4K Resolution - The New Frontier in Home Theater & Media Rooms

I am going to double post since the same person posted similar topics:
Amazing how people are fascinated by new tech, even if the human eye can't tell the difference. Like people that sit in their living rooms, 15 feet from a 42" flat panel that they bought 4 years ago. They HAD to have 1080p because that was the "best", but what the marketing and sales guy didn't tell them is that their eyes won't be able to tell the difference in 720p and 1080p in their situation, and yet a LOT of sub 50" 1080p sets were sold.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for "better", but 4K isn't it. Not for the home. I mean, in order to get an image big enough to really notice, you are dealing with front projection, and I would rather have them work on brighter, higher contrast projectors than pumping more and smaller pixels at us.

Like others have said, 1080p is "mainstream" due to a number of factors. 4K won't be so lucky.

Well I agree that as things stand today, 1080p is probably more than enough for most people - particularly those with smaller displays. But I sure hope we are singing a different tune say 5 years from now. The value added for going beyond 1080p is just not there today - mainly because of the support apeuratus[media, players, ect] isn't there yet. But this should change over time. Technology will continue to improve and re-set the point of diminishing return as it has done so may times in the past. SO the specific need for quad may not be readily apparent right now but I think we have to go through it to get to what is on the other side of it. What is that? Don't know. We gotta get there to find out.

I would say that for a 42 inches tv the present 1080p is more than sufficient,
but once you cross the 65 inches mark,and more and more manufacturers are producing tv's that are 70,80,145,180inches models when video is feed in them that are 1080p appear little blurred.And so the need for new technologies.And wheather Oled panels are going to be a hit,no one knows but they are supposed to handle the 4k video stream.So research in this area is going on.
I personally do not watch dvd content in my 1080p plasma tv,inspite of upscalling it do not like the clarity.
While BD content and DTH-HD content is mind blowing great.So newer techonology when affordable,i have no problem upgrading my system be it 4k or 8k....

Love,
kris.

I have to disagree, especially with my situation. I prefer to sit 12 inches from my 42" 1080p LCD, and frankly, the pixelation is terrible. I'm going to have to pass on 4K simply because it's not enough. When they come up with 16k I'll consider it, but until then I've had to move my chair back to 18inches

Well, using about a 110" projection screen, HD is fine sitting at 12 feet, but if I were looking to sit at 8 feet, I would want higher resolution. My next projector will probably be 4kx2k, but I am in no hurry. 2 or 3 years off for me.

But a rather useless article. I think we all know there is not currently any content.

Give this technology another 5-7 years and it will be a commodity. R&D costs and market conditions will mean a very high premium, but once R&D is paid off and competition starts to heat up, 4k will start dropping in price. We've seen it happen recently with 1080P projectors, 3D displays, "Smart" tvs falling in price and there should be no reason 4k would be any different.

Would we see this tomorrow? Probably not. We still do not have standard 1080p other than blurays. Other sources are 1080i or claim to be 1080p but really compressed to hell. I know a lot of people who have their dvd players just hooked up through standard composite video and can't tell the difference or care less. There is still a ways to go before 4k is affordable and common but eventually we'll get there.

The math in this statement doesn't make sense. 3940/2160 is 1.78, exactly the same as 16/9. 4096/2160 is 1.90, which does NOT "match the 16:9 ratio of modern television screens".

Read what you wrote again, Quad HD is exactly the same as 16/9 and also matches the 16:9 ratio of modern television screens. 4K/2K is the one that does not match the 16:9 aspect ratio.

Oops, you're right.

I'm betting the LG 84" 4k is going to look great. Check this out- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-def-2013.html

So I take it you don't have full HD in your home, and you watch everything in 720p?

I don't know, a lot of people said the same thing about blu-ray and HDVD that its really not that necessary, blah blah. Still it became the preferred format. Technology keeps evolving, and either you join or stay behind. I think this will eventually catch on once the studios, etc join. It is inevitable.

Oh no. That mean I have to upgrade all my toys in a few years.

I wonder if my video card need upgrade too.

