or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 73

post #2161 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

I think you miss some important points here.
These things are not set in stone.
The ITU-R BT.2020 recommendation was finalized recently after some years of work to set a standard for UHD material which is created/tested now.
It can't be totally final if this month the EBU requested that they add the 50Hz based frame rates to it.
Quote:
The FoBTV initiative was commenced in April this year, so it is a very new initiative.
Nowhere have they said they intend on having just one frame rate though have they? A unified broadcast system doesn't have to mean identical frame rates.
Quote:
It was not really even a choice of "What is the best framerate".
That was part of it.
Quote:
NTSC and PAL material have really no business being broadcasted in a future proper UHD channel
I never said NTSC and PAL (which are analogue 480i/576i standards - actually more if you include the non-visible lines) - but yes I'm sure they will show pre-UHDTV content (both SD & HD)). They won't totally destroy all existing content/never show it ever again when the new system comes in.
Quote:
.
150fps doesn't really make any sense at all. Multiple of PAL 25fps*5 = 125fps, which would make more sense than 150fps.
125 fps isn't a multiple of 50Hz. There's tons of 50Hz material (eg. 50i). 125 fps and 120 fps aren't multiples of the 50Hz fluorescent lighting used in Europe. 150Hz would give better motion than 125 fps, as well as better handle other frame rates. Basically you want the highest rate possible so that it can give the best motion possible (eg. 300 Hz or higher would be better) and so that it can best handle multiples of many existing frame/field rates (eg. 25/29.97/30/48/50/59.94/60 etc.). With very high refresh rates, even if isn't an exact multiple of another frame rate, if the refresh rate is high enough, in theory the pull-down judder shouldn't be noticeable - unlike with eg. 24 fps in a 60Hz signal where there's a bigger difference. Though the fact that TVs will be bigger/higher res means we need the higher rates.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 10/24/12 at 10:12am
post #2162 of 3670
To me, in an ideal world, we would have more than one standard for 4k.
First, for 3D, we would need to increase the frame rate to 240Hz, so each eye would still see 120Hz, and avoid eye strain.
Next, for professional use, we would need deep color with 4:4:4 mapping. This should become available to consumers eventually.
For consumer use, initially we would need a very efficient compression code that preserves the best of the professional Master. Probably with 4:2:2 color, and at least 10 bit resolution.
I'm not an engineer, so don't beat me up, this is just my two cents.
post #2163 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

It can't be totally final if this month the EBU requested that they add the 50Hz based frame rates to it.
That's what I said! Try to read before you respond!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan
These things are not set in stone.
Quote:
Nowhere have they said they intend on having just one frame rate though have they? A unified broadcast system doesn't have to mean identical frame rates.
That is one of the reasons for having a unified worldwide system. To avoid all the transcoding between the different regional produced material. One set of framerates is a very important part of that.
The difference between the NTSC and PAL framerates are the main reasons for needing transcoding if a program is produced in one region and is sold to another region. Or transmitted live over sattelite, where it needs to be Live transcoded to the target Broadcast system.
Quote:
That was part of it.
The framerate for NTSC and PAL was mainly based on the fact that CRT TV needed to sync to the Hertz of the electrical grid.
Why else did you think PAL ended up with 25fps~50i ?
Quote:
I never said NTSC and PAL (which are analogue 480i/576i standards - actually more if you include the non-visible lines) - but yes I'm sure they will show pre-UHDTV content (both SD & HD)). They won't totally destroy all existing content/never show it ever again when the new system comes in.
There will be dedicated UHD TV channels just like there now are dedicated HD TV channels.
Quote:
125 fps isn't a multiple of 50Hz. There's tons of 50Hz material (eg. 50i).
Base framerate for PAL is 25fps progressive, not 50fps. 50i is 25fps whole images reproduced as 50 half-images.
Quote:
125 fps and 120 fps aren't multiples of the 50Hz fluorescent lighting used in Europe. 150Hz would give better motion than 125 fps, as well as better handle other frame rates.
Again; The framerate set for NTSC 30p and PAL 25p had nothing to do with the lighting.
It was because the old Tube CRT TV's had to be in sync with the electrical grid to work.
Now when we have digital TV's the Hertz sync is no more in use and broadcast systems can operate independent of the Hertz in the electrical grid.
Quote:
Basically you want the highest rate possible so that it can give the best motion possible (eg. 300 Hz or higher would be better) and so that it can best handle multiples of many existing frame/field rates (eg. 25/29.97/30/48/50/59.94/60 etc.).
HFR of 300fps will be interesting for certain kinds of programming, but that will not happen in the next broadcast system because of the amount of data it creates, and will take a long time to solve.
300fps isn't even on the table in the UHD development.
Just think of 8K/33megapixel in 300fps and the amount of data to process live!
They could use 24*12=288 or 24*15=360 or 24*20=480.
But that is a whole other discussion.
Quote:
With very high refresh rates, even if isn't an exact multiple of another frame rate, if the refresh rate is high enough, in theory the pull-down judder shouldn't be noticeable - unlike with eg. 24 fps in a 60Hz signal where there's a bigger difference. Though the fact that TVs will be bigger/higher res means we need the higher rates.
That's why they most probably settle for 120fps for the very long future.

