Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it? - Page 16 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 10Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #451 of 479 Old 10-29-2013, 08:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
Speed Daemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 587
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Liked: 47
My reference to the $100 security camera wasn't about specs. My point was that a cheap security camera doesn't include any PTZ (pan, tilt, zoom) functionality. The human body OTOH has far more capability. Although the human eye can't zoom in the same fashion as a camera lens, it does have the capability to redirect attention. Not only can we mimic pans and tilts, but we can pedestal ourselves up and down...we can articulate (and locomote) our bodies to change our POV with few limits.

And the people who like to say "you can't do that"...well, they're not going to have their orders obeyed. I have yet to see a movie theater equipped with "Brazil"-esque devices to lock down the human body (even the eyeballs!) so that it can't possibly move, or anyone who would want to watch a feature-length film while restrained by such a device.

On the other side of the coin, although video displays are still mostly fixed devices, there's an increasing use of multiple displays, multiplexed displays (picture in picture really didn't catch on, although it deserves a mention) and mixed environments where TV and computer displays can be brought up and used as needed. It doesn't take much imagination to see that people will continue to "think outside the box" when it comes to display technology. I predict a rich and varied future in this realm.

Just yesterday I was stretched out on the couch watching a movie, and realized that my head was oriented perpendicular to the TV screen; I was laying on my side, but the TV still was in its "normal" panoramic orientation. Amazing to think that my brain automatically "fixed" the image, and I didn't see the picture as if it was standing on end!

I think that the state of the art in display technology has only scratched the surface of how it can evolve to accommodate the human being.
Quote:
You know, Coca-Cola won't advertise in REC-709 media because their red isn't available! Not that I need Coke ads... but it makes a point.
LOL...yes, it certainly does! To think that the Coca-Cola Company had absolutely no problem with the colorimetrics of NTSC TV!!!biggrin.gif Was their red available in the various color spaces that NTSC used? I don't think so...

http://www.gottadance.org/gamuts.shtml
"The 1953 NTSC standard had a very nice color range, but the phosphors in use were rather dim. From the late 1950s to late 1970s, televisions became much brighter but suffered a greatly reduced color gamut, thanks to the different phosphors being used. Reds became reddish-orange, and greens became yellow-green. There were no standards that television manufacturers were willing to conform to."

https://www.avsforum.com/t/1038839/rec-601-smpte-c-rec-709-confusion-thread (Another nice reference, right here at AVS Forums.)

I do agree with you about the now self-imposed limitations of "Color TV 1.x" that have been carried over to v2.0 (HD) and beyond. When ATSC came out, I was sorely disappointed to learn that not only was raster scanning retained, but even deprecated things like blanking intervals, IRE 7.5 black levels etc. were inexplicably still part of the D/HDTV system! I can understand why the original HDTV standards like BT.709 were heavily constrained by the low availability and high cost of the equipment that makes all those bits so inexpensive today.

By the same token, now that digital HDTV has paved the way (note that a lot of original HDTV development was done using analog technology), isn't it about time for improvements in colorimetry such as a color space that meets or exceeds the color gamut visible to the best human eyes. (I'm hardly an expert, but if the CIE x axis' lower limit was extended down to 0, and the upper limits on the x amd y axes adjusted accordingly, that's all that needs to be done to include what we currently consider to be the limits of human color perception. I'll leave it to the real mathematicians to figure out the best way to toss out the unused parts of that triangle.) At least BT.2020 is a step in the right direction, compared to BT.709, CCIR 601 and the analog color spaces (ie. SMPTE-C) that came before.

Maybe by the time a 16K standard needs to be agreed upon, that the engineers who work on that standard might want to throw all of the antiquated thinking that's based on things like the color of tungsten and phosphors, take the "clean sheet" approach and replace it all with less arcane and more universal functions that would be a more suitable platform for use in the 21st century.