That is alot of bandwidth.

I cant imagine what a 4K in 3D would be like. Maybe 1 TB of space?

I thought SD is like those tube TV resolution of yester years.

My 1080p looks nice (good enough) on my 119" screen from 10 ft away.

No smaller than that, let's say we use a full 50GB 1080p 2D movie for the benchmark of quality. Multiple it by 4 for 4k and 2 for 3D and you are at 500GB, but that is a worst case scenario.

3D takes only 50% more space not 100%, H.265 will be nearly twice as efficient and most movies don't need a full 50GB. So 50x4x1.5 and say compressed to 65% of the size gives us a conservative estimate of about 200GB.
Now say we also want to up the framerate to 60fps and we want to expand the color, ok we could be talking about 500GB movies again on the very high end with a more average movie being about 300GB but definitely not 1TB.

Pixels also don't need to be square and in television were historically usually not square before HD.

Professional digital video ran 720x486 potentially visible lines in the NTSC era whether flagged as 4:3 or 16:9 and this lost six lines of over-scan to become 720x480 (1.5:1) for consumer formats like DVD and DV (it fits nicely into 8x8 and 16x16 pixel blocks for compression). Better PAL digital formats like DVD and DV were 720x576 (1.25:1).

When you say or hear "more efficient", know that that just means more compression and less of the original data found in your final picture. They continue to trick your eyes into thinking they're seeing data they are not. Compression sucks!

Luddites hate new technology. It makes them feel obsolete. Personally, I would rather wait and leapfrog to 8K resolution myself. I say give the industry time to recoup and profit from their losses in the 1080P technology, and then release 8K products with consensis of entire industry standards; and don't rush it.

8K will be amazing as long as one has a 10 feet screen to watch the movie. I can't wait and hopefully they will forget 3D!

We sit 10'6" back from a 130" diag 2.35:1 screen, and love the immersion.

My PJ is the 5 year old Sony VW60, it's on my radar to upgrade to 4k PJ once the technology/prices stabilize.
At same time, sligtly bigger at 140" diag and AT screen, possibly 2015??

I'm not a 3D "must" person, but if 3D has also stabblized by 2015 sure add that also.

HT Layout:




HT pictures (2011)

Screen shot:

No, that's not what it means at all. You won't be able to tell the difference between 40mbps h.264 and 20mbps HEVC. The new HEVC codec comes at the expense of needing more processing power to decode. More compression is taking place with HEVC but not at the expense of picture quality, but rather at the expense of processing power.

Some people just stick to mythical 1-arcminute-per-pixel value thinking that is absolute limit. That is not even close to limit. Read studies by NHK.

My 70 inch sharp definitely could use 4k. I sit around 16-20 feet away at times. Also, maybe if the TV standards were 4K, TV networks would broadcast in atleast 1080p One could dream I guess.

That's a common myth. The people in your example would benefit from 1080p, and actually even 4k (2160p) to some extent if their eyesight is very good.



The theoretical limit of the human eye is ~0.2 amin (arcminutes) per pixel (or ~0.4 amin per cycle):
http://webvision.med.utah.edu/book/part-viii-gabac-receptors/visual-acuity/


In practice, NASA spectroscopist and researcher Dr. Roger N. Clark (who ought to know a thing or two about optics) has summarized the relevant research and found the limit to be about ~0.3 amin per pixel (or ~0.6 amin per cycle or line pair):
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/eye-resolution.html



So, what does this mean? It means that if we know any two of the following variables: screen size, viewing distance, and resolution, we can calculate what the third should be for us to approach "perfection".


In my formulae (intended for Google), the variables are:

x = screen size in inches ("in") on the diagonal (for a 16:9 screen)
y = viewing distance in feet ("ft"), can be changed to metres ("m")
z = vertical resolution (screen height in pixels)

The constant 0.3 arcminutes is the target pixel pitch (and can be lowered further by "videophiles" who desire an additional safety margin, or raised if you know your eyesight isn't very good).


