4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 91

Without a valid transport, adding 4K output would be a pretty boneheaded move but not atypical for Sony.

Why? Even if a BD cannot hold the data (again, I recall this being debunked *somewhere* in AVS), it's still a gaming device. And a 4K gaming device might be spectacular.

Besides, remember, they HAVE to have the latest and greatest technology associated with it for marketing reasons alone, or run the risk of appearing fundamentally incapable of catching up.

It's amazing the crap that marketing has to worry about. For instance: when Dect 6.0 phones came out, you know why they jumped to 6.0 as a revision stamp? To not confuse the confused public: It *must* be the latest and greatest because the prior phones had 5.8 on them (which was GHz).

^Heh.

Well, partly due to the fact that few of the games from the PS3 library even run at 1080p! If they manage to leapfrog that hurdle with this hardware in the gaming department (and get the developers simultaneously on board), then I suppose we could consider that a silver lining. If the current BD format can be amended to support 4K (using H.265) without noticeable losses due to compression, then that would indeed be a feat.

Don't forget that most games use computer-generated graphics generated in realtime. The graphics resolution is limited only by the graphics hardware. Since they normally don't use pre-recorded video, they are not limited to using standard consumer video resolutions. Since game discs are computer discs, not BD video discs, they also can store video at arbitrary video resolutions using whatever video encoding methods the authors of the games happen to feel like using. The game's software then is responsible for decoding it, not the game box itself.

PS3 includes blu-ray player so one would expect next gen includes 4K blu-ray player. If it doesn't it will just be half the machine it supposed to be...

Lets just say PS5 will include a 4K blu-ray player. Makes me wonder when Sony will launch PS5

As a software engineer who specialized in graphics I can tell you that the host resolution often matters very little from the software's perspective. Very few programs (especially games) manage individual bits per se; they use outlines and regions in floating point and have hardware assist in filling out them out. In fact, even if there were no hardware assist, the software pays attention to the resolution, but it's only a minor detail----almost all of what I coded "knew" how to deal with the display size regardless what it was. It would be a horribly designed program otherwise. You always look to scalability.

Although you have 4 times the pixels for 2160p vs 1080p, that doesn't mean you need 4 times the bandwidth to preserve quality, even if you stick with h264. You would if you had, for example 4 separate movies playing in each quadrant of the sceen, but you don't you have one of those quadrants, but with more detail. So the question is, is twice the bandwidth enough? Many seem to think so, some don't.

It has been pointed out that going to 10 bit depth shouldn't require any more bandwidth than 8 bit. The extra bandwidth currently being used for the dithering that goes on to prevent banding offsets the bandwidth needed for 10 bit.

A new 4k format will need h265. Claims are for twice the efficiency vs h264, but again, we'll see.

Also, you could revamp the transport stream. m2ts wastes a fair amount of space. If you convert a 25G m2ts to mkv, you'll probably save 1G or more. That may not sound like a lot, but every bit helps.
You could also trade off some quality of the extras to give a little more to the movie.

You have to factor in 3d, which of course can be done on BD now. But never having bought one, I don't know if the quality of the existing ones suffers or not. You also have to factor in the possibility for 48 fps, since that might start showing up more often. Doubling the frame rate doesn't imply doubling the bandwidth, since the new frames content is going to be so similar to the existing frames.

So BD50 might be enough. I'd like to see the players go to 66G dual layer. I don't know if you can cost effectively produce triple layer or quad layer BD-ROM. But you probably can increase the capacity of dual layer, at least in a few fabs. Not all 4k would need 66G.

Time will tell.

My software engineering days were stillborn unfortunately, so I didn't get as far as yourself. I have not been involved with even gaming in years, so I was typing from a vague memory of the limitations. As I think further on topic, I'm beginning to remember that the primary bottleneck for game resolution in the consoles this past gen was due to processing power (or efficiently utilizing it) and bus speed limitations.

On a related note, one thing I am peeved about is the Rockbox (3rd party audio player) devs have not made their beta builds scalable for different screen resolutions on Android, lol.

That's true, you don't need 4x the bandwidth because there are areas of images that are more or less solid colors and MPEG-type compression schemes are good at recognizing that.

Something like that.
No, twice the bandwidth isn't enough. It will work with some content, but there is nominally four times the data to work with. Even with the better codec efficiency, that efficiency varies and will be less impressive on more complex content and that's really the whole point. On the easiest content 1x the bandwidth of H.264 1080p will allow for H.264 4K to look great. But the easiest content is not important. On common content, 2x will look better than 1080p for resolution, but at the expense of slightly reduced color information and increased artifacting. On challenging content, 2x will actually look worse than 1080p content.because there won't be enough bits to "describe" everything when so much of the data is being spent just on the pixel info.

