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 9

post #241 of 3670
The so called optimum distance is the distance that someone with 20/20 vision will start to have loss of 1080p(2K)resolution detail and still be able to see 100% of the screen width. You certainly will still see resolution differences at greater differences
post #242 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

The so called optimum distance is the distance that someone with 20/20 vision will start to have loss of 1080p(2K)resolution detail and still be able to see 100% of the screen width. You certainly will still see resolution differences at greater differences

Well, I am definitely able to see the difference between DVD output of 480p and blu-ray 1080p output on my current 50". I have never seen an native 4K content on a 4K display, but I expect it would be easily observably on larger panels. It is weird and I know it does not make any sense, but when I watch this youtube video on my 2D 1080p computer monitor, it looks like the the horse and dragon head are really there and in 3D.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U7e_...feature=relmfu

and check out the extreme viewing angle on this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE4argZMnsw
post #243 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sintech View Post

Well, I am definitely able to see the difference between DVD output of 480p and blu-ray 1080p output on my current 50".

That is because you are comparing signal qualities which is much more important than display definition. A better comparison is watching a high quality blu-ray on a 1080p 50" display and a 480p 50" display. This comparison I've done (with my old ED PDP).
post #244 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

That is because you are comparing signal qualities which is much more important than display definition. A better comparison is watching a high quality blu-ray on a 1080p 50" display and a 480p 50" display. This comparison I've done (with my old ED PDP).

So you are saying a 4K HD master copy of Star Wars would look almost as good down-rezed on a current 1080p 80" Sharp LC-80LE632U as it would on a native 80" 4K set? I will have to see one in person before I could agree. This also brings up the question can any of the new large Sharps accept a 4K signal to down rez to 1080p? My laptop next year will be able to output 4K material.
post #245 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sintech View Post

So you are saying a 4K HD master copy of Star Wars would look almost as good down-rezed on a current 1080p 80" Sharp LC-80LE632U as it would on a native 80" 4K set?

At a certain viewing distance I am 100% sure the answer is yes.
post #246 of 3670
Irkuck, you appear to have misinterpreted that report. I direct you to things like Page 9... "Possibly satisfied by 2K" is not the same thing as "cannot benefit from having a 4K screen". Sony seems to agree with me here: For a lot of people, the difference might not matter, but for some people it will still matter.

And the testing didn't even attempt to address things like the use of A/B-ing to see if people could actually enjoy and evaluate a direct change when it was shown to them. I'm quite frankly more convinced than ever that there is value in this approach.
post #247 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

At a certain viewing distance I am 100% sure the answer is yes.

I would be willing to wager I could tell the difference between a 1080p set and 4K set displaying 4K source material on an 80" screen at the same viewing distance.
Someone will have to try it when the Toshiba ZL2 becomes available in December. Do you know of a 55" 1080p set that accepts a 4K signal?
post #248 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Irkuck, you appear to have misinterpreted that report. I direct you to things like Page 9... "Possibly satisfied by 2K" is not the same thing as "cannot benefit from having a 4K screen". Sony seems to agree with me here: For a lot of people, the difference might not matter, but for some people it will still matter.

And the testing didn't even attempt to address things like the use of A/B-ing to see if people could actually enjoy and evaluate a direct change when it was shown to them. I'm quite frankly more convinced than ever that there is value in this approach.

If you look at the pic on p. 8 which corresponds to realistic conditions of people having no falcon sight you can see that 4K benefit is below 2.5H. This "for some people it will still matter" is just stretching to justify - the paper is written optimistically to promote 4K but they can not hide the facts since its adressees are professionals. As to the other viewing scenarios than TV the case is weak, buying 4K to have the 2K A/B??. Perhaps full res 2K passive 3D is a better argument. But altogether this is inifinitely smaller jump than from the SD -> HD, typical illustration of rule of diminishing returns. And this not even taking into account compression. It may then end up same style as those nasty arguments "16 megapixel camera is better than 10 megapixel" while opposite is true.
post #249 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sintech View Post

Well, I am definitely able to see the difference between DVD output of 480p and blu-ray 1080p output on my current 50". I have never seen an native 4K content on a 4K display, but I expect it would be easily observably on larger panels. It is weird and I know it does not make any sense, but when I watch this youtube video on my 2D 1080p computer monitor, it looks like the the horse and dragon head are really there and in 3D.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U7e_...feature=relmfu

and check out the extreme viewing angle on this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE4argZMnsw

they have a ways to go on their pixel density based on the close up shots
post #250 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

If you look at the pic on p. 8 which corresponds to realistic conditions of people having no falcon sight you can see that 4K benefit is below 2.5H. This "for some people it will still matter" is just stretching to justify - the paper is written optimistically to promote 4K but they can not hide the facts since its adressees are professionals. As to the other viewing scenarios than TV the case is weak, buying 4K to have the 2K A/B??. Perhaps full res 2K passive 3D is a better argument. But altogether this is inifinitely smaller jump than from the SD -> HD, typical illustration of rule of diminishing returns. And this not even taking into account compression. It may then end up same style as those nasty arguments "16 megapixel camera is better than 10 megapixel" while opposite is true.

