With 8K TVs, More Pixels Make a Better Picture - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 199Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 172 Old 05-10-2019, 08:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Defcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,902
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1535 Post(s)
Liked: 858
I just asked about upscaling on 4K tv's and was told that anything less than 1080p content wouldn't look good because 'there are too many pixels to add'. Well with 8k that number goes up another ~5x. But this article is saying that its actually better? So why doesn't this apply to upscaling SD content to 4K? Tv's have enough cpu power now, they can do frame by frame dynamic analysis already.
Defcon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 172 Old 05-10-2019, 09:13 PM
DrA
Senior Member
 
DrA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 498
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Can I please have a cheaper 98 inch 4K TV so I don't buy another projector?
ARROW-AV and AYNIL like this.

Improvise, adapt to the environment, Darwin, **** happens, I Ching.
DrA is offline  
post #63 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 02:27 AM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 15,368
Mentioned: 420 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8749 Post(s)
Liked: 15277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defcon View Post
I just asked about upscaling on 4K tv's and was told that anything less than 1080p content wouldn't look good because 'there are too many pixels to add'. Well with 8k that number goes up another ~5x. But this article is saying that its actually better? So why doesn't this apply to upscaling SD content to 4K? Tv's have enough cpu power now, they can do frame by frame dynamic analysis already.
There's more benefit to upscaling content that already contains a fair bit of info, so upscaling HD or 4K to an 8K display is going to work "better" than SD upscaling. It's reasonable to say that with SD video, there's only so much you can do and you don't need an 8K TV to do it.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum
imagic is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #64 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 02:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Brian Hampton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 8,913
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1290 Post(s)
Liked: 755
What if there's a shot of stairs off in the distance... it will smooth that into a slide ?

I have reality creation turned off for the moment with my Sony projector. It does do some amazing trickery with the image but sometimes I like to see what's really there in the content instead of something smoothed over and artificially sharpened. I have more confidence in less processing.
Brian Hampton is offline  
post #65 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 03:23 AM
We're Nuts About AV
 
ARROW-AV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 4,165
Mentioned: 228 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3831 Post(s)
Liked: 6254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Stittle View Post
Hm, right. But wouldn't that only be the case if the downsampler was using an average to get the final grey output? What if the downsampler did something different instead of taking the average of the nearest pixels? I haven't checked to see what kind of edges cases there are with different algorithms but I am a bit hung up on the fact that the chart is basically stating that the way we perceive light sources is identical at a given distances. The pixels essentially become individual light sources, which combine to become bigger light sources and so on... and no matter what those light sources are, the lumens and wavelengths hitting our eye will be perceived the same way.
We are discussing the perception of resolution here, not luminance or color. So you are comparing apples vs oranges

However, you are indeed correct that as far as luminance and color are concerned, unlike resolution, the perception of these is the same irrespective of viewing distance, if/when viewed directly on axis, but not necessarily off axis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Stittle View Post
My skepticism originally comes from everyone saying 60fps is as much as you can discern. Then 90, then 120, then 144... etc. It's easy enough to show that that's hogwash by just witnessing anything in high fps. There is an immediate difference and although individual frames may not be perceivable, the overall difference is noticeable.
We are are discussing the perception of resolution here, and resolution alone, not frame-rate. Again you are comparing apples vs oranges.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Stittle View Post
And does anyone know the purpose of that chart any how? Some kind of "wake up sheeple!" situation or is there a scientific use for it?
There are numerous such charts that have been produced over the years. I did not simply pull my chart out of thin air, it is simply an extension of many pre-existing ones that have previously been created scientifically for use in the professional and commercial video industries.

Furthermore, this information is also what is taught by the likes of the THX, the Professional Video Alliance (PVA), and the Imaging Science Foundation (ISF), who drive industry guidelines and train professional video calibrators worldwide.

Muza, mike_carton and TomcatTLC like this.

Last edited by ARROW-AV; 05-11-2019 at 03:30 AM.
ARROW-AV is offline  
post #66 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 03:28 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 86
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 20
With an 8k panel the tv has to do even more upscaling so thats why they had to improve the upscaling in the 8k panels or else they would be much worse than a 4k panel with below 1080p content.
glassbil is offline  
post #67 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 03:46 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
gorman42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,299
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 494 Post(s)
Liked: 345
Regarding the staircase effect in diagonal lines, I think reading this might be instructive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernier_acuity


All charts that are bandied about use a different method to calculate visual acuity. But it's not the only valid scientific method.


Having said that, I'm not buying this for a different reason: the run to 8K is, once more, making parameters more relevant to overall image quality take a backseat. Uniformity, motion resolution, color reproduction... yeah, let's stop for some years to talk about those and concentrate once more on resolution. Resolution has been the easiest parameter to improve for the past 20 years or so. And here we go again...

