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 15

post #421 of 451
Saw my first 4k screen/demo yesterday on a Sony 55inch, I was very worried I'd have to have one but I wasn't that impressed. Don't get me wrong it wasn't poor but having read a lot of people's opinions on here about 4k i was really expecting something amazing.

I certainly won't be an early adopter, will wait for a decent amount of content and delievery method i.e Sky etc To answer the OT, do we need it? No but it would be nice to have it.

Will it help the TV industry? I doubt it, why? Well speaking to the sales guy he said people walk into his shop and see a big screen running HD and say "ooooh.. is that that 3d I have heard of?". The majority of people barely set their sets up correctly and aren't going to rush to get a new screen for more pixels.
post #422 of 451
Well, if you weren't looking at it from three feet, then 4k does little sense on a 55" screen...
post #423 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Well, if you weren't looking at it from three feet, then 4k does little sense on a 55" screen...

That doesn't make any sense but I looked at it from various distances.
post #424 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by nastymatt View Post

That doesn't make any sense but I looked at it from various distances.

If you aren't close enough for the extra pixels to offer any new information for the eyes, then it makes little or no use. For the eye to get the full benefit from 4K on a 55" screen, that distance is 3 feet or shorter. At 7 feet you will no longer see any improvement over 1080... Thus, larger screen sizes will be needed for any home use... for commerial screens that people walk close by, 55" will do nicely, though.
post #425 of 451
We've reached a bit of a saturation of HD televisions, so the industry needs something new to hype. But delivery is still not there for 1080p, more than 5 years into the widespread availability of cheap HD panels. The delivery folks are the ones refusing to invest. Hardware will always be diligent, because HW doesn't have the security to collect $100/month from a captive audience. I'm unwilling to spend on 4K until I see 1080p almost everywhere. Then I'll know 4K content is only 5 years away. I'll "early-adopt" but I'm not going to watch a single Best Buy loop 6 hours a day.
Edited by cjvnyc - 8/12/13 at 7:06am
post #426 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

If you aren't close enough for the extra pixels to offer any new information for the eyes, then it makes little or no use. For the eye to get the full benefit from 4K on a 55" screen, that distance is 3 feet or shorter. At 7 feet you will no longer see any improvement over 1080... Thus, larger screen sizes will be needed for any home use... for commerial screens that people walk close by, 55" will do nicely, though.

Its 3 feet only if you have marginal vision. I use a 4k LCD at 2-2.5 feet away and can still see the pixelatedness of text. For me a 50 inch 4k tv starts loosing its benefit at around 7 feet and is the same as 1080p at around 12-14 feet for me.
post #427 of 451
Xevious, I could really use your help on another message board which shall remain nameless here. These people have this chart of screen size vs. ideal viewing distance, and obey it like it was the Word of God. They just can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept of dot pitch, and how their chart is meaningless if it doesn't specify any.

I'm guessing that you're using your 4K display to view computer graphics as well as TV programming. That's the "digital convergence" that people have been talking about for decades! It's here! And it seems that some don't believe it...

One of the first thing s I did with my first HDTV was to plug my computer with a HDMI output into it. I'm not much of a gamer myself, but I imagine that between computers and video games, that the amount of time spent watching other than a direct video signal is probably in the majority.

When it comes to 4K, it's not about certain people not envisioning the need or utility of 4K, it's about the inevitability of 4K, and the certainty that people will come to appreciate it. Just as they did when HDTV came out. Just as they did when the Compact Disc came out for audio.
post #428 of 451
[quote name="Speed Daemon" url="

When it comes to 4K, it's not about certain people not envisioning the need or utility of 4K, it's about the inevitability of 4K, and the certainty that people will come to appreciate it. Just as they did when HDTV came out. Just as they did when the Compact Disc came out for audio.[/quote]

You get it. People saw no need for VCRs Beta or VHS, CDs, DVDs, cell phones, PCs -- I was too young, but I bet folks argued against color TV, cruise control, seat belts -- further back indoor toilets, electric lights -- they all had one thing in common -- THEY WERE WRONG.

4K, 8K, 16K -- bring it ON!!
post #429 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

Xevious, I could really use your help on another message board which shall remain nameless here. These people have this chart of screen size vs. ideal viewing distance, and obey it like it was the Word of God. They just can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept of dot pitch, and how their chart is meaningless if it doesn't specify any.

I'm guessing that you're using your 4K display to view computer graphics as well as TV programming. That's the "digital convergence" that people have been talking about for decades! It's here! And it seems that some don't believe it...