You get what you pay for.  For professional advice, pay the professional rate.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #452 of 479 Old 03-02-2018, 02:11 AM
Member
 
Drewdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Just found this thread among my favorites and saw no one has posted here in a while. Now that we've had UHD TVs in stores for some time and content is coming from more sources (even YouTube) let's ask the question again.

4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it?

I have an UHDTV I got at Costco. It's a 49" LG and the picture's best attribute is the pixels aren't RGB but whatever color pops from the combined rgb. The 4K sources seem better than standard HD. I haven't seen my UHD Blu-ray in UHD yet so I'll follow up but the YouTube and Amazon UHD do seem sharper than HD.
Drewdawg is offline  
post #453 of 479 Old 03-05-2018, 08:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
richlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Central NC
Posts: 1,528
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 856 Post(s)
Liked: 1071
Thanks for bumping this. For the most part, those who spoke in 2013 had no experience with 4K. Now many have it, it's close to the selling norm in stores/online, and there is material to compare.

To me the original premise is faulty: "Let's face it, for the most part, most of the world won't get any benefit out of it because the displays are just too small in the average household to truly see the high-resolution of a 4K monitor." Even at the time, displays were already getting to the 40-55" range and at that level, yes, you can truly see the benefit of 4K at normal viewing distances. My first 4k was a 55" Vizio early in 2015. Even without HDR, the difference in pic was noticeable and exciting. And that was all upscaled -- not native 4K. Bring in a native 4K source, add HDR (let alone HDR10+ and DV), 4K BR and UHD BR players and you have a whole new basis for comparison.

So without a doubt, 4K makes a difference. Will the world falter and skip a beat without 4k? No. Does 4k hugley improve our enjoyment of even 720x480 DVD with upscaling? Yes. What we had with HD is clearly a step below 4K, we get more bang and enjoyment from 4k and with the larger screen sizes (I'm now at 65" BECAUSE of 4K), it is indeed changing our view of the world.
TravisPNW and Ben23 like this.

Atmos/DTS:X HT in Vaulted Room -- LG OLED Settings Options
Yamaha RX-A3060: 7.2.4 or 7.2.2 + Zone2 (switchable); OPPO 203; LG OLED65B6P; Harmony 650 & Home Hub
Base: Mirage OM-6 (FLR), MC-si (C), OM-R2 (SLR), FRx-nine (BLR)
Presence: ELAC A4s (FP), RSL C34Es (RP); 2 aci Titan subs; RP amp: AudioSource AMP100VS
richlife is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #454 of 479 Old 03-06-2018, 11:50 AM
Member
 
A.T.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Colorado
Posts: 141
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 64
"4K"
I think upgrading will be a non-issue in 2 years- Thanks to TV companies marketing it will probably all be 3840 × 2160p. If your TV breaks in 2 years I doubt you'll be able to find a 1080p with HDR or Dolby Vision (which I feel makes a substantial difference on the smaller, more common 50" screens). Would I upgrade, sure, but not for the reason you think. I currently sit far enough away from a 50" screen that it wouldn't make much of a difference (in MY MLP), but if people were to come over and beanbag it on the floor in front of me then I wouldn't want their audio and visual to be crappy (okay let's face it I'd probably take the bean bag at 3-4 feet from screen and give them the MLP- I'm a sucker).

"8K"
For the "bean-baggers" in the dedicated future theater; I definitely would want at least a good picture at 3 or 4 ft--when I upgrade to 96" or 108." And will likely take it even further with a big screen x >96", passive 3-D, "8K", Dolby Vision upgrade...but I think that's IT as far as definition goes, color, contrast, etc will continue to improve over time just to feed the upgrade addiction.

"16K"
If in 10-15 years "16K" comes out I'd emphatically say NO; unless a Man in a White Sox jersey comes out of a cornfield and whispers to me "Go the distance"

Aaron
Ben23 likes this.

