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 84

post #2491 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post


Your impressions confirm the physics: being at 6 feet from the 84" you perceived some benefits of 4K. To appreciate them fully your viewing distance should be even closer at 5 feet: Viewing distance is key to the difference noticeability. . 5 feet is rather close and is not a normal living room viewing conditions. The only way to have full benefits 4K in the living room conditions is to have a wall-size display.

I fully agree.    4K is something primarily of benefits for projectors, where 100" (diag) is rather small.

post #2492 of 3670
Do component cables handle 4k?
post #2493 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by jebel View Post

Do component cables handle 4k?

Analog 4K is even funnier to me than 4K "at the same bitrates as 2K".

Why not just deliver 4K over Twitter at that point.
post #2494 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Analog 4K is even funnier to me than 4K "at the same bitrates as 2K".

Why not just deliver 4K over Twitter at that point.
You don't want 4K laserdisc? No digital compression! Imagine the size of those things!

And I take it you didn't see any of the HEVC (H.265) demos at CES then? 4K at the same bitrate as 2K is absolutely possible. Going to 4K does not mean 4x as much detail to be encoded.
post #2495 of 3670
4K at the same bitrate as 2K is possible -- and pointless.

You will lose too much of the "advantage" of 4K if you that.

It will require very nearly 1.5-2x the bitrate of 2K even with HEVC to deliver on the promise of 4K. Period.
post #2496 of 3670
Will 4K broadcast without compression ever be possible?
post #2497 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

Will 4K broadcast without compression ever be possible?
Not really. At least for a long time, but even if it was possible, it probably wouldn't happen, at least not normally. Lossless compression would be more likely, but still unlikely, at least in near future. Uncompressed (not lossless compression) "4K" (3840x2160) at 24 fps with just 8 bit RGB colour would be around 4 terabytes for a couple of hours - without audio.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 1/14/13 at 10:05pm
post #2498 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

Will 4K broadcast without compression ever be possible?

Your question is more about bandwidth. When it will happen is anyone's guess, but here is the fastest transmission to date. I feel that 8K is the real future though.

Here is the fastest tranmission to date. "With video content consuming ever more bandwidth, the need for faster data transmission rates has never been greater. Now a team of scientists at Germany's Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) are claiming a world record in data transmission with the successful encoding of data at a rate of 26 terabits per second on a single laser beam and transmitting it over a distance of 50 km (31 miles). " http://www.gizmag.com/record-26-terabits-per-second-data-transmission/18702/

There is a new technology that is coming for satellites too. Bandwidth is in the Terabytes, but I just don't see it coming for awhile. The briefing states the full business plan will be ready by 2017 to 2030.

http://www.laserlightcomms.com/newsroom.php





Edited by Nitro67 - 1/14/13 at 11:35pm
post #2499 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

4K at the same bitrate as 2K is possible -- and pointless.You will lose too much of the "advantage" of 4K if you that. It will require very nearly 1.5-2x the bitrate of 2K even with HEVC to deliver on the promise of 4K. Period.

Right. But reverse question is up to the point: Why not use the 2K at the same bitrate as the 4K? That is, e.g. instead of 4K@HEVC at 20 Mb/s use 2K@HEVC at 20 Mb/s? Results will be undistinguishable at 2K or 4K upconverted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

Will 4K broadcast without compression ever be possible?

Distribution of uncompressed content makes absolutely no sense unless editing is done for master copies. Compression by the factor of 10 and slightly above it is called contribution quality or visually transparent, it is practically impossible to distinguish it from the original source. But even contribution quality makes little sense for broadcast since it is frame-by-frame compression. Something like half of it would be still pristine video. To see the numbers: 1080 HD original uncompressed source is about 1 Gb/s, contribution compression is in the range of 100 Mb/s, video compressed at 50 Mb/s would be finest quality still and this is used in some Blu-rays.
Edited by irkuck - 1/15/13 at 12:34am
post #2500 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Right. But reverse question is up to the point: Why not use the 2K at the same bitrate as the 4K? That is, e.g. instead of 4K@HEVC at 20 Mb/s use 2K@HEVC at 20 Mb/s? Results will be undistinguishable at 2K or 4K upconverted.