I have to say I'm generally getting more and more unimpressed by the prospects for 4k the longer this conversation goes on at AVS. With 3D, you couldn't "fool" people into buying something clunky that they didn't want. With 4K, how are people going to be talked into something that they just don't even see?

Again, this doesn't mean that the tech isn't beneficial for larger screens or important for marketing of them. But on the content side, it seems like it's going to fall pretty flat.

^Rogo, I must say you expertise on coding is up and agree with the rest. Except your signature that is . For those knowing enough, Stalin is close to Hitler and you would not like to see citations from Hitler, right?

It's the unfortunate conclusion I'm reluctantly coming to also Mark. Even if I do get a 4K display, it would probably be a 65" display and I'd be sitting outside the projected limits of 4K benefits. Of course that's 'theory' and I do believe there still would be benefits to be derived sitting outside the recommended distances. How much? Probably minimal, but still observable IMO.

However, one part of me just hates to buy a quality 2K, large screen display, because it just 'feels' dated at this point. OTOH the more logical side of me is becoming more and more dubious there will be sufficient content to make a 4K display a smart choice for the near future. Certainly for the short term (being defined as 1-2 years?) the content I'd expect to see will be content I provide in the form of high resolution pictures & possibly a 4K camcorder...if those prices aren't intergalactic in nature. Is that enough? Probably not if you look at it objectively.

I also sit back and think that quality 1080p content on my current display can look absolutely awesome and many times I can still there in awe.

I agree with the lack of significance of 4K for displays </= 70" diag, say; it really is something that matters primarily for projectors and relatively large screens.   I realize, though, that this greatly reduces the market, even though it's the one I'm in!

And remember, even at 70-80" you'll probably be sitting closer than most people currently sit to their 2K displays. Although I'm still debating and leaning toward a larger screen 2K display, I haven't yet ruled out 4K.

I'm all on board with the notion of needing a larger screen with a closer viewing distance to reap the benefits of 4K, but is sitting closer necessarily a bad thing? I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it. If I could sit close to my display without the screen door effect and without it feeling uncomfortable then I'm all for it. Not sure if anyone else feels this way? I absolutely know that the mass population doesn't.

I don't think there's anything wrong with sitting closer, but you have to consider the 'decorating' aspect of your room layout. Most people probably have a seating distance based on how they like their rooms laid out. Now we're artificially changing that based on distance requirements for 4K. For me I'd be all in, but for my wife...hmmm. Most women will tend to look at this very differently.

More importantly, beyond that, there's always the issue of content. That's the only reason my concern continues to grow. I'd be one of the crazy few to actually buy a 4K camcorder, but is that really enough to justify this purchase for the next 2-3 years before real 4K content becomes more widely available? It's tough.

To me that's a huge subject that no one here seems to like to discuss. Do some research on viewing angle. For a 16:9 screen, just multiply the diagonal by 1.2 and you've got a 40 deg. viewing angle, which seems to be the largest generally recommended. That also happens to be the minimum distance for 2K resolution. So, with 4K you can get much closer resolution wise, but you'll be really close really quick.

For the average home/person, it's the opposite - they sit too far from their current HD displays, so a larger 4K display would "fill up" the difference. But if you already sit at minimum distance, it starts to get weird fast

Adequate point. I just tell my girlfriend that the one thing I get to have control over in terms of decor for the room, is my FP and AV rack/stand. She gets the rest, no questions asked.

A 40 deg viewing angle (for 16:9) corresponds to viewing at ~2.4 PH (picture heights).     To get full benefit of 4K one needs to view from ~ 2.0 PH (or less), which is a viewing angle of ~ 48 deg.    At first I found this too close, but as the 'big pic' has grown on me, I now sit at ~ 1.9 PH (~11.5 ft from 6ft H screen)-- ~50 deg viewing angle--and find it delightful--total immersion!     But it took a while for me to work up to this.

Yeah, I suspect that the actual linear distance has some bearing on it - 2PH from my display is 60", but from a 100" display, it would be ~3 ft. farther. My guess is that even though they're proportionately the same, the increase in the linear distance has some (positive) psychological effect?

I would think that to get solid benefit, resolution wise, from 4K about 1.5PH would be nice, but you should be able to go out to 2.4ish PK and still be in the ballpark (i.e. it seems to me the minimum for 2K should be about the maximum for 4K.)

For me though, the question isn't how to get maximum benefit from 4K - it's where is the benefit compared to 2K? The question becomes, with a 100 class 4K display, where do you lose compared to the same size at 2K? From what I can tell so far, anything inside 2.4ish on the 4K and you're good (compared to the 2K) and the genius of it is that you can keep moving forward to your heart's content

You're lucky I don't still live in San Leandro btw - your inbox would be overflowing with invite requests

Would be happy to have you stop by for a visit whenever you are in the area!