You are worrying about problems that are not yet settled.
The future UHD TV systems is in no way finalized.
There are still many years to 2020, and no one knows yet what will be the result of FoBTV and the UHD TV tests NHK will be doing towards 2020 and beyond, before the UHD standard will be final and UHD Broadcasts will be regular occurrences worldwide.
post #2164 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Again; The framerate set for NTSC 30p and PAL 25p had nothing to do with the lighting.

The original choice was based on mains frequency, but sticking with 50 Hz is a function of room lighting. Clearly, you've never watched a PAL TV in a room with 60 Hz fluorescent lights.

Ron
post #2165 of 3670
Quote:
Base framerate for PAL is 25fps progressive, not 50fps. 50i is 25fps whole images reproduced as 50 half-images.
No, 50i live broadcasts (including sport) are de-interlaced to 50 separate images per second (they are not shot with 25 progressive frames per second), which is because the fields are taken from 50 points in time. If you changed it to 25p (25 fps progressive) it would judder twice as much. That is why there is a big difference between 25 fps video with "film-look" and 25 fips with "video look" (the latter has twice as many temporal samples). This is why you want a multiple of 50 and not 25, because there is lots of content with 50 temporal samples per second, not just 25.

Unlike current TV, there's no interlaced option in UHDTV, so they'll need to de-interlace it to a progressive format that will correctly store it, eg. multiples of 50p. 25p won't.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 10/24/12 at 10:07pm
post #2166 of 3670
The new draft of the HEVC specification has been released which includes a 10-bit consumer profile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Consumer Electronics Association Gives 4K a Name
http://www.homemediamagazine.com/consumer-electronics/consumer-electronics-association-gives-4k-name-28627
I agree with Sony that 4K Ultra HD would make more sense. Still it is good to hear that displays labelled as Ultra HD will have to support a 4K digital input.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

I think they moved up profile 10 to the Jan 2013 meeting because they know if they didn't take the led, Sony was going to make the decision for them. We all know how Sony likes it proprietary formats. Rumors are that Sony, Toshiba and LG have reached a secret standard for 4K and we can expect to see 4K Blu-ray players at CES, with availability as soon as Q3 of 2013.
I am very skeptical of that rumor since it is basically just a few posts on a few forums so the rumor could have easily been started by a single poster. In my opinion the desire for a 10-bit consumer HEVC profile was mainly due to the number of companies that are interested in UHDTV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

Please tell me we're using REC 2020
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2020
Lets improve other things besides resolution.
Agreed, 10-bit video and a larger color space are two major features of UHDTV. If CE companies really want to sell 4K Ultra HD displays I think they should add support for those features.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

According to this page:
http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp?lang=en&parent=R12-WP6C.AR-C&source=European%20Broadcasting%20Union
On 4th October 2012, the ITU received "EBU request to include 50 Hz based frame rates in Recommendation ITU-R BT.2020"
(/\ I hope that includes 150 fps).
Just a guess but it might be 100 fps since that has been a frame rate that the EBU has talked about in past articles.
Edited by Richard Paul - 10/25/12 at 6:07pm
post #2167 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul 
Just a guess but it might be 100 fps since that has been a frame rate that the EBU has talked about in past articles
I think you're probably right. Though I'm hoping for 150. It's not fair if the best we have is we in EU/AUS have is 100 frown.gif.
post #2168 of 3670
LG to Sell 1st 4K TV Today In LA
Quote:
Washington, D.C. (October 25, 2012) -- Starting today, you can actually buy the first 4K, 'Ultra HD' TV.

That is, if you live near Lawndale California and have somewhere between $17,000 and $20,000 to spend.

LG has announced that today it will sell the first TV with a display purportedly offering four times the resolution of current HDTVs at the Video & Audio Center's South Bay Super Store in Lawndale. (FYI - Lawndale is in the South Bay area of Los Angeles County.)