So I don't believe this is the same as 16 megapixels vs. 10 megapixels in a digicam. I believe it's more 6 megapixels vs. 3 megapixels, where the former is slightly better and can do some more things.

I'm not pretending this is like the jump from SD to HD -- nor have I ever -- or that it will lead to some massive upgrade cycle (it won't). But it will be a significant upgrade for 80" and up displays in particular, which are already suffering from having giant pixels. And I believe it will be visually superior at normal viewing distances and that I've yet to be shown science to dispute that.
post #251 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sintech View Post

So you are saying a 4K HD master copy of Star Wars would look almost as good down-rezed on a current 1080p 80" Sharp LC-80LE632U as it would on a native 80" 4K set? I will have to see one in person before I could agree. This also brings up the question can any of the new large Sharps accept a 4K signal to down rez to 1080p? My laptop next year will be able to output 4K material.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

At a certain viewing distance I am 100% sure the answer is yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sintech View Post

I would be willing to wager I could tell the difference between a 1080p set and 4K set displaying 4K source material on an 80" screen at the same viewing distance.

Yes xrox is right if you stand far enough. Key idea is distance and resolution is interchangeable, within the constraints of the eye's ability to resolve resolution. If you fix the distance within this constraint and change the resolution you will see a difference.

But the issue is MOST people don't sit within 10' to the TV. It's just not aesthetically acceptable. Since distance and resolution is interchangeable, at >10' you can optimise your experience with huge TV and upto certain size vs distance you will certainly benefit from 4k.

I am not saying it will happen soon. I have said it will happen first in PC monitors first and much later to TV when 4k content has momentum, with progressive resolutions in between the transition, like it's always been rather than a discrete jump. That's what's happening in the PC Monitor space. I think a decade sounds like a more reasonable estimation to when 4k will be as prevalent as 1080p now. Heck I'm not even sure if the PC, movie, broadcast and set makers have standardized the spec for 4k.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

they have a ways to go on their pixel density based on the close up shots

It will not matter at 10'. Retina display for viewing about 1' away is 326ppi. I would think 100ppi is sufficient at 10'. What Chronoptimist posted will not be visible at 10'. It's interesting but no practical value for TVs.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post21106960

In fact the sad part of this evolution is that it will likely end about 4k if we assume TV size will peak around 80". Anything above 4k at 10' is like arguing for >3MP camera for a 4R photo (it's the sensor and processor that's more important). 8k, if it ever come, is a novelty or for the cinemas.
post #252 of 3670
Guys, once again read this before speculating on the benefits of 4K. Take into account this is produced by the strongest propnent of 4H having already products on the market. There is very little to no benefit for watching in standard TV scenario. One has to be below 3H to see any benefit.

Reducing compression and improving motion rendering with the current 2K would be the best PQ improvement.
post #253 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Guys, once again read this before speculating on the benefits of 4K. Take into account this is produced by the strongest propnent of 4H having already products on the market. There is very little to no benefit for watching in standard TV scenario. One has to be below 3H to see any benefit.

Reducing compression and improving motion rendering with the current 2K would be the best PQ improvement.

Again, it's not the business of the TV mfrs. to fix the problems with sources, which are caused at post-production and -- more specifically -- by broadcasters and multi-channel operators. The latter is far and away the worst offender of all.

There are things that can be done with 4K. And they will be done. I get that you don't agree. You've made that point. But saying "we should fix compression with 2k" which has NOTHING to do with TV making is more pointless than repeating that 4K is useless.
post #254 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Guys, once again read this before speculating on the benefits of 4K. Take into account this is produced by the strongest propnent of 4H having already products on the market. There is very little to no benefit for watching in standard TV scenario. One has to be below 3H to see any benefit.

Reducing compression and improving motion rendering with the current 2K would be the best PQ improvement.

