or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it? - Page 14

post #391 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Evolution of computing power would negate that in 36 months. Doubt 4K will be in peoples homes any earlier anyway, so this really is a non-issue....t.

Hm, I am much less optimistic. If artifacts and compression algorithms were so easily dealt with, we'd certainly be artifact-free for all 1080p material by now, yet we are not, alas....
post #392 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post

Hm, I am much less optimistic. If artifacts and compression algorithms were so easily dealt with, we'd certainly be artifact-free for all 1080p material by now, yet we are not, alas....

The problem isn't compression, it's that it's lossy compression. If people had stuck to lossless compression, it would have been much better. I hope the time comes soon that we have computing power enough in the players so that we could resort to wavelet compression instead. We put 'Alien' from laserdisc onto a single CD with close to no loss with wavelet compression at Uni back in '94, but it required two specialized circuitboards and at that time a shitload of cache-memory chips. Called it SeeD-rom. biggrin.gif
post #393 of 451
We probably don't need anything more than black and white screens with mono speakers, the minimum requirements of mass communication just like early film reels...

That being said I hope we do see 4k - if for no other reason than I think it will improve the 1080p and 720p pictures.

Unless the artifacting is severe, with visible macroblocks and such, I would hope that a compressed 4k image, when downconverted to more common 720 and 1080 HD sets would look alot better. Even the "HD lite" tricks pulled by satellite companies will then matter less, "oh were only giving you 3000 pixels across" wont matter because it will still exceed what most sets are displaying. Forced higher bitrate, forced better compression (better quality at a given bitrate), and the way that h265 adapts better to higher resolution (ie 4x detail without 4x bandwidth) should all be in favor of better looking signals for everybody I would think.
post #394 of 451
You are correct, in an ideal world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post

This makes no sense on multiple levels.
That's simply because we're looking at it at different assumptions.
Both you and I can be correct if we define assumptions differently.

(1) Assumption #1 that I made is angular view remains the same. e.g. 30 degrees of vision.
(2) Assumption #2 that I made is content provider bitrates goes up, but not to Blu-Ray ratios (accuracy per pixel, to eliminate artifacts).
Quote:
First, pixels have nothing to do with artifacts. You either can see the individual pixels, or you cannot.
Pixels combine into artifacts at the macro level. Pixels are the building blocks of an image. Imperfect pixel colors (compression loss) can combine to imperfect artifacts at the macro level.
Quote:
From 10', you are highly unlikely to be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p grids on an 50" screen. And even if you are eagle-eyed, you are highly unlikely to discern any difference between 1080p and 4k.
I am not talking about individual, single pixels.
Quote:
Second, if processing x-number of bits is causing artifacts, trying to process 4 times x-number of bits with finite resources is likely to result in more apparent artifacts.
Again, I retierate:
(2) Assumption #2 that I made is content provider bitrates goes up, but not to Blu-Ray ratios (accuracy per pixel, to eliminate artifacts).

You've got 4 times as many pixels in the same angular view. Bitrate is also going to go up, but not correspondingly to Blu-Ray leagues. However, if we use the same bitrate ratios as today's cable TV, Netflix, iTunes, we *are* still going to be able to see artifacts in 4K at 50" from 10 feet away. Guaranteed -- the compression artifacts are so blatantly obvious from 10 feet away at 1080p, they're not going to magically disappear assuming the assumptions remain constant. Content makers ARE going to skimp on bitrate to the point where they will compress "just enough" to cause artifacts to show up, but at least still vastly better than 1080p streaming.

Just by having 4K, we will at least gain better streaming quality than 1080p, and we'll finally have a "slightly over-compressed 4K" that looks roughly as good as "well-compressed Blu-Ray" at consumer-view distances from consumer-sized HDTV's.

Are you going to buy Comcast and Charter, and mandate a rule that broadcast 4K must be a minimum of 100 megabits per second?
Are you going to wave a magic wand and force Netflix to blast 100 megabits per second for 4K video, in order for your argument to make better sense than mine? (Please throw in a free Google Fiber for everyone, if you do -- ).
I thought not.

Conclusion: Compression artifacts are still going to exist. Full stop.
Quote:
As others have pointed out, 4k will result in noticeable improvements in cases where pixels are visible on an 1080p screen, but for a distance of 10', we are talking 100" or so at a minimum.
I reiterate: We aren't talking about individual pixels. We're talking about clusters of imperfect pixels (aka compression artifacts) that's inevitable by 4K Comcast, 4K Charter, 4K Netflix, etc.

