4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 11

What's a "normal" viewing distance for an 80" display? And where are you or anyone else taking in these 4K displays by the way? I'd like to check one out and end all of this speculation.

there's no useful dialogue to be had without at least somewhat agreeing on the third leg of the triangle.

RESOLUTION, SCREEN SIZE, VIEWING DISTANCE.

I'll throw my hat out there: for me: no closer than 13-14' with an 80" screen. I'm at 10' now with my 60" Kuro and wouldn't move an inch closer. But that's me, I suppose.

But 13-14' is fine, as 1080 is no longer fully resolved on a 80" screen beyond 10 1/2 feet anyway.

I suppose now's the time you'll tell me you'd sit 9' from an 80" screen.

Most would probably agree that the VAST majority would/will simply stand 3-6' away from these gigantic displays in a showroom and IMMEDIATELY PRONOUNCE the 4K's superiority over 1080 without ever considering that they'll likely never be that close to the display again outside of installing it or carrying a bowl of popcorn past it on their way to the couch.

Again, same syndrome with the retina display...of course upon close scrutiny it's a "better" display, the important question though of course is: where is the distinction when used normally?

Just a wild guess.

James

please explain all the 1080p content that is available. all i know about are brs and video games. hd television programming is at best, a highly compressed 1080i product that falls short of the quality that you set could display with proper 1080p content.

dreaming of 4k displays when we really don't have much 1080p is a nice thought but years from being broadly adopted.

1. Who's "dreaming of 4K"? Certainly not I, as I've been crystal clear that 1080 is more than adequate in 99% of home environments.

2. I routinely download 1080P content on my DirecTV receiver, and while not quite BD quality, it looks pretty damn good IMO.

VUDU offers it too and it's coming soon to even more with Apple being rumored to offer 1080 downloads very soon...how that will work with the current ATV is a question I do not have an answer to at the moment though.

It's my guess that 1080HD will all-but become "SD" within the next 5 years.

James

Yeah, so long as you keep believing they are unfounded. Clearly, the tens of millions of iPhone owners (and now some other phones as well) are mistaken in believing they perceive the extra resolution of the phones. You are the lone correct person on earth.

Dreadful.

First of all, it would be helpful if you could follow some of the Queens English.

You DID make a baseless and asinine statement: that was declaring that I said there wasn't a difference between the old and new retina display. I'd ask you to again read your jibberish but forget it, at this point I suppose it's beyond futile.

And I'd ask you for a source regarding your assertion that everyone's falling out into the aisles over the retina display strictly over its rez, but what's the point?

You're right, I'm sure there's no one else out there like me who feels most of its PQ increase is due to improved color, contrast, and saturation and not a resolution uptick you cannot discern until you're inches away from the screen.

Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

James

You are on a circular argument/ guess. It is based on visual acuity so 1080 is human limit and human limit is 1080. Until someone can show that 1080 was chosen because they considered it as visual limit, it is pure speculation. Like I said I have never read such literature. Have you? Young Irkuck says he had but too bad it's a difficult dig because only that particular SMPTE paper mentions it in the internet library.

Put in another way: 480 DVD is double 240 VCD. 1150-950 HD is about double 480/576. And dubious 8k is well, double 4k. Sounds pretty familiar like digital binary progression but IMHO I don't see a link to visual acuity in the trend.

BTW 10' for 80" possibly be perceptible for 4k based on the Sony document but you said 1080 cannot be resolved at 10.5' for 80". That doesn't click. Like all research it's probably somewhere in between for different people and environment.



It was a loaded question in disguise:
1) Your nomenclature in the first place is incorrect. ppi and dpi are different though people use it as interchangeably as Hz and fps, but these have significantly different connotations. But since this is AVS and not AMZN, we have to be accurate. I tend to edit most of my longer posts several times to be as factually accurate as possible.

2) Technically retina display of 326ppi consist of 3 RGB primaries so the resolution is 326X3 if you want to make a "somewhat apple-to-apple" comparison with dpi.

3) Displays are additive RGB vs print which is CMY subtractive. If you are old enough you will remember the hype in WYSIWYG which IMHO for this reason cannot be perfected in terms of color.

4) Displays has greyscale as you can adjust the luma. Print cannot adjust luma so they have to have more colors to produce the grey scale ie their palette is technically constantly insufficient. Hence they have to resort to dithering/ half-tones which is why they need more resolution. In fact this technique make use of the limit in visual acuity. It should not be used in another circular argument that retina can see beyond 326ppi.