All ya need is love, and Hi Fi sound.
Asthetix, Audreal, Arcam FMJ, Musical Fidelity, Harmonix, Marantz, Tannoy, MIT, PS3, Panasonic, OPPO

Last edited by A.T.M.; 03-07-2018 at 06:38 PM.
A.T.M. is offline  
post #455 of 479 Old 03-09-2018, 12:16 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 11
HDR seems like the bigger deal to me than the 4k resolution. So I'm going to say... "sorta". Higher resolution is nice, but in everything other than videogames, it's not really going to dramatically enhance my experience as much as better colors and contrast ratio. I don't look at a nice large 1080p TV and think to myself "this looks bad." As long as the TV is good enough and the content being played is native resolution, the worst I think to myself is "this looks soft".

But real film in a movie theater looks soft to me as well. So it's not unnatural or anything.
Ben23 likes this.
Peltz-0 is offline  
post #456 of 479 Old 03-09-2018, 12:19 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peltz-0 View Post
HDR seems like the bigger deal to me than the 4k resolution. So I'm going to say... "sorta". Higher resolution is nice, but in everything other than videogames, it's not really going to dramatically enhance my experience as much as better colors and contrast ratio. I don't look at a nice large 1080p TV and think to myself "this looks bad." As long as the TV is good enough and the content being played is native resolution, the worst I think to myself is "this looks soft".

But real film in a movie theater looks soft to me as well. So it's not unnatural or anything.
And DCI/P3 color is another "bigger deal" for me.
erkq is offline  
post #457 of 479 Old 03-14-2018, 08:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 4,527
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1105 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bott View Post
Let's face it, for the most part, most of the world won't get any benefit out of it because the displays are just too small in the average household to truly see the high-resolution of a 4K monitor.
You state this as though it were a fact (as do some other people). But it's not a fact. It would be some trouble to set up a blind test to see whether human viewers could tell a 2K from a 4K TV picture, but it wouldn't be terribly difficult. It hasn't been done, so far as I know. Instead, all I see are theoretical arguments based on what some people think they know about human perception.

And not only is it not a fact, in my opinion it is not even plausible. It doesn't take into account that dithering should produce a greater apparent color depth on a display with more pixels.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #458 of 479 Old 03-14-2018, 01:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
You state this as though it were a fact (as do some other people). But it's not a fact. It would be some trouble to set up a blind test to see whether human viewers could tell a 2K from a 4K TV picture, but it wouldn't be terribly difficult. It hasn't been done, so far as I know. Instead, all I see are theoretical arguments based on what some people think they know about human perception.

And not only is it not a fact, in my opinion it is not even plausible. It doesn't take into account that dithering should produce a greater apparent color depth on a display with more pixels.
It's not "theoretical". Angular perception limits are angular perception limits. It all depends on the angle of view, so that blind test would have to be done at proscribed angles of view.

We don't want "greater apparent color depth". We want Rec.709 or DCI/P3 or BT.2020... not some modified version of these. We want the color depth that the standard calls for. Anything else is fakery.
erkq is offline  
post #459 of 479 Old 03-14-2018, 03:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 4,527
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1105 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
It's not "theoretical". Angular perception limits are angular perception limits. It all depends on the angle of view, so that blind test would have to be done at proscribed angles of view.

We don't want "greater apparent color depth". We want Rec.709 or DCI/P3 or BT.2020... not some modified version of these. We want the color depth that the standard calls for. Anything else is fakery.
I see. Assuming you meant "prescribed" for "proscribed", your idea of high fidelity is not faithfulness to reality, but faithfulness to a standard. Well, then, thank God for standards organizations; without them, progress would be impossible.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #460 of 479 Old 03-14-2018, 04:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
I see. Assuming you meant "prescribed" for "proscribed", your idea of high fidelity is not faithfulness to reality, but faithfulness to a standard. Well, then, thank God for standards organizations; without them, progress would be impossible.
That's absolutely right. I did mean "prescribed". Slip of the key...

Without standards there'd be no accuracy. And without accuracy there'd be no "faithfulness to reality" because "reality" would not be defined. And, you are right, without standards, progress is not possible.

