4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 35

Heh, and you think the 2K came just out of the hat? The 2K came from the research on the scenario, knowledge of the human visual system and experiments. Basic facts about this are now popularized and serious data are readily available. There is unequivocal conclusion there are no benefits from the 4K above 3PH.


So what? Japanese are advanced in the development of 8K. 4K and 8K might be very useful in other scenarios than TV e.g. some kind of future surrounding displays. There is also a factor of techies trying to drive the industry on numbers and not on consumer real desires. Then you have the present situation in which the TV industry has gigantic losses and Apple having the problem of what to do with too much cash.


This is nice illustration of absurdity when one does not take the viewing scenario into account. 2K TVs have sufficient pixel density for their viewing scenario of 3-4PH (and that is for highest quality 4:4:4 uncompressed sources!) while the iPad is just getting the pixel density sufficient for its viewing scenario which is like newspaper reading. For paper print it is known from ages that the minimum requirement for good print is about 300 dpi. This however is for standard newspaper paper. Since (static) resolution of the human visual system strongly depends on contrast, for glossy magazines the pixel density is much higher, from 1200 up to 2400 dpi. Current displays can not reproduce glossy paper contrast, the 300 dpi is fine.

There are however rumors that the next Samsung Galaxy III smartmonster will have 1080p (OLED???) display. If so, it will be then interesting to see if this offers perceivable benefits comparing to the previous quarterHD display or it is just an overkill.

For many people, the iPad is not a reading device, it is used for video. 3–4 picture heights is ridiculous as displays get ever larger, and I currently sit 1.5ph because I mainly watch Blu-ray and I want a cinematic experience. I just don't enjoy films much if I'm sitting further than maybe 2ph, you can't get drawn into their world. This distance clearly shows up the lack of resolution from 1080p, but even so, I still see a lack of resolution if I do sit that far back. At 3–4ph, the TV is smaller than an iPad. Why even bother with an HDTV if you're going to watch an image that size?

And as I have said many times in the past, you need to exceed the HVS by at least 2× to fool the eye, not just match the "limits".

Firstly, screens are much sharper than print at any given resolution, because they have an ordered grid of pixels, rather than sprayed dots of ink on paper.

Secondly, the contrast of a glossy magazine is about 15:1. Newsprint is about 10:1.


Toshiba have already demonstrated the benefits of 500 PPI displays with a 6″ 2560×1600 LCD.

http://www.tmdisplay.com/english/new.../2011_1020.htm

Yeah guys, immaculately pristine, first-day release 4K(?) cinema content will be soon available:

a start-up called Prima Cinema is working with the studios to roll out a service that will make first-run studio films available the day they hit the big screen. Available in a few months, the service will allow homeowners with a high-end digital-projection screening room (who also pay $35,000 to install Prima's highly secure digital delivery system) to watch first-run films for an additional $500 each. The service won't deliver movies before their opening date.

Look at that, Apple doubled the resolution of their online video service to 1080p, and manages to improve image quality while increasing compression and keeping filesize relatively similar:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...ompression.ars

It's still highly compressed online video, but shows that you can definitely improve resolution and image quality without massively increasing filesize.

1080i60 was never made with the idea that it would last forever it was merely made to be better than what had previously existed. And so far I have yet to see any evidence for your "TV viewing scenario". I have never heard of 3 to 4 PH being a "natural minimum" for TV viewing and it sounds like a personal opinion.

Maybe you are confusing "natural minimum" distance with the median TV viewing distance. For example the Lechner distance was the median TV viewing distance determined by an unpublished survey of American homes done by RCA Laboratories back when they were researching HDTV. I have seen it mentioned in several HDTV articles though I wouldn't consider it to be reliable (it was never published). There are a few documented European studies on median TV viewing as well.



I already know (and have posted) that 3.16 PH for 2K displays is based on 20/20 vision which is the standard model for nominal visual acuity (60 pixels per degree). What I want to see is evidence for your claims about the "TV viewing scenario". Also I am not surprised you would post a link to an opinion piece called "Why 4K TVs are stupid" but an opinion doesn't become "popularized" just because a CNET writer has that opinion.

^^ you are saying what I've been saying but since given up

You can't fight people with more time than you who keeps rehashing same thing. The loudest has the last say; the drunken driver has the right of way.