 

Sony has a slick 4K promo brochure where they tout a viewing distance of 1.6 PH.    At present I find this a bit overwhelming--would be 9 ft from my screen, which would be rather awkward in my room.    I have scooted up to this distance, though, and find it a too much, at least for the present.

Thanks for the compliment.

Incidentally, I quote Stalin in my signature for a reason, which is specific to the way AVS Forum is moderated. It's less important these days as most of the worst trolls are gone, so perhaps I'll change my signature file. I don't have an iota of respect for Stalin, who was a hideous butcher and killed almost as many people as Hitler did.

So this is a great summary Ken. I doubt I'd buy a 1080p display for a "premium" price for the reasons you describe. But for a "non-premium" price, it still seems fine to me. The line where those two separate is obviously one of preference.

Well aside from decor, I just flat out don't like to sit very close. It has nothing to do with screen-door effect and everything to do with comfort. I like having space around the screen -- in the movie theater and at home. Based on my experience going to the movies, I'm not alone in this belief.

This is interesting question but if you would sit at 4PH or more /which is typical for 65"/ the logic of having 4K and watching upconverted material 99% of time is contradictory.

There is an ultimate obsession of endless waiting for a better tech and never buying anything before the EOL . Advantage of 1080 is that it is fully mature and tested, with plenty of content. If you weight it against immature, untested, no content 4K than the 1080 wins hands down. we know that evert new display tech brings some problems at least in the beginning. Struggling with new type of 4K artefacts might be very frustrating so I think one has to immerse oneself into a period of full enjoyment with 1080 before jumping to the unknown of 4K.

To see the point of non-idealizing 4K and possible PQ issues look at the review of Sony 4K projector : ...there’s no denying that the jump from 1080p to 4K is not as pronounced as going from NTSC/PAL to 1080p, ....the texture enhancement/sharpening features that come as part of the “Reality Creation” suite could be a bit much.


You spell out very well the reasons while such citations should be avoided, using words related to "stalinism" or "holocaust" is better reserved to their speciifc cases.
Edited by irkuck - 2/8/13 at 3:19am

Well, you can go RED too. http://www.red.com/products/red-one

RED has released the pricing on a player, so you could download their content as well. Probably here more on their projector soon.

I wonder how many times it is now, that people have made the "Well if you sit too far away for 4K, 4K is pointless..." argument. You don't say?
There is nothing "immature" or "untested" about 4K. It is the same or better display technology as we have today, with four times as many pixels. It's not like this is an entirely new display tech, like OLED is.
If you do a straight Nearest Neighbor resample, you have exactly the same image as you are seeing on a 1080p native display, but without the pixel structure grid over the image.

I don't know how many times it is that I've had to post this example now.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1309492/4k-by-2k-or-quad-hd-lots-of-rumors-thoughts/2310#post_22790138

Upscaling 720p content will look better on a 4K display than it currently does on a 1080p native display, because it's an exact 3x upscale, rather than 1.5x. (can't have half a pixel...)

"Fancy" upsampling like Sony's DRC and other technologies can be hit and miss. But David says here that madVR offers exactly what he was asking for in his review: clean edge adaptive scaling without all the other "detail enhancement" tricks.

Yeah, the Red is a bit more camera than I'd need Nitro, but thanks. I'd probably wait for the Sony 4K camcorder that may be coming later this year. That looks to be based on their former FX1000 that I had once owned.

Eye strain decreases as the square of the distance from the display , so i'd say yes but after some distance (what distance?) it may not be a factor. Would this apply to up-close distances you're talking about?..I do know it is a big issue with me and desktop monitors (didn't used to be when i was younger). I now use an HTPC and can feel the difference when i get home from work.

From a quick search, it looks like the hyperfocal distance of the human eye is 15ft, so it probably wouldn't make a difference beyond that. At that distance, I would want a projector.

If you closer it is totally immature. For example it is obvious a decent 4K should be 60p. But there is no standard connector available supporting this and upgraded version of HDMI will be ready only later.

Video cards have been shipping with HDMI ports that support 4K at 60p for about a year now.

And that's a huge concern! If the current & soon-to-be-released Sonys can't accept 4K @60p, that would seem to be a non-starter for me in terms of even considering these displays. Do we know for sure that these displays will accept HDMI xxx that will carry 4K @60p? It seems we don't.

Without the confirmed ability to utilize a soon to be standard version of HDMI that can carry 4K @60p, buying these displays would be a huge gamble...not one that I'd be willing to take.