AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok! I've looked at several sets now on display at a few HDTV sales outlets, and maybe I'm just too old, but is there a threshold that exists where the human eye is no longer capable of perceiving any more DPI?

BTW: I'm 47 and wear reading glasses, but i also have 20x15 vision.

Here's why I ask.:

When I look at sets less than 50 inches, I don't see any difference between 4k and 1080p.

When I look at sets over 60 inches, from around 8 feet away, I can see a good bit of difference between 4k and 1080p.

When I look at these sets from greater than 10 feet away, I can no longer see any difference, and with a 70 inch set, you'll need to be at least that far away to view the whole screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,893 Posts
This may sound obvious, but the source material needs to be in 4K. Upconverted HD, particularly material already degraded from compression, will probably not look much different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: videobruce

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,528 Posts
This may sound obvious, but the source material needs to be in 4K. Upconverted HD, particularly material already degraded from compression, will probably not look much different.

True. But unfortunately 4K is less than 1% of the content world right now. And broadcasters don't even give us native 1080p yet! At this rate the 4k content world won't exist until 2024 or later. And the industry will already have moved on to upscaled 8k or 16k.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
I haven't had much of a chance to experiment with 4K displays, but my concern is that I buy a set only to find that 1080p content looks worse on it, due to upscaling, than if presented on a native 1080p set.

I've heard suggestions that 4K LED sets can sometimes present blurring or even juddering when trying to upscale 1080p on the fly. If so, that begs the question about what SD would look like.

Can anyone assure me that 1080p should look at LEAST as good on a 2014-onwards 4K set as it would on an HD display, given what I expect to be a paucity of 4K content in the short to medium term?

Desk
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,921 Posts
I haven't had much of a chance to experiment with 4K displays, but my concern is that I buy a set only to find that 1080p content looks worse on it, due to upscaling, than if presented on a native 1080p set.

I've heard suggestions that 4K LED sets can sometimes present blurring or even juddering when trying to upscale 1080p on the fly. If so, that begs the question about what SD would look like.

Can anyone assure me that 1080p should look at LEAST as good on a 2014-onwards 4K set as it would on an HD display, given what I expect to be a paucity of 4K content in the short to medium term?

Desk
4k or not 4k is a choice for each to make. On thing I can confirm is no Upscaling I have seen to 4K makes it look worse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
865 Posts
I think it depends more on you panel size. A larger panel will definitely benefit using 4k with more pixel density. Who wants a 70"+ display with only 1080 definition? Let alone 84". Who wants to watch video through a screen door?
 

·
Premium Member
Bedroom: 50-in 1080p LCD, XG1v4 (Ultra HD DVR for Comcast), BD Player; Office: 32-in LCD, etc.
Joined
·
2,441 Posts
I think it depends more on you panel size. A larger panel will definitely benefit using 4k with more pixel density. Who wants a 70"+ display with only 1080 definition? Let alone 84". Who wants to watch video through a screen door?
Don't forget that viewing distance also matters. If I am viewing a 70"+ screen from 20 feet away, 1080 may be good enough, but not if I am viewing it from 5 feet.

At 7 feet, my 50-in 1080 screen has enough resolution, but there are times I wished it had more color steps, especially in scenes where you think the Producer forgot to pay the electric bill so you are watching near-black on black.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
You are correct in your view. It will take a screen 100" plus to have a significant imorovement at routine home viewing distances. The current sets are also not providing the other enhancements that will come when the full spec is implemented that may include higher frame rates, enhanced color and higher dynamic range. These enhancements could provide greater enjoyment than the increased 4k resolution.

With little or no content, the lack of other enhancements and the plain fact that at normal viewing distances the resolution improvement alone is not huge, the current crop of 4k Tvs are going to be hard to sell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
4k or not 4k is a choice for each to make. On thing I can confirm is no Upscaling I have seen to 4K makes it look worse.
We'll, that's certainly encouraging. So long as no content is compromised by being viewed on a 4K set, then there's only benefits to be gained from going for a set with this resolution (albeit coming with an extra cost at present).

