With 8K TVs, More Pixels Make a Better Picture - Page 4 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 199Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 02:02 PM
We're Nuts About AV
 
ARROW-AV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 4,158
Mentioned: 227 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3824 Post(s)
Liked: 6242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Stittle View Post
Sorry, I'm not trying to be an ass, but isn't colour an important aspect of the viewing experience?
I have never said that colour is not an important aspect of the viewing experience. In fact, I have very often stated precisely to the contrary

Wherein, the fact of the matter is that the order of importance with respect to what most influences video image quality ranks first and foremost dynamic range, contrast, and black levels, followed by colour performance,

ISF president and founder, Joel Silver reports that “the fourth and least of the four key parameters is resolution;” and “the single most apparent thing you see is dynamic range.”

Similarly, Gregg Loewen, who for many years carried out the THX professional video calibration trainings worldwide, and now heads the Professional Video Alliance (PVA), says “contrast and black level are most important” and that “resolution is only fourth behind contrast, colour saturation and colour accuracy”.

Wherein, a primary reason why these are all more important than resolution is because everyone will perceive changes with respect to these irrespective of screen size and viewing distance, unlike resolution.

But we are not discussing colour performance here, we are discussing resolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Stittle View Post
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?
There are no 'added sources of light'. The total display area and overall luminance would be essentially identical. In fact, depending on the type of display technology, with the 8K display technically the total display area might actually be slightly less due to there being 4 times the number of pixels borders.

Furthermore, image resolution is independent of colour performance and luminance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Stittle View Post
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?
As per your erroneous native 4K single pixel checkerboard example, you are not thinking about this in the correct way either. The pixels don't 'disappear' so you should not be thinking along the line of asking questions like "when does the black and white checkerboard appear to be solid white or solid black?" and "when does a single pixel wide line disappear?" because these are incorrect questions which are not relevant to anything.

The pixels don't 'disappear' they simply blend together with eachother. Wherein, downscaling the native 4K single pixel checkerboard to HD 1080p is perceived as being exactly the same as the native 4K single pixel checkerboard when being viewed beyond the HVP for 4K resolution, wherein your eye is only capable of perceiving HD 1080p resolution at that respective viewing distance versus screen size, so HD 1080p resolution is what your eyes perceive, even though the image is in fact being displayed as native 4K. And precisely the same phenomenon applies to 4K versus 8K as well.

And with respect to the single pixel wide line, it is not about when you cannot perceive the line at all, but when you cannot tell the difference between when it is displayed at 4K resolution versus 8K resolution or HD1080p resolution versus 4K resolution. Where in all instances what you will be perceiving is the line. So as per the native 4K single pixel checkerboard, which similarly does not 'disappear', neither does the line either.

This is because, due to the nature of there being a single line against a solid background when the single pixel line blends together with the adjacent pixels either side, you still have a line.

However, if you were to have a row of single pixel wide black line alternating with single pixel white line, then these would blend together to produce a solid grey screen, as per the checkboard


Last edited by ARROW-AV; 05-11-2019 at 02:19 PM.
ARROW-AV is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 02:27 PM
We're Nuts About AV
 
ARROW-AV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 4,158
Mentioned: 227 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3824 Post(s)
Liked: 6242
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.
I haven't posted any "old vision charts" though... The chart I have posted, which is similar to numerous other recent charts is based upon statistical analysis of HVP, in other words it is formulated from data stemming from actual human perception and therefore will in fact be incorporating the influences of hyperacuity

Muza and scionracing like this.

Last edited by ARROW-AV; 05-11-2019 at 03:15 PM.
ARROW-AV is offline  
post #93 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 02:36 PM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 15,349
Mentioned: 420 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8737 Post(s)
Liked: 15256
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARROW-AV View Post
I haven't posted any "old vision charts" though... The chart I have posted, which is similarly to numerous other recent charts is based upon statistical analysis of HVP, in other words it is formulated from data stemming from actual human perception and therefore will in fact be incorporating the influences of hyperacuity

Really? Lol. In that case the charts are wrong. What else is there to discuss? (Rhetorical question... I'm sure you'll keep posting)

Regardless, your dismissal of my first-hand experience is unfortunate.

I'm familiar with every single argument you are making, no new info there

I stand by my comments.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum

Last edited by imagic; 05-11-2019 at 02:40 PM.
imagic is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #94 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 02:42 PM
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
There are no 'added sources of light'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARROW-AV View Post
The pixels don't 'disappear' they simply blend together with eachother.
Yeah I didn't word that very clearly. By added sources of light I meant that with 4 pixels you can have four different colours in the same area as you can with a single pixel. So 4 colours vs 1 colour.