The other option is to just boycott low-bitrate 4K, but that's not an option everyone is planning to do. At *least* it will look better in general than current 720p, 1080i and 1080p from the same content providers for the SAME angular field of view. By not upgrading to 4K, we don't get that image quality upgrade that's still noticeable at 10 feet from a 50 inch. And sometimes people do sit closer (e.g. games, movie nights, photos, usage as monitor, etc). If it costs only a few dollars more, then why avoid 4K?

See? My argument factors into the inevitable economics.
Edited by Mark Rejhon - 7/30/13 at 7:22am
post #395 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Evolution of computing power would negate that in 36 months. Doubt 4K will be in peoples homes any earlier anyway, so this really is a non-issue. The algorithms will probably not change one bit, just the minor tweak for the new chip and the pixel count, quite low cost.

If you count 4x the processing power a "minor tweak", then, yeah... I agree... just a minor tweak for the new chip. And the way transistor count, design and clock speeds are escalating, it may well be a minor tweak! Sheesh... last time I looked graphics cards were doing 5 or 6 terraflops!
post #396 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

If you count 4x the processing power a "minor tweak", then, yeah... I agree... just a minor tweak for the new chip. And the way transistor count, design and clock speeds are escalating, it may well be a minor tweak! Sheesh... last time I looked graphics cards were doing 5 or 6 terraflops!

I'm carrying more computing power in my hand right now than the Cray supercomputer I was drooling over in the early 80s... So I was just reiterating Moore's Law.
post #397 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

I'm carrying more computing power in my hand right now than the Cray supercomputer I was drooling over in the early 80s... So I was just reiterating Moore's Law.

Yup... incredible. OT, but the world connected-ness is amazing too. We had a dear room-mate (like family) move to Israel. She just gave us her street address and as I was entering it into my Android tablet I noticed a Maps pointer appeared next to it. So I tapped that and a satellite view of her village in Israel came up with her house marked. I thought... "hmmm... street view" of course and long-tapped the pointer. I was virtually standing on the street outside the house she has sent picture of! I could, of course, move and look around. How amazing is THAT?? And this on a hand-held device.

And she joins us for dinner and hours long "hang-out" sessions over Skype.
post #398 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

I'm carrying more computing power in my hand right now than the Cray supercomputer I was drooling over in the early 80s... So I was just reiterating Moore's Law.

Yep. But we still have artifacts in plain HD cable. If anyone thinks that this will somehow e better just because the provider calls something 4k, take a look at the small print explaining the 250Gb cap per month.

4k is a good thing, but I just don't see the need for it below 100" screens. I look at these 4k 60" LCDs and can't help but think that for the about the same $$$$ one can get a 1080p top-shelf 60" plasma, which will provide a very noticeably better PQ at a normal (9-10 feet) distance. Nobody will see the pixel difference, but the PQ difference is immediately apparent.

4k mid-size LCD glass is cheap, that's why it's the next upgrade push. Little to do with real PQ improvements.

But to each their own.
post #399 of 451
I found Mark Rehjon's comments interesting, even though they weren't directed at me, they were related to my assumptions.

I would really like to see 4k displays everywhere - what I don't know is how bad we need 4k content. I'd settle for higher bitrate 1080p content. One reason I like the idea of 4k projectors and displays is that "too much is just right". As soon as you exceed what someone can see the flaws of, you've finally "arrived". I wasn't happy with my stereo system until I finally had one that actually got too loud, then I was able to turn it down and enjoy it more because otherwise I could tell how it was straining on certain passages at certain desired volume levels, and being aware of that flaw irritated me.

For resolution, too much is just right. As soon as the eye can no longer discern individual pixels, displays are finally where they've needed to be all along. It for instance let's me set up a projector for a 2.35:1 Cinemascope image and just use software to crop the display to 16:9 or 4:3 with constant image height, while still displaying the latter sources with no loss of detail. Likewise too much brightness (with perfect blacks) would be just right, I can then afford to 'waste' some of the light output on the convenience of a software cropped image.

"If it's too much you can always turn it down, if it doesn't have the reserve capacity though there's no way to turn it up."

To compare the subwoofer system i'm designing for a dedicated home theater room is going to be entirely too much. Because I don't ever want to have to be worried about turning it down to avoid breaking speakers, I don't ever want to have to tell a guest to turn it down or my amps will overheat, I want a system that they will give out before it does, so that it's power seems infinite. : P I view extreme resolution in a similar light.