I was viewing 4K sets yesterday, and although you might not see an advantage over 1080p when watching from a distance of perhaps more than 7 feet on sizes up to about 65", the increased resolution does mean that you can comfortably sit much closer without screen structure becoming apparent and can therefore have a really immersive experience. You can, also, have a seriously kick-ass computer monitor. :)

Desk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,604 Posts
Here's my question. Since the vast majority of us will be watching 1080i and 720p (unless watching a blu-ray), does simply adding the extra pixels improve the over all PQ from say 15' on a 65" display? I mention, "Adding pixels" as a criteria because I'm sure major brand 4K set has better components included with the "adding pixels" feature. For instance I see some compression problems even from 15ft. on facial close ups (crawly texture). Will the average 65" 4k set do a better job of handling that kind of problem? How much does the video processor play a role here? Different or better chip sets?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
True. But unfortunately 4K is less than 1% of the content world right now. And broadcasters don't even give us native 1080p yet! At this rate the 4k content world won't exist until 2024 or later. And the industry will already have moved on to upscaled 8k or 16k.
8K is already out they're $25,000 usd
And I think it will be awhile before the boadcasting system will be able to cope with that high of resolution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,440 Posts
Last year I saw a Samsung 4K demo at a home show. It was about a 55" set; looked very close to mine in size. They were playing native 4K content on a loop. I gotta' tell you -- it was spectacular. The so-called window effect HD was supposed to give us but didn't really. Especially after cable and satellite providers started degrading the PQ with severe compression, rate shaping, high-frequency filtering, etc.

No, 4K is the real deal. Obviously the improvement becomes more apparent the larger the display, but any size display will benefit from 4K. I don't know about upsampled content as I haven't seen that.

That said, I'm in no hurry. It will be several years before it's mainstreamed, prices drop, and there's enough native content to make it worthwhile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,528 Posts
8K is already out they're $25,000 usd
And I think it will be awhile before the boadcasting system will be able to cope with that high of resolution.

I'm unsure the mainstream marketplace ever needs or requires more than 1080p for broadcast medium. Think about it. The average casual viewer (80%+ of the market) is 100% satisfied with 480p-720p-1080i-1080p. It works for them and imparts enough ooo's and ahs in un-low compressed broadcasts, severely compressed cable/Sat, Blu-Ray, DVD, Games and streaming. IMO, much more can be gained in the mass market segment by just continuing to improve the overall PQ and color gamut of 1080p.


4K resolutions and beyond could and perhaps should be a significant centerpiece of high end A/V systems and professional markets like film making & Theaters, Large screen HT-HTPC setups, the emerging Virtual Reality micro- display market, Blu-Ray Movies (2D-3D). In other words...focused on the higher profit 20% of the market that drives real innovation and trends.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,260 Posts
Will 4K ever catch on with OTA stations? Considering they are already compressing because of multiple sub channels, and the FCC wanting OTA stations to sell or share some of their bandwidth with mobile phone providers, how will they ever have enough bandwidth to even broadcast 4K?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
988 Posts
Terrestial/Satellite 1080i for us in the UK is about 10Mbit... not too bad but you can see compression artefacts on fast content.
I can't imagine 4K over DVB-T/DVB-S any time soon because it will require about 4 x this bandwidth, for an interlaced format at 50 fields/sec. If it is progressive, even more...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,118 Posts
Terrestial/Satellite 1080i for us in the UK is about 10Mbit... not too bad but you can see compression artefacts on fast content.
I can't imagine 4K over DVB-T/DVB-S any time soon because it will require about 4 x this bandwidth, for an interlaced format at 50 fields/sec. If it is progressive, even more...
They're going to be using HEVC instead of AVC/H264, and progressive should be more efficient than interlaced.

They've already been trialling UK terrestrial UHD broadcasts at ~59.9401 fps at 37 Mbps http://www.avsforum.com/forum/25-hdtv-technical/1522813-u-s-broadcasters-diss-4k-4.html#post25177306
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
988 Posts
Yeah... that's not going to work at the moment.

BBC has just about got 5 simultaneous HD streams. (BBC One HD, BBC Two HD, BBC Three HD / CBBC HD timeshare, BBC Four HD / Cbeebies timeshare, BBC News HD.) This has taken years and a whole new multiplex to get this far, plus millions of £ in spending on equipment and bandwidth.

4K requires 3.7x as much bandwidth even if using HEVC. Even Sky TV have only got 70 HD channels on a dedicated satellite, so they will have look having 1/4 this in 4K (if they can even find the bandwidth given they have been squeezing as much as possible out of Astra.)

I predict we will see 20Mbit 4K as a compromise and to most, it will come out looking worse than 1080i at 10Mbits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,118 Posts
I predict we will see 20Mbit 4K as a compromise and to most, it will come out looking worse than 1080i at 10Mbits.
I agree they're going to reduce it from 37 Mbps, like they reduced the HD bitrate from the initial tests. I think they may reduce it to 20 Mbps, maybe even more. But 20 Mbps 2160p 50-60 fps HEVC should look better than 1080i 10 Mbps AVC. But that's just phase 1, phase 2 UHD1 if we get it a bit later (assuming high enough bitrate) should be even better.
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Top