Seriously. AVS is a place where you go to learn to be unhappy. - Bear5k
Video Pioneer PDP-LX6090 (calibrated)
Audio Yamaha RX-A3010, Dynaudio Audience 72 (FL, FR), Dynaudio Audience 42C (C), Dynaudio 42W (SR, SL), Chario Piccolo Star Satellite (Presence Height), SVS PB-1000 (SW)
Sources HTPC, Xbox One S, Squeezebox
gorman42 is offline  
post #68 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 05:20 AM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 15,368
Mentioned: 420 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8749 Post(s)
Liked: 15277
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARROW-AV View Post
We are discussing the perception of resolution here, not luminance or color. So you are comparing apples vs oranges

However, you are indeed correct that as far as luminance and color are concerned, unlike resolution, the perception of these is the same irrespective of viewing distance, if/when viewed directly on axis, but not necessarily off axis


We are are discussing the perception of resolution here, and resolution alone, not frame-rate. Again you are comparing apples vs oranges.


There are numerous such charts that have been produced over the years. I did not simply pull my chart out of thin air, it is simply an extension of many pre-existing ones that have previously been created scientifically for use in the professional and commercial video industries.

Furthermore, this information is also what is taught by the likes of the THX, the Professional Video Alliance (PVA), and the Imaging Science Foundation (ISF), who drive industry guidelines and train professional video calibrators worldwide.

Have you even bothered reading my posts? Or are you all about arguing with an appeal to authority while ignoring a practical example that contradicts your point?

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum

Last edited by imagic; 05-11-2019 at 05:31 AM.
imagic is online now  
post #69 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 05:23 AM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 15,368
Mentioned: 420 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8749 Post(s)
Liked: 15277
Quote:
Originally Posted by gorman42 View Post
Regarding the staircase effect in diagonal lines, I think reading this might be instructive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernier_acuity


All charts that are bandied about use a different method to calculate visual acuity. But it's not the only valid scientific method.


Having said that, I'm not buying this for a different reason: the run to 8K is, once more, making parameters more relevant to overall image quality take a backseat. Uniformity, motion resolution, color reproduction... yeah, let's stop for some years to talk about those and concentrate once more on resolution. Resolution has been the easiest parameter to improve for the past 20 years or so. And here we go again...
I agree 100%...Hyperacuity... that's it right there in wikipedia, a real phenomenon. It's real, obvious, objectively testable and provable. Thank you for the link.

TVs are improving in all those categories and advanced processing has its hand in some of those as well (motion, color processing) and uniformity has been a focus as well. Plus anti-reflective and viewing angles. It's unfair to imply that resolution bumps are some easy way out, since 4K came out we've seen HDR emerge, as an example.
gorman42 likes this.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum

Last edited by imagic; 05-11-2019 at 08:56 AM.
imagic is online now  
post #70 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 05:26 AM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 15,368
Mentioned: 420 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8749 Post(s)
Liked: 15277
Quote:
Originally Posted by glassbil View Post
With an 8k panel the tv has to do even more upscaling so thats why they had to improve the upscaling in the 8k panels or else they would be much worse than a 4k panel with below 1080p content.
The challenge here is with screen size and viewing distance. 8K TVs are big, so more processing is needed to make SD look passable. You won't recover detail like you would upscaling HD or 4K to 8K, best you can do is clean things up so noise is not magnified excessively, things like that. There's only so much you can do to make SD look good, but when you have a very powerful processor, at least you can throw every trick in the book at it to clean it up.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum

Last edited by imagic; 05-11-2019 at 05:45 AM.
imagic is online now  
post #71 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 05:55 AM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 93
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 43
First of all, to get all angry and defensive about 8K being pointless is moot, whether you like it or not, every TV sold in a few years will be 8K. In fact, we had these same heated arguments over 4K and before that, over TV sizes over 65".

I was skeptical of 8K being worth getting soon, but it seems Japan is pushing it hard and with Sony PS, the Olympics and certain movie companies (Japan based) acting now- https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc.../#75a675926c4b

Because China is now making high quality, top end gear, 8K may well be now for many. And yes, having viewed limited 8K content on some of the latest screens, especially photographs, it is nice even on a 65" screen if you sit within 13 feet. I will go as far as say, with cheap 5G streaming and cheap 8K TVs/16+K cameras, we should just abandon 4K as even on the gaming end, the RX 2080 video card is almost ready for 8K as well. 8K is when we can start seeing glasses free 3D and even just a natural 3D effect due to image density.

The final specs for a multi year keeper are soon coming- 3,000 nits, 8K, HDMI 2.1, and all known needed and wanted options for PS5 and the new Xbox.
sk373 likes this.
Grimbor is offline  
post #72 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 06:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
gorman42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,299
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 494 Post(s)
Liked: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Hyperacuity... that's it right there. It's real, obvious, objectively testable and provable.