But I see that what the chart is showing is that no matter what the combination of those 4 pixel colours is, whether they be two white on top, two blacks on bottom... or alternating black and white... or a column of two white and a column of 2 blacks... it will make no difference that they are 4 pixels instead of 1 pixel at a certain distance. After moving back so far, a single pixel that is grey looks exactly like the 4 pixels that alternate white and black. Actually, any combination of 4 pixels that adds up to an average of grey will look exactly the same as a single grey pixel. So even something like a combination of a single red, green, blue and grey pixel will look the same as a single grey pixel (which is the same size as the 4 other pixels).

And just so I'm clear this will also apply no matter how those 4 pixels are changing? So on an 8K display, a video feed that is taking a square group of 4 pixels and randomly setting the pixels so that the 4 pixels together average to grey, will look identical to a static grey screen in 4k at some distance based on that chart? The fact that one has the pixels changing colours every frame and the other is static will not be perceivable at all? I can believe it since that's how rgb works in the first place, just want to make sure I understand
Alex Stittle is offline  
post #95 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 02:43 PM
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
Hey,

(Sorry I didn't read all the post but I skimmed a few)...

For all the back and forth about what should and shouldn't be perceptible I found it refreshing to just have a look at an 8K set myself when I was in town. If my Best Buy (without Magnolia HF section) has them on display then chances are most Best Buy and FNAC type stores will have them or already have them to be seen first hand.

The one I saw actually didn't look any different to me. True it wasn't ideal viewing conditions and it was some water skier footage that's not something I had seen before so I didn't really have a way to make a comparison.

Whatever the numbers and charts say about the quality seeing it is likely the best way to sort it out.
Brian Hampton is offline  
post #96 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 03:08 PM
We're Nuts About AV
 
ARROW-AV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 4,158
Mentioned: 227 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3824 Post(s)
Liked: 6242
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Really? Lol. In that case the charts are wrong. What else is there to discuss? (Rhetorical question... I'm sure you'll keep posting)

Regardless, your dismissal of my first-hand experience is unfortunate.

I'm familiar with every single argument you are making, no new info there

I stand by my comments.
Mark, I think the fact that I have taken considerable time to post comprehensive replies is evidence that I have not been dismissive, don't you?

It's therefore a shame that you did not bother to read my post because it is "too long", especially considering I have explained everything there for you, in detail, including with respect to why your experiment is flawed and why you cannot make the definitive conclusions which you have made.

That said however, you would also note that I actually think that your observations and theories regarding being able to make use of the additional pixels supplied by 8K resolution to improve the appearance of 4K content by reducing the severity of certain types of video artefacts, is very interesting indeed.

You won't perceive a difference in resolution if the screen size versus viewing distance is such that you are beyond the limits of HVP but I am not actually saying I think you are completely wrong in your observations in this regard, but simply that the additional influencing factors resulting from the flaws with your experiment will have been contributing towards what you are perceiving at least in some regard, and hence we don't actually know to what extent there will be a perceivable difference if/when said additional influencing factors are removed out of the equation

imagic and scionracing like this.

Last edited by ARROW-AV; 05-11-2019 at 03:12 PM.
ARROW-AV is offline  
post #97 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 03:19 PM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 15,349
Mentioned: 420 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8737 Post(s)
Liked: 15256
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARROW-AV View Post
Mark, I think the fact that I have taken considerable time to post comprehensive replies is evidence that I have not been dismissive, don't you?

It's therefore a shame that you did not bother to read my post because it is "too long", especially considering I have explained everything there for you, in detail, including with respect to why your experiment is flawed and why you cannot make the definitive conclusions which you have made.

That said however, you would also note that I actually think that your observations and theories regarding being able to make use of the additional pixels supplied by 8K resolution to improve the appearance of 4K content by reducing the severity of video artefacts, is very interesting indeed.

You won't perceive a difference in resolution if the screen size versus viewing distance is such that you are beyond the limits of HVP but I am not actually saying I think you are completely wrong in your observations in this regard, but simply that the additional influencing factors resulting from the flaws with your experiment will have been contributing towards what you are perceiving at least in some regard, and hence we don't actually know to what extent there will be a perceivable difference if/when said additional influencing factors are removed out of the equation

Well, in editor speak, TL;DR means "I read it, and it's too long"... and for a Saturday, it is. But, I appreciate it.