I'm hoping to get a 4k computer monitor soon - even my 2048x1536 CRT feels cramped to me if I only have a single display, I normally want to use two of them because i'm always working on alot of projects at once taking up alot of screen area at high res. 4k means I will finally have no bezel to worry about. For computer even an 8k display would be fine - that would finally approach the 'too much' level, being beyond even a triplehead 2048x1536 array like i've sometimes used at home, or as wide as the quad head array for programming with more vertical space and no bezels. But for projectors and media sources I think 2160p/4k definately belongs and I hope to see it affordable as soon as feasible.
post #400 of 451
This is a photo I took at a Fry's in Anaheim California of their 4K display. The resolution is better than 1080P but not the 2160 needed to show the 4K screen in all its glory. I may need to bring in my 12MP camera in for that one. However, it should show some difference between HD and UHD. Unfortunately when I saw it with my own eyes I didn't see much improvement over 1080P (My sister has a 1080p screen and It only looked slightly better).

Then again I remember seeing an HDTV in 1999 showing KNBC and Chuck Henry and thought "If this is HD it's pretty sad." But KNBC had improved and I'm sure so will 4K.

But I still think 4KTVs are like high end TVs that can do more with existing content than 3DTVs can.

Just my 2¢ cool.gif

Photo taken from iPhone 3GS of a 4K display at Fry's Electronics in Anaheim CA
post #401 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by homeomnimax View Post

...

For resolution, too much is just right. As soon as the eye can no longer discern individual pixels, displays are finally where they've needed to be all along.....

Yep, and for 60" screens viewed from 9-10 feet we are already there with 1080p.

The currently available 55" - 60" LCDs give you nothing additional in terms of resolvable content from a "normal" viewing distance, yet provide noticeably poorer image quality compared to a decently calibrated Panasonic or Pioneer 1080p plasma set, most of which are similarly, or often lower, priced.

A 100"+ 4k projector I can understand, even though I don't like projectors.

Now, a 10"+ OLED or plasma for $10k or less, I'd be all over it smile.gif
post #402 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post

From 10', you are highly unlikely to be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p grids on an 50" screen. And even if you are eagle-eyed, you are highly unlikely to discern any difference between 1080p and 4k.

Wow I must have like... super duper eagle vision then... Really, can't see the difference between 720 and 1080 @ only 10 feet from a 50 inch screen??? I can easily see a huge difference from 15 feet... Easily...

I use fonts at their smallest reasonable rendered size (75 DPI monitor setting, 10 point fonts) and I can easily see the individual pixels that make up the characters on a 22 inch 4k display from 2.5 feet away. The surface area of this display is 221.5 square inches... So according to that chart on a 50 inch 4k to get the full benefit (and being able to see the pixels that make up the text is getting the full benefit in my book) you need to be 2.5 feet away... What? On a display that is 1068 inches of surface area (4.8 times the amount of surface area and lower resolution,, so about 5x the pixel size) and that scale says I need to be 2.5 feet away? What a joke! I am sorry but my vision (with correction) isn't even that much better than 20/20.

I guess that chart assumes the average person has 20/40 vision or something? I recently got lasik and still have almost a diopter of astigmatism and without glasses (just correcting astigmatism) I see around 20/40 and even then that chart seems exaggerated to me especially if your going on the assumption the average person has 20/20 vision (either good vision or corrected vision).
post #403 of 451
100"+ is definitely a case for 4K. My front seats in the cinema are really too close for DVD viewing (back seats are ok), so I expect there will be a noticable improvement up front from 1080 to 4K, the back seats will probably not get much more out of it, but perhaps?
post #404 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xevious View Post

Wow I must have like... super duper eagle vision then... Really, can't see the difference between 720 and 1080 @ only 10 feet from a 50 inch screen??? I can easily see a huge difference from 15 feet... Easily...

... So according to that chart on a 50 inch 4k to get the full benefit (and being able to see the pixels that make up the text is getting the full benefit in my book) you need to be 2.5 feet away... What? On a display that is 1068 inches of surface area (4.8 times the amount of surface area and lower resolution,, so about 5x the pixel size) and that scale says I need to be 2.5 feet away? What a joke! I am sorry but my vision (with correction) isn't even that much better than 20/20......

Methinks you are a bit confused about native resolution and pixels.
post #405 of 451
Just a noob opinion, & a projector owner at that, but I saw a 2160 Sony 65" today & it floored me. Absolutely amazing. Almost surreal, but boy it looked sweet.
post #406 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

100"+ is definitely a case for 4K. My front seats in the cinema are really too close for DVD viewing (back seats are ok), so I expect there will be a noticable improvement up front from 1080 to 4K, the back seats will probably not get much more out of it, but perhaps?

DVD's are not 1080p. DVD's are soft from my 1.6sw back row while BD's look good from my 1sw front row, There's a big difference.
post #407 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post

...