TVs are improving in all those categories and advanced processing has its hand in some of those as well (motion, color processing) and uniformity has been a focus as well. Plus anti-reflective and viewing angles. It's unfair to imply that resolution bumps are some easy way out, since 4K came out we've seen HDR emerge, as an example.
Man... I was the one throwing you a lifeline against people telling you you were wrong in noticing a difference with the link you are now reposting... like, in the very same post you are quoting.


As I'm not interested in LCD technology and I care for dark room performance, many of the things you list are of no particular interest to me. Clearly, I am *not* the market. But as far as my interest is concerned... well, I hope to be allowed to be a little bit egoistic.
For me, motion and uniformity are areas where OLED could bring improvement far more interesting (to me) than what 8K could.
But, again, regarding hyperacuity... I was the one pointing it out to you.

It wasn't by mistake that I wrote "making parameters more relevant to overall image quality take a backseat". I didn't say 8K is completely irrelevant, I actually brought proof to the discussion that that is not the case. Can we be friends?
imagic likes this.

Seriously. AVS is a place where you go to learn to be unhappy. - Bear5k
Video Pioneer PDP-LX6090 (calibrated)
Audio Yamaha RX-A3010, Dynaudio Audience 72 (FL, FR), Dynaudio Audience 42C (C), Dynaudio 42W (SR, SL), Chario Piccolo Star Satellite (Presence Height), SVS PB-1000 (SW)
Sources HTPC, Xbox One S, Squeezebox
gorman42 is offline  
post #73 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 06:20 AM
Senior Member
 
Friendly Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimbor View Post
First of all, to get all angry and defensive about 8K being pointless is moot, whether you like it or not, every TV sold in a few years will be 8K. In fact, we had these same heated arguments over 4K and before that, over TV sizes over 65".
Amen. Every new standard gets the same treatment. By the time 8K is ubiquitous the same arguments will be raging about 16K, 32K -- whatever. I remember people raging about HD. Does anyone remember, was there push back against color TV? Probably.

This trend allows great economies of effort -- take a post, scratch out 1080p let's say for example, type in 4K, 16K, HDR or whatever, then post that baby. Shazam -- point made !!

I am glad 8K is getting so much traction. My issue is that I am in need of a projector upgrade, an early 1080p that has served well and deserves retirement. Native 4K projectors have been glacial getting here, now 8K is glimmering over the horizon. Oh well.
Friendly Fire is offline  
post #74 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 06:31 AM
Senior Member
 
Ballis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 71
8K is a gamechanger!
-This post is sponsored by Samsung-
mike_carton likes this.

Last edited by Ballis; 05-11-2019 at 06:52 AM.
Ballis is offline  
post #75 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 08:01 AM
We're Nuts About AV
 
ARROW-AV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 4,165
Mentioned: 228 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3831 Post(s)
Liked: 6254
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARROW-AV View Post
Absolutely correct. 'Extra pixels' don't matter beyond the respective HVP threshold viewing distance

A native 4K single pixel checkerboard test pattern will be perceived as a solid grey screen and identical as compared with if it were displayed downscaled to HD 1080p resolution once you are viewing it beyond the respective HVP threshold viewing distance.

In other words you won't be able to perceive any difference

Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Hey, you think I'm writing nonsense? I can verify my observations and indeed can replicate them on the TV I'm using to type this.

I have a computer, it's got Photoshop, feeding 4K to a 4K TV.

So, right now, in my own home, as I type this, I can tell you in no uncertain terms, that I have to get about 30+ feet away from the 75 inch TV that I'm using to see no stairstep whatsoever—just a smooth (slightly) diagonal line. That's with sharpening off (as it should be) It's a question of seeing one single pixel, or not. I can see that stair-step transition from quite a distance.

Yes, at such distance, a single-pixel checkerboard looks grey. Not arguing that. Indeed, the checkerboard looks grey a lot closer than 30 feet, in 4K.

Interestingly, with 4K anti-aliasing can't "fix" it, the line looks like it's getting fatter and skinnier, even from 30+ feet. So either stair-steps, or fat/skinny. With 8K the anti-aliasing would be more effective and the diagonal line would look much smoother, but still sharp, from a much closer distance.

Another interesting thing is from how far away you can see a one pixel wide, screen-width black line on a white background in 4K You can see it from very, very far away. It does not disappear and become white. I had to exit my house and cross the street before it disappeared. Eyes are capable of discerning that line despite it being much thinner than what you should be able to "see."

I'm looking for the maximum distance at which I can see, make out, however you want to define it, the difference a single pixel can make. Exactly as described in the article itself.

There is no chart in the world that's gonna replace the fact that I can replicate these effects right now, as I type this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Have you even bothered reading my posts? Or are you all about arguing with an appeal to authority while ignoring a practical example that contradicts your point?
Firstly, because I am going to reference it I am going to quote this except from your article here:

"As an experiment, I put a 4K and an 8K TV side-by-side (82″ TVs) in a large room and walked backward until I could no longer see stair-steps in the lines. For the 8K TV, an 82″ Samsung Q900F, the line became smooth at about a 15-foot viewing distance. But the 4K TV (also an 82″ Samsung) required that I step back to somewhere around 40-50 feet away before the lines became smooth—I was very surprised that I had to triple the distance, I thought it would happen at double the distance. This is one provable, observable reason upscaling to 8K can yield a visible benefit"

Secondly, there are multiple different conversations going on in this thread.