Anyhow, I'm not a laboratory and I'm not writing a white paper. I'm reporting on subjective observations of stuff I've known about since back in the day, when I was into large-format printing and gigapixel photography. Much like HDR and wide color gamut and nifty upsampling and noise-reducing algorithms, still photography has dealt with these issues long before TVs trafficking in AI algorithms came onto the scene. And one thing that's for sure, no question, is that you can see the difference between an 8 megapixel image and a 33 megapixel image, in print, without having to shove your face into a giant poster to see it. There's no reason it would be any different with a flat panel display versus a print.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum
imagic is online now  
post #98 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 04:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 7,847
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3539 Post(s)
Liked: 2729
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARROW-AV View Post
I haven't posted any "old vision charts" though... The chart I have posted, which is similar to numerous other recent charts is based upon statistical analysis of HVP, in other words it is formulated from data stemming from actual human perception and therefore will in fact be incorporating the influences of hyperacuity

Yep, the old eye charts had to be revised because they didn't really cover all contingencies. So I have a healthy skepticism of the revised charts as they apply to human perception of video images. As I said earlier, each increase in resolution brings diminishing returns with fewer and fewer people noting a difference. At some point even those with the most acute vision and sensitivity to image quality will see no difference. We don't really know what that point is yet. But we do know what an experienced video reviewer with trained eyes and 20/20 + 20/15 vision has noted in one imperfect experiment. It's a single data point with more to come. We'll see if the eye charts need further revision.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #99 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 05:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Reddig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Central U.S.
Posts: 2,817
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 494 Post(s)
Liked: 980
8K makes me giggle. I don't know maybe it has its place. The companies aren't even doing 4K correct that put out the media.

JBL Pro Cinema/JTR/JVC/Denon/Oppo/Roku Ultra/Elite Screens/Furman/Seatcraft/Acoustimac/AudioQuest

Last edited by Reddig; 05-11-2019 at 05:09 PM.
Reddig is offline  
post #100 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 05:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dnoonie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Seattle, WA area
Posts: 1,335
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 420 Post(s)
Liked: 426
Firstly...does the AI consider the directors intent? It could, it is possible.
Next, I'm pleased at modest improvement going to a UHD TV made when going from a 60 inch 1080p TV at 7feet to a 65inch TV at the same distance even with upscaled content. But I'm in no hurry to go to 8k and I'm in no way disappointed I just purchased, 6mo a go, a 4k TV. It's possible some indirect improvement is possible with 8k, I'll just have to see how compelling it is when I see it. HDR is certainly compelling! I don't think 8k by itself would be compelling. 4k without HDR would not have been very compelling.
Cheers

OPPO UDP-205, LG OLED65C8, OPPO BDP-93, Pioneer Kuro Pro-150FD, Dynaudio 2x BM-12a Mk III Mains, 2x BM 6a Mk II surround, 2x BM 14s Subs, Allan and Heath MixWizard, room is 11'7"x 16'6"x 8" dedicated and treated. Tripp-Lite UPSs/power conditioners (because my power isn't as clean as it used to be)

Last edited by dnoonie; 05-11-2019 at 05:48 PM.
dnoonie is offline  
post #101 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 05:44 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 8
Regarding 8k. Have there been any information leaks yet about affordability of USA street price of 75" TCL 8 series 8k arriving in 3Q or 4Q of 2019 ?

I'm hesitant to get interested in 8kMagic AI until it is reasonably affordable at perhaps $2500 for a 75". Dream on.
LHenton is offline  
post #102 of 172 Old 05-11-2019, 07:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
sgupta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 746
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 215 Post(s)
Liked: 137
I think 8K will be amazing, but my own opinion is it's not for me yet. Having jumped on the 4K bandwagon a little too early and experiencing lots of minor issues like unsupported refresh rates, audio sync issues, signal dropoputs, etc., this time I elected for really mature 4K now (where everything works like clockwork) and I don't think I'll regret it. In a few years once 8K is more widespread content-wise, prices have come down, HDMI 2.1 is mature, the HDR10+/Dolby Vision/etc. war is settled (maybe), things like Variable Refresh Rate are matured, hopefully 12-bit panels are a thing, and maybe even TV's with the best of OLED and LCD combined (miniLED or microLED - I always mix those up; I want to say mini looks the most promising), it'll be time for me to make the jump. 4K looks great to me now, and while I'm sure 8K upscaling is impressive, I don't feel like that alone is enough to justify it for me personally. I also think current 8K TV's will have limitations with certain 8K content in the future once it hits mainstream. Early adopting is fun and I've enjoyed it in the past, but it can also have plenty of pitfalls, so I decided to just enjoy the best of current tech for the moment.
sgupta is offline  
post #103 of 172 Old 05-12-2019, 02:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
SnellTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 964
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 541 Post(s)
Liked: 379
Posted this before but I still think 8K came out a little too soon. Consumers should be presented with a new leap in sound & image quality roughly once every 10 years.

2016 - 4K/HDR & Dolby Atmos / DTS X + P3 Gamut + 10 bit colours
2006 - 1080p blu-ray (3D right after), DTS-HD MA & Dolby True HD
1996 - 480p & Dolby Digital & DTS surround
Laser Disc released in 1978, VHS around 1970.