My guess is the wouldn't be indistinguishable: each would contain pluses and minuses.

The point I make remains valid. If the powers that be decide that 4K broadcasts get zero more bits, they guarantee 4K broadcasting fails, no matter what magic codec they deploy.
post #2501 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

My guess is the wouldn't be indistinguishable: each would contain pluses and minuses..

Imagine the following experiment: Both 4K and 2K are compressed to 20 Mb/s HEVC and shown on a) 4K display with 2K upconverted, b) 2K displya with 4K downconverted. I believe a blind test done at 2-2.5PH would not show difference between the 4K and 2K. People could vote 4K display looks crispier but not due to the difference in content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

The point I make remains valid. If the powers that be decide that 4K broadcasts get zero more bits, they guarantee 4K broadcasting fails, no matter what magic codec they deploy.

This is true but bandwidth is expensive.

Just get a pause form the arcanes of technology and enjoy the insane porny 4K"@110" biggrin.gif
Edited by irkuck - 1/15/13 at 1:48am
post #2502 of 3670
Irkuck, I thought we went all over that chart and other charts.
post #2503 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

Irkuck, I thought we went all over that chart and other charts.

I thought that too but turns out there are still plenty of people reporting (mixed) impressions about viewing 4K without even daring to mention what was their VD /viewing distance/.
post #2504 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Imagine the following experiment: Both 4K and 2K are compressed to 20 Mb/s HEVC and shown on a) 4K display with 2K upconverted, b) 2K displya with 4K downconverted. I believe a blind test done at 2-2.5PH would not show difference between the 4K and 2K. People could vote 4K display looks crispier but not due to the difference in content.

But this is exactly my point: If you don't increase the bits, there is no purpose in increasing the pixels.
Quote:
This is true but bandwidth is expensive.

In mobile perhaps. Wired and on disc? Not so much.
Quote:
Just get a pause form the arcanes of technology and enjoy the insane porny 4K"@110" biggrin.gif

I was at CES; I saw the demos aplenty. I hope HiSense ships there 110" for $25,000 and mocks the hell out of everyone else. That would be a strong way to enter the U.S.
post #2505 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

I thought that too but turns out there are still plenty of people reporting (mixed) impressions about viewing 4K without even daring to mention what was their VD /viewing distance/.
The charts are helpful, and the one from Carlton in particular may help to explain the discrepancy in impressions from those who chronicle their viewing experience with 4K sets.. Another way to look at the viability of purchasing 4K in one's situation is, will the price premium be worth it based on my planned seating distance? In many cases, I'll go out on a limb and say no (this can change if you're a 3D fanatic).
Edited by vinnie97 - 1/15/13 at 10:29am
post #2506 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

But this is exactly my point: If you don't increase the bits, there is no purpose in increasing the pixels.

I am adding to this: if you increase the bits, try first with existing res before moving to the higher res.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

In mobile perhaps. Wired and on disc? Not so much.

Disc is extremely unlikely. Broadcasters want to keep the traditional delivery channels. I am not sure viable business can be made by other means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I was at CES; I saw the demos aplenty. I hope HiSense ships there 110" for $25,000 and mocks the hell out of everyone else. That would be a strong way to enter the U.S.

Chinese are very serious and will do whatever to grab the market. 4K gives them unique chance to beat competitors. I bet they will be driving the 110" price down but 25 000 for introduction would be amazing if Westinghouse is charging 300 000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

The charts are helpful, and the one from Carlton in particular may help to explain the discrepancy in impressions from those who chronicle their viewing experience with 4K sets.. Another way to look at the viability of purchasing 4K in one's situation is, will the price premium be worth it based on my planned seating distance? In many cases, I'll go out on a limb and say no (this can change if you're a 3D fanatic).