You are basing all your assumptions on 4K digital projection report in a movie theater setting, where the closet seat is still 14 feet away and most seats would be to far away to take advantage of the bump in resolution.
The parameters of the test would not correlate directly into a non-projected image in a non-theater size setting.
We will know soon enough as more 4K sets and native 4K content becomes available, but I agree with Rogo that most people here could tell the difference.
post #255 of 3670
Well, this pic is good enough for me. 4k is definitely coming, regardless if the bump of resolution is apparent. Which based on this pic if real, is strikingly obvious even on a 46" display.
The 2 things that will make it mainstream by 2013 is the passive 3D and it seems it almost eliminates off-axis viewing problems associated with LCD technology.



That picture is too good, that can't be real, right?
post #256 of 3670
Looks great.

Now try taking the photo of a 46" at 10'
post #257 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

Looks great.

Now try taking the photo of a 46" at 10'

I just backed up 10ft from my monitor and can tell the difference between this picture of a 4K image and the difference between a picture of a 46" set displaying a 1080p image.
post #258 of 3670
There's so many variables that you're throwing in here. You might want to think whether it makes sense or not.

For marketing purposes, contrast are often used instead of resolution. Which is why sometimes Edge Enhancement is used in Blu Ray to "improve" the image. As you're aware, the eye is more sensitive to contrast than resolution.

BTW I believe in 4K. Just not so early as people expect.
post #259 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sintech View Post

You are basing all your assumptions on 4K digital projection report in a movie theater setting, where the closet seat is still 14 feet away and most seats would be to far away to take advantage of the bump in resolution.
The parameters of the test would not correlate directly into a non-projected image in a non-theater size setting.


Oh please do not promote basic ignorance. Results presented there are normalized wrt screen height. There is no benefit to 4K unless one is around or 2.5 H. These results are produced by company which is pushing 4K professional projectors to cinemas and the results are produced with content beyond consumer PQ. They try to be very bullish on the tech but they can not hide the facts. Hmm, hopefully there is no massaging of date because things would be even worse for 4K.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sintech View Post

We will know soon enough as more 4K sets and native 4K content becomes available, but I agree with Rogo that most people here could tell the difference.

There is no doubt 4K will become next mantra. Somebody is already signalling full readiness for producing 46" 4K panels. Now you may claim 46" 4K TV is a wonderful idea.
post #260 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Oh please do not promote basic ignorance. Results presented there are normalized wrt screen height. There is no benefit to 4K unless one is around or 2.5 H.

You are simply wrong. Even on a 50" set at 10 feet back anyone can see the difference between a 480p DVD and 1080p Blu-ray. If you or your report are correct anyone with a 40" set would still be watching a 240p VHS because they couldn't tell the difference.
Tell you what, you go to Best Buy find the 80" Sharp and have them put on a DVD and Blu-ray of the same movie and if you can get one person standing 10' back to say the DVD looks better or the same, I'll give you a dollar. Like it or not 4K does offer a better picture, but it most important selling feature is increasing the off-axis viewing angles of LCD and the ability to provide glasses-free 3D. Once massed produced, the additional cost will become minimal.
post #261 of 3670
Does 4K lessen off axis viewing issues for lcd because there is less room for light to escape since the pixels are so small?

That's really interesting, as I never considered this could be a solution to the whole off axis debate.

I'd have to wonder if that would also allow for deeper blacks, too.
post #262 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sintech View Post

You are simply wrong. Even on a 50" set at 10 feet back anyone can see the difference between a 480p DVD and 1080p Blu-ray. If you or your report are correct anyone with a 40" set would still be watching a 240p VHS because they couldn't tell the difference. Tell you what, you go to Best Buy find the 80" Sharp and have them put on a DVD and Blu-ray of the same movie and if you can get one person standing 10' back to say the DVD looks better or the same, I'll give you a dollar. Like it or not 4K does offer a better picture, but it most important selling feature is increasing the off-axis viewing angles of LCD and the ability to provide glasses-free 3D. Once massed produced, the additional cost will become minimal.

You escalate nonsense to the level the only way will be to ignore you. Think that 1080 standard was designed to match ultimate resolution of human vision in the TV viewing conditions meaning the distance from TV is 3-4 picture heights. That is, extensive tests were made at different resolutions and the conclusion was that there is no point of going beyond 1080 because there was NO, ABSOLUTELY NO, perceived PQ gain. If there would be such gain they would have specified system not with the 1080 but with 1280, 1440, 2K or whatever resolution. Thus, your example of the 480 vs. 1080 just a proof of mastering ignorance. The 1080 TV system was designed to eliminate the problem with the 480 by solving the resolution problem once and for all.