The conversation which I have been having is with respect to the perception of image resolution specifically.

What you are talking about is use of algorithms to upscale 4K content to 8K to improve the performance of video artefacts, such as aliasing artefacts. This will not magically enable anyone to fully distinguish between and perceive all of the additional detail that might be present within the 8K image as compared with the 4K image if the viewing distance and screen size combination falls beyond the limits of HVP. In other words, video artefacts aside, you won't be able to perceive any difference in overall resolution or fine detail in general. Sorry!

Your discussion about the possiblity of making use of 8K resolution to improve the performance of video artefacts that might be associated with 4K images which are being perceived as (or below) 4K resolution (which will be the case unless the screen size is larger enough and the viewing distance close enough in order for the combination to be within the perception limits of HVP) is very interesting though

However, your experiment is unfortunately fundamentally flawed in more ways than one.

You have included only one set of data points from one set of samples, being one singular 4K TV and one singular 8K TV. You therefore cannot factor out of the equation the influences of interunit variance. Furthermore, the TVs are not 100% identical in every way aside from the resolution. They have differing hardware, software, firmware, and image processing etc. etc. hence you are merely evaluating what are the comparative performances of these particular units of these particular makes and models of TVs.

Therefore, for hopefully obvious reasons, you cannot generalize that your subjective observations are applicable to ALL 4K and 8K TVs.

Additionally, you have used Photoshop for video processing anti-aliasing, meaning that what you are really testing here is how good or bad is Photoshop's anti-aliasing video processing... which isn't brilliant. Try repeating your experiment using MadVR instead, configured using its optimum settings for best anti-aliasing performance, and you will find yourself experiencing a better outcome as compared with using Photoshop

If you are able to perceive a video artefact at a distance wherein the HVP limit is 4K resolution then the video artefact has a resolution of 4K resolution (or less), meaning that if the upscaling to 8K reduces the severity of the video artefact this calls into question how good is the performance of the video processing and the display itself. However, you dress it up, you cannot perceive 8K resolution beyond the HVP limit for perceiving 8K resolution. So if you are perceiving it, and the screen size and view distance combination are beyond the HVP limit for perceiving 8K resolution, then the specific thing you are perceiving is not 8K resolution. Wherein, bear in mind that aliasing artefacts are not single pixel resolution but comprise multiple pixels so are in fact lower than the display's native resolution

Also, consider this for a moment, 'MANUFACTURER A' wants to successfully market 8K resolution TVs at a premium over and above its new model 4K TVs. Are you therefore really surprised that you can see differences in performance between the two in this regard? Incidentally, when the very first prototype 8K TVs were demoed versus 4K TVs nobody who was present when I viewed them could tell any difference between them. However, at the next trade show some months later, you could. But the reason was because the video content that was being fed to the 8K TV had edge-enhancement, with black lines around people and objects, to make them stand out more and make the 8K TV look 'sharper' than the 4K TV. Seriously

Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Another interesting thing is from how far away you can see a one pixel wide, screen-width black line on a white background in 4K You can see it from very, very far away. It does not disappear and become white. I had to exit my house and cross the street before it disappeared.
So what?

With respect, you are looking for the wrong thing here. The correct tests in this instance would be to display the native 4K single pixel width black line on a white background on two displays that are identical in every way aside from one being 4K resolution and the other being 8K resolution, with the 8K TV upscaling the 4K image to 8K, and then see at what distance you cannot tell the difference between the two. Wherein, it would also be interesting to use a native 8K single pixel width black line against a white background and feed this natively to the 8K TV and downscale it to 4K and feed this to the 4K TV, then again, see at what distance you cannot tell the difference between the two. This is how you would need to go about properly evalating this.


Last edited by ARROW-AV; 05-11-2019 at 08:46 AM.
ARROW-AV is offline  
post #76 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 08:12 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 7,869
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3555 Post(s)
Liked: 2740
The hyperacuity factor trumping basic old vision charts has been discussed in the Projectors section for years going back to 720p vs. 1080p. Like it or not 8k will become the defacto TV standard over the next few years just as 4k took over from 1080p over the past few years.

It should be understood by all that there are diminishing returns to quadrupling pixel density every few years. The best thing about 8k TVs with more sophisticated AI is that for most it won't require upgrading media as most won't see a difference between native 8k media and 4k media upscaled to 8k. Upscaled 4k content may even be all most need for 16k TVs and beyond.

As for other areas of image quality beyond pixel density I don't think there's any debate there. If anyone here doesn't think we're reaching the point where other image improvements should be taking more priority over increasing pixel density speak now or forever hold your peace. From the responses here it's already obvious that market resistance is growing over focusing development on increasing pixel density at the expense of other areas of image performance.