Have you seen a properly calibrated home theater? Gamma especially... gamma is half the battle. Proper gamma gives you that "looking through a window" feeling. Beyond a certain point, more resolution doesn't add much. Proper gamma, color, luminance, saturation become more important by far.
erkq is offline  
post #461 of 479 Old 03-15-2018, 09:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
TravisPNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 923
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 569 Post(s)
Liked: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by richlife View Post

So without a doubt, 4K makes a difference. Will the world falter and skip a beat without 4k? No. Does 4k hugley improve our enjoyment of even 720x480 DVD with upscaling? Yes. What we had with HD is clearly a step below 4K, we get more bang and enjoyment from 4k and with the larger screen sizes (I'm now at 65" BECAUSE of 4K), it is indeed changing our view of the world.
Well said.

I also upgraded because of 4K... from a 2011 42" plasma to a 65" OLED B7A last month. It's a noticeable difference over 1080p to me... my 4k UHD disc collection is already over 50 titles. Most of the new content looks absolutely amazing. $2500 for the TV was definitely worth it. No buyer's remorse here.

While I can see the 1080p to 4K difference... I can't help but wonder if it's going to be the same with 8K or 16K. Your eyes can only see so much they say...
richlife likes this.

LG B7A OLED 65” / LG SJ9 Atmos Sound Bar / LG UP970 BR Player / Apple TV 4K
i7 7700k 11GB 1080 Ti 32GB Ram 2x 1TB 960 Evo / XBox One X / Nintendo Switch
Movie collection: https://www.blu-ray.com/community/co...3&categoryid=7
TravisPNW is offline  
post #462 of 479 Old 03-15-2018, 01:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisPNW View Post
Well said.

I also upgraded because of 4K... from a 2011 42" plasma to a 65" OLED B7A last month. It's a noticeable difference over 1080p to me... my 4k UHD disc collection is already over 50 titles. Most of the new content looks absolutely amazing. $2500 for the TV was definitely worth it. No buyer's remorse here.

While I can see the 1080p to 4K difference... I can't help but wonder if it's going to be the same with 8K or 16K. Your eyes can only see so much they say...
UHD brings a lot more important advances to the table than just 4k. It brings the DCI/P3 color gamut as well as HDR. UHD is going to look a lot better than HD just because of those two things. Almost all UHD disks are mastered from 2k sources anyway, so it's all upconversion fakery anyway at this point..

I have 10 foot wide 16/9 screen. It's hard to tell any resolution difference from 1 screen width or further. Closer... definitely.

What your eyes can see is 1 arc-minute. That's the bottom line limitation.
TravisPNW likes this.
erkq is offline  
post #463 of 479 Old 03-15-2018, 01:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
TravisPNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 923
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 569 Post(s)
Liked: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
UHD brings a lot more important advances to the table than just 4k. It brings the DCI/P3 color gamut as well as HDR. UHD is going to look a lot better than HD just because of those two things. Almost all UHD disks are mastered from 2k sources anyway, so it's all upconversion fakery anyway at this point..

I have 10 foot wide 16/9 screen. It's hard to tell any resolution difference from 1 screen width or further. Closer... definitely.

What your eyes can see is 1 arc-minute. That's the bottom line limitation.
Glad I sit close. The 65" is perfect and the UHD details (and colors) are obvious. It's hard to say what has looked the best... but I'd rank Planet Earth II near the top of my personal list.
Ben23 likes this.

LG B7A OLED 65” / LG SJ9 Atmos Sound Bar / LG UP970 BR Player / Apple TV 4K
i7 7700k 11GB 1080 Ti 32GB Ram 2x 1TB 960 Evo / XBox One X / Nintendo Switch
Movie collection: https://www.blu-ray.com/community/co...3&categoryid=7
TravisPNW is offline  
post #464 of 479 Old 03-15-2018, 02:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisPNW View Post
Glad I sit close. The 65" is perfect and the UHD details (and colors) are obvious. It's hard to say what has looked the best... but I'd rank Planet Earth II near the top of my personal list.
I believe the second Planet Earth is a true 4k UHD. Cool!
erkq is offline  
post #465 of 479 Old 03-15-2018, 03:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
TravisPNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 923
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 569 Post(s)
Liked: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
I believe the second Planet Earth is a true 4k UHD. Cool!
Yep.