One of the first thing s I did with my first HDTV was to plug my computer with a HDMI output into it. I'm not much of a gamer myself, but I imagine that between computers and video games, that the amount of time spent watching other than a direct video signal is probably in the majority.

When it comes to 4K, it's not about certain people not envisioning the need or utility of 4K, it's about the inevitability of 4K, and the certainty that people will come to appreciate it. Just as they did when HDTV came out. Just as they did when the Compact Disc came out for audio.

Recently I've been of two minds about gaming and 4K HDTVs.

On the one hand, newer games are becoming more aliased than ever due to new rendering techniques and the breakdown of traditional antialiasing. Under normal conditions, running a game in 4K will look considerably better than 1080p well past the distance where you'll supposedly not be able to tell the difference.

On the other hand, good old fashioned SSAA, where you render the game at 2x-8x the resolution and downsample to your native res, pretty much eliminates the aliasing...so even for games at a distance, 4K may be an unnecessary luxury. But getting SSAA to work can be tricky.

I've been gaming a lot recently at 1440p downscaled to 720p, and it looks considerably better than straight 1080p, like night and day better. It's not as sharp, but it's just a much better image overall.

I'm honestly not sure if I could tell the difference between a game in true 4K, and 4K downscaled to 1080p from a reasonable seating distance. That said, both would require an equal amount of graphics power, so I'd still take the 4K if I had it, I'm just not eager to rush out and buy a 4K set.
Edited by bd2003 - 10/9/13 at 8:43pm
post #430 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

Xevious, I could really use your help on another message board which shall remain nameless here. These people have this chart of screen size vs. ideal viewing distance, and obey it like it was the Word of God. They just can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept of dot pitch, and how their chart is meaningless if it doesn't specify any.
...

And dot pitch is meaningless if it doesn't specify viewing distance. It's all about the angle of view... our eye's acuity is measured by an arc. 20/20 vision is the ability to resolve a spatial pattern separated by a visual angle of one minute of arc. So you need to know both the dot pitch and the viewing distance. There is no argument to be had.
post #431 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friendly Fire View Post

You get it. People saw no need for VCRs Beta or VHS, CDs, DVDs, cell phones, PCs -- I was too young, but I bet folks argued against color TV, cruise control, seat belts -- further back indoor toilets, electric lights -- they all had one thing in common -- THEY WERE WRONG.

4K, 8K, 16K -- bring it ON!!
Yep, bring it on! Let us figure out how to exploit it! And don't worry, because we will!!!
post #432 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Recently I've been of two minds about gaming and 4K HDTVs...
Since I'm not a gamer, I have the unique perspective of the outsider looking in. And to me it often looks like gamers love specsmanship nearly as much as playing the games! (At least someone brags about stuff like that.) It's no doubt a safe bet that game console makers will continue to make increasingly capable products -- that's really the limit of my understanding.

Thanks for that insight! (I had to look up what SSAA meant...redface.gif)
post #433 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

And dot pitch is meaningless if it doesn't specify viewing distance. It's all about the angle of view... our eye's acuity is measured by an arc. 20/20 vision is the ability to resolve a spatial pattern separated by a visual angle of one minute of arc. So you need to know both the dot pitch and the viewing distance. There is no argument to be had.
Wouldn't that depend on the content, and how it was intended to be viewed? OMNIMAX comes to mind straight away. Isn't OMNIMAX designed to be experienced more imersively? Is the TV viewer obligated to fix his or her gaze right at the middle of the screen, and resist the temptation to move their eyes? Not in my household!

I get what you're saying, but I humbly submit that it makes certain assumptions that ain't necessarily so. I don't think that one fixed set of rules can cover such a wide range of viewing situations. And it does the buyer a disservice to dictate how they should use a product.

Bean counters love "simple". But I'm not a bean counter, so...
post #434 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

Wouldn't that depend on the content, and how it was intended to be viewed? OMNIMAX comes to mind straight away. Isn't OMNIMAX designed to be experienced more imersively? Is the TV viewer obligated to fix his or her gaze right at the middle of the screen, and resist the temptation to move their eyes? Not in my household!

I get what you're saying, but I humbly submit that it makes certain assumptions that ain't necessarily so. I don't think that one fixed set of rules can cover such a wide range of viewing situations. And it does the buyer a disservice to dictate how they should use a product.

Bean counters love "simple". But I'm not a bean counter, so...