A 100"+ 4k projector I can understand, even though I don't like projectors.

...

Then you haven't seen the right projector in the right environment calibrated properly with well-mastered BD content . It's a stunning "looking through a window" experience. But it does take a lot of doing! There are many details that have to be right.
post #408 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post

Methinks you are a bit confused about native resolution and pixels.

In what way? What did anything I said have anything to do with native or non-native resolution?

If you can make out the pixels in the text and looks a little blocky even with anti-aliased fonts then I think you are getting more than the benefit of full 4k as full benefit should be where the pixels are just under the size at which you can perceive them.

My point is these fonts are pretty darn small:

terminal_font.png

If your on a 100 DPI monitor which most people are around that then that window/text is 1/4th the size on my screen as it is on yours. I am saying I can fully read that (and see the blockyness of the text) off said 22 inch monitor from 2.5 feet away. If I can read and notice the pixels in fonts and stuff at that size then I think I can state I am getting the full benefit of 4k off that 22 inch monitor from 2.5 feet away yet according to the scale I would need to be about the same distance from a 50 inch display sporting a lower resolution?

Considering the pixels are 5.4x bigger on the 50 inch display I would think I could be *at least* twice the distance away from it and still get the full benefit.
post #409 of 451
Example: If a pixel from the source is rendered as a box of 3-by-3 native pixels, it will still look blocky, but it is no measure of what the screen can do.
post #410 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Example: If a pixel from the source is rendered as a box of 3-by-3 native pixels, it will still look blocky, but it is no measure of what the screen can do.

Ok.. but since when are fonts rendered to be blocky?
post #411 of 451
Yes, we need a dedicated 4K section on avsforum.
post #412 of 451
There is only one reason 4K has been introduced. Marketing. They have milked the LED/LCD and plasma market and OLED is too far down the road. Make the masses think they need something and eventually they will believe it.
post #413 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

There is only one reason 4K has been introduced. Marketing. They have milked the LED/LCD and plasma market and OLED is too far down the road. Make the masses think they need something and eventually they will believe it.


Yup. I am sure that is why I have been using 4k displays since 2005. It must have been the mass marketing that they started way back then...
post #414 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xevious View Post

Yup. I am sure that is why I have been using 4k displays since 2005. It must have been the mass marketing that they started way back then...

Wow... that's impressive for 2005. What display? What content? Was this for gaming? Simulation?
post #415 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

Wow... that's impressive for 2005. What display? What content? Was this for gaming? Simulation?

22.2 inch Viewsonic VP2290b was the first display I got in 2005 which came out in late 2002 and then later (like 2010) got a newer IBM T221 9503-DGP (also 22.2 inch and basically the same panel but the updated version that supported dual link DVI).

I did game on the displays but due to the low refresh rate and high access time they were never that great for that (atleast for the FPS games I played like quake3, quakelive, counter-strike: source, etc...)

Here is an old picture from early 2010 before I got the T221:

http://box.houkouonchi.jp/vp2290b_60hz/dsc_2011.jpg

Its a wide-angel lens so the picture got distorted a bit but it can give you an idea of of the size of the text which I could easily read and see the pixelation from 2.5 feet away (the same viewing distance that chart says you need to be for the full benefit of a 50 inch 4k display). Even though it was getting 60Hz the internal refresh rate of a vp2290b was only 41Hz. The T221-9503 DGP was 48Hz and supported dual link DVI.
post #416 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xevious View Post

Ok.. but since when are fonts rendered to be blocky?

They've been blocky since the computer font was invented...
post #417 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xevious View Post

...

Its a wide-angel lens so the picture got distorted a bit but it can give you an idea of of the size of the text which I could easily read and see the pixelation from 2.5 feet away (the same viewing distance that chart says you need to be for the full benefit of a 50 inch 4k display). Even though it was getting 60Hz the internal refresh rate of a vp2290b was only 41Hz. The T221-9503 DGP was 48Hz and supported dual link DVI.

Thanks! Crimony... I'd need a loupe to read that! smile.gif
post #418 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

They've been blocky since the computer font was invented...

Well... they did come up with aliasing shortly after the computer font was invented. Still, technically, blocky, though, I guess.
post #419 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

Well... they did come up with aliasing shortly after the computer font was invented. Still, technically, blocky, though, I guess.

Yes, and that doesn't really work for the smallest fonts anyway.
post #420 of 451
Personally, I am limited in the largest screen size I can display. So I don't think that 4K is really worth it for me at this point. OLED, on the other hand, is something I am definitely looking forward to (once production issues are solved and the price comes down to Earth).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Community News & Polls
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it?