I hear ya about the upscale fakery... and I like to check realorfake4k.com just to get the scoop on my purchases.

... and yeah, PE2 is the real deal. Amazing footage and looks stunning on my OLED. I just picked up Blue Planet 2 and it's also true 4K. Gonna be a treat to watch. Eye candy galore.
Ben23 likes this.

LG B7A OLED 65” / LG SJ9 Atmos Sound Bar / LG UP970 BR Player / Apple TV 4K
i7 7700k 11GB 1080 Ti 32GB Ram 2x 1TB 960 Evo / XBox One X / Nintendo Switch
Movie collection: https://www.blu-ray.com/community/co...3&categoryid=7
TravisPNW is offline  
post #466 of 479 Old 03-15-2018, 03:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisPNW View Post
Yep.

I hear ya about the upscale fakery... and I like to check realorfake4k.com just to get the scoop on my purchases.

... and yeah, PE2 is the real deal. Amazing footage and looks stunning on my OLED. I just picked up Blue Planet 2 and it's also true 4K. Gonna be a treat to watch. Eye candy galore.
Thanks for that realorfake4k.com site. You're more "in the know" than I.
TravisPNW likes this.
erkq is offline  
post #467 of 479 Old 12-27-2018, 12:36 PM
Member
 
PewPewK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 4
I can say, without a doubt, that 4K makes a huge difference on my monitors, at least. Seriously, it felt like visual fidelity jumped 10x when I made the switch from a 1080p to 2160p monitor.
PewPewK is offline  
post #468 of 479 Old 01-22-2019, 11:39 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,504
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 874 Post(s)
Liked: 2057
4K HDR TV and magnificent upscaling is a godsend for me. I stagger sometimes at how good DVD and Blu-ray look. 4K Blu-ray is additional wonderment when done right, but generally I find the hype is greater than the return.
Panson is offline  
post #469 of 479 Old 02-09-2019, 02:03 PM
Member
 
quadryda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panson View Post
4K HDR TV and magnificent upscaling is a godsend for me. I stagger sometimes at how good DVD and Blu-ray look. 4K Blu-ray is additional wonderment when done right, but generally I find the hype is greater than the return.
Yes, i like the 4k upscaling too and its enough for me. I dont need nativ 4k
quadryda is offline  
post #470 of 479 Old 02-09-2019, 07:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Jonas2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: South Bay Area
Posts: 5,771
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2860 Post(s)
Liked: 1825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panson View Post
4K HDR TV and magnificent upscaling is a godsend for me. I stagger sometimes at how good DVD and Blu-ray look. 4K Blu-ray is additional wonderment when done right, but generally I find the hype is greater than the return.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quadryda View Post
Yes, i like the 4k upscaling too and its enough for me. I dont need nativ 4k

Well, some of that is not from 4K masters, so understandably not as impressive, but actual 4K content is pretty sweet. Far better in 4K than downscaled to 1080p, but 1080p upscaled ain't half bad either, true enough!

