4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 10

480p source to 1080p source was a massive improvement for me.

480p display (50" plasma)to 1080p display (50" Plasma) was very very minor except when I moved our seating position much closer to the display (from 10'+ down to 5' or less). Then the improvement gained some importance.

Both displays are gone now and I have a 60" PDP with viewing from 15'. I can't see 4K display improving much for my situation.

Looks like Sony,Panasonic, and Sharp were involved.

LINK

If you can't access it I can post selected data from it with reference later. Although most of it is OT with this thread. I just thought I'd mention the 6H measurement which is somewhat surprising.

I don't find that surprising at all. What I find surprising is people's continued belief that some large number of households which to radically change this equation as opposed to my belief that it's a small fraction.

Height of a 42" is 20". 6H is 120" which is the 10' I've been talking about. That is not surprising.

Like I said, the KEY is size and distance is interchangeable. If 4K makes no difference to you then either you have to sit nearer (which most people wouldn't) or get bigger screen. That's why 4k makes sense for monitors that are 2' away.

Yes on HD Ready so you can't use the logic that 1080 is maximum resolution for visual acuity which is why they jumped to 1080. It's another circular argument that you are conjuring. If 720 is an intermediate resolution, what makes you think 1080 is also not an intermediate resolution? 720 exist for a reason (for you to find out) and 1080 chosen to accommodate broadcast, PC, NTSC, PAL and movie industry. I've never read that 1080 was created because the wise men in these industries believe it is the maximum perceivable resolution.

BTW it should be 720p@60fps and 1080i@30/25fps. Both has similar throughput/ bandwidth needs.

In the same breath, lossy and compression was created for a reason: bandwidth and hardware technology. This has been the case for more than a century on why movies were originally 16fps or MS DOS on 32/64KB with memory limit fixed at 640KB. If the world is perfect and there are no constraints, everything would be lossless. And everyone has a 120" Kuro with zero black tech and 4K, with no cables or power worries

And bandwidth for all devices will be improving in an increasingly connected world.

Like I said in the 70" thread, if you know the history then you can understand the reasons without hindside bias. And I did say 4K is probably the limit for visual acuity in TV so it is not a perpetual improvement thing.

AFAIK all increases in screen resolution have been led by the Japanese since they wanted bigger screens without having grainy content due to the short viewing distances present in their small homes.
Also since the small number of manufacturers of digital tuner chips compete each year with their new top of the line chips for the US TV industry we will see the top of the line domestic TV models all have 3D, 4K up scaling for 720p or 1080i sources, and "Smart" internet connection features.
And I believe that it will take 3-5 years for these tuner chips to be used in all TVs for the US market, just as it took about 3 years for all US TVs to have 16:9 aspect ratios so they could properly display HD content from the local broadcasters and not just 4:3 aspect ratio digital content down scaled from HD resolutions.

Exactly, confusion is due to the lack of knowledge, you missed the story how the ATSC system was designed. The ATSC system was designed at MIT and they did careful experiments to establish the resolution. They came to the conclusion that 1080p is maximum optimum. This story was reported and published a.o. by SMPTE.



The ATSC 720p was in turn lobbied with some bickering and horse trading by the industry. At the time there were no 1080 displays available and this resolution was thought very difficult to achieve. Then mainly broadcast people were objecting against keeping interlaced and some were in favor of progressive. It was too much to propose the 1080p then for broadcast due to insufficient compression tech. Some broacasters wanted to differentiate from others. In the end 720p/60 was accepted as second option since the bandwidth was same.


In the real damned world everything has its price . Lossless is unrealistic but realistic is near-lossless. For example broadcasters record end edit material in contribution quality which 10-20x compression. But on the way to consumer compression is pushed just the content to be good enough for Joe Sixpacks. Reducing compression and improving motion rendering would bring more than the 4K to PQ.


No, this limit is not 'probably' but surely 2K for TV viewing conditions . 4K is fine for computer monitor viewing conditions.

^ When the standards were set with 1080 max, what were the assumptions as to how big the sets would be and the average viewing distances?

good for you because I have 20/15 vision and I don't see rez difference between my iphone 3GS and 4s at a "normal" distance. Color and black levels for sure, but certainly not resolution at 18".

James

Well, regarding "marketing hype": yes somewhat, in my opinion. I own and use both phones.

It's human nature to have "the best" and strive for better whether the benefits are perceived or real, and if people need to inch their screens a bit closer to their grills to "enjoy" the increased rez, you can bet some will do it. Does that mean it offers an improved experience 99.5% of the time when they're using it normally? Of course it doesn't.

But of course the new iphone has a better display, period. The colors pop much, much, more, they're more saturated and contrast is superior. Check, check, and check.

That said, my photos- from a resolution standpoint anyway- are indistinguishable on either device from a reasonable distance. Less than a foot though, no way.

I don't think any reasonable person flatly rejects 4K...they're just arguing that it's a shame other PQ aspects are not being addressed/realized that would have a much more meaningful impact on the vast majority of applications.

