters came around, and the best you could get was 70MM film at 24fps with magnetic tape 6 ch. (matrixed) dolby surround. (This is not the same as 70MM IMAX, much smaller as the 70MM was measured as the width, wheras 70MM IMAX film goes sideways with 70MM being the height of the film. However, it was wider than 35MM, where 35MM needed anamorphic lenses to go wide, 70MM did not.)

I couldn't wait to see Showscan theaters, but, that was the last I'd heard of it until recent forum talk about HFR.
Wow...they had 60fps back in the 80's? Kinda makes me think that the industry is just milking us as consumers to squeeze every penny they can out of us...
popalock is offline  
post #102 of 112 Old 05-14-2015, 09:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 440 Post(s)
Liked: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by benji888578 View Post
I know I'm late to this poll, but, I voted WCG just because I knew most would be HDR, even though, if I could, I would have voted for:

BOTH WCG & HDR!!
The poll is multiple choice. It was possible to vote for both.
Quote:
There is a real problem with HDTV in that there is no standard and so you can get HDTVs with grays for blacks and color all over the place, pale or bright with no range, it's terrible, most cheap LCD & LCD/LED HDTVs have crap for color. (I miss my Plasma HDTV). We really badly need UHD standards across the board, starting with WCG & HDR, even if it's just a step beyond what we have now, so that we get closer to film quality.
There's also OLED, like you mention later.
Quote:
Shouldn't the goal be to get closer to film quality? I think most people just don't realize that digital is far and away from the color and dynamic range found with film. Brighter TVs are not better color, just brighter because they don't have to pass light through physical film. Most movies are still created on film, with digital effects added, just because film has great color (and resolution) than digital is still capable of.
They're discontinuing the production of film cameras. http://deadline.com/2012/02/cinemas-...own-it-208772/
I'm not sure most movies are still created on film. This page http://bayflicks.net/2012/11/14/how-...-shot-on-film/ looks at a smallish sample of cinema films and has digital being higher.

Also, does the average film really have greater resolution than digital is capable of? I don't think it does. eg. Star Wars episode 7 isn't shooting on it because it's higher resolution. In the trailer most of the non-digital shots don't look the highest that 1080p can do - they look quite soft usually. I'm sure shooting digital at 5K or 6K could have given a higher resolution if the director wanted that - and only a tiny few shots are going to be/have been done with IMAX.

I think the aim for UHD is to allow better than film quality. That's why they want things like Rec2020, HDR, frame rates currently proposed up to 120 fps (when most cinemas are set up for, and the DCI max is 24 for 4K or 48 for 2K), 7680x4320 for UHD-2, when most cinemas are capable of a lot less than that, especially in motion. It's right that they don't limit to only what film (at the current time) is capable of - or we'd never go higher than 24/48 fps, 4K, P3 etc.
Quote:
That being said, we also need some new energy star categories so we can make OLEDs and Lasers in TVs & projectors so that we can achieve these colors. We are saving so much energy in so many ways these days, it's not necessary to keep holding us back from our goal in digital medium, which is to eventually match the quality of film...with ridiculous standards to keep saving more energy with TVs & such.
It's already better (more accurate) than film in some ways (eg. motion). probably higher resolution normally, lack of grain (there may be noise if not well lit).

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 06-09-2015 at 10:45 AM. Reason: spelling/grammar
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #103 of 112 Old 06-04-2015, 07:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
turls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Central IL
Posts: 4,924
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Liked: 206
Lots of people in this thread assume small screen and/or short viewing distance and have not qualified their response that way. That is all.

Matt
turls is offline  
post #104 of 112 Old 06-07-2015, 02:52 AM
Advanced Member
 
Fjodor2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 410 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Hi,

Lots of comments here seem to focus on what will improve image quality the most, assuming it is widely available in the source material. But we all know that unfortunately is not the case for a long time.

So it would also be interesting to hear opinions on this when other aspects are taken into account. I'm thinking about for example to what extent media is available that make use of the new technology, if there is any way to upscale or upconvert existing material to make use of it, and if so how well that upconversion works for each of the technologies mentioned. Also, once UHD Blu-ray is available, will this change so the benefit of some of the technologies will become more useful?

E.g. for 4K, existing 1080p material can now be upscaled, so there is lots of existing 1080p content that can benefit from 4K. But with HDR, HFR and wide color gamut, it's not possible to "upconvert" existing material as I understand it. Sure, HFR can be "upconverted" through frame interpolation, but that's nothing new.

So I wonder if you could share your opinions on this when the aspects above are taken into account? Thanks!
Fjodor2000 is offline  
post #105 of 112 Old 06-08-2015, 10:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 440 Post(s)
Liked: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjodor2000 View Post
E.g. for 4K, existing 1080p material can now be upscaled, so there is lots of existing 1080p content that can benefit from 4K. But with HDR, HFR and wide color gamut, it's not possible to "upconvert" existing material as I understand it. Sure, HFR can be "upconverted" through frame interpolation, but that's nothing new.