Oh, OK... I get what you're saying. I just think of watching movies in my 1sw to 1.6sw home theater. So I do simplify it quite a lot... no gaming, no IMAX and I've never even heard of OMNIMAX! smile.gif
post #435 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

Xevious, I could really use your help on another message board which shall remain nameless here. These people have this chart of screen size vs. ideal viewing distance, and obey it like it was the Word of God. They just can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept of dot pitch, and how their chart is meaningless if it doesn't specify any.

I'm guessing that you're using your 4K display to view computer graphics as well as TV programming. That's the "digital convergence" that people have been talking about for decades! It's here! And it seems that some don't believe it...

One of the first thing s I did with my first HDTV was to plug my computer with a HDMI output into it. I'm not much of a gamer myself, but I imagine that between computers and video games, that the amount of time spent watching other than a direct video signal is probably in the majority.

When it comes to 4K, it's not about certain people not envisioning the need or utility of 4K, it's about the inevitability of 4K, and the certainty that people will come to appreciate it. Just as they did when HDTV came out. Just as they did when the Compact Disc came out for audio.

Which other message board? I somehow omitted in my post that when I said I use a 4k display at 2-2.5 feet that is on a 22 inch 4k monitor so way smaller than the 50 inch one they mention in the chart. Honestly that chart is so off for me its not even funny. I really hate it every time someone brings it up too. Saying you have to be 2.5 feet away from a 50 inch monitor to get a 4k benefit is *ridiculous* even if you have crappy vision IMHO.
post #436 of 451
Here is a picture showing the size of the text, icons, etc.. (that picture is from 2010) on a 4k monitor that is only 22 inches in size:

http://box.houkouonchi.jp/vp2290b_60hz/dsc_2010.jpg

It was taken with a wide-angle lens so the image looks a little curved but you can get an idea of the size of the text from the keyboard/mouse size. I use as small of fonts as possible even when its 200 PPI+ and I can read it from 3 feet with no issues. My vision is only slightly better than 20/20 (like 20/16).
post #437 of 451
First of all, thank you erkq, for a thoughtful and grown-up discussion. I think that on the other board I might be dealing mostly with young people who think they're on the playground.

OMNIMAX is like a cross between a planetarium and IMAX. In fact, the first OMNIMAX theater, and the one that coined the name was originally a planetarium. I've been fortunate to live near the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, and have enjoyed it's superb 5-story tall OMNIMAX dome, with truly panoramic 180-degree views. I don't expect that to come to the home any time soon, but do believe that IMAX films may be the ideal way to sell 4K initially.

As some people have rightly pointed out, many 35mm films weren't shot or edited with any care about suitability for transfer to post-HD video formats such as 4K. While a number of notable films have been restored to 4K standards, many more have been left unrestored, and transferred to video using the best technology of the time. Some movies will never be good showcases for post-HD formats because either they never were up to 4K standards, or because it's just not profitable to do the work needed to get them up to snuff.

So when it comes to easy fodder for the 4K film scanners, movies shot on 65 and 70mm stock, including IMAX films, sure do seem like a great fit. (I'm guessing that the old Sovscope 70 films, while plentiful, might not be favorites for many 4K owners.)
post #438 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xevious View Post

Which other message board? I somehow omitted in my post that when I said I use a 4k display at 2-2.5 feet that is on a 22 inch 4k monitor so way smaller than the 50 inch one they mention in the chart. Honestly that chart is so off for me its not even funny. I really hate it every time someone brings it up too. Saying you have to be 2.5 feet away from a 50 inch monitor to get a 4k benefit is *ridiculous* even if you have crappy vision IMHO.
I don't want to bring the business (or the bad manners) of another board here, so excuse me if I don't mention it here.

Although I haven't used any 4K monitors yet, I am accustomed to using smaller HD monitors close-up while I'm shooting in the field. They're great for their intended purpose, which is to be viewed close-up. No doubt the wealthy production crews tote around 100" screens to their locations, but I'm happy with a form factor that I don't need to hire a gang of grips to carry for me. smile.gif

I see that you're running KDE, good for you! It looks spectacular! It's living proof that you can never have too much resolution. I have a 40" HD set at home, and I regularly switch to it when I'm using my computer to edit video and do other things where the screen real estate is beneficial close-up. That's as large as I'd want to get.

Some people are so stuck to the idea that you must only watch theatrical films, from a certain distance, and no doubt only while seated. Etc., etc., etc. That's fine if that's how they want to live their lives, but I draw the line when they start telling me how not to live mine. I see lots of people watching HD content on tablets and phones, and hear about ever-increasing pixel density on these smaller devices. I personally would rather not watch an hour long TV show or feature film on a handheld device, but I see others doing it. Far be it from me to tell them they can't do that! I think it would be cool to one day have a 4K screen that I could carry in a backpack with my other gear.