I don't think it is even an issue with the visual system. It is an issue with the print hardware ie it is a technical limitation.

As to the 4MP DSLR, I don't think you got my point, as usual Never mind.

It's not even close to a "guess" and I never claimed to have a definitive answer, I simply asserted that it would seem nothing but logical that an industry's "high definition" resolution standard would be primarily based upon its primary purpose: displaying content that will be viewed by human beings.

So in that vein, I would like to know how the US and Japan (and anyone else for that matter) came up with their distinctive resolutions that seem to be very very closely related when you compare them from a human acuity standpoint.

It's an honest and reasonable question.

James

I am now British, perhaps that explains my confusion with the Queen's English. You continue to assert resolution does nothing to benefit the Retina Display. I assert the opposite. You use unbelievably inappropriate language with regard to my opinion on this matter. I assert you are, well, wrong.

None of this has anything to do with my ability to sleep at night.

Spec, 1080 was not taken just as the double. It was selected after careful research. The particular numbers 1920x1080 were taken because they are multiples of 120, you will see these multiples in the other numbers.


You should take into account that these are already based on optimistic assumption of 20/20 vision.


You are right that ppi and dpi should be compared carefully. Visual system is complex and is not like camera. This is the reason why in glossy print dpi must be as high as 2400. People can not see at thi res but they report print as not 'clean' or 'prefect'. Why this may be so is a topic for longer discussion.

I'm sure it has been mentioned before, perhaps it was in another topic, but I recommend that posters here look into "hyperacuity."

The human eye is not static, and can resolve far more than the 30-60 seconds of arc that the diameter of photoreceptors in the fovea might suggest. It can be as fine as 2-4 seconds of arc in some tests.
While this is not what you are specifically talking about, this is an interesting comparison between displays and ink at high magnification: http://www.bit-101.com/blog/?p=2722

I just bought one of the new Kindles yesterday, and it's amazing how much easier on the eyes it is for reading compared to my ipad when there's no visible pixel grid. (though the display could be higher resolution as small text isn't great)

If you are only targetting display resolution for what you believe the human eye can see (60 seconds of arc, which is not entirely accurate) then surely you are also able to resolve the pixel grid? Even if you do not gain any benefit in being able to resolve more detail, surely you would agree that an increase in resolution to 4K would be worth it to eliminate the visibility of the pixel structure?

"unbelievably inappropriate language ."

Playing the victim card in a dialogue re screen resolution?

Yeah, sure. You can't make this shtuff up.

Clearly you own and use both phones as I do and realize that when you place either of them an arm's length away from your face (or less ) it's not the RESOLUTION that your eyes are extracting more detail from, but the other aspects I've already mentioned that are responsible for the PQ upswing.

Seeing we won't agree I'll abandon the dialogue altogether now and save the balance of those on the thread from any further talk of the "falcon vision" that a % of Americans supposedly possess.

The absolute worst part of this conversation is that there's no way to prove a picture's any "better" due to an resolution increase (at these rez levels and appropriate distances) other than to take peoples word for it which we find time and time again to be terribly unreliable in this hobby.

It's not like using an eye chart and determining precisley what can and cannot be discerned. Instead you're stuck with someone KNOWING a display possess higher rez and simply annointing it superior based upon that criteria alone without examining other known, impacting factors.

It's like my iphones... If you were to level the brightness, achieve identical color fidelity/saturation, contrast, and black levels in either phone and then set them on a table and ask people to pick out the retina display, I'd fall down laughing to see how many could until it was less than a foot from their eyeballs. Again, a distance they'll next to never finding themselves using the device at.

But again, lets throw all of those PQ aspects out and simply deduce that it's the screen's resolution that's pulling the levers.

Brilliant.

James

mastermaybe, you did the best you could under these rather unseemly² circumstances. Like talking to a crumbling brick wall, not only isn't it listening, it's spewing itself all over you.

You are right about human vision and hyperacuity. This however is not relevant for TV viewing scenario where one is watching primarily non-static content. You will not see pixel structure from the TV viewing distance. 4K is fine and necessary for the computer monitor scenario, 8K and even more for 'glossy magazine' scenario where hypotethical display would have extremely high contrast and wide color reproduction.

And while we are babbling here, rumors are intensifying the iPad 3 display entered production and will be 2048x1536 pixels. That's 3K display guys! If that will be real, lots of people will get convinced 2K TV is not enough and 8K TV might be just right.