James

I believe it had less to do with forecasting how large tvs would get and much more upon how far we sit away from the screen for a given screen dimension, "x".

For instance, I'm at 11'-12' with my 60" Kuro and I cannot imagine sitting any closer. I think there's some here who would maintain that a 60" 4K display would increase PQ (all else being equal of course ) at the same 12', but I'd have to (literally) see it to believe it as there's absolutely no way my ojos are wringing all of the detail out of current arrangement. That much becomes immediately apparent as soon as I get 6-7" away. And again, I'm not some blind bird either at 20/15.


James

Researchers approach things in generic way . Assumption for the viewing distance was taken as 3-4xH where H is the picture height. One may say this is close but not too close to the TV and the set can be as big as you wish .

Can you please provide the link where SMPTE say 1080 was chosen due to visual acuity? ATSC is a development naturally from NTSC spec but in digital HD they also take into account PAL spec as well to develop a GLOBAL standard. US is important and anchor in HD spec simply because of her massive Hollywood and TV content. If the Japanese had more content (and they pioneered HD) HD could be anywhere between 950-1150 IIRC. 1080 and 720 takes into account the easy scaling of 576 and 480, albeit compromised 10% either way, and 16:9 is just the square of 4:3. In trying to reach a global standards, you not only need to have knowledge but also understand WHY they reach this conclusion ie to compromise between various EXISTING standards, simply because the world is not perfect Digital frame rates are also constrainted by history.

http://www.bonolabs.com/Two%20Million%20Pixels.pdf

"The Grand Alliance (GA) was a consortium created in 1993 at the behest of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to develop the American digital television (SDTV, EDTV) and HDTV specification, with the aim of pooling the best work from different companies. It consisted of AT&T, General Instrument Corporation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Philips Consumer Electronics, David Sarnoff Research Center, Thomson Consumer Electronics, and Zenith Electronics Corporation. The Grand Alliance DTV system is the basis for the ATSC standard."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Alliance_(HDTV)

ok so now it seems that 4k and retina displays are hype... maybe even OLED is hype. I think we have seen much review on the latter 2 to come to a general conclusion whether can one really see a difference.

The industry is putting money into 4k scanning, 4k digital, and hardware. Though I do not think it will be soon, but let's wait and see the verdict on this one, in view of the theoretical skeptism. From what I've read and by most accounts I think all 3 developments are not hype.

I agree reduced compression and indeed improvement in bit depth, gradation, chroma sampling will be perceivable improvement to PQ. The difference between transmission and blu ray already verifies that. But don't mistake 4K resolution improvement with transmission constraints, or seating/ TV size constraints. If one insist in sitting 15' away viewing a 46" TV then one shouldn't complain about 4k being useless. Or if one like bluish white then don't say REC709 is useless or dull.


Maybe you should ask why by examining the source. Though I agree it is a matter of fact that contrast is more perceivable than resolution.

I find the opinions of someone that can't see the resolution difference of a Retina Display vs. a non-Retina Display hardly worthy of any serious comment.

However it does looks like "appetiser" is coming:

"For those unaware, Super Hi-Vision is an ultra high definition format that, according to Engadget, won't hit homes for another few years. That said, the Olympics is a rather special occasion. Engadget reports that the NHK and BBC have confirmed that there will be some SHV public screenings select UK, Japanese and US cities. At the moment, it looks like there will be four locations in the UK and three in Japan but just one in the U.S., in Washington D.C."

That's really too bad...perhaps you should spend more time comprehending text and less time running off your virtual mouth.

I never said there wasn't a difference between the two. Matter of fact I stayed precisely the opposite. Read it again.

What I DID say was that I cannot discern a difference from from a RESOLUTION standpoint from 18" and beyond which I have discovered is pretty much my using distance 95 times out of 100. And I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts no one else can either, again, imperatively, all other aspects being equal.

Good one, what else would you like me to help you with?

James

Bit of demagogy when you mix 4K and retina displays. I said and said, it depends on the viewing conditions. For 1H viewing 4K and retina is fine.
For the 3H not.

Industry is of course in full swing to flood people with 4K. This is same as industry is cranking up megapixels in compact cameras.


Hmm, I do not see your point. To get into 4K one has to sit below 3H, this is not standard TV viewing condition. In the non-TV viewing the 4K may be good for other apps e.g. game playing, magazine reading or virtual sex . Maybe future displays are more like paper than current heavy glass. Japanese developing the 8K may have such other apps in mind. For such scenarios I am saying, yes, 8K is absolutely necessary.

BTW, SMPTE report about the HDTV was published in their journal in 1980, there is no free access to the report-

The source in my case would be an 8 megapixel photo shot with the iphone 4S. And I don't necessarily know if retina screens and 4K screens are all "hype", I just see little use for either of them when considering the way we currently utilize 3" cell phone screens and 42-60" televisions.


James

I read you perfectly fine the first time. My virtual mouth would run off exactly the same way another time. People clearly love the Retina Display resolution; obviously they must all be snowed by the Reality Distortion Field.