To calculate from what viewing distance (or longer), vertical resolution z on screen size x approaches "perfection":

Example: Full HD (1080p) on 42"
( (42 in) / 1080 * 9 / ((16^2+9^2)^0.5) / tan( 0.3 arcminutes ) ) in feet = 18.2064165 feet (18 feet 231⁄64 inches)


To calculate at what vertical resolution (or higher), screen size x from viewing distance y approaches "perfection":

Example: 42" from 15 feet
( (42 in) / (15 ft) * 9 / ((16^2+9^2)^0.5) / tan( 0.3 arcminutes ) ) = 1310.86


To calculate at which screen size (or smaller), vertical resolution z from viewing distance y approaches "perfection":

Example: Full HD (1080p) from 15 feet
( (15 ft) * 1080 / 9 * ((16^2+9^2)^0.5) * tan( 0.3 arc minutes ) ) in inches = 34.603185 inches


To merely calculate the pixel pitch of your current setup:

Example: Full HD (1080p) on 42" from 15 feet
arctan( (42 in) / (15 ft) / 1080 * 9 / ((16^2+9^2)^0.5) ) in arcminutes = 0.364128331 arcminutes


Now, here followeth my charts, the first one is in feet:



http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/3733/viewingdistancefeet800x.png


The second one is in metres (British English for the metric system):



http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8571/viewingdistancemetres80.png


NOTE: These are NOT recommended viewing distances, they only indicate whether a person with very good eyesight, in theory, would be able to benefit from a resolution increase or not.


Myself, I sit 3 meters from my 52" TV. From this we can derive an optimum vertical resolution of:

( (52 in) / (3 m) * 9 / ((16^2+9^2)^0.5) / tan( 0.3 arcminutes ) ) = 2473.41 (or higher)

For people with very good eyesight, even 4k may not be "perfect" in my case.


The point? 1080p is beneficial, in nearly all situations. 4k (2160p) certainly is not useless, in most situations. Also, keep in mind that Blu-ray video is 4:2:0 Y'CbCr and thus 1080p only in luma, whereas chroma merely is 540p. Not only does this mean half as low a vertical resolution (or a quarter as low squared) for the "color" components, it also implies the introduction of chroma scaling artifacts and blur due to the quality (or lack thereof) of Blu-Ray material.
Edited by MisterMuppet - 8/7/12 at 2:42pm

@MisterMuppet

There are some errors in calculations. I'll get back you to.
Edited by Randomoneh - 8/5/12 at 5:31pm

That would be pretty embarrassing in that case. Especially for a first post. Please, do come back to me then.

And it's only an approximation (in case you meant that the hypotenuse/distance to the edge of the screen is ever so slightly longer than the distance to the center of the screen, but the closest distance is what matters).

Oh, and I don't know how to deal with lines that aren't either vertical or horizontal, anti-aliasing, and such.
Edited by MisterMuppet - 8/5/12 at 8:49am

Mike,
You have the rig I want!!!
I'm running a 130" 16:9 screen with a Sony HW30. 2.35:1 will be my next endeavor, but like you at a 140" diag.
Let me see some native content in 4K before I buy -- rumor has it Sony has been shooting its movies in 4K for
the last 2 years and that they have a new Blu Ray that can handle the content.

I'm almost ashamed to admit it, but I enjoy 3D. The only movie I've found so far that gets it right is Avatar, but surely
more will follow. Not sure where that will fit with the new resolution.

Anyway -- you have a beautiful HT.

No, everything is fine. Somehow I missed "vertical" resolution.

Now, there is an error with how Mr. Clark at ClarkVision calculates needed resolution and "resolution of the eye". He simply multiplies number of pixels per degree (200 for 0.3 arcmin-per-pixel) with number of degrees that print / display is occupying. Try doing that and you'll see how wrong it is. Displays and printed materials are straight and one degree of FOV might occupy 1 inch in the center of the display and 2 inches at the edge. I've made that same mistake before.

