[aaronspink]

Also 4K as far as I can tell is the same as SACD, etc. A lot of pushing, not a lot of taking/buying.

[patsu]

Originally Posted by Ninjaprime

Yeah, what do they intend to put these movies on? You get ~3 hours of 1080p on a 50GB Blu-ray IIRC, 4x the data means you need close to 200GB discs. Last I checked BDXL only goes to 128GB and I have yet to see one of those in the wild, not to mention Blu-ray adoption is still tiny, good luck getting anyone to switch.

I think they are considering the nextgen codecs. e.g., H.265.
It is said that 50Gb is enough for most movies but I have not probed deeper.

[Ninjaprime]

Originally Posted by patsu

I think they are considering the nextgen codecs. e.g., H.265.
It is said that 50Gb is enough for most movies but I have not probed deeper.

Isn't that counter-productive though, to increase compression rates and thus loss in order to achieve higher res? Or do new codecs have similar look/loss with higher compression? Not a big video guy, so I don't know, honestly.

[patsu]

Originally Posted by Ninjaprime

Or do new codecs have similar look/loss with higher compression?

From what I heard, yes.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by UniversalTruth

8K at 28-32 " (display size) should match human vision. 4K- well, it should be smaller--- 20-22 " maybe, you have to calculate it using formulae...

This classic chart :



http://www.hdforindies.com/2006/12/w...ifference.html
4k would, I estimate, place its ideal viewing distance on a 40" TV at 2.5 feet away. A US sized TV of 60" would need you to sit about 4 feet away. Normal sized TVs are not going to give a better viewing experience at hgher resolutions above 1080p for normal viewing. This makes it a useless feature to chase, at considerable cost. Ergo it's not going to happen. HD managed to start selling to the masses because HD offered some observable upgrade, although lots still can't tell the difference. Trying to sell someone a new 4k TV which doesn't look any better is going to be a hard sell. Only when you are supplying massive screens/projections, will 4k be important, and that'll be a tiny niche. LG's 4k set shown at CES this year was 84". That wants a viewing distance of something like 5 or 6 feet to make the most of 4k. Viewed from 10 feet away, 84" is amply served by a 1080p display. It'll be great for public viewing, like in a shop window where people can get close and check out the detail, but it's a useless consumer specification that won't result in significant numbers of displays, won't find support in consumer goods (have you tried filming and editing home movies at 1080p? Do you really want to blow that many more resources on filming and editing 4k movies??), and so doesn't need to be targeted in consoles. For the tiny niche that will have massive display resolution, they'll be served by high-end PCs.

[tuna]

Originally Posted by Laa-Yosh

That's an absurd race in content creation. TV has already had to throw away anchorwomen and actresses over 40 without botox, 1080p is too much, On the other side, hw requirements for 4K are absurd, from storage through bandwidth to CPU time (on CGI).

It's just a desperate effort from the TV manufacturers to sell a new set next year. They should focus on OLED instead

Yes, let's stop progress! 1080p should be enough for everyone!!

[UniversalTruth]

I really don't care about distance, it's irrelvant to me, like the above chart too.

[RobertR1]

Outside of spec whores who get a hard on for "bigger is better" 4k will be mainly of best use for those with projectors.

I see no reason why a console manufacturer should waste time and resources on it.

The CE industry will push it only if it's cheap to produce and can get people to cycle out their hdtv's.

[aaronspink]

Originally Posted by UniversalTruth

I really don't care about distance, it's irrelvant to me, like the above chart too.

um, 4K isn't happening for a while and all the UHD/8k talk is at best a marketing stunt.

Outside of movie theaters, you aren't going to find 4k outside of marketing gimmicks for a while. The infrastructure simply isn't there. A vast majority of the 1080p infrastructure hasn't even been amortized yet.

[UniversalTruth]

Originally Posted by RobertR1

Outside of spec whores who get a hard on for "bigger is better" 4k will be mainly of best use for those with projectors.

Actually it is exactly the opposite.
The projectors owners get the hard one, while those with tablets and laptops do enjoy higher resolutions, thus quality.

[itsmydamnation]

Originally Posted by UniversalTruth

Actually it is exactly the opposite.
The projectors owners get the hard one, while those with tablets and laptops do enjoy higher resolutions, thus quality.

resolution does not equal quality.

what is better

720P H264 L5.1 @ 5000 Kbps or
1080P H264 L5.1 @ 5000 Kbps

one has less but larger artifacts, the other has way more but smaller artifacts.

[UniversalTruth]

Originally Posted by itsmydamnation

resolution does not equal quality.

The same resolution looks better on smaller display size simply because ppi is higher.

That's why those with smartphones and tables, and new laptops do always enjoy higher quality.


And of course it does, it's fair to assume everything else is equal, you don't have to put a case where you have higher resolution but worse codec.