Nineteen eighty.......!?


Somebody get a rope...

Do you realize what is 1H for retina iPhone? I am old but not that old Concept behind retina display is similar to what we are debating here: anything above 326ppi is useless as that is the max resolution of the retina at close distance. It is of course not without its fair share of debate but I think generally accepted. 4K at 70" is <100ppi.

So in your view even at 3H is not sufficient for 4K then, even though the Sony article that you "said and said" has range between 2.3-3.2H. And technically there is additional benefit due to movie aspect ratio reducing resolution with black bars. 3H may not be MOST people's sitting position but when u say "standard" i assume something like THX distance. What people "prefer" and what is "standard" are 2 different things. Hence I said if u like bluish white, it has nothing to do with standard. If you refuse to go "standard" then complaining the tech doesnt help is moot. BTW incidentally that's Sharp's recommendation as well:

Like I said it is unlikely people shift their current 10' sitting position so larger and 4K comes together.

It's a simple comparison but DSC market which essentially creates content is different from the TV industry drastically. The amount of investments required are disproportionate. But hard to argue that one can't see a difference between a picture taken by a 4MP DSLR and a 8MP handphone. The proof of the pudding must be perceptible and not hidden in some secret ingredients/ theory.

If you can get a quote from the SMPTE report would be good so we can all learn some wise men actually foreseen it. Like I said I've never seen anyone, including xrox or poynton, allude to 1080 selected because of visual acuity.

Ironically my tone in this thread has changed from tempering optimistic expectations from one extreme to tempering pessimism for 4k

Visual system has a lot of intricacies so one has to be very precise about the conditions and scenarios of viewing. To illustrate this I bomb you with this: print in glossy magazines has at least 1200 ppi and up to 2400 ppi. Now think why is this?


Yes 3.2H, but note this is under more optimistic visual system assumption and likely Sony is pushing optimistim here. 2.5H is realistic. I agree with the black bars, they decrease the picture height in the range of 20%. About the sitting position this can be easily seen in cinemas, which rows people select. Indeed less than 3H might be OK for minority, maybe those with some loss of sight?


for the 4K vs. 2K a better comparison would be 16 megapixel vs. 10 megapixel
compact cameras. 16 is nonsense due to blind market forces, marketing and ignorant consumers.


I have to try digging this out but this is archeology. Regarding 4K it is very healthy to temper the optimism just to avoid getting into the mental trap similar to the megapixels in digital cameras.

Sony Story: ...Sony hopes to get its cool back with ultralow-power, glasses-free, 3-D sets that double today's resolution, though they're not expected to be mainstream until at least 2013.

And all this from the company which is: Sony is a life insurance company with a money-losing TV business, .

Oh, so you read perfectly well but then choose to make asinine, unfounded statements anyway? Brilliant.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

James

I'd be very interested to know, if NOT based primarily (or at least significantly) upon human vision acuity, where precisely 1080 DID spawn from.

this ought to be interesting.

James

^^^ which I had answered partially at post #287. Conversely how does 480 or 720 spawn from? It doesn't need to be visual acuity based but it will hit a human limit


Are you asking printed media dots per inch (dpi) vs digital display pixels per inch (ppi)?

I'm using your own Sony document that you hold up as authoritative. It's up to you how you want to interpret it. I read it as it is possible that within that range 4k is perceptible.

I am saying the 4MP DSLR will look better on a 4R if you mistaken my intent. Numbers are not everything.

480 is a very old story, very little to do with visual acuity.720 I told already, some infighting and horse trading. 1080 based on subjective testing and background acuity research.


What I am trying to explain you is that visual system is very tricky and lots depends on the viewing scenario. Thus for 3-4H1080 is fine, for 1-2H 4K is OK. But in the glossy magazine scenario 1500 ppi are necessary for things looking fine.


Yes, under optimistic scenario 4K difference should be visible up to 3.2H and this is max. So realistically 2.5H is safe and 2.5H is extreme viewing scenario for TV. If you say 4MP DSLR will look better on a 4K the the question is what is the viewing scenario. I am saying 4K computer monitors are abolutely needed for digital photography work.

Give it up. You and the report you keep referencing are only for 4K projection in a movie theater setting. Fact is, everyone here can tell the differences between a 4K picture and 1080p on their 70-80" set at normal viewing distances.

Re the decision on 1080 content: Yeah, I guess I kinda sorta didn't buy the earlier explanation (post 287).

If it's reasonable to conclude that we'll eventually be consuming all (or nearly all) 1080 content- which is easily conceivable to me in the next 5 years, especially considering how much 1080P content is already avail- why would any of what you proposed matter in the slightest?

And even if there's some truth to your assertion that the number is some kind of hybrid between differing "standards" (for lack of a better term) do you not think it's unbelievably coincidental to find the resolutions you listed to be fantastically similar to one another (1080, 950-1150)? Where do you suppose those came from?

Sure 1080 may be some kind of "compromised" figure, but where did the points that comprise that compromise () emanate from? Something tells me the answer is very, very, straightforward.

James