7.2.4 System: Display: Sony XBR-65X930D; Processing: Anthem AVM60
Mains:
Paradigm Prestige 85F and 55C; Side / Rear Surrounds: Totem Acoustic Tribe III / Tribe I; Amplification: D-Sonic M3a-2800-7 (7ch. x 400w)
ATMOS:
Definitive Technology DI8R; Amplification: Class D Audio SDS-470C (4ch. x 300w)
Subwoofers:
2 x SVS-SB13Ultras; Media: Oppo UDP-203, Pioneer CLD-59
Jonas2 is offline  
post #471 of 479 Old 02-26-2019, 05:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Lindahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,847
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 23
It's pretty easy to calculate whether it would possibly make a difference to you...
https://www.roadtovr.com/understandi...d-ar-headsets/
https://res18h39.netlify.com/calculator

Given the exact same source... here are the various figures for TV sizes given 60 pixels per degree (maximum visual acuity of a human with perfect vision):
You need to sit less than 12.72 feet for a 55" TV
You need to sit less than 15 feet for a 65" TV
You need to sit less than 17 feet for a 75" TV

I would guess that the actual figures for seeing a *noticeable* difference are probably closer to 40 pixels per degree, so...
8.5 feet for a 55" TV
10 feet for a 65" TV
12 feet for a 75" TV

For someone to see a *significant* difference, I'd say it's probably even lower at 30 pixels per degree, so...
6 feet for a 55" TV
7.5 feet for a 65" TV
8.5 feet for a 75" TV

Of course, 'noticeable' and 'significant' are pretty subjective terms.
Lindahl is offline  
post #472 of 479 Old 02-28-2019, 03:29 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: San Francisco; California
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by durack View Post
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1449570/sound-off-4k-2160p-or-whatever-you-care-to-call-it-do-we-need-it/120#post_22795353" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>imagic</strong> <a href="/t/1449570/sound-off-4k-2160p-or-whatever-you-care-to-call-it-do-we-need-it/120#post_22795353"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
Not as a platform for streaming for 4K movies. It should be the leading platform for that, just like the PS3 is today for Netflix in the living room. Besides, children will not cease to exist and they are not as picky. To them, 4K can look jagged and it's okay - so long as it's an improvement on the Jagged 1080p of the current generation.</div>
</div>
<br>
To be honest, I do not understand what you are trying to say.<br><br>
Of note, hardly any current console games run at 1080p, most current gen games run at 720p natively. Next gen consoles will certainly not run at 4K resolution, they will barely be able to push consistent 1080p/60.
Yes we need it. When has a better display not been needed? If we don't need 4k then why did we ever progress from the first black and white tv's? Progress is good.
Muscovy43 is offline  
post #473 of 479 Old 03-17-2019, 01:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post
It's pretty easy to calculate whether it would possibly make a difference to you...
https://www.roadtovr.com/understandi...d-ar-headsets/
https://res18h39.netlify.com/calculator

Given the exact same source... here are the various figures for TV sizes given 60 pixels per degree (maximum visual acuity of a human with perfect vision):
You need to sit less than 12.72 feet for a 55" TV
You need to sit less than 15 feet for a 65" TV
You need to sit less than 17 feet for a 75" TV

I would guess that the actual figures for seeing a *noticeable* difference are probably closer to 40 pixels per degree, so...
8.5 feet for a 55" TV
10 feet for a 65" TV
12 feet for a 75" TV

For someone to see a *significant* difference, I'd say it's probably even lower at 30 pixels per degree, so...
6 feet for a 55" TV
7.5 feet for a 65" TV
8.5 feet for a 75" TV

Of course, 'noticeable' and 'significant' are pretty subjective terms.
Glad to see someone do an analysis of the proper measurements given human visual acuity.
erkq is offline  
post #474 of 479 Old 03-18-2019, 03:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,895
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2168 Post(s)
Liked: 1094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post
It's pretty easy to calculate whether it would possibly make a difference to you...
https://www.roadtovr.com/understandi...d-ar-headsets/
https://res18h39.netlify.com/calculator

Given the exact same source... here are the various figures for TV sizes given 60 pixels per degree (maximum visual acuity of a human with perfect vision):
You need to sit less than 12.72 feet for a 55" TV
You need to sit less than 15 feet for a 65" TV
You need to sit less than 17 feet for a 75" TV

I would guess that the actual figures for seeing a *noticeable* difference are probably closer to 40 pixels per degree, so...
8.5 feet for a 55" TV
10 feet for a 65" TV
12 feet for a 75" TV