So far it seems that @imagic is the only person in this discussion who has actually performed the test and seen the results with his own eyes. Given that his 20/20 and 20/15 vision is slightly above average he's likely to see more fine detail than most. So I remain open-minded about how much improvement I'd see with my slightly below average vision. Healthy skepticism is never a bad thing. But unless anyone is accusing @imagic of fibbing, his description of what he saw with his own eyes should not be summarily dismissed.
sk373 likes this.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #77 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 08:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Brian Hampton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 8,913
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1290 Post(s)
Liked: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRAC View Post
Sorry...but this whole 8K AI upscaling nonsense makes me laugh.

Reminds me of the old saying...”you can’t polish a turd”.
That's an outdated notion. I'm watching the Emoji movie 4K Dolby Vision and Atmos.

Proof... you can polish a turd and it works too.
BRAC likes this.
Brian Hampton is offline  
post #78 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 08:41 AM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 15,368
Mentioned: 420 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8749 Post(s)
Liked: 15277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ballis View Post
8K is a gamechanger!
-This post is sponsored by Samsung-
How about LG, Sony and TCL who are all planning to ship 8K TVs? And JVC with its 8K e-shift?
sk373, ARROW-AV and Grimbor like this.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum
imagic is online now  
post #79 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 08:43 AM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 15,368
Mentioned: 420 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8749 Post(s)
Liked: 15277
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARROW-AV View Post
Firstly, because I am going to reference it I am going to quote this except from your article here:

"As an experiment, I put a 4K and an 8K TV side-by-side (82″ TVs) in a large room and walked backward until I could no longer see stair-steps in the lines. For the 8K TV, an 82″ Samsung Q900F, the line became smooth at about a 15-foot viewing distance. But the 4K TV (also an 82″ Samsung) required that I step back to somewhere around 40-50 feet away before the lines became smooth—I was very surprised that I had to triple the distance, I thought it would happen at double the distance. This is one provable, observable reason upscaling to 8K can yield a visible benefit"

Secondly, there are multiple different conversations going on in this thread.

The conversation which I have been having is with respect to the perception of image resolution specifically.

What you are talking about is use of algorithms to upscale 4K content to 8K to improve the performance of video artefacts, such as aliasing artefacts. This will not magically enable anyone to fully distinguish between and perceive all of the additional detail that might be present within the 8K image as compared with the 4K image if the viewing distance and screen size combination falls beyond the limits of HVP. In other words, video artefacts aside, you won't be able to perceive any difference in overall resolution or fine detail in general. Sorry!

Your discussion about the possiblity of making use of 8K resolution to improve the performance of video artefacts that might be associated with 4K images which are being perceived as (or below) 4K resolution (which will be the case unless the screen size is larger enough and the viewing distance close enough in order for the combination to be within the perception limits of HVP) is very interesting though

Hwoever, your experiment is unfortunately fundamentally flawed in more ways than one.

You have included only one set of data points from one set of samples, being one singular 4K TV and one singular 8K TV. You therefore cannot factor out of the equation the influences of interunit variance. Furthermore, the TVs are not 100% identical in every way aside from the resolution. They have differing hardware, software, firmware, and image processing etc. etc. hence you are merely evaluating what are the comparative performances of these particular units of these particular makes and models of TVs.

Therefore, for hopefully obvious reasons, you cannot generalize that your subjective observations are applicable to ALL 4K and 8K TVs.

Additionally, you have used Photoshop for video processing anti-aliasing, meaning that what you are really testing here is how good or bad is Photoshop's anti-aliasing video processing... which isn't brilliant. Try repeating your experiment using MadVR instead, configured using its optimum settings for best anti-aliasing performance, and you will find yourself experiencing a better outcome as compared with using Photoshop

If you are able to perceive a video artefact at a distance wherein the HVP limit is 4K resolution then the video artefact has a resolution of 4K resolution (or less), meaning that if the upscaling to 8K reduces the severity of the video artefact this calls into question how good is the performance of the video processing and the display itself. However, you dress it up, you cannot perceive 8K resolution beyond the HVP limit for perceiving 8K resolution. So if you are perceiving it, and the screen size and view distance combination are beyond the HVP limit for perceiving 8K resolution, then the specific thing you are perceiving is not 8K resolution. Wherein, bear in mind that aliasing artefacts are not single pixel resolution but comprise multiple pixels so are in fact lower than the display's native resolution

Also, consider this for a moment, 'MANUFACTURER A' wants to successfully market 8K resolution TVs at a premium over and above its new model 4K TVs. Are you therefore really surprised that you can see differences in performance between the two in this regard? Incidentally, when the very first prototype 8K TVs were demoed versus 4K TVs nobody who was present when I viewed them could tell any difference between them. However, at the next trade show some months later, you could. But the reason was because the video content that was being fed to the 8K TV had edge-enhancement, with black lines around people and objects, to make them stand out more and make the 8K TV look 'sharper' than the 4K TV. Seriously


So what?