In any case, like the arguments on OLED or huge TV, these are not academic discussions. We are likely able to conclude relatively soon as the actual product comes out. A 70" TV doesn't look that big at all nowadays with 80" around and the brain can make relative comparison. Same with 4k compared to 1080. Bias change when it is perceivable by even J6P

And I say again: optical projection is likely to have different acuity characteristics to direct view

Toshiba have had 55" 4K displays available since 2011.

Their latest model is going to be available next week in Europe: http://www.techwatch.co.uk/2012/03/0...out-next-week/

Its an > $13.000 < Edge-Lit

I ain't gonne buy a $13.000 4K Edge-Lit, you ain't gonna buy a $13.000 4K Edge-Lit, nobody here is.

Early estimates on the jump of the Ipad from 2K to 3K display put the cost at additional $20 per screen. Are there any cost analysis on the jump from 2K to 4K on 60-80" sizes? Total guesstimate on my part, would be around $500-$900 increase.

Probably about $20 actually.

The actual photolitho, etc. will have a very nearly identical variable cost to current 2k displays. Yes, there will be setup for the color filtering and the actual pixel grid and so initially you'll want to amortize that, but that will come out pretty quickly. On a long-run basis, the materials costs will be the same.

You will need more transistors on your backplane and a 4k scaler so those both add cost either directly (your backplanes will be somewhat more materials intensive for example) and indirectly (the market for 4k scalers is much smaller, so you won't have as much supplier choice and, honestly, the silicon is going to be bigger/more complex -- at least for a while).

Initially, your numbers are not completely off in the sense that if I take all the product development costs and amortize them over relatively small numbers of units, I could probably make a case for bigger cost bumps. But on a variable cost basis, I doubt even the very first units will have a build cost more than $100-200 higher at 60-70" diagonal.

Was half watching one of the financial shows and they were talking about how Apple stock is going crazy and they still have 2 big product releases for around Oct. The Iphone5 and and actual Apple branded television set. The analysis confirmed component for production are already being produced and Sharp is believed to be supplying the display panel. Could this be the Sharp ICC 4K screen we have been waiting for?
He then went on to suggest Apple is looking to eventually claim about 10 million of the annual 30 million in global display sales. I really think Apple is going to have to rethink its actual AppleTV. These are not $300 phones that people upgrade every 2 years. Once Siri is added and the huge Apple markup, they might price these TV out of reality. I hope Apple does kill the 4K revolution before it even has a chance to start.

I really, really doubt Apple's TV will have 4K for a ton of reasons.

Perhaps the most important one is this: Apple's TV -- assuming it ships -- is likely to be a mainstream size (or sizes), think 46, 55... The benefits of 4K, even to us proponents, will be more apparent in TV viewing only with much larger screens. It's possible Apple will deliver a 60" TV, but already you are in a much, much smaller portion of the overall market and while Apple likes to do things like take stuff people weren't buying (smartphones with nice screens) and mainstream it, I don't believe even Apple can mainstream size.

Anyway, all of this is obviously speculation, but I'd be floored if Apple's TV is 4k (in a pleasant way) and especially floored if they get anywhere near 70", which seems really, really improbable.

That's a good point. Hanging around this forum has warped my sense of mainstream. I would not considering anything less than 65" for my next TV, but most of the regular consumers still prefer the 50-60" range.

Yeah, I'm hung up on 65" or more as well.

The mainstream U.S. buyer is actually still buying under 50". The most popular size is 46".

3-4 screen height viewing distances/recommendations are anything but ridiculous.

I sit 11' away from my 60" Kuro, I suppose I could get a bit closer, but it would start getting nuts at anything more than a foot or two.

The screen is about 29" tall.

29X3 = 87 inches or just over 7 feet.

29X4 = 116" or about 9 1/2 feet.

The 3-4 image height guideline is widely used (try a google search) because it's very much commonplace, and much more importantly, infinitely sensible.

Whether it's that guideline, or visual acuity charts, it's clear that a numbered few will continue to dispute...precisely as they pi$$ and moan about others arguing the converse. No surprise there.


James

So you have a 22.4° viewing angle then, which is a tiny image for a 60″ screen. Personally, I would either be sitting closer, or have a bigger screen.

Maybe that's fine for television, but for gaming or films, I cannot get immersed with less than about 50° or so, and I typically sit close enough to have a 60° FOV.