[aaronspink]

Originally Posted by UniversalTruth

Actually it is exactly the opposite.
The projectors owners get the hard one, while those with tablets and laptops do enjoy higher resolutions, thus quality.

Projectors are available in both 4K and 8K if you have the money.

[eastmen]

I dunno , We are finaly back up to 70/90 inch tvs . Alot of people could fit 120 inch tvs on their walls and recreate movie thearters. I know in my small condo my gf and I can put up a 180 inch tv and we'd be about 6-8 feet away from it..... Okay gotta stop drooling

[mrcorbo]

Originally Posted by UniversalTruth

The same resolution looks better on smaller display size simply because ppi is higher.

That's why those with smartphones and tables, and new laptops do always enjoy higher quality.

The short viewing distance typical in those applications is why you can still perceive a difference with higher PPI. The PPI your eyes can physically resolve decreases with distance which is why the chart that Shifty posted is relevant. There's nothing subjective about this, it's fact.

[upnorthsox]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

This classic chart :



http://www.hdforindies.com/2006/12/w...ifference.html
4k would, I estimate, place its ideal viewing distance on a 40" TV at 2.5 feet away. A US sized TV of 60" would need you to sit about 4 feet away. Normal sized TVs are not going to give a better viewing experience at hgher resolutions above 1080p for normal viewing. This makes it a useless feature to chase, at considerable cost. Ergo it's not going to happen. HD managed to start selling to the masses because HD offered some observable upgrade, although lots still can't tell the difference. Trying to sell someone a new 4k TV which doesn't look any better is going to be a hard sell. Only when you are supplying massive screens/projections, will 4k be important, and that'll be a tiny niche. LG's 4k set shown at CES this year was 84". That wants a viewing distance of something like 5 or 6 feet to make the most of 4k. Viewed from 10 feet away, 84" is amply served by a 1080p display. It'll be great for public viewing, like in a shop window where people can get close and check out the detail, but it's a useless consumer specification that won't result in significant numbers of displays, won't find support in consumer goods (have you tried filming and editing home movies at 1080p? Do you really want to blow that many more resources on filming and editing 4k movies??), and so doesn't need to be targeted in consoles. For the tiny niche that will have massive display resolution, they'll be served by high-end PCs.

Oh god, not that thing again.....it's always nice to know that the 12" B/W TV I had as a kid was the true HD experience. I just never thought of watching it at 40 feet away instead of 4 inches. I was so naive back then.

Actually the ultimate is of course the 1p. Any size, any distance, always the a true full benefit.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by UniversalTruth

I really don't care about distance, it's irrelvant to me, like the above chart too.

Well it's not irrelevant to anyone with a scientific interest in creating displays and content that is good quality.

This ridiculous image:


...is utterly meaningless. By the same definition, why not ask for 12k images? They'll be better, right? Human visual resolving power is finite. Most people don't have perfect vision. Video content is already compressed. you just want pixels for pixels sake without understanding what that value represents. You're talking like those ignorant consumer who buy a camera with more megapixels to view 1080p images on a TV or print out 6x4" photos, for which only 8 megapixels is needed, and these same consumers will ignore completely the imaging optics which are far more important in capturing detail.

Originally Posted by upnorthsox

Oh god, not that thing again.....it's always nice to know that the 12" B/W TV I had as a kid was the true HD experience. I just never thought of watching it at 40 feet away instead of 4 inches. I was so naive back then.

That's just being stupid. The chart is based on the eye's resolving power in terms of degrees of vision, rather than a pixel count. And this is an actually meaningful number - resolving power to 1/60 th of a degree. That's how posters with big blobs of colour work at a distance. That's how tiny little ink drops on a 300 dpi photo work. So yes, your 12" BW set from yesteryear would have given the same resolution in terms of resolvable detail if viewed from far enough away, but it'd also have only occupied a tiny space in your FOV and been hard to see what was on the screen. That's why we like bigger screens, so we can see more at comfortable distance. And on larger screens we need more pixels for them to not be discretely discernable. But above the viewer's optical limits is a complete waste of time and resources. There is zero logic behind wanting more pixels in a screen that is going to be viewed from a distance where those more pixels won't make any difference to the image quality. 4k screens with more pixels will be useful for 3D, but there are far more important and worthwhile issues that need to be addressed to get better image quality, such as pixel transtition time to elliminate ghosting, or colour representation to overcome RGB's limits.

[Scott_Arm]

4k sounds nice and all, but there won't be any content for it until 5-10 years from now. Tell me which streaming service (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, iTunes, Google etc) is going to support 4k resolution in the next five years?

[UniversalTruth]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

By the same definition, why not ask for 12k images? They'll be better, right?

Yes, it is better, and when 8K becomes obsolete in 10-15 years, you'll see it- whatever you want- 12K, 16K, 24K, and so on...