Indeed, one has to assume that the viewing distance for 4K has to be @2.5 PH maybe bit more. Assuming living room/home theater viewing at 10 feets one comes to the result that 110" fits nicely. It is wonderful such beast was shown but will price be ever real for people working for living?
post #2507 of 3670
To answer the question asked after my quote, no. ;P I think there will be a small minority of folks (perhaps the majority of which are on this very forum) who will sit closer to be fully immersed in the 4K viewing experience. As for me, I think I'm going down with the 1080p plasma ship and be content with sitting at a comfortable 9 to 10 feet...the 2 flagships this year look to be pretty phenomenal, with some hypesters claiming they're the closest one can get to OLED without going OLED (and at only a third of the price!).
post #2508 of 3670
^ Agreed and I find the "lowly" 1080 PJs to still be right at the top of my list. Just look at the PJ you can nab for $1200.

I can easily see myself suffering with one of these for a few years until ?????

James
post #2509 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

I thought that too but turns out there are still plenty of people reporting (mixed) impressions about viewing 4K without even daring to mention what was their VD /viewing distance/.
That's not what I meant. That chart is misrepresentation and super-simplification of HVS abilities. Some others and myself wrote about it hundreds of times.
post #2510 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

That's not what I meant. That chart is misrepresentation and super-simplification of HVS abilities. Some others and myself wrote about it hundreds of times.

This is practical summary, note that it operates with ranges which means more/less stringent reqs. Generally it isconfirmed even by sources which have big stakes in 4K, there is no way to escape from physics. See figures at p. 8/9/10 there.
Edited by irkuck - 1/16/13 at 3:13am
post #2511 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

This is practical summary, note that it operates with ranges which means more/less stringent reqs. Generally it isconfirmed even by sources which have big stakes in 4K, there is no way to escape from physics. See figures at p. 8/9/10 there.
You can't expect those companies to pursue truth. For now, they are mainly in "60 pixels per degree" camp, even though they mention some think differently (they mention NHK with 156 vs 312 ppd study results).

Later, when 2160p is mainstream, they'll completely forget about 60 ppd.

But reason why "60 ppd" has nothing to do with science isn't because of them or any other TV manufacturer. It's physics, math and logic. Do we have to go trough all of it again just for you?
post #2512 of 3670
The issue I would have with buy a large 4K TV is this: To really get the most out of 4K these TVs are being made very large, and the suggestion is closer seating than we normally use for 1080p. But the bigger/closer the screen is, the more stress this puts
on sub-4K sources like 1080p. You'll start to notice issues being closer to the source that you may not have before. And that is even with the best 1080p source available, Blu-Ray. It gets even worse for broadcast images which as we know typically suffer much more compression, artifacts, and variation in quality. Sitting closer to a bigger TV will only make such issues worse. So the problem isn't 4K, it's all the sub-4K content we'd be watching on our TV while we reach this nice golden age of 4K broadcasting, from our newer closer seating/bigger TVs.

That for me is why I'm less interested at this point in buying a 4K display as an overall "TV."

I happen to get around this issue mostly because my big screen experience is mostly reserved for movies, and hence the best source, Blu-Ray. TV shows are watched generally on our TV and look fine. (It also happens I vary my projected image size based on source quality which further mitigates such issues, but that's idiosyncratic even in the projector world).

But anyone buying a big 4K as their all-duty TV and movies display I expect will be facing these issues.
post #2513 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post


The issue I would have with buy a large 4K TV is this: To really get the most out of 4K these TVs are being made very large, and the suggestion is closer seating than we normally use for 1080p. But the bigger/closer the screen is, the more stress this puts
on sub-4K sources like 1080p. You'll start to notice issues being closer to the source that you may not have before. And that is even with the best 1080p source available, Blu-Ray. It gets even worse for broadcast images which as we know typically suffer much more compression, artifacts, and variation in quality. Sitting closer to a bigger TV will only make such issues worse. So the problem isn't 4K, it's all the sub-4K content we'd be watching on our TV while we reach this nice golden age of 4K broadcasting, from our newer closer seating/bigger TVs.

That for me is why I'm less interested at this point in buying a 4K display as an overall "TV."