The retail price for the 84-inch set is $19,999, but USA Today reports that the Video & Audio Center will sell it for a mere $16,999.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/lg102512.htm
post #2169 of 3670
post #2170 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

LG to Sell 1st 4K TV Today In LA
http://www.tvpredictions.com/lg102512.htm

I wonder on how many 4k LG if they dropped their price to 10K vs 20K. The dealer is selling that one at 17K.
post #2171 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

LG to Sell 1st 4K TV Today In LA
http://www.tvpredictions.com/lg102512.htm
Here is a link to the USA Today article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

SMPTE NY Discusses 4K Professional Monitors
http://www.display-central.com/broadcast-and-distribution/smpte-ny-discusses-4k-professional-monitors/
I can understand why the speakers at the SMPTE conference want an interface standard for the future though I am puzzled at why they only refer to HD-SDI and DVI. DisplayPort 1.2 HBR2 can do 4K at 60 fps (with 10-bit video) and has been used on video cards for a while. There is even a $100 video card (the AMD Radeon HD 7750) that has a DisplayPort 1.2 HBR2 output.
post #2172 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

Here is a link to the USA Today article.
I can understand why the speakers at the SMPTE conference want an interface standard for the future though I am puzzled at why they only refer to HD-SDI and DVI. DisplayPort 1.2 HBR2 can do 4K at 60 fps (with 10-bit video) and has been used on video cards for a while. There is even a $100 video card (the AMD Radeon HD 7750) that has a DisplayPort 1.2 HBR2 output.

Maybe because they use 12 and 16bit color depth and RGB 4:4:4 Chroma Subsampling rate. Can DisplayPort 1.2 handle those ?
post #2173 of 3670
Your Eyes Aren’t Sharp Enough To Justify This 9.6-Inch 4K Display
Quote:
The company claims the displays will be well suited to medical applications, and professional broadcast gear where high-resolution imagery is important. But at 458ppi Ortus' screen crushes even the iPhone 5's retina display, and when was the last time you were able to discern an individual pixel on that?

http://gizmodo.com/5954820/your-eyes-arent-sharp-enough-to-justify-this-96+inch-4k-display
post #2174 of 3670
I absolutely hate it when I get told that my eyes and ears can't appreciate improved technology. The human brain is capable of being trained to appreciate higher pixel count and higher bit rate. Luddites should form their own thread to trash every new jump in technology that comes along. They can close their eyes too. Go to sleep and not see any improvement in pixel count. Sleep well, Luddites.
post #2175 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro67 View Post

I wonder on how many 4k LG if they dropped their price to 10K vs 20K. The dealer is selling that one at 17K.

Well they supposedly sold 6 on the first day. I would not expect the LG 84" to drop much until late next year. The Sony and the Toshiba use the LG panel in their 84" 4K sets, so LG will always be the cheapest out of those 3. The surprise is that the Chinese seem to be jumping on the 4K bandwagon much earlier than expected with both Hisense and AUO announcing 65" 4K set that should sell around $6K. The best bet for the larger 70-90" 4K sets would be Sharp. They have been demoing for years and said they would start to ship by the end of this year, but financial troubles may have pushed them back. Samsung showed a 70" 4K at CES, but announced no pricing or availability. Looks they they will wait until late 2013 or early 2014 to see if 4K takes off.
post #2176 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazishere View Post

I absolutely hate it when I get told that my eyes and ears can't appreciate improved technology. The human brain is capable of being trained to appreciate higher pixel count and higher bit rate. Luddites should form their own thread to trash every new jump in technology that comes along. They can close their eyes too. Go to sleep and not see any improvement in pixel count. Sleep well, Luddites.
I think these people are older with sh*tty vision. Makes sense visual improvements in technology hold little if any real appreciable value for them.
post #2177 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

Well they supposedly sold 6 on the first day.

Is there a link to this stat?
Quote:
I would not expect the LG 84" to drop much until late next year. The Sony and the Toshiba use the LG panel in their 84" 4K sets, so LG will always be the cheapest out of those 3. The surprise is that the Chinese seem to be jumping on the 4K bandwagon much earlier than expected with both Hisense and AUO announcing 65" 4K set that should sell around $6K. The best bet for the larger 70-90" 4K sets would be Sharp. They have been demoing for years and said they would start to ship by the end of this year, but financial troubles may have pushed them back. Samsung showed a 70" 4K at CES, but announced no pricing or availability. Looks they they will wait until late 2013 or early 2014 to see if 4K takes off.

AUO is also going to sell a 55" UHD TV panel.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/26/auo-develops-igzo-based-65-inch-4k-tv-screen/
post #2178 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Is there a link to this stat?
AUO is also going to sell a 55" UHD TV panel.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/26/auo-develops-igzo-based-65-inch-4k-tv-screen/

Sure, here you go.