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

you just want pixels for pixels sake without understanding what that value represents. You're talking like those ignorant consumer who buy a camera with more megapixels to view 1080p images on a TV or print out 6x4" photos, for which only 8 megapixels is needed, and these same consumers will ignore completely the imaging optics which are far more important in capturing detail.

That's not true for me.
Take a look again at those SD and HD TVs on the previous image in that same post. What do you see and what don't you see? See any difference or not?

BTW: When talking about those new standards they always advertise the picture quality beyond the resolution- you have richer colours, better contrast, etc. You know what I'm talking about. More interactive options, etc..

[upnorthsox]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

That's just being stupid. ........

You're right, that chart is just stupid. Or should I say how people use it is stupid.

The underlying graph is distance to size. So at a given distance, what size screen should I have (or vice versa). If that D:S ratio is correct then the IQ will increase with resolution. If it's not correct, then a question can be asked of does an increase of resolution help offset the incorrect ratio? There, the answer could be anywhere from helps significantly to not much to hurts IQ.

Do people use it that way? No, they use it to promote their opinion on resolution.

And resolution is only one part of IQ. Luminance, Contrast, Color, and Frame rate are also part, with luminance probably the most important of all.

[Scott_Arm]

So, we've got movie studios toying with 3D at 48 or 60 fps, and on top of that we're supposed to adopt 4K or 8K. Where is the Internet bandwidth, storage space and hardware to play it going to come from? We'll probably see 4K show up in 5 years, and 8K maybe 10 years from now. Movie theaters will push this tech to get people to go to the movies. As for the home, well, I just don't see it. I guess the first 4K tvs could support 3D at 1080p only, otherwise the bandwidth required over HDMI is going to be pretty big.

[Gubbi]

Originally Posted by Shifty

you just want pixels for pixels sake without understanding what that value represents.

Originally Posted by UniversalTruth

That's not true for me.

No, Shifty is right, you don't understand, you keep fighting science with hand waving nonsense.

There is an upper limit to the angular resolution of the human eye. It is pointless to go above this resolution.

Cheers

[Gubbi]

Originally Posted by Scott_Arm

So, we've got movie studios toying with 3D at 48 or 60 fps, and on top of that we're supposed to adopt 4K or 8K.

I'd much rather have a doubling or tripling of temporal over spatial resolution.

Originally Posted by Scott_Arm

Where is the Internet bandwidth, storage space and hardware to play it going to come from? We'll probably see 4K show up in 5 years, and 8K maybe 10 years from now. Movie theaters will push this tech to get people to go to the movies.

1080 is going to be with us for a while. The entire production chain only just completed a 6 to 7 year transition to 1080, before that we had SD for 60 (!!!!) years.

Movie theaters might push higher resolutions as this is the only parameter they still have an edge in. Contrast and screen luminance uniformity being two where they lag badly.

The next step is going to be higher fps and 3D, that's where the bandwidth bits are going to go, it is also where we will see the biggest visual impact.

Cheers

[RobertR1]

Originally Posted by Scott_Arm

So, we've got movie studios toying with 3D at 48 or 60 fps, and on top of that we're supposed to adopt 4K or 8K. Where is the Internet bandwidth, storage space and hardware to play it going to come from? We'll probably see 4K show up in 5 years, and 8K maybe 10 years from now. Movie theaters will push this tech to get people to go to the movies. As for the home, well, I just don't see it. I guess the first 4K tvs could support 3D at 1080p only, otherwise the bandwidth required over HDMI is going to be pretty big.

Since Internet bandwidth isn't going to happen, it'll be down to physical media. The problem there being changing standards and forward compatibility.

[UniversalTruth]

Originally Posted by Scott_Arm

So, we've got movie studios toying with 3D at 48 or 60 fps, and on top of that we're supposed to adopt 4K or 8K.

And not only this:

This week is NHK’s Public Open Day at its Research & Development centre in Tokyo (May 24-27) when the latest versions of U-HDTV will be demonstrated. This includes an 8K camera sensor chip which can capture at 120 frames/second (considered ideal in reducing flicker). NHK has already shown a 145” TV set (developed with Panasonic) that can receive 8K images

http://advanced-television.com/index.php/2012/05/21/ses-astra-actively-planning-for-ultra-hdtv/

Originally Posted by Gubbi

No, Shifty is right, you don't understand, you keep fighting science with hand waving nonsense.

Originally Posted by Gubbi

The is an upper limit to the angular resolution of the human eye.

I'm not saying there isn't. You claim that distance resolves any problems. Imagine you have to stand very close to a wall- imagine it is 3 meters wide and 2 meters high, and this wall is in your home and it is somehow supposed to be interactive. Would you be pleased if its resolution is 1920 x 1080 with ppi of 50, for example.

Basically what you are saying is- go as further as possible from the screen, you won't see how bad its quality is. Which is ridiculous.