I happen to get around this issue mostly because my big screen experience is mostly reserved for movies, and hence the best source, Blu-Ray. TV shows are watched generally on our TV and look fine. (It also happens I vary my projected image size based on source quality which further mitigates such issues, but that's idiosyncratic even in the projector world).

But anyone buying a big 4K as their all-duty TV and movies display I expect will be facing these issues.


It is all a matter of preference, and what one gets used to.    My Sony1000, on a 136x72 HP screen is my 'big TV' for everything.   Yes, I can tell that some material is not as pristine as high quality BD, but the big picture still is enjoyable even in this case.

 

However since my wife passed away 2 yrs ago, it's usually just me, and I realize that this is probably not feasible in a family situation.

post #2514 of 3670
I'm sorry to hear about your loss. I wish you the best possible New Year. with the emphasis on new.

taichi4
post #2515 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

You can't expect those companies to pursue truth. For now, they are mainly in "60 pixels per degree" camp, even though they mention some think differently (they mention NHK with 156 vs 312 ppd study results).

Later, when 2160p is mainstream, they'll completely forget about 60 ppd.

But reason why "60 ppd" has nothing to do with science isn't because of them or any other TV manufacturer. It's physics, math and logic. Do we have to go trough all of it again just for you?

No, the end result is that 4K makes sense when the viewing distance is (well) below 3PH. This is why people here are reporting mild sensations with 4K.
post #2516 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

The issue I would have with buy a large 4K TV is this: To really get the most out of 4K these TVs are being made very large, and the suggestion is closer seating than we normally use for 1080p. But the bigger/closer the screen is, the more stress this puts
on sub-4K sources like 1080p. You'll start to notice issues being closer to the source that you may not have before. And that is even with the best 1080p source available, Blu-Ray. It gets even worse for broadcast images which as we know typically suffer much more compression, artifacts, and variation in quality. Sitting closer to a bigger TV will only make such issues worse. So the problem isn't 4K, it's all the sub-4K content we'd be watching on our TV while we reach this nice golden age of 4K broadcasting, from our newer closer seating/bigger TVs.

Here one can count on the adaptivness of the visual system. The issue is similar to watching SD sources on a 1080 display. SD is annoying in the beginning but after some time it becomes less.
post #2517 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

I thought that too but turns out there are still plenty of people reporting (mixed) impressions about viewing 4K without even daring to mention what was their VD /viewing distance/.
4k: Much ado about nothing much from what I've seen. The latest LG 84-incher showing a native 4k travelogue at a local Video & Audio Center store was, well, OK. Problem is, however, that within about 15 feet at the same store was a 90-inch Sharp showing a native 1080p source, and the difference - standing about 9 feet away from each screen - was minimal. As far as the WOW! factor, or knock-your-socks-off factor, 4k just doesn't seem to do it. Perhaps big-screen OLEDs will do it, we'll just have to wait.
post #2518 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post


Indeed, one has to assume that the viewing distance for 4K has to be @2.5 PH maybe bit more. Assuming living room/home theater viewing at 10 feets one comes to the result that 110" fits nicely. It is wonderful such beast was shown but will price be ever real for people working for living?

Keep in mind that even so, most homes will not accommodate (nor will most wives allow if they can) a display of 110". wink.gif
post #2519 of 3670
Bill, irkuck,

Yes, that makes sense as well.
post #2520 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Keep in mind that even so, most homes will not accommodate (nor will most wives allow if they can) a display of 110". wink.gif

Obviously there is no chance 110" or similar wall-sized displays become anything than a cream of the high-end. But if the 90 inchers are moving now the 110" would also move if the price is right. 110"@4K is also opening new segments for LCD : serious home theatres and replacement of projectors. As for wives, the first fashion show/shopping channel in 110"@4K and they are sold biggrin.gif.

BTW, regarding the price of 110": this is 4x55" so there are no problems with pixel size or any other manufacturing and reliability issues. Thus, in the limit, the price of a 110" LCD should not be much bigger than 4x55" (high-end) sets. This is the limit but practically there is no reason why the price could not be in (high) four-digit range, hopefully Chinese will manage to prove this.
Edited by irkuck - 1/17/13 at 11:57pm
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?