With respect, you are looking for the wrong thing here. The correct tests in this instance would be to display the native 4K single pixel width black line on a white background on two displays that are identical in every way aside from one being 4K resolution and the other being 8K resolution, with the 8K TV upscaling the 4K image to 8K, and then see at what distance you cannot tell the difference between the two. Wherein, it would also be interesting to use a native 8K single pixel width black line against a white background and feed this natively to the 8K TV and downscale it to 4K and feed this to the 4K TV, then again, see at what distance you cannot tell the difference between the two. This is how you should go about properly evalating this.

TL;DR, especially on a Saturday.


Cheers.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum
imagic is online now  
post #80 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 08:49 AM
We're Nuts About AV
 
ARROW-AV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 4,165
Mentioned: 228 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3831 Post(s)
Liked: 6254
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
TL;DR, especially on a Saturday.


Cheers.
Well my post is nothing like as long as your article; and I took the time to read all of that, plus all of your various posts


Last edited by ARROW-AV; 05-11-2019 at 03:20 PM.
ARROW-AV is offline  
post #81 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 08:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BRAC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 1,840
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 562 Post(s)
Liked: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
The hyperacuity factor trumping basic old vision charts has been discussed in the Projectors section for years going back to 720p vs. 1080p. Like it or not 8k will become the defacto TV standard over the next few years just as 4k took over from 1080p over the past few years.

It should be understood by all that there are diminishing returns to quadrupling pixel density every few years. The best thing about 8k TVs with more sophisticated AI is that for most it won't require upgrading media as most won't see a difference between native 8k media and 4k media upscaled to 8k. Upscaled 4k content may even be all most need for 16k TVs and beyond.

As for other areas of image quality beyond pixel density I don't think there's any debate there. If anyone here doesn't think we're reaching the point where other image improvements should be taking more priority over increasing pixel density speak now or forever hold your peace. From the responses here it's already obvious that market resistance is growing over focusing development on increasing pixel density at the expense of other areas of image performance.

So far it seems that @imagic is the only person in this discussion who has actually performed the test and seen the results with his own eyes. Given that his 20/20 and 20/15 vision is slightly above average he's likely to see more fine detail than most. So I remain open-minded about how much improvement I'd see with my slightly below average vision. Healthy skepticism is never a bad thing. But unless anyone is accusing @imagic of fibbing, his description of what he saw with his own eyes should not be summarily dismissed.
Yep...and standing across the road at that.
mike_carton likes this.

Samsung 82” Q90R * Denon X4500H * 5.2.4 Atmos * Xbox One X * PS4 Pro
BRAC is online now  
post #82 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 08:55 AM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 15,368
Mentioned: 420 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8749 Post(s)
Liked: 15277
Quote:
Originally Posted by gorman42 View Post
Man... I was the one throwing you a lifeline against people telling you you were wrong in noticing a difference with the link you are now reposting... like, in the very same post you are quoting.


As I'm not interested in LCD technology and I care for dark room performance, many of the things you list are of no particular interest to me. Clearly, I am *not* the market. But as far as my interest is concerned... well, I hope to be allowed to be a little bit egoistic.
For me, motion and uniformity are areas where OLED could bring improvement far more interesting (to me) than what 8K could.
But, again, regarding hyperacuity... I was the one pointing it out to you.

It wasn't by mistake that I wrote "making parameters more relevant to overall image quality take a backseat". I didn't say 8K is completely irrelevant, I actually brought proof to the discussion that that is not the case. Can we be friends?
You did!

I'm cool, I did not parse your post appropriately. Agree with all points here.

In particular, I was trying to agree with you on hyperacuity being what I'm talking about. Will edit to make that clear.
gorman42 likes this.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum

Last edited by imagic; 05-11-2019 at 09:01 AM.
imagic is online now  
post #83 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 09:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
brazen1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 884
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 570 Post(s)
Liked: 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Hey, you think I'm writing nonsense? I can verify my observations and indeed can replicate them on the TV I'm using to type this.

I have a computer, it's got Photoshop, feeding 4K to a 4K TV.

So, right now, in my own home, as I type this, I can tell you in no uncertain terms, that I have to get about 30+ feet away from the 75 inch TV that I'm using to see no stairstep whatsoever—just a smooth (slightly) diagonal line. That's with sharpening off (as it should be) It's a question of seeing one single pixel, or not. I can see that stair-step transition from quite a distance.

Yes, at such distance, a single-pixel checkerboard looks grey. Not arguing that. Indeed, the checkerboard looks grey a lot closer than 30 feet, in 4K.

Interestingly, with 4K anti-aliasing can't "fix" it, the line looks like it's getting fatter and skinnier, even from 30+ feet. So either stair-steps, or fat/skinny. With 8K the anti-aliasing would be more effective and the diagonal line would look much smoother, but still sharp, from a much closer distance.