Let the market decide!
post #439 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

Since I'm not a gamer, I have the unique perspective of the outsider looking in. And to me it often looks like gamers love specsmanship nearly as much as playing the games! (At least someone brags about stuff like that.) It's no doubt a safe bet that game console makers will continue to make increasingly capable products -- that's really the limit of my understanding.

Thanks for that insight! (I had to look up what SSAA meant...redface.gif)

Oh yeah, gamers definitely love specsmanship, especially PC gamers. But it's kind of a unique situation where you very much get what you pay for. Blu-rays will always be 1080p, and film buffs have to wait around for a new 4K format. PC gamers can run their games however they want, 4K, 8K, 3D, 120fps...whatever you're willing to pay for.

The only reason I've even been using 720p lately is because of HDMI restrictions, the maximum frame rate I can get in 3D over HDMI 1.4 is 1080p. Running 1440p, downscaled to 720p at 60fps/3D is almost pushing as many pixels as 4K/60fps...and that's on relatively inexpensive hardware (under $1K).
post #440 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

Yep, bring it on! Let us figure out how to exploit it! And don't worry, because we will!!!

Amen brother, amen.
post #441 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Blu-rays will always be 1080p, and film buffs have to wait around for a new 4K format.
Not for long. At the top end, Prima Cinema is offering the same MJPEG content that you get at movie theaters, for well-heeled viewers.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1493473/prima-cinema-at-cedia-2013

Other more affordable services are in the works, including services from Sony and Netflix.

Quote:
The only reason I've even been using 720p lately is because of HDMI restrictions...
Time for HDMI 2.0! biggrin.gif
post #442 of 451

Finally, someone who makes sense! Thanks for the tip.

 

bubblegumcasting

post #443 of 451
When i saw the Sony 4k demo. I noticed that there was a huge difference in quality between the demo content which greatly affected my opinion. The video of the Asian scenery was unimpressive and down right disappointing. It looked compressed or filmed with a poor quality 4k camera. However, some other content had a much more HD look, like the crisp look of 1080p HD vs. Netflix "HD". Makes me wonder what opinions here are based on viewing what content.
post #444 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friendly Fire View Post

[quote name="Speed Daemon" url="

When it comes to 4K, it's not about certain people not envisioning the need or utility of 4K, it's about the inevitability of 4K, and the certainty that people will come to appreciate it. Just as they did when HDTV came out. Just as they did when the Compact Disc came out for audio.

You get it. People saw no need for VCRs Beta or VHS, CDs, DVDs, cell phones, PCs -- I was too young, but I bet folks argued against color TV, cruise control, seat belts -- further back indoor toilets, electric lights -- they all had one thing in common -- THEY WERE WRONG.

4K, 8K, 16K -- bring it ON!![/quote]

What would be the point of 8K? Technology for the sake of technology?
post #445 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by durack View Post

You get it. People saw no need for VCRs Beta or VHS, CDs, DVDs, cell phones, PCs -- I was too young, but I bet folks argued against color TV, cruise control, seat belts -- further back indoor toilets, electric lights -- they all had one thing in common -- THEY WERE WRONG.
You are correct. All throughout history there have been Luddites and technophobes who have invented bizarre excuses to reject progress. Today in the US we have an entire political party that's devoted to tearing down the very fabric of society, claiming that would be some sort of victory! rolleyes.gif The fact of the matter is that progress in good will always improves the human condition, and that there's nothing at all romantic or desirable about lower standards.

I was a new driver when the seat belt issue came to head. I remember the shrill cries against change, and even phony claims that not wearing seat belts was safer, citing unverified, one-in-a-billion circumstances, usually whan someone was "thrown clear" of a crash. Today we know that the one best way to die in a car crash is to be ejected from the vehicle! Today I wouldn't dream of going onto a public road or race track without adequate safety systems.