^ It never ceases to amaze that these threads get so personal around here. I certainly don't (and did not in this case) intend to insult anyone, I suppose when you think something's so clear you're just a bit miffed others do not see it the same way...and I'm certain I'm not the only one here guilty of acting a bit aggressive at times, but I'll apologize now if some take offense.

But while on the subject, the ipads another great example. I stare at the current version of the 9" screen and just shake my head at the thought of them adding 50% to the resolution of an HDTV on a 9" screen that will spend most of its life 2 feet from the users eyesockets.

Will it look better? Absolutely. Immediately upon the close examination that it will undoubtedly endure from every human who picks one up.

Will it matter in daily use? I suppose the jury's still out on that one as perhaps the ipad is a bit different from the iphone in the respect that an uptick in screen resolution could be more beneficial from a typical user distance. And I can see that being the case- truth be told- as my pad largely looks great but would appear at times to be able to benefit from a bump up.

But since I don't know the current rez of the screen nor the immediate acuity mathematical computation as to how it fairs at distance "x" relative to the iphone, I'll plead the fifth here.

But I must say, if irkcuck's correct about THAT proposed rez, we have brand spankin' new text-book example of overkill. Jesus 3k on a 9" display? Wow.

I mean we know they don't come up with screen resolutions based on human acuity , so you have to wonder where apple came up with theirs?

James

So how far back exactly will i start to not see the difference in 4k on my 46"?

how much 1080p content is available on direct? i know with dish we have at most one channel for 1080p pay per view movies, and even that is compressed.

you're right vudu, apple, netflix all want to make 1080p content available, but until the get the broadband provider on board, which they currently are not, we will have many bandwith arguments and legislation to work through before true 1080p will be delivered over the internet.

so my point is we really don't have much 1080p content now, nor likely in the immediate future, so development of 4k or 8k displays will be mostly a niche market for professionals.

1080 on a 46" display is fully resolved at 6 feet, so perhaps the benefits of increased resolution could begin at 6 feet on in.

But if you're inside of 6 feet with a 46" display I suppose you have bigger fish to fry.

James

You're largely preaching to the choir my friend.

James

I could only find a few uncompressed blu-ray screenshots to look at, but for some reason they had too much noise. So I also i used a few photos i use for desktop backgrounds and made sure they were set to a 1:1 pixel ratio using Window's "fill" function (not the "fit" or stretch, etc). Even pulled out a tape measure.

Result: While i wouldn't say the difference 4k would make would be huge, i wouldn't say its minute either. I can see the aliasing from the pixels. I can see how 3 neon strips form into one blur when i know 4k would help there. I see interior rooms of a small night cityscape scene that would certainly be more clear in real life. The extra detail that 4k would bring in my photos is obvious. To say you wouldn't see a difference at all at 7ft is just plain wrong.

Im speaking only for 6 - 7ft, i didn't go back any further. If im doing something wrong please let me know. Also, please link me to a appropriate photo so we can compare the same photo or screenshot. I'll go back further when i have more time.

Edit: I meant 7ft in the second paragraph.

I see the pixel structure on my current 1080p LCD quite clearly, and it is worse with Plasmas.


The iPad and iPhone "retina" displays absolutely should convince people that a 2K display is not enough because it isn't.

This just got me thinking about resolutions etc.
It's quite late here so maybe I'm not thinking clearly, but this seems to be correct?


So an iPad currently has a 132 pixels per inch display (PPI) and personally I typically view mine from about 1.5ft away, where the pixels are easily discernable. This gives us a 24° FOV.

To get a 24° FOV with a 50" display, you have to sit roughly 8.5ft away.
But when you view the HDTV at that distance, it is one third the resolution of the iPad display, at 44 PPI.

To match the resolution of the iPad, that means you would have to sit 25.5ft from the screen. Double the resolution of the HDTV (4K) and that gets you down to 12.75ftas mentioned earlier in this topic, the average viewing distance in USA is 6 screen heights (I imagine that outside USA it is far lower) which would be 12ft. So doesn't that already make the case for 4K resolution screens?

If they double the resolution of the iPad, which looks inevitable at this point, that would mean you'd need an 8K display to match it at a 12ft viewing distance.

Re: tory40:

You see aliasing on a 46" 1080 display at 7 feet?

Wow.