Another interesting thing is from how far away you can see a one pixel wide, screen-width black line on a white background in 4K You can see it from very, very far away. It does not disappear and become white. I had to exit my house and cross the street before it disappeared. Eyes are capable of discerning that line despite it being much thinner than what you should be able to "see."

I'm looking for the maximum distance at which I can see, make out, however you want to define it, the difference a single pixel can make. Exactly as described in the article itself.

There is no chart in the world that's gonna replace the fact that I can replicate these effects right now, as I type this.
I have a 65" UHD panel. I double duty it as a PC monitor too, seated 3' from it. I'm reading this ^ post focusing on the letters e in bold. My native desktop resolution is 2160p. The stair stepping is easy to notice. It blends in and disappears at about 12' but not before. Reading text is one thing. Watching a high bitrate UHD title is another.

Having accepted this in the past with 720p and 1080p panels, 2160p has been a welcomed embrace. Each resolution upgrade makes the stair stepping less and less. I highly anticipate 8k will eliminate obvious stair stepping even when using a larger screen with larger pixels. This means I will not be required to sit back further to avoid stair stepping and be able to enjoy the bigger immersion.

When I had an HD panel, I used madVR to process video as good as it could be on that 1080p panel. It was a great improvement for REC 709. When I upgraded to 4k, the picture was superior even without applying madVR. HD upscaled to UHD without madVR simply looks better than madVR applied to 1080p native resolution displays. Same with 540p and 720p. Naturally I have been using madVR with 2160p achieving even better results than without.

That said, I anticipate 8k to follow the pattern and provide a better picture than we've ever known. I've seen the same ridiculous propaganda charts and cartoons about seating distances and capabilities of the human eyes claiming resolution upgrades are not worth it since 1080p was introduced. Well, my eyes tell me different. Looking forward to HDMI 2.1 benefits coming with 8k. Now if they'd just reintroduce 3D I'd be an early adopter and wait for titles to follow.
imagic likes this.

HOW TO - Kodi 2D - 3D - UHD (4k) HDR Guide Internal & External Players
W10 1903 / MPC-BE\HC / PotPlayer / PowerDVD 19 / DVDFab Player 3 / KODI 19 videoplayer
GTX960 4GB / RGB Full 4:4:4 / 8bit Desktop mode =60Hz / 10/12bit Video mode = Matched Refresh rates IE 23,24,25,60Hz
65JS8500 UHD HDR 3D / Denon S720W
brazen1 is offline  
post #84 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 09:32 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 30
I have the new Samsung 8k set I like it a lot. I will say on a good signal the set is better then a 4k set in the details I can clearly see it.

On a bad signal the set is just as bad as any other 4k set. I do believe as more of you guys get 8k sets you will grow to love them and not want to go back to 4k sets.

I also have seen You Tube 8k videos and wow are they nice it really looks like looking out of a window at times.

The up scaling on the Q950 sets are constantly improving with the Samsung learning computer gathering data from all of us, so hopefully it will get even better.


Do you need 8k right now ....No....But we are the elite on this forum (were Nutz Lol) so we drive what will be...If you can afford it and are in the market get one, once you live with it for a bit you won't go back to 4k.


Anthony
Expono#1 is offline  
post #85 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 10:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 7,869
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3555 Post(s)
Liked: 2740
It's certainly fair to point out that this comparison test was not conducted using best scientific practices and represents just a single casual observational data point. This is just the beginning of what will become a long-running discussion on the pros and cons of 8k with advanced upscaling. Ultimately most will make their final judgments based on what their own eyes tell them and not on the opinions of others or what any theory proposes.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #86 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 10:33 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ricoflashback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 3,298
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1765 Post(s)
Liked: 1244
***If 8K is coming out AND the manufacturers decide, en masse, to built these sets - - then that's what will happen. Will it be like 1080p sets which are now becoming extinct due to 4K sets? And will the cost to manufacture an 8K set versus a 4K set be close enough to render 4K TV's extinct in the next couple of years? Time will tell.

As I've said before - - the technology has become much more advanced than the content we receive - - especially if you have cable or satellite. We have cars that can do 180 mph and we're stuck in the 60 mph lane - content wise. You can't polish a turd.

To me, a much more important question is whether we can get content (no matter how it's done - algorithm's or some other new technology) that can closer match the capability of today's TV sets & technology.
mike_carton likes this.