For someone to see a *significant* difference, I'd say it's probably even lower at 30 pixels per degree, so...
6 feet for a 55" TV
7.5 feet for a 65" TV
8.5 feet for a 75" TV

Of course, 'noticeable' and 'significant' are pretty subjective terms.
I was thinking about all this 3 years ago and started a thread. You and some others here might find some of it interesting to read. Like you I was focused on pixel size and acuity and felt there should be a line where good enough is reached. There is in fact and that line has been reached for most with 1080p in terms of pixel size / acuity being good enough. That in no way means we have reached the limits of human vision though just that the qualifier has moved from pixels to a concept in vision as to what is reality as opposed to image.

Here is the read if you want to know more of the groups thoughts on the subject.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-di...al-acuity.html

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #475 of 479 Old 03-23-2019, 06:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
Dave Moritz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked: 84
If it just boiled down to increased resolution I would have said no as there are so many great looking 1080p blu-rays out there. Not only that but they look really good upconverted to 4K but 4K UHD is more than just resolution! One of the things that makes 4K a must have is HDR! HDR and a wider color gamete along with resolution can give us that true cinema quality at home for the first time ever. Not sure if we really need 8K but lets face it the equipment manufactures are going to give it to us if we want it or not. Not saying I will not own an 8K tv but the only thing to drive me to get one will be size! Will have to have 80" - 100" display for it to be really worth it IMHO. All I can say is that my new Sony 4K OLED is the best tv I ever owned!

HT System: Marantz SR-8012 Receiver, Emotiva XPA-3 Amplifier, Sony XBR55A9F 55"OLED 4K TV, Panasonic DP-UB9000 4K UHD Blu-ray Player, 4K Apple TV 64GB, Speakers: Altec Lancing A-7's (L&R), Klipsch RC-64 lll center channel, Klipsch RP-600M surround speakers, Advent Marbles, HSU VTF-3 MK5HP subwoofer. AudioQuest cables, Pangea Audio speaker stands, Harmony Elite Remote.
Dave Moritz is offline  
post #476 of 479 Old 04-24-2019, 11:56 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: NJ
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 2
I was a semi early adopter to 4k and was underwhelmed. When I purchased it in the store clearly they were pipping in crisp clear 4k content and they all looked amazing. After I got it home and realized there was limited 4k resources I was left with a pinch of buyers remorse. When blu rays were coming out in 4k I got jazzed up again about it however fell off the wagon of buying 4k blu rays and slipped back into what comcast and netflix's has to offer. Netflix is now starting to push 4k content which is awesome if your wifi can handle it or hopefully you have your tv hardwired.... Hoping to see 4k being pushed more through local services providers would be amazing at a minimum HD channels look amazing and would hate to go back to a "standard" set.

I think the people on this forum NEED 4k however most other probably wouldn't see much of a difference as they aren't as in tune to much of this type of things.
lycokayaker is offline  
post #477 of 479 Old 04-24-2019, 12:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycokayaker View Post
...
I think the people on this forum NEED 4k however most other probably wouldn't see much of a difference as they aren't as in tune to much of this type of things.
I don't think the additional resolution is terribly important but P3 color instead of Rec.709 and HDR could be worthy additions.
Drewdawg likes this.
erkq is offline  
post #478 of 479 Old 04-24-2019, 12:23 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: NJ
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 2
and this is why I am a humble new member... lol Tryin to gather as much information like sponge. I am out of tune as I bought a "new" 4k tv 2 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
I don't think the additional resolution is terribly important but P3 color instead of Rec.709 and HDR could be worthy additions.
lycokayaker is offline  
post #479 of 479 Old 04-27-2019, 07:30 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 23,105
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2157 Post(s)
Liked: 793
I didn't want or need 4k but got it so that I could get Atmos soundtracks.

Noah
noah katz is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Community News & Polls

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