It is known that the remaining problems with the 1080 system are not resolution but motion rendering and compression artefacts. It would make perfect, absolutely perfect, sense to increase the frame rate e.g. to 120 frames per second and reduce compression 2-4 times. Instead, there will be highly compressed 4K system without any benefit. Ironically, the area were 4K makes big sense are computer monitors but manufs are slow to get there since this is not so hip as TV.
post #263 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

If there would be such gain they would have specified system not with the 1080 but with 1280, 1440, 2K or whatever resolution.

Based on your logic, why do they have HD Ready resolution spec of 1366 X 768?

80" Sharp LCD is about 3H at 10'. Do you think a user of CURRENTLY available 80" Sharp LCD will benefit from 4K?

Agree higher frame rate and reduced compression to lossless will be part of future advancements.
post #264 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sintech View Post

Well, this pic is good enough for me. ...That picture is too good, that can't be real, right?

Dunno. Looking at it on my 1280x1024 monitor
post #265 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sintech View Post

You are simply wrong. Even on a 50" set at 10 feet back anyone can see the difference between a 480p DVD and 1080p Blu-ray. If you or your report are correct anyone with a 40" set would still be watching a 240p VHS because they couldn't tell the difference.
Tell you what, you go to Best Buy find the 80" Sharp and have them put on a DVD and Blu-ray of the same movie and if you can get one person standing 10' back to say the DVD looks better or the same, I'll give you a dollar. Like it or not 4K does offer a better picture, but it most important selling feature is increasing the off-axis viewing angles of LCD and the ability to provide glasses-free 3D. Once massed produced, the additional cost will become minimal.

and how did yuo come up with this?

Please do your (technical) homework and don't quote me nonsensical marketing mumbo jumbo you may have come across.

Thank you.

Gman
post #266 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

Based on your logic, why do they have HD Ready resolution spec of 1366 X 768?

Logic is impeccable here: HD Ready is an industrial badge to promote HD, it has nothing to do with the HD standard. In the standard there are two resolutions 720p@60Hz and 1080i@30Hz. 720was deemed good enough with progressive sources and 60Hz. But 1080 was established as vision-limited resolution, going beyond it makes no sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

80" Sharp LCD is about 3H at 10'. Do you think a user of CURRENTLY available 80" Sharp LCD will benefit from 4K?

You can consult Sony document to see that there is some benefit under optimistic assumptions (people with eagle eyes). Real benefit starts below 2.6H. This obviously assumes full quality content which is quite a convoluted issue. For example standard 1920x1080 video sources are prefiltered to equivalent resolution of 1440x1080.

Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

Agree higher frame rate and reduced compression to lossless will be part of future advancements.

Unfortunately that is not very likely, especially lossless is limited to audio. Video will be highly compressed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

Looks great.
Now try taking the photo of a 46" at 10'

And that is crux of the matter. It is absolutely true 4K is very useful and even needed for anything watched from 1H-2H. This is why there is strong drive for increased resolution in portable devices. I would be first lining up for 4K computer monitor with price below stratosphere. But 4K TV is overdone.
post #267 of 3670
Probably not many watch their portable devices from 1-2 screen heights away. I suggest you get a ruler and do some real-world testing of that. I suppose it's somewhat possible on iPad although my crude testing suggests that the ergonomics of 1 screen height are pretty much impossible. I'm not seeing too many people holding their phone 5-6 inches away from their faces to manipulate or view the screen, yet I see the benefits of the iPhone screen from a good distance farther.
post #268 of 3670
It's getting really tedious to see a couple of posters jump in on this topic saying that 4K displays are pointless, when anyone that has seen them can say that the numbers they're throwing out are inaccurate. There are benefits from 4K far beyond the distances they're quoting.

It's the same story as when there was talk of 1080p native screens coming out, with everyone saying you would need a minimum of a 50" screen and have to sit very close to see any benefit, which was absolutely not the case.


You should have to sit even closer to your iPhone than 1-2 screen heights away, as it's a 330 PPI display, and a 50" 4K TV is only 88 PPI.

The old iPhone screen was 165 PPI, I guess there was no point to, or benefit from going to a "retina" screen. All marketing hype?
post #269 of 3670
Panasonic presented a paper at SID 2010 that did a survey of 83 housholds (270+ people) and found the median viewing distance for watching TV is 6H which is double the HDTV standard.

Also some interesting stats about viewing angle and illuminance in the same study.
post #270 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

...Also some interesting stats about viewing angle and illuminance in the same study.

xrox you're leaving us hanging Have a link to the paper, or maybe a summary of these findings?

jeff
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?