So I wonder if you could share your opinions on this when the aspects above are taken into account? Thanks!
Spatial interpolation is upconverting (eg. from 1080p to 2160p). Temporal interpolation (eg. from 24/30 to 60 fps) would also be upconverting (yes it would probably have artefacts, especially from 24 fps to a lot higher, even with a more advanced algorithm than normal - though I bet with a more advanced algorithm, if it's already quite a high rate eg. 48 fps, I bet you could do acceptable conversion to get it to 50/60 - though speeding up to 50 is also an option).

Upconverting dynamic range could also be done through scaling (which would very likely look very wrong but I don't think that will stop some TVs doing it), and I'm sure a lot (most?) of the HDR Blu-rays will probably be created by "faking" it.(at least partially) ie. it won't (usually) be all the true dynamic range recorded (or close to it), but the editor/person doing the colour grading will be deciding on how bright to assign certain highlights etc. Though I think it would be better if it was mostly the true dynamic range rather than faked (except where that would be too bright).

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 06-08-2015 at 11:08 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #106 of 112 Old 06-09-2015, 08:12 AM
Member
 
Asfi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Higher pixel count and Higher dynamic range !

one without the other has no interest
Asfi is offline  
post #107 of 112 Old 12-25-2015, 02:47 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 0
I'm on for the 4K resolution, because 2K is not enough for people with screens covering a big field of view, like DVD was not enough for all users who switched to Blu-ray.
HDR doesn't interest me; 48cd/m sq. is enough for watching in the dark.
HFR, as of now, has only been used for The Hobbit.
Lastly, I still don't understand how 10/12 bit color can be seen by the human eye's 10 million color perception, fullfilled by YCbCr 8 bit 10.5 million shades.
Ultra Magnus is offline  
post #108 of 112 Old 12-25-2015, 09:45 PM
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra Magnus View Post
Lastly, I still don't understand how 10/12 bit color can be seen by the human eye's 10 million color perception, fullfilled by YCbCr 8 bit 10.5 million shades.
(1) That number 10 million is debatable. It comes from a report in the 1970's and the way we understand color has changed since then. (2) YCbCr encoding is far from perceptually uniform. Suppose we can identify 10 million colors, then an ideal color encoding (with 10 million different values) would have to match exactly how those colors are distributed to us visually. Otherwise we will see gaps in some locations. A YCbCr gamma encoding is not a perfect match to the human visual system so you need extra bits to make up for that.
EvLee is offline  
post #109 of 112 Old 01-30-2016, 01:35 AM
Member
 
dimxr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Higher pixel count of course...
Until we get to that (we are far from it) everything else will be just minor details...
dimxr is offline  
post #110 of 112 Old 07-31-2017, 03:54 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by popalock View Post
Wow...they had 60fps back in the 80's? Kinda makes me think that the industry is just milking us as consumers to squeeze every penny they can out of us...
(I just went through my notifications, lol)

Yeah, that was 60fps 70mm film, I think it was a set of shorts, total around 40 mins. or so, to show off the tech, (that's a lot of film, 2.5 times the speed, 2.5 times as much film used, it was used in some rides, but didn't take off for movies). It was pretty awesome, no jitter or blurred movements. It was a huge screen too (curved).

Obviously, they eventually adopted CDs for soundtracks for a while, but, that's gone.

I found a little info. on the Showscan tech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan

& I think the films were, (they sound familiar), Earthwatch, Discovery, Deep Sea Rescue, I recall Discovery for sure): http://www.in70mm.com/library/proces...scan/index.htm

ALSO found this, scroll down for a pic (partial) of the 500 seat EXPO 86 theater: http://www.in70mm.com/news/2011/show...pany/index.htm

Last edited by benji888578; 07-31-2017 at 04:09 PM.
benji888578 is offline  
post #111 of 112 Old 08-01-2017, 05:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 440 Post(s)
Liked: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by benji888578 View Post
(I just went through my notifications, lol)

Yeah, that was 60fps 70mm film, I think it was a set of shorts, total around 40 mins. or so, to show off the tech, (that's a lot of film, 2.5 times the speed, 2.5 times as much film used, it was used in some rides, but didn't take off for movies). It was pretty awesome, no jitter or blurred movements. It was a huge screen too (curved).
It must have had some jitter, judder/strobing or blur. Just 40% of the blur/judder of 24 fps film assuming the same shutter (and shouldn't, all things being equal, digital have less 'jitter' since there isn't a moving piece of film)? Improvements will be noticeable till at least 240 fps (possibly till about 700 fps).
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #112 of 112 Old 09-11-2017, 06:13 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post
UHD promises better image quality by upgrading various parameters. Which do you think are most important to achieve that goal?

This leads me to wonder, which elements of UHD do you think are most important for improving image quality? I'm assuming that HDR and WCG content and displays will use more than 8 bits, since these elements will look terrible are equally important. I look forward to learning what's most important to you from your vote and comments.

=
"Which elements of having a higher resolution improve picture quality?"

Ummmm higher resolution. The other aspects don't have much to do with resolution though we are seeing those improvements in tandem.
aenews 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