I'm a little young for the introduction of color TV, but remember when UHF TV frequencies were relatively new, and TV sets had a separate UHF tuner. Back then, if you wanted to tune in UHF frequencies, you had to go to the back of the TV, switch the antenna from the VHF antenna terminals (which were just machine screws back then) to the UHF terminals, click the lower rotary dial to the UHF position, and then use a continuously variable tuning knob to sweep through the frequencies (like with an old shortwave radio), trying to find your channel, which was not clearly marked. When I remember that childhood ritual, I have to snicker when I remember that now the UHF frequencies are the highly sought after ones; that VHF is for losers in TV broadcasting!
Quote:
What would be the point of 8K? Technology for the sake of technology?
At one time, audio frequency response of 300Hz to 3kHz was considered to be all that we needed, despite the fact that human hearing extended far beyond those limits. But one day someone figured out that systems designed only to convey the human voice could also carry music, and that because music had a much broader frequency range, that it would be beneficial to extend audio frequency response. Today we take full range frequency response for granted, but it wasn't always that way; someone found a purpose.

8K is more resolution than lesser resolutions. If you can have 8K resolution for the same cost as lesser resolutions (which is inevitable), why would anyone choose less?

The day may come when television systems map out every last rod and cone in each and every retina, and for viewing, addresses every last one individually. If and when that day comes, then we can say that we have no need for more pixels...at least for viewing. But what about capture? The amount of source material there still remains unlimited. And while many in TV and movie production are more than happy to live and die by the old-fashioned glass lenses that have been around since the dawn of photography, there are people currently working on sensor and image processing technologies that will one day make traditional glass lenses unnecessary. There's a HUGE potential for advancement! And most of it will leverage "more pixels" to make it happen.

As a videographer, I eschew "digital zoom" because I know that it trades resolution for an illusion of more optical zoom than the camera has. But as a still photographer I'm quite comfortable with "blowing up" a still photo to edit out the parts that don't matter to me and make the parts that I do want the new picture. As such, I want more resolution on my still camera sensor--there will never be "enough" resolution in that respect! As a football fan, I've very much liked the kind of "digital zoom" that takes 4K video, and electronically crops and zooms with no loss of quality on the 720p TV channel I'm watching the game on. Having "more K" in the video source will only enhance this cool production technique!

If people can't find a use for greater functionality, they either aren't trying or aren't capable. I'm confident that, as technology progresses, that people with the skills and the will to exploit these technological advances to do completely new things that nobody ever dreamed of today, or that some dreamed of, but had to wait for the technology to come to make the dream come true.

Just because there are people who have no ambition or talent doesn't mean that the world should revolve around those people. I'm all for freedom of choice, but it's the very same freedom that allows people to be stuck in their ways that also enables greater thinkers to create greater realities and improve the world. I think there's plenty of room for improvement.
post #446 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

...
At one time, audio frequency response of 300Hz to 3kHz was considered to be all that we needed, despite the fact that human hearing extended far beyond those limits. But one day someone figured out that systems designed only to convey the human voice could also carry music, and that because music had a much broader frequency range, that it would be beneficial to extend audio frequency response. Today we take full range frequency response for granted, but it wasn't always that way; someone found a purpose.

8K is more resolution than lesser resolutions. If you can have 8K resolution for the same cost as lesser resolutions (which is inevitable), why would anyone choose less?

The day may come when television systems map out every last rod and cone in each and every retina, and for viewing, addresses every last one individually. If and when that day comes, then we can say that we have no need for more pixels...at least for viewing.
...

We have already gone beyond the video equivalent of 300Hz to 3kHz (the TV of yore that you speak of) and well into the 20Hz to 20kHz world. The day is here where a television can, in effect, map out every last rod and cone. While not literally true, it is human visual acuity that's important and 1080p viewed at 2 sw easily satisfies 20/20 acuity.

I'm not doing production work and not at all interested in "zoom" when watching movies. So, for me, it's a viewing distance issue. How close do you want to sit? At my 1sw front row, yeah... definitely I could see better resolution than the current 2k. I'm sure 4k would be a noticeable improvement. But beyond that it's like those tweeters that went to 40kHz. Who the heck cares? Nobody anymore, but it sure was the rage back in the 80's! I think 8k video is like 40kHz tweeters... just marketing fluff.
post #447 of 451
Screens are going to continue to get bigger and cheaper as time goes on. Bandwidth is still increasing exponentially. On most of our setups right now, 4K is anywhere from useless to a mild improvement.