So logically, 8K should be released in 2026. By this time there should also be the next 'HDR' ... Dolby Vision 2.0 , 12 bit colours, Rec 2020 gamut, and the next big thing in audio... DTS Z, Dolby Stratos etc. maybe something more holographic sounding, or some technology that gives everyone in the room the exact same audio, despite various seating arrangments, I don't know... there's 7 years of technological advancement before this should be presented on the future 'Red Ray' , 'Green Ray' format
Brian Hampton likes this.
SnellTHX is offline  
post #104 of 172 Old 05-12-2019, 02:42 AM
Advanced Member
 
SnellTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 964
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 541 Post(s)
Liked: 379
Likewise around 2035-2037 8K should be old news.

14 bit colours, the entire CIE chart, 100k nit HDR, 16K resolution, Dolby Ultimos that transmits perfect audio right into our ears etc.
SnellTHX is offline  
post #105 of 172 Old 05-12-2019, 02:51 AM
Advanced Member
 
SnellTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 964
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 541 Post(s)
Liked: 379
And speaking of 'Green ray'... Anyone remember HVD? The Holographic Versatile Disc. I think it was first designed in 2008, being thought of as the successor of blu ray's successor. I think manufacturing costs for an HVD player was in the $20,000 ballpark and each HVD cost something like $100 per disk. Which indicated the technology was at least 20 years away... it had like 10 TB of storage which would be perfect for '16K' resolution films... and guess what... HVD uses green laser
SnellTHX is offline  
post #106 of 172 Old 05-12-2019, 03:07 AM
We're Nuts About AV
 
ARROW-AV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 4,158
Mentioned: 227 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3824 Post(s)
Liked: 6242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
Yep, the old eye charts had to be revised because they didn't really cover all contingencies. So I have a healthy skepticism of the revised charts as they apply to human perception of video images. As I said earlier, each increase in resolution brings diminishing returns with fewer and fewer people noting a difference. At some point even those with the most acute vision and sensitivity to image quality will see no difference. We don't really know what that point is yet. But we do know what an experienced video reviewer with trained eyes and 20/20 + 20/15 vision has noted in one imperfect experiment. It's a single data point with more to come. We'll see if the eye charts need further revision.
The problem is that even the singular data point should not be used in that regard due to the flaws in the experiment though... But what it does mean is that the observations warrant further investigation to confirm things, before drawing any definitive conclusions either way

Or let me put it this way, drawing any definitive conclusions and applying these to all 8K displays from this singular data point would be akin to passing a new drug that is undergoing clinical trials, based upon the results of a singular pilot study (N.B. a pilot study is not a proper clinical trial) wherein the conditions of the pilot study were neither blind, nor placebo controlled. Where in such and instance the only conclusion that could be and hence would be drawn would be that there might be something there but which cannot be confirmed either way due to the limitations and flaws of the study, and therefore that the matter warrants further investigation, which would then occur via multiple placebo controlled blind studies, before drawing definitive conclusions either way. The same applies here. Photoshop, which has imperfect anti-aliasing was used. One one person participated in the comparison. The comparison was not conducted blind. Only one unit and one make and model of TV was used for each of the 8K and 4K TVs being compared. The 4K and 8K TVs that were used differ in many ways further to the resolution alone, including with respect to hardware and software/firmware. etc. etc.

That said, I really do think that there could be validity with respect to Mark's observations regarding the ability of 8K resolution to improve the delineation of 4K resolution content, even if/when only being perceived at 4K resolution due to the screen size versus viewing distance being such that they are beyond the limits of HVP with respect to 8K resolution, via reducing the severity of certain types of video artefacts suich as aliasing artefact, and I would expect the same thing would apply to moire as well

Hence, I think that the takeaway from Mark's experiment here is that the matter certainly warrants further investigation to confirm what's what

Incidentally, as a point of interest, according to SONY, specifically Sony Visual Products' chief engineer, Toshiyuki Ogura, SONY's recommended viewing distance for all 8K TVs, the distance at which people will be able to perceive the difference and hence the benefits of 8K, wherein reportedly the respective SONY engineering team carried out comprehensive scientific research into the matter, has concluded that the viewing distance should be 1.5x the height of the screen. Wherein, numerous press articles have cited this information, including reviews of the new SONY ZG9 8K TVs. Wherein, it just so happens that if you compare 1.5x the height of the screen with the chart this EXACTLY matches the chart and I mean EXACTLY. Wherein, for the folks who are interested in confirming that yes this is indeed correct, here's the chart again:

Spoiler!