"Today was the first day the sets went on sale, and at least six were sold by 2:00 p.m., just two hours after the doors opened to the general public."

http://www.cepro.com/article/street_price_set_at_16999_for_lgs_84-in_4k_ultra_hd_tv/
post #2179 of 3670
From website above ^^^^^
Quote:
There will only be 500 OLED TV shipments in 2012, compared to 4,000 Ultra HD/4K units (as a feature set in LCDs). Victory for Ultra HD/4K. The same trend continues in 2013, when there will be 50,000 OLEDs sold and 154,000 Ultra HD/4K sets shipped. But NPD says by 2016, there will be 9 million OLEDs sold compared to just 5 million Ultra HD/4K sets. The primary market for both will be in the 50-inch-plus size.

With the average seating distance being 9 feet (Lechner Distance) - with a 55" UHDTV, you will not be able to see the increase in resolution.
post #2180 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

From website above ^^^^^
With the average seating distance being 9 feet (Lechner Distance) - with a 55" UHDTV, you will not be able to see the increase in resolution.

Perhaps a more useful metric would be the percentage of those purchasing a 55" UHDTV4K who intend to|will actually sit closer to the display than 7' at least some of the time...?! After all, deciding to purchase a higher resolution display is actually a self selection process . . . as is the determination of preferred seating distance...
_
post #2181 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

Perhaps a more useful metric would be the percentage of those purchasing a 55" UHDTV4K who intend to|will actually sit closer to the display than 7' at least some of the time...?! After all, deciding to purchase a higher resolution display is actually a self selection process . . . as is the determination of preferred seating distance...
_

Couch on one wall - TV on the opposite wall - average distance = 9 feet. wink.gif

BTW, 7 feet isn't close enough for a 55" UHDTV. It would have to be less than 5 feet. Recommended seating distance for UHDTV = 1.5 x Picture Height.
post #2182 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Couch on one wall - TV on the opposite wall - average distance = 9 feet. wink.gif
BTW, 7 feet isn't close enough for a 55" UHDTV. It would have to be less than 5 feet. Recommended seating distance for UHDTV = 1.5 x Picture Height.
So for a 55" TV it would be 3.37 feet recommended viewing distance.

Though I think you could see the full res from 3.6 feet away. If I'm right, I think their recommended distance is too near.
Also, is the ideal viewing distance the one where you can resolve every pixel? For the most realistic picture, surely you'd want to be just far enough away that you can't see the see/resolve the individual pixels.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 10/26/12 at 10:10pm
post #2183 of 3670
The recommended viewing distance for 4K UHDTV = 1.5 x Picture Height. So for a 55" 4K UHDTV, the recommended viewing distance is 3.37 feet.

The recommended viewing distance for 1080 HDTV = 3.0 x Picture Height. So for a 55" 1080 HDTV, the recommended viewing distance is 6.74 feet.

Place a 55" 4K UHDTV and a 55" 1080 HDTV side by side and feed each the same native 4K content (the 1080 HDTV intelligently down converts).

Nominally...

At a viewing distance of 6.74 feet the images on the two displays appear (qualitatively) identical. Moving closer from 6.74 feet towards a viewing distance of 3.37 feet, the image on the 4K UHDTV display continues to improve, but on the 1080 HDTV display the individual pixels simply appear bigger. The full benefit of using a 4K UHDTV display is only obtained at 1.5H, but the 4K UHDTV display delivers more information than the 1080 HDTV display at every viewing distance between 1.5H and 3.0H. The 55" 4K UHDTV display is preferred over the 55" 1080 HDTV display at any viewing distance closer than 6.74 feet.
_
Edited by SoundChex - 10/27/12 at 9:46am
post #2184 of 3670
Man at 3 feet as you say that's pretty frigen close . I dont know how that will jive with the wife lol.
post #2185 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

So for a 55" TV it would be 3.37 feet recommended viewing distance.
Though I think you could see the full res from 3.6 feet away. If I'm right, I think their recommended distance is too near.
Also, is the ideal viewing distance the one where you can resolve every pixel? For the most realistic picture, surely you'd want to be just far enough away that you can't see the see/resolve the individual pixels.
Ability to resolve pixels is quite dependant on material.

For most video material, say football, you likely won't be able to tell beyond a fairly close distance.

For high-contrast computer-generated edges (pixellated), you'll be able to just tell beyond a somewhat further distance.
Example Test Case: Video games with antialiasing turned off: Vertical and horizontal video game straight edges at slight angles (e.g. 1 to 5 degrees angle off the perfect angle) in a high contrast boundary (such as bright-sky versus dark-object bounary) with no edge smoothing from AA -- these are torture test cases for visible aliasing effects.