Home Theater Setup
SONY 75X900F & 49X900E, BenQ W1080ST, Denon X5200 & Emotiva XPA-3
AudioSource 100VS, OPPO 103 & Samsung K8500, 9.1.4 Setup - Speakers - Studio 60's,
V.2 (FL/FR), CC-690 (C), V.5, ADP 590 V.5 (SS), MilleniaOne 2.0 (BS) - Velodyne 810 Sub,
Cornered Audio (FH/RH), Definitive Technology (Front Wides)
Ricoflashback is online now  
post #87 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 10:44 AM
Member
 
Alex Stittle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARROW-AV View Post
We are discussing the perception of resolution here, not luminance or color. So you are comparing apples vs oranges
Sorry, I'm not trying to be an ass, but isn't colour an important aspect of the viewing experience? I'm not sure what the point of just talking about pure perception of resolution adds to the conversation on 8K if, all other things equal, an 8k image looks different than a 4k image simply due to having more pixels. In this case, I am wondering if the added sources of light make a difference and how that factors into the chart you posted?

I guess what I'm hung up on is that the chart makes it seem like pixels 'disappear' the further you go and are thus pointless. But which pixels disappear? If I have a single pixel white line on a black background I'm fairly certain I'll be able to see it from pretty far regardless of resolution (especially if it is super bright!). But then if all pixels are firing with different colours at once then I may not be able to tell the single white line is there. It will 'disappear' as I move backward and I won't be able to tell unless I'm close up (is this the resolution perception concept?). But say I have some trigger to turn the white line on and off while I stand far away, is it true that I won't notice any difference between when the line is on or off?
Alex Stittle is offline  
post #88 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 10:47 AM
Member
 
Alex Stittle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricoflashback View Post
As I've said before - - the technology has become much more advanced than the content we receive - - especially if you have cable or satellite. We have cars that can do 180 mph and we're stuck in the 60 mph lane - content wise. You can't polish a turd.
I don't know man, have you see the advances in AI lately?

Granted this is kind of a ridiculous example, but you could draw a turd in paint and it'll polish into a nice landscape for you!
https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/18/nv...es-in-seconds/
sk373 likes this.
Alex Stittle is offline  
post #89 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 11:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,885
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1985 Post(s)
Liked: 1894
quality over quantity

i have no problem with 8k, unless it's used as an excuse to not improve the things that need to be fixed like screen uniformity, or IR for example.

basically i view 8k like a 1000hp engine. it's pretty cool if you put it in a high quality car and feed it race fuel. It's a complete waste of money if you stick in an old rust bucket with skinny tires and expect it to run perfectly on regular pump gas...

for me personally, i have not yet had the experience of 'seeing pixels' since 1080p. on 'tv sized' screens i'm pretty content with 720p 99% of the time too. I have on the other hand returned tv as 'unwatchable' because of uniformity issues.

so, not beef with 8k, but i feel like we've seen this before

Consumers: we want better blacks and brighter whites, and natural colors, and get rid of the banding
Manufacturers: check it out, 1080p... bet you can't even see those pixels anymore
Consumers: ok, that's cool, i like it, but how about that other stuff
Manufacturers: whoa! check this out, 3D at home! it's gonna be amazing
Consumers: ok, yeah, that's pretty neat, but i think the 3D just makes the uniformity, contrast, color issues a little more obvious. how about fixing those next?
Manufacturers: oh, sorry guys, bummer that you didn't like the 3D, we'll remove it from every single display from now on, every single one. But maybe a curved screen would make it ore immersive?
Consumers: we'd really just like good blacks, smooth natural looking motion, and accurate colors. can you do that?
Manufacturers: well if you sit in the right spot, this curved display will fix off axis viewing problems and really immerse you in the content
Consumers: every horizontal line is curved now, this looks so unnatural. can we please just have good pixels?
Manufacturers: great news! we've figured out a way to get more pixels on screen, welcome to 4k! unfortunately, unless you live in a major city with a fiber network, the only way to get you this content is to drastically reduce it's quality with huge amounts of compression. but wow, look at all those pixels.

and it continues... i have to laugh at the comment about gaming in 8k, like i'm pretty sure it takes several thousand dollars worth of GPU's to game at 4k resolutions. I will say they are smart to focus so much attention on the AI stuff to improve upscaling, because i suspect we are a decade away from getting cheap, reliable, high quality 8k sources for the masses. UHD bluray is still the ONLY [legal] way i can get 4k that doesn't stutter every 2seconds.
THX1720 likes this.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1130K, 7.1/5.1.2 audio
Sources: HTPC, PS3, XBOX360, Wii
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #90 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 12:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JD23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dallas
Posts: 1,932
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 476 Post(s)
Liked: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
and it continues... i have to laugh at the comment about gaming in 8k, like i'm pretty sure it takes several thousand dollars worth of GPU's to game at 4k resolutions. I will say they are smart to focus so much attention on the AI stuff to improve upscaling, because i suspect we are a decade away from getting cheap, reliable, high quality 8k sources for the masses. UHD bluray is still the ONLY [legal] way i can get 4k that doesn't stutter every 2seconds.

It's clear that PS5 won't have the power to render complex games in 8k, just as the PS4 Pro is not powerful enough to natively render in 4k and the original PS4 could not render many games in full 1080p. 8k is two console generations (5 - 8 years) away.
JD23 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply LCD Flat Panel Displays

Tags
8k upscaling

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off