Most people don't like sitting as close to their display as I do, but the solution for that is a bigger screen, not a smaller image. I never had anyone complain that they were sitting too close with my old projection setup, sitting about 1.5-2H from a 120″ screen. Most people just don't want a big 60″ or larger black slab on their wall.

I certainly couldn't live with that, even if it were something like the Sony Monolithic screens, which are the nicest looking today in my opinion, or a paper-thin OLED display.

I'm thinking that my next upgrade may be a projector now, with a borderless fixed white screen on a white wall. That way you can sit back and still have a high FOV, without the horrible black slab on the wall.

^ Just so I understand you...

You basically feel that viewing a 60" 1080 screen at 9-10' is too far away, or could at least be significantly improved by sitting considerably closer...?

AND you had people sitting about 7 feet from a 120" screen?

it's all beginning to make sense now.

You're part of the .0003% of the population (over the age of 17) that sits in the front row of a theater when there's other seats available.

James

I don't think you can use values based on the size of your screen to calculate what people would like with a larger screen.

10 ft away is a comfortable distance to view at. I'm not convinced adults view at that distance, though kids often do, because of visual acuity. 10 ft. or so was how far away my parents and I used to sit from a 20" screen years ago. It's roughly how far away we used to sit from a 27" screen. I sit about 8 ft. away from my 65" screen, more because of space availability than because I like sitting 8 ft. away. 10-11 ft. is how far away I sit from my projector, which is a 53" high screen. That is about 2.5 picture heights. So far the only one to think it is too close is my mother. When viewing 2.35 material, I like that distance (pic is about 10 ft. wide, still 53" high), but I wouldn't mind it a little larger for 16x9 material.

My point is that if people had screens twice the size as they have now, and convenient places to put them, I don't think they'd sit twice as far away. People in theatres sit closer than 2.5 picture heights all the time.

At some point though, field of vision starts to take over and you want to move farther back as the screen gets larger. For me, when viewing 2.35:1 material that distance is somewhere between 2 and 2.5 picture heights.

From this on page six you find

I know that is a sony paper, so some may claim their bias influenced what they printed, but lots of theatres I go into, well used to go into, had seats closer than 2 PH.

So I think people are going to adjust their seating based on resolution and the size of the screen. I don't think going to 4k is suddenly going to make people start sitting 5 ft. from a 55" screen, but by the same token, larger screens aren't going to make people sit further away, even if they stay 1080p. At some point people are going to notice that 1080p can be improved upon and they'll want it.

I don't think anyone (with any sense anyway) is stating or implying that there are hard and fast rules to viewing distances, just that there are reasonable limitations.

I would bet my next paycheck that if 100 people initially sat 7 feet from a 120" screen at least 90 of them would move back if they could.

James

Larger (read SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER) screens persuade most people to sit further away than they do from a 20, 32, or 40" screen, sorry. Just as leaving a 120" screen and moving to a 40" image would cause most to move closer.

I've yet to encounter a room with a projection screen 10' or larger with seating positioned closer than 12 feet (although as noted above, I'm sure some exist) and virtually all examples of such (3 personally I can think of) have alternate, smaller (TV) screens in other areas where they sit closer than 12'.

I'd say it's common sense without trying to be offensive.


James

And yet BluRay is up to 40 million households in the U.S. vs. only about 29 million a year ago. That's a 38% increase.

I think your point is valid, but it shows that things can and do change over time.

^^^Does that number include the PS3, or just stand alones?

It includes PS3 only if people used it to watch a BluRay movie. It's based on a CEA survey. I believe most PS3 players are used for BluRay, but nowhere near all. But I'm not sure what the actual number is there.

I have my doubts about the meaningfulness of those numbers, though. In the VHS vs Laserdisc scenario, if your VCR broke, the proposition was to buy a new VCR, buy a Laserdisc player and render your VHS tapes and a good chunk of your video store useless, or buy two players. It's no wonder people replaced broken VCRs with new VCRs and the better tech stayed niche.

Now when your DVD player breaks, you could get a new DVD player or a Blu Ray player, and the one that restricts your options this time is the DVD player. Blu Ray players may still be a little more expensive, but people may see value in flexibility (in addition to other features like Netflix, etc) even when they don't end up using that flexibility. Certainly some percent of Blu Ray players are purchased as DVD player replacements and never see a Blu Ray disc, and I'd be willing to bet it's a pretty large percent (especially if you include the people who try out one Blu Ray, declare no visible difference--it's hooked up over composite after all--and go back to all-DVD).

That said, the same thing could very well work in favor of 4K displays. People don't know if they need it or not, but for only 100 USD more, sure they'll take it. It's not like it won't work with their trusty old VCRs!

OK, again, it's a survey of households, extrapolated. It's the number of households that have used a BluRay disc in the home over some recent interval. It's absolutely true they don't all use them often, but that's what the number measures (I think it looks back 6 months, but I'm not sure).

If you answer the question, "I've never watched a BluRay at home", they wouldn't include you as a yes and wouldn't take you as part of the statistical extrapolation.

2018 to 2020 sounds about right for the rollout.
What about Direct TV and 4K??

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2401711,00.asp

DirecTV Preps for Ultra HDTV Signals

DirecTV has begun the groundwork for a rollout of ultra HDTV (UHDTV), according to a report.

AdvancedTelevision.com said that Philip Goswitz, senior vice president of space and communications and technology development for DirecTV, is preparing for 4,000- and 8,000-line services, although Goswitz did not say when.

Reports have indicated, however, that the format could be ready by as early as 2016, with 2018 to 2020 seen as a more likely timeframe. In any event, DirecTV is looking toward the future.

"4,000- and 8,000-line services are great for the satellite industry, and will ensure that satellite broadcasting continues to distinguish itself for image quality of service," Goswitz reportedly said, according to AdvancedTelevision.com "We see this as a key strategic advantage for us."

DirecTV representatives could not be reached Friday for comment.

Current 1080p signals use 1080 horizontal lines of resolution. The so-called "4K" format is used by the digital cinema industry, but those refer to horizontal lines of resolution. Digital cinema resolution, for example, is commonly 4096-by-1714 pixels.

It's possible that Goswitz referred to so-called QFHD, which basically doubles the 1080p HDTV standard in the vertical and horizontal dimensions: 3,840-by-2,160. But those still don't come close to 4,000 lines of vertical resolution.

True ultra HD or UHDTV, however, has been proposed by NHK, also known as Super Hi-Vision. At 7,680-by-4,320, or 4320p HDTV, the resolution far exceeds conventional HDTVs and digital cinema. Uncompressed, the video would require massive bandwidth and storage space; in 2006, however, NHK demonstrated a compressed version, using an NHK codec that compressed the video signal from approximately 24 Gbits/s down to 180-600 Mbits/s and the audio from 28 Mbit/s to 7-28 Mbits/s. Prototype TVs from LG (pictured) have also been shown.

To enable the transition, DirecTV sees itself migrating from Ku-band to Ka-band satellites. Ka-band satellites offer higher bandwidth than Ku-band satellites, but reportedly are more susceptible to so-called "rain fade," or a degradation of performance during rainy conditions.

"At DirecTV we see a couple of things happening," Goswitz said. "First, our subscribers are migrating away from Ku-band, and upgrading themselves to Ka-band and its HDTV services. In four or five years, our Ku-band [transmissions] could end. We are also developing the so-called Reverse Band for DBS services, and these are on our Road Map for future international services. 4000-line is exciting to us because of its image quality, and the potential for glasses-free 3D."

Glad to see DirecTV is prepping for the future. More forward-looking than some AVSers, lol.

Basic science shows the 4K is stupid - unless one has such a beast. Then the TV viewing scenario in the living room demands UHDTV since watching will be < 2PH . Rain endangering DirecTV beaming of UHDTV in the Ka band is no problem, it will be squashed down with advanced drones .

In 2005 I noticed Samsung was an up and comer in the HDTV area and I sent an executive letter to an executive at Sony Corporate Japan asking if they were going to adapt to the new situation but the response was that Sony was the best HDTV producer and that the Bravia line was going to be destroying Samsung.

I feel like sending a copy of that letter(today) to Sony Corporate Japan to see how much humble pie they will eat but why bother.

I feel it in my bones that 4K sets are a given in a few years time given the historical evolution of 480p sets then 720p sets and now 1080p sets in a five year/ten year span giving way to 2160p sets.(480p sets did take a lot longer to evolve to 720p sets)

Poor Sony being blind to the Chinese threat and todays running joke is that the CES show stands for Chinese Electronics Show since a lot of products at CES said made in China.

It has nothing to do with being "forward looking", it's about what makes sense. As some AVSers don't have and will buy into anything the CE industry puts out.