Human vision vary, too.

Also, if a 1080p display is calculated at a 10 foot ideal viewing distance, and a 2160p display is calculated at 5 foot viewing distance....what if you wanted an intermediate viewing distance such as 7.5 or 8 foot viewing distance for such a display? Certainly, you might not get the full benefit of 2160p, but it'll still look better than 1080p if you're a human sensitive to the pixels. If a 2160p display eventually costs not much more than 1080p, then the extra resolution is still useful even for that 8 foot viewing distance, and the reasonable cost premium may eventually become worth it. (I remember when 1080p used to cost a lot more than 720p!)

Viewing distance numbers are just guidelines.
post #2186 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

So for a 55" TV it would be 3.37 feet recommended viewing distance.
Though I think you could see the full res from 3.6 feet away. If I'm right, I think their recommended distance is too near.
Also, is the ideal viewing distance the one where you can resolve every pixel? For the most realistic picture, surely you'd want to be just far enough away that you can't see the see/resolve the individual pixels.

No, this is how you get a bigger screen. Tell your wife that you need a bigger screen, because you have to sit 3 feet from the TV with 55".
post #2187 of 3670
Dream 4K standard for me would be simple. Use Quad HD aka 3840x2160p with the following frame rates: 24p/48p/50p/60p/96p/120p. I think all those frame rates cover allot. You guys talking about 150+fps are insane...if you've seen a 100+fps stream yeah it looks insanely smooth given you have the proper display that will accept that input but its an insane waste of bandwidth! I think 4K is good for acquiring information but it doesn't need to be a TV standard RIGHT NOW. I want good 1080p as a standard now before I get watered down Quad HD! By "Good" 1080p I mean 12mbps+ H.264 1920x1080p streams using better compression algorithms often found in x264 (because face it Blu-rays bit rates are welcome to me but are sometimes overkill depending on the content). Burn MPEG-2 tell it never comes back, and if you can't do good 1080p then do good 720p! I rip my Blu-rays and convert them to 6mbps 720p and fool everyone.

Some scientists from IMAX or whatever did a test where they displayed white and black squares on a monitor resembling "pixels" well everyone could resolve the difference between the boxes tell just around 2K resolution...after that the whole screen just turned gray. Its because no one but a couple of stickler DP's in the 1st row could resolve the difference between the black boxes and the white boxes! There is an excellent article by the VP of Advanced Digital Imaging at Panavision the the Creative Cow that I encourage EVERYONE to read. Ill see if I can dig a link up.
post #2188 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateo200 View Post

Some scientists from IMAX or whatever did a test where they displayed white and black squares on a monitor resembling "pixels" well everyone could resolve the difference between the boxes tell just around 2K resolution...after that the whole screen just turned gray. Its because no one but a couple of stickler DP's in the 1st row could resolve the difference between the black boxes and the white boxes! There is an excellent article by the VP of Advanced Digital Imaging at Panavision the the Creative Cow that I encourage EVERYONE to read. Ill see if I can dig a link up.
Don't bother.
It has been posted and discussed regularly here since 2009.
It is used as an agrument by a someone that argu that 2K is "good enough", without telling what the IMAX experiment was really going to prove or how many pixels was on the screen when it turned grey.
Could have been 100 million pixels for all we know. wink.gif
IMAX have never entered into that argument. But they operate in the 80K to 120K realm. smile.gif
post #2189 of 3670
Sony’s New PVM-X300 Professional Monitor Offers Powerful Support of 4K Monitoring in the Field

Quote:
Sony today announced the new PVM-X300, a 30-inch 4096 x 2160 resolution monitor for powerful support of 4K monitoring in the field. The PVM-X300's 30-inch 4K LCD panel is capable of displaying over four times the Full HD resolution in a single screen.

This new professional video monitor also incorporates a RGB 10 bit panel, uniformity control and can accurately display industry standard color space of ITU-R BT.709. Moreover, the PVM-X300 features IPS (In Plane Switching) technology for a wider viewing angle.

Probably expensive. cool.gif
post #2190 of 3670

SxS 4K Player (Optional)
Quote:
The PVM-X300 can incorporate an optional 4K player, which is capable of easy playback of 4K content. The newly-developed “SxS PRO+” high speed memory media, which supports XAVC 4K and XAVC HD High Frame Rate Recording, can be inserted into the player providing quick viewing of 4K camera images and 4K programs. This SxS Player is expected to be available in the spring of 2013.

The PVM-X300 4K monitor will be available from February 2013.

http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/article/1237488990581
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts?