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

It can't be totally final if this month the EBU requested that they add the 50Hz based frame rates to it. 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 was part of it. 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. 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

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.

That's what I said! Try to read before you respond!! 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. 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 ?
There will be dedicated UHD TV channels just like there now are dedicated HD TV channels. Base framerate for PAL is 25fps progressive, not 50fps. 50i is 25fps whole images reproduced as 50 half-images. 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.
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. 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.

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

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

The new draft of the HEVC specification has been released which includes a 10-bit consumer profile.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 .

LG to Sell 1st 4K TV Today In LA

http://www.tvpredictions.com/lg102512.htm

SMPTE NY Discusses 4K Professional Monitors

http://www.display-central.com/broadcast-and-distribution/smpte-ny-discusses-4k-professional-monitors/

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

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 ?

Your Eyes Aren’t Sharp Enough To Justify This 9.6-Inch 4K Display

http://gizmodo.com/5954820/your-eyes-arent-sharp-enough-to-justify-this-96+inch-4k-display

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.

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.

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.

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/

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...
_

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

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

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

Man at 3 feet as you say that's pretty frigen close . I dont know how that will jive with the wife lol.

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.

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".

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.

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.
IMAX have never entered into that argument. But they operate in the 80K to 120K realm.

Sony’s New PVM-X300 Professional Monitor Offers Powerful Support of 4K Monitoring in the Field


Probably expensive.

SxS 4K Player (Optional)

http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/article/1237488990581