So SONY, by way of this, has in fact confirmed that yes, the chart is indeed correct

mike_carton likes this.
ARROW-AV is offline  
post #107 of 172 Old 05-12-2019, 05:05 AM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 15,349
Mentioned: 420 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8737 Post(s)
Liked: 15256
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARROW-AV View Post
The problem is that even the singular data point should not be used in that regard due to the flaws in the experiment though... But what it does mean is that the observations warrant further investigation to confirm things, before drawing any definitive conclusions either way

Or let me put it this way, drawing any definitive conclusions and applying these to all 8K displays from this singular data point would be akin to passing a new drug that is undergoing clinical trials, based upon the results of a singular pilot study (N.B. a pilot study is not a proper clinical trial) wherein the conditions of the pilot study were neither blind, nor placebo controlled. Where in such and instance the only conclusion that could be and hence would be drawn would be that there might be something there but which cannot be confirmed either way due to the limitations and flaws of the study, and therefore that the matter warrants further investigation, which would then occur via multiple placebo controlled blind studies, before drawing definitive conclusions either way. The same applies here. Photoshop, which has imperfect anti-aliasing was used. One one person participated in the comparison. The comparison was not conducted blind. Only one unit and one make and model of TV was used for each of the 8K and 4K TVs being compared. The 4K and 8K TVs that were used differ in many ways further to the resolution alone, including with respect to hardware and software/firmware. etc. etc.

That said, I really do think that there could be validity with respect to Mark's observations regarding the ability of 8K resolution to improve the delineation of 4K resolution content, even if/when only being perceived at 4K resolution due to the screen size versus viewing distance being such that they are beyond the limits of HVP with respect to 8K resolution, via reducing the severity of certain types of video artefacts suich as aliasing artefact, and I would expect the same thing would apply to moire as well

Hence, I think that the takeaway from Mark's experiment here is that the matter certainly warrants further investigation to confirm what's what

Incidentally, as a point of interest, according to SONY, specifically Sony Visual Products' chief engineer, Toshiyuki Ogura, SONY's recommended viewing distance for all 8K TVs, the distance at which people will be able to perceive the difference and hence the benefits of 8K, wherein reportedly the respective SONY engineering team carried out comprehensive scientific research into the matter, has concluded that the viewing distance should be 1.5x the height of the screen. Wherein, numerous press articles have cited this information, including reviews of the new SONY ZG9 8K TVs. Wherein, it just so happens that if you compare 1.5x the height of the screen with the chart this EXACTLY matches the chart and I mean EXACTLY. Wherein, for the folks who are interested in confirming that yes this is indeed correct, here's the chart again:

Spoiler!


So SONY, by way of this, has in fact confirmed that yes, the chart is indeed correct

So that chart, presuming it is correct... it's for people with 20/20 vision? Or something else? 20/15 vision is not some anomalous rarity. If the chart is for humans with average vision, it is axiomatic that for some people, the recommended distance will be further. For others with blurrier vision, they might never see what 4K offers while sitting on a couch, much less 8K (although they may still experience hyperacuity and also notice flickering/moire).

The other issue with charts is things get suspicious when to try and get "exact" about something like human vision (or hearing, same type discussions occur).

Anyhow 1.5X screen height for 16:9 is not actually so crazy, even in a world where that chart rules. It would be a more useful chart if it described what level of visual acuity it assumes. To me, it's basically what IMAX wants to deliver as a viewing experience anyhow. Yes you need a big screen, but it's undeniably more immersive and numerous recent blockbuster movies are filmed and framed for that format.

So... I think I'm closer to 2:1 screen height, without getting into any of that nonsense, based on the current state of my vision (even there, the "rough steps" of 20/20, 20/15 etc. are not granular enough, for all I know my right eye is 20/18 or something like that. I only know it meets or exceeds 20/20 but does not reach 20/15 like the left eyes. Etc., etc.

And the interesting thing is you don;t need to have natural vision to exceed 20/20. Prescription glasses can achieve it, if they are carefully made. Post-Lasik, some people exceed 20/20 as well.
sk373 likes this.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum

Last edited by imagic; 05-12-2019 at 05:13 AM.
imagic is online now  
post #108 of 172 Old 05-12-2019, 05:48 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Lightbulb

You can clearly see a difference!






Last edited by musicman777; 05-12-2019 at 05:55 AM.
musicman777 is offline  
post #109 of 172 Old 05-12-2019, 06:00 AM
We're Nuts About AV
 
ARROW-AV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 4,158
Mentioned: 227 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3824 Post(s)
Liked: 6242
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
So that chart, presuming it is correct... it's for people with 20/20 vision? Or something else? 20/15 vision is not some anomalous rarity. If the chart is for humans with average vision, it is axiomatic that for some people, the recommended distance will be further. For others with blurrier vision, they might never see what 4K offers while sitting on a couch, much less 8K (although they may still experience hyperacuity and also notice flickering/moire).

The other issue with charts is things get suspicious when to try and get "exact" about something like human vision (or hearing, same type discussions occur).

Anyhow 1.5X screen height for 16:9 is not actually so crazy, even in a world where that chart rules. It would be a more useful chart if it described what level of visual acuity it assumes. To me, it's basically what IMAX wants to deliver as a viewing experience anyhow. Yes you need a big screen, but it's undeniably more immersive and numerous recent blockbuster movies are filmed and framed for that format.

So... I think I'm closer to 2:1 screen height, without getting into any of that nonsense, based on the current state of my vision (even there, the "rough steps" of 20/20, 20/15 etc. are not granular enough, for all I know my right eye is 20/18 or something like that. I only know it meets or exceeds 20/20 but does not reach 20/15 like the left eyes. Etc., etc.

And the interesting thing is you don;t need to have natural vision to exceed 20/20. Prescription glasses can achieve it, if they are carefully made. Post-Lasik, some people exceed 20/20 as well.
The chart is indeed based upon 20/20 vision, so yes, if your vision is better than 20/20 then you will be able to perceive the respective differences in resolution slightly further away. Counterwise, if your vision is worse than this then you will need to sit closer.

I agree that not only is there nothing wrong with a viewing distance of 1.5x Screen Height, but also that this viewing distance will achieve the target objective of maximum immersion to a greater degree than sitting further away from the screen, as per IMAX as you point out.

Believe it or not, I am not actually totally against 8K resolution. My point is simply that you really need to have a big enough screen with a close enough viewing distance in order to experience its full benefits, and I posted the chart by way of illustrating this.

The fact of the matter is that in most home theaters, especially those with multiple rows of seating, the full benefits of 4K vs HD resolution are not being realized from all seating positions, let alone 8K. So, clearly it's going to be only the front row of seats that will in fact realize the full benefits of 8K resolution and only if the viewing distance is circa 1.5x Screen Height.

I actually think this in itself is useful information with respect to setting up home theaters properly, because with an 8K resolution home theater you should therefore make the centre of the front row, as opposed to the centre of the centre row or anywhere else, as the primary seating position, meaning that you will want to calibrate your audio system with this being the primary listening postion as well

I also think that for these reasons having an 8K resolution TV that is smaller than 80", such as 60" or 65" for example, is a bit of a joke given the ideal viewing distance is about 3 feet from the screen!

And counterwise, IMO it is with respect to the likes of modular video walls and 8K resolution projectors wherein the benefits of having 8K resolution is going to the pay off the most

scionracing likes this.
ARROW-AV is offline  
post #110 of 172 Old 05-12-2019, 06:28 AM
We're Nuts About AV
 
ARROW-AV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 4,158
Mentioned: 227 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3824 Post(s)
Liked: 6242
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicman777 View Post
Of course you can! The 8K TV is clearly using different gamma, contrast, color, brightness, and luminance settings. It is also using different hardware, software/firmware. AND it is using a completely different upscaling algorithm, as well as different video processing, including sharpening and edge enhancement.

For example, see the blown out highlights and deeper richer looking color etc. on the 8K TV as compared with the 4K TV. These have absolutely NOTHING to do with changes in resolution. In short, that is by no means a proper apples vs apples comparison.

Secondly, consider this, you are watching a YOUTUBE VIDEO that is HD 1080p (or less) resolution. So how are you able to perceive differences between 8K and 4K resolution exactly?

With earlier demos the overwhelming feedback was that nobody could tell any difference, then magically and miraculously from the next trade show onwards it started looking like this. Mmmmmm...

Muza, mike_carton and scionracing like this.
ARROW-AV is offline  
post #111 of 172 Old 05-12-2019, 06:37 AM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 15,349
Mentioned: 420 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8737 Post(s)
Liked: 15256
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARROW-AV View Post
The chart is indeed based upon 20/20 vision, so yes, if your vision is better than 20/20 then you will be able to perceive the respective differences in resolution slightly further away. Counterwise, if your vision is worse than this then you will need to sit closer.

I agree that not only is there nothing wrong with a viewing distance of 1.5x Screen Height, but also that this viewing distance will achieve the target objective of maximum immersion to a greater degree than sitting further away from the screen, as per IMAX as you point out.

Believe it or not, I am not actually totally against 8K resolution. My point is simply that you really need to have a big enough screen with a close enough viewing distance in order to experience its full benefits, and I posted the chart by way of illustrating this.

The fact of the matter is that in most home theaters, especially those with multiple rows of seating, the full benefits of 4K vs HD resolution are not being realized from all seating positions, let alone 8K. So, clearly it's going to be only the front row of seats that will in fact realize the full benefits of 8K resolution and only if the viewing distance is circa 1.5x Screen Height.

I actually think this in itself is useful information with respect to setting up home theaters properly, because with an 8K resolution home theater you should therefore make the centre of the front row, as opposed to the centre of the centre row or anywhere else, as the primary seating position, meaning that you will want to calibrate your audio system with this being the primary listening postion as well

I also think that for these reasons having an 8K resolution TV that is smaller than 80", such as 60" or 65" for example, is a bit of a joke given the ideal viewing distance is about 3 feet from the screen!

And counterwise, IMO it is with respect to the likes of modular video walls and 8K resolution projectors wherein the benefits of having 8K resolution is going to the pay off the most

Tell that to a gamer. Or a Photoshop user editing an entire digital photo at 100% magnification... Or (heaven forbid) some gal/guy mastering 8K content and checking their results.
ARROW-AV likes this.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum
imagic is online now  
post #112 of 172 Old 05-12-2019, 06:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
gorman42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,295
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 494 Post(s)
Liked: 344
@ARROW-AV I am looking at your chart and comparing it to an old, similar chart, I saved years ago. The one I have is from 2006. I'll post it below.


As far as I can remember, it was calculated with the classical method for doing visual acuity estimation. And it seems pretty much to overlap completely with yours (up until it reaches, it is too old to delve into 4K territory). 1080p 60" at 10' is easy to compare, as 1080p 70" at 10' is. Same goes for 720p 50" at 10' (pretty much ideal combination for 720p content). And so on and so forth.

As such, I'm somewhat doubtful that your new chart includes hyperacuity considerations. Are you sure about that?



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 #113 of 172 Old 05-12-2019, 06:58 AM
We're Nuts About AV
 
ARROW-AV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 4,158
Mentioned: 227 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3824 Post(s)
Liked: 6242
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Tell that to a gamer. Or a Photoshop user editing an entire digital photo at 100% magnification... Or (heaven forbid) some gal/guy mastering 8K content and checking their results.
Well I did preface this with respect to applying to home theaters, as in watching movies and video content.

But yes, you are absolutely right that gaming and/or using the TV as a monitor are the exceptions

However, obviously the majority of sales will not be with respect to the latter but the former...

ARROW-AV is offline  
post #114 of 172 Old 05-12-2019, 07:16 AM
We're Nuts About AV
 
ARROW-AV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 4,158
Mentioned: 227 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3824 Post(s)
Liked: 6242
Quote:
Originally Posted by gorman42 View Post
@ARROW-AV I am looking at your chart and comparing it to an old, similar chart, I saved years ago. The one I have is from 2006. I'll post it below.


As far as I can remember, it was calculated with the classical method for doing visual acuity estimation. And it seems pretty much to overlap completely with yours (up until it reaches, it is too old to delve into 4K territory). 1080p 60" at 10' is easy to compare, as 1080p 70" at 10' is. Same goes for 720p 50" at 10' (pretty much ideal combination for 720p content). And so on and so forth.

As such, I'm somewhat doubtful that your new chart includes hyperacuity considerations. Are you sure about that?
Spoiler!
Given that the data included HVP testing using actual people, and SONY's recent independent scientific research in this regard is an exact match, pretty sure


Last edited by ARROW-AV; 05-12-2019 at 07:20 AM.
ARROW-AV is offline  
post #115 of 172 Old 05-12-2019, 07:29 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Sound & Vision's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 277
You'll need at least a 70" + screen to really notice the benefits of 8K...... If all you care about is having a 55" TV.... 8K won't matter much at all... Now..... When 16K 21:9 Curved Micro LED Full IMAX Spec Screens launch in three years that may be a different story.. 😉 🍿🍿🍿
Sound & Vision is offline  
post #116 of 172 Old 05-12-2019, 07:41 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 7,847
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3539 Post(s)
Liked: 2729
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARROW-AV View Post
… Hence, I think that the takeaway from Mark's experiment here is that the matter certainly warrants further investigation to confirm what's what ...
Yes, that's exactly the point I've been making.

I also agree with the further discussion in this thread that eye charts are built on averages and individual vision performance will dictate differing preferences and needs. For example, those with poor vision might not even appreciate 4k and could simply stick with 1080p TVs as long as they remain available. On the other hand those with superior visual acuity will see details that those with below average vision might miss. There's also the factor of trained, discriminating vision. Those who know what to look for in a quality image will notice things that others with similar visual acuity may overlook due to lack of awareness.

By the way, I also thought your new chart was suspiciously similar to the old one, i.e. 1080p screen size/viewing distance is virtually the same. I was planning to look up the old chart this morning but @gorman42 beat me to it.
gorman42, scionracing and ARROW-AV like this.

Last edited by Dave in Green; 05-12-2019 at 08:43 AM. Reason: Reworded 1080p part for clarity
Dave in Green is offline  
post #117 of 172 Old 05-12-2019, 07:46 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 7,847
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3539 Post(s)
Liked: 2729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sound & Vision View Post
You'll need at least a 70" + screen to really notice the benefits of 8K......
Screen size alone isn't relevant to 8k resolution benefits without factoring in viewing distance.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #118 of 172 Old 05-12-2019, 10:08 AM
We're Nuts About AV
 
ARROW-AV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 4,158
Mentioned: 227 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3824 Post(s)
Liked: 6242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
By the way, I also thought your new chart was suspiciously similar to the old one, i.e. 1080p screen size/viewing distance is virtually the same. I was planning to look up the old chart this morning but @gorman42 beat me to it.
Well, video artefacts aside, what does that tell you regarding the degree to which hyperacuity influences the perception of resolution in real world examples of video displays?

The fact of the matter is that the very nature of hyperacuity is such that it most lends itself to perceiving differences in video artefacts and the like, such as compression artefacts, aliasing, and moiré, as opposed to actual increases in resolution. Meaning that whilst hyperacuity will potentially enable you to perceive certain video artefacts at distances beyond standard acuity, in reality it does not actually significantly increase the ability to perceive resolution and hence pixel level non-video-artefact type video content detail beyond standard accuity.

However, whilst the extra resolution of 8K displays won't be perceivable beyond the HVP limit for standard acuity, I do believe that Mark is absolutely right about being able to make use of 8K resolution to reduce the severity of certain video artefacts, and thereby improve the quality of 4K content, which should indeed be perceivable beyond the HVP limit for standard acuity.

The pertinent questions are to what extent is there an improvement in the appearance of such video artefacts? And is this difference worth paying the higher cost for an 8K as opposed to 4K resolution display?

mike_carton and scionracing like this.
ARROW-AV is offline  
post #119 of 172 Old 05-12-2019, 11:07 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 7,847
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3539 Post(s)
Liked: 2729
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARROW-AV View Post
Well, video artefacts aside, what does that tell you regarding the degree to which hyperacuity influences the perception of resolution in real world examples of video displays?

The fact of the matter is that the very nature of hyperacuity is such that it most lends itself to perceiving differences in video artefacts and the like, such as compression artefacts, aliasing, and moiré, as opposed to actual increases in resolution. Meaning that whilst hyperacuity will potentially enable you to perceive certain video artefacts at distances beyond standard acuity, in reality it does not actually significantly increase the ability to perceive resolution and hence pixel level non-video-artefact type video content detail beyond standard accuity.

However, whilst the extra resolution of 8K displays won't be perceivable beyond the HVP limit for standard acuity, I do believe that Mark is absolutely right about being able to make use of 8K resolution to reduce the severity of certain video artefacts, and thereby improve the quality of 4K content, which should indeed be perceivable beyond the HVP limit for standard acuity.

The pertinent questions are to what extent is there an improvement in the appearance of such video artefacts? And is this difference worth paying the higher cost for an 8K as opposed to 4K resolution display?

All consumers are concerned about with their TV image is overall quality. So if as you acknowledge 8k + sophisticated image processing can clean up certain visible video artifacts then it is indeed improving the overall image quality of upscaled 4k content. I agree with you that the perceptible improvement needs to be quantified, but not by a chart. It needs to be quantified by each person buying a new TV based on what they can see with their own eyes under their specific viewing conditions. It will vary from individual to individual so averages aren't applicable to each person's decision-making process.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #120 of 172 Old 05-12-2019, 05:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
barrelbelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,482
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 408 Post(s)
Liked: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reddig View Post
8K makes me giggle. I don't know maybe it has its place. The companies aren't even doing 4K correct that put out the media.

This....right here is the whole ballgame IMO. Network broadcasts are still only cranking out 1080i/720p/480i! Okay cable/sat/streamers uprez to 1080p and compress the unholy hell out of the media. Ditto with 4k. UHD Blu Ray is clearly the way to go if one wants native 4k movies. But availability is still media constrained as folks seem just as satisfied with upscaled 1080p-4k. So there is little incentive to change for media folks...while there are lots of cost penalties. IMO the greatest beneficiary of the march to 4k-8k has been perfection of 1080p media and the other more important factors like HDR, WCG, QLED/OLED, blacks, contrast and etc. I do believe that media creators and broadcasters will leap to a higher resolution standard in the future. But that leap is more likely to happen in the mid to late 2020's or 2030's I suspect. And that standard will be 12k-16k IMO (after high AI content usage is the norm throughout the media chain).
barrelbelly is offline  
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