So, his example is this: "Consider a 20 x 13.3-inch print viewed at 20 inches. The Print subtends an angle of 53 x 35.3 degrees, thus requiring 53*60/.3 = 10600 x 35*60/.3 = 7000 pixels, for a total of ~74 megapixels to show detail at the limits of human visual acuity."

At 20 inches, apparent size of every pixel should be 0.3 arcminutes, that is 0.0017453292531 inches. That makes 572.957795 pixels per inch or 11459 x 7620 for whole print. Center of his image (10060 x 7000 doesn't match 200 pixels per degree / 0.3 arcminutes per pixel. His error would even higher if imaginary print occupies higher angle of viewer's field of view.

Here's number of pixels needed for some viewing angles.

Degrees of field of view / needed number of pixels:

1 = 200
5 = 1000.6097
10 = 2005.04157
15 = 3017.1764
20 = 4041.01414
25 = 5080.73843
30 = 6140.78725
35 = 7225.93252
40 = 8341.37157
45 = 9492.8346
50 = 10686.713
55 = 11930.2151
60 = 13231.5576
65 = 14600.2042
70 = 16047.1673
75 = 17585.3928
80 = 19230.2588
85 = 21000.2305
90 = 22917.73
95 = 25010.3136
100 = 27312.2871
105 = 29866.9673
110 = 32729.9105
115 = 35973.6303
120 = 39694.6728
125 = 44024.5498
130 = 49147.2306
135 = 55328.2946
140 = 62965.9458
145 = 72685.7534
150 = 85530.1329
155 = 103375.2
160 = 129972.906
165 = 174077.442
170 = 261950.853

Cotangent of 0.3 arcminutes can be used for easy calculation of needed viewing distance (in inches) or needed ppi value of display / print.
Needed viewing distance = 11459.155895344 / PPI
Needed PPI value = 11459.155895344 / distance in inches

For 7680 x 4320 displays, viewing distance = 1.29923485 x diagonal measurement. Or 2.65258238 x image height.

As for your graphs, I like them. I've made something similar before, based on 0.3 arcminute per pixel value, too.



I like your attention to details.
Edited by Randomoneh - 8/6/12 at 3:12pm

1080P "isn't enough" at 25 feet on a 60" display.

Yeah, sure. I'd absolutely LOVE to be introduced to these humans.

I'll bring the 1080 60" Kuro and someone else can bring the 2160 60" display and we'll have at it at 25 feet. Feel free to invite as many humans as the floorboards will tolerate.

What do you know, millions of Americans with ~50" televisions will need to move up to 4k if they're within TWENTY TWO feet (oops, I mean ANYWHERE IN THEIR LIVING ROOM, lmao) of their tv if they REALLY want all of the detail they've been missing.

Sounds like great "science" to sell more tvs.

Go figure.


James
Edited by mastermaybe - 8/6/12 at 11:26am

The biggest problem with all of this will of course be that all of the finest technical improvements in contrast, black levels, off-angle viewing, color fidelity, etc will be jammed into the "ultraHD" sets so people will be duped into thinking real PQ improvements are due to the increase in resolution and not these other meaningful developments.

So essentially, we'll be forced into paying more for these "Ultra HD" televisions' upticks in quality that would have costed considerably less had they stuck within the soon-to-be-dreaded 1080 category,

Again, go figure.

James

I don't see a mention of a single study in your message. "Common sense" from your signature is not as valuable as real research with 100+ or 200+ participants.

When presented with the choice - good immersion (20+ degrees of FOV horizontally) with lower quality or perfect picture quality resolution wise (angular resolution of 200+ ppd) with low immersion, it is normal for people to choose good immersion. In that sense, presented charts do not tell you "sit here". We hope day will come when you won't have to choose between two - immersion and quality.

If I have 50'' 960x540 display, I won't go and sit 43 ft away to get perfect quality because i'll lose immersion in that case.. Instead, I'll use what I got until I can buy one with higher resolution. Charts are showing you "perfect quality" spot and are not necessary guide for sitting distance since everyone chooses between quality and immersion based on their own preferences.
Edited by Randomoneh - 8/6/12 at 7:46pm