I just tried on my 60" Kuro at 7' with 20/15 vision and no dice.

Not that what anyone's seeing at 6 or 7 feet holds an iota of importance anyway.

James

The median flat panel sold is 50". You assert that the avg viewing distance is 12'.

So now we "need" 8K for 50" displays at 12 feet based upon the ipads sure-to-be essential resolution?

I'm dying to know at what distance you're resolving the pixel structure on your 1080, too. Why stop now?! Lmao.

You just can't make this $hit up.

James

You don't?


Kuros dither the crap out of anything you send them, you can't really use them for this kind of test. They are not particularly sharp displays.

My current Sony LCD isn't the sharpest display out there either, as it uses a UV2A panel rather than something like IPS.


I think most people that have used an iPad for a while (especially if they read on it) would agree that it is not high enough resolution. An HDTV is considerably lower resolution than it, even at "regular" viewing distances.

I think that makes a pretty good case for 4K/8K being worthwhile upgrades?
It's embarassing that cell phones and tablet displays will soon be significantly outclassing monitors and televisions.

^ Ive already agreed that the ipad could use a rez bump...it's a decently sized screed held in your hands 18" away.

4 or 8k though? Sure I guess. Some people drive Ferraris in rush hour traffic too.

This has been beat to death. I suppose if (really: when) these 4/8k screens break out other PQ improvements will surely arrive with them (improved contrast, color fidelity/saturation, black level, etc) so we'll prolly be in a similar position that we're in
with the iphone (regarding just whats mostly responsible for the improved PQ), but at least we already have great 1080 displays that will only improve until then so we can place these (hopefully) otherwise decently matched 50" screens side by side with their 4k bretheren and have people pick them out at 12 feet as easy as pie.

Ill bring the popcorn.

James

This is another one of those speculative cart before the horse "conclusion"/ "guess" like the 1080 is visual acuity. Apple doesn't care that it's 3k or 2048X1536. The intention is retina display iPad3. The resolution is the RESULT of that intention.

BTW there are rumours that the Jan iPad announcement will be a simple step-up like a 2S rather than iPad3.


For sure it was after careful research and consideration on exisiting formats. Question is whether acuity is one of the consideration. You are creating a diversion and a strawman. I for one had been saying i am amazed they even managed to arrive at a standard amongst so many industries with their self-interests and turfs. Standardisation is good for consumers, almost never for businesses (except monopolies).

Which study on visual perception does not assume 20/20 or corrected to 20/20? Isn't that the standard frame of reference?

You are reiterating your stance even after I explained your "bomb". You just continue to state 2400dpi is needed because the eye is complex without any reasoning. This is so deja vu 70"+ LCD thread. I mean can I say 8k is needed because the eye is complex or 240Hz is needed because pilots can see models of a plane in a blank screen @ 240Hz? :P You have to make sense in a real world. I stated 4 reasons so I hope you can revert with 4 as well if you still continue to insist it is an issue with visual system while I said it is an issue with print. Of course the eye is amazing and complex. For one the camera is reactive while the eye is adaptive. I mean, look no further (pun intended) than just compare the "lens cleaning" mechanism

And you obviously still don't get it that print and displays are different when you say:

And 8k/4k technically doesn't even concern contrast and color. They are related but separate phenomenon on luma, bit depth, gradation and gamut. Chrono talking about pixel structure and hyperacuity is more to the point. Of course the argument is at what distance and size. Contrast and color is not. That is also why Mastermaybe could be correct that the perceived improvement can be attributed to other factors besides resolution. But our disagreement is that the resolution is not ONE of the PERCEIVABLE factors.


Yes we've discussed over this and we agree E-Ink is much better for the eye. And it's even much lower resolution than 2400dpi to be better for the eye. To continue the discussion with Irkuck, E-Ink is like print that is static while displays are not. The problem with that is of course the hold time will cause blurness if E-Ink displays video. Static and moving pictures have totally different visual implications.

That is why Chrono I think your constant criticism with Kuro is not totally valid. It was designed for moving pictures in mind, not static or sharpness. Prints and audio CDs dither as well.

You:

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

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

"Dreadful.

First of all, it would be helpful if you could follow some of the Queens English.

You DID make a baseless and asinine statement..."

Clearly, we attended different charm schools.

Those rumors are nonsense.

As are all rumors.

Which part?

Recall I said 4 months ago the new iPad will be out in Jan

It will not. No-one launches a product like that right after Xmas.