5-10 years from now, when 4K is ubiquitous, and you pick up a 80 inch OLED or 4K projector for under $1000, you'll be glad they got the ball rolling in 2013.
post #448 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

We have already gone beyond the video equivalent of 300Hz to 3kHz (the TV of yore that you speak of) and well into the 20Hz to 20kHz world. The day is here where a television can, in effect, map out every last rod and cone. While not literally true, it is human visual acuity that's important and 1080p viewed at 2 sw easily satisfies 20/20 acuity.
And if our eyes were locked down to a fixed tripod, that would be the end of the story. However because we can move our eyes, heads and in fact our entire bodies around, it would be a ludicrous oversimplification to compare human sight to a $100 home security camera. It's mighty obvious that we humans do in fact have more capability.
Quote:
I'm not doing production work and not at all interested in "zoom" when watching movies.
Well...without production, there would be no product for you to watch. So I wouldn't be so quick to bite the hand that feeds us. You might not want to know how hot dogs are made, but the fact is that if you want to eat one, the technology that makes it possible needs to exist.
Quote:
So, for me, it's a viewing distance issue. How close do you want to sit? At my 1sw front row, yeah... definitely I could see better resolution than the current 2k. I'm sure 4k would be a noticeable improvement. But beyond that it's like those tweeters that went to 40kHz. Who the heck cares? Nobody anymore, but it sure was the rage back in the 80's! I think 8k video is like 40kHz tweeters... just marketing fluff.
Right! You don't have to live and die by some chart! It's a free country, and you're free to use a product as you wish. Purists be damned.

Before I suffered some head trauma and partial hearing loss (and also grew old), I was able to hear audio frequencies that are considered "ultrasonic". I'm also old enough to remember the dawn of the "infra bass" craze in movies, IIRC starting with the movie "Earthquake". I notice that although subsonic special effects in movie theaters proved to be more trouble than they were worth, that there's still a burgeoning market for vibrating chairs and similar devices that are targeted at gamers and home theater use.

Nevertheless, there's no practical point to trying to make such fine-grained comparisons between audio and video; they use different senses.

As I've said before, I'm confident that some people will find ways to exploit the benefits of higher resolutions, and I can see plenty of ways it can be done. I don't know if the wall-to-wall immersive TV experience that Ray Bradbury described in "Fahrenheit 451" will catch on, but if it does, it will take lots of those Ks to make it look good.
post #449 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

...
it would be a ludicrous oversimplification to compare human sight to a $100 home security camera.
...
Yes! I so agree. But it's not resolution that needs help, especially over a $100 security camera that can provide 1080p. Once we get to a "certain" resolution (obviously a subject of debate. I think 4k), other things become much more important to me like a really nice gamma curve with good shadow detail and an expanded color gamut all through the production process. You know, Coca-Cola won't advertise in REC-709 media because their red isn't available! Not that I need Coke ads... but it makes a point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

Well...without production, there would be no product for you to watch. So I wouldn't be so quick to bite the hand that feeds us. You might not want to know how hot dogs are made, but the fact is that if you want to eat one, the technology that makes it possible needs to exist.

Yes! Production should have what it wants/needs. I just have no use for "zoom" in my post-production home theater environment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

Right! You don't have to live and die by some chart! It's a free country, and you're free to use a product as you wish. Purists be damned.

Before I suffered some head trauma and partial hearing loss (and also grew old), I was able to hear audio frequencies that are considered "ultrasonic". I'm also old enough to remember the dawn of the "infra bass" craze in movies, IIRC starting with the movie "Earthquake". I notice that although subsonic special effects in movie theaters proved to be more trouble than they were worth, that there's still a burgeoning market for vibrating chairs and similar devices that are targeted at gamers and home theater use.
I have a 8 woofer IB sub with 4kW of power to just the sub. Butt-shakers?? We don't need no stinking butt-shakers! smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

Nevertheless, there's no practical point to trying to make such fine-grained comparisons between audio and video; they use different senses.

As I've said before, I'm confident that some people will find ways to exploit the benefits of higher resolutions, and I can see plenty of ways it can be done. I don't know if the wall-to-wall immersive TV experience that Ray Bradbury described in "Fahrenheit 451" will catch on, but if it does, it will take lots of those Ks to make it look good.

Yes, that is quite true. I was limiting my comments to current 16:9 and 2.35 theater formats. Ray Bradbury's idea would be a spectacular experience and would, indeed, need all those k's and probably more. There's a similar room in DisneyLand that will make you fall over! They have grab-bars. "What the heck are these for?" I asked myself. When the plane they filmed from banked, I found out! smile.gif
post #450 of 451
I think I am the furthest one can be from a Luddite and my attitude is usually "out with the old, in with the new".

I have a two monitor setup - one is 1080p (for gaming) and 1440p (for work) and there certainly is a difference between the two.However, what bugs me about 4K is the fact that it is marketing driven, it will be mostly a meaningless buzzword for years (except in computer world) and it may take away resources from other projects.
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?