4k resolution coming

[Gubbi]

I'm back, spent a good few hours with my PC plugged into my 55" LCD and played with native 720p and 1080p feeds.

Test was to see if the difference was big on games and the results were suprising!

It's also strange seeing twin Intel core i7 990x clocked at 5.3Ghz bottleneck 7950 Tri-fire, never thought I would see that day!!

Anyway, results were all over the place at 20 feet away so I'll just list the games and what I found..
Resident Evil 5 - Same as the above games, hard to spot at 20 feet, sharper and clearer at 9 feet.

Crysis 2 - Same as Crysis 1, noticeable at 20 feet, really noticeable at 9 feet.

My theory...

1. The most important one, how good your eye sight is, I have higher then average, more then I can for my hearing! If you have poor eye sight then the difference will be reduced..

The average angular resolution for 55" 1280x720 is:
@ 20 feet: 60*atan( (55/1280)/(20*12)) = 0.6 arc second.
@ 9 feet: 60*atan( (55/1280)/(9*12)) = 1.37 arc second.

If you can see a difference @20 feet, It's down to poor filtering (edges, shader aliasing)

Try your test with well filtered sources, either:
1. play the same with 8 x ssaa (you have an über rig)
2. A HD movie with slow moving high res imagery, like BBC's Planet Earth.
3. Still photos.

Cheers

 

[(((interference)))]

It's hard to say. It's within the realm of possibility unlike my initial response, just as 6 and 7 fingered people and 10 foot tall people are, but he's right on the physiological limits if seeing the difference at 20'. We're talking 20/8 vision, and the pupil at the perfect dilation for optimal focus. The only way to be sure would be a proper study that avoids alternative influences (you know, the sort that sees audiophiles adamant that they can hear the difference between £5 and £1000 HDMI cables even when it's proven the signal received is identical in both).

Yeah, I think it's unlikely that Almighty can actually see these differences at 20! feet.
Especially if he's using the two versions of the photo I posted above.

It reminds me of how audiophiles on forums like hydrogenaudio laugh at all the people who think they can hear a difference between HQ lossy and lossless audio and walk around listening to FLACs on their iPods. And all the newbies who post they can hear differences are always asked to do a double blind ABX test using Foobar and post the results (which tends to be a humbling experience)

I've been looking a lot at scaling recently since I got a MacBook Retina and wanted to use my library of 500 or so wallpapers which are all 1920x1200. I used PerfectResize, a fractal scaling program often used by professionals to blow up photos (for things like billboards or sides of buildings etc) and was really pleased with the results. It does a really good job of maintaining sharp edges and reconstructs thin geometry (like cables, power lines, rigging on boats etc) without the typical blurring you get with other methods.
Eg: http://i.imgur.com/sMCta.jpg

Going from 1920x1200 to 2880x1800 is a similarly sized step as from 720p to 1080p (2.25x) and yet from normal viewing distance (close to 2 feet) I can't perceive any noticeable quality difference between the upscaled images and the 3200x2000 Apple

So I completely agree that increased temporal resolution would be much more noticeable (and beneficial) than higher resolutions - and certainly for increased realism. Playing BF3 on my 360 the slowdown and loss of control responsiveness during scenes with lots of vehicle interaction, explosions or environmental destruction is far more jarring than it being only 720p.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yeah, I think it's unlikely that Almighty can actually see these differences at 20! feet.

None of us can answer that. There are any factors at work, and short of a proper investigation, firing back-and-forth theories and numbers won't prove anything. But this isn't a discussion about Almighty's eyesight! As a consideration of the value of 4k to the general populace and as a target for games, we can take the base finding of investigations into the general populace.

 

[Xmas]

It's also worth noting that perception isn't just about the eye's resolving power, but the brain's ability to interpret and construct understanding, which is capable of 'seeing' finer resolution.

Yes, and that's why you need to take hyperacuity into account, especially if the image in question contains aliased edges. Aliasing in general will be visible beyond the limits of visual acuity as it produces lower frequency artifacts.

 

[zed]

I was just reading about antony mundine, which reminds me
I'll point out aborigines in oz have average eyesight of ~80/20 vs average other races ~25/20

 

[almighty]

The average angular resolution for 55" 1280x720 is:
@ 20 feet: 60*atan( (55/1280)/(20*12)) = 0.6 arc second.
@ 9 feet: 60*atan( (55/1280)/(9*12)) = 1.37 arc second.

If you can see a difference @20 feet, It's down to poor filtering (edges, shader aliasing)

Try your test with well filtered sources, either:
1. play the same with 8 x ssaa (you have an über rig)
2. A HD movie with slow moving high res imagery, like BBC's Planet Earth.
3. Still photos.

Cheers

I always run my games with AA+TrSSAA, that was the whole reason for me having as much GPU power as I do.

Some of the older less demanding games ( Console ports ) are run with SGSSAA

 

[UniversalTruth]

IIt's also strange seeing twin Intel core i7 990x clocked at 5.3Ghz bottleneck 7950 Tri-fire, never thought I would see that day!!

Awesome. I have always thought that in general the bottleneck is in the CPU.

And this means that a 24-thread monster is not enough to feed 3-head Tahitis.

Ok, but if we think about the why, perhaps the reason is that you tested with old games which use 2- 4 threads max, and everything else is idle.

But, in all cases 3 X 7950s look more impressive than double 990Xs.

 

[user542745831]

Well, you can't go more HD than FULL HD, can you ?

HD ready
Full HD
Really Full HD
Very Very Full HD

It's all about marketing a product to consumers that aren't equipped to judge image quality. Consumers need a one-dimensional metric to judge quality, a score from 1 to 10. We had MHz for processors, now we have core counts.

Just came across this:

http://www.ce.org/News/News-Release...lectronics-Industry-Announces-Ultra-High.aspx

[...]

Sonoma, CA – 10/18/2012 – The next generation of so-called “4K” high-definition display technology for the home – giant-screen TVs with more than eight million pixels of resolution, four times the resolution of today’s high-definition televisions – will be called “Ultra High-Definition” or “Ultra HD,” connoting its superiority over conventional HDTV, according to the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)®.

[...]

 

[almighty]

Awesome. I have always thought that in general the bottleneck is in the CPU.

And this means that a 24-thread monster is not enough to feed 3-head Tahitis.

Ok, but if we think about the why, perhaps the reason is that you tested with old games which use 2- 4 threads max, and everything else is idle.

But, in all cases 3 X 7950s look more impressive than double 990Xs.

Cheap too! £220 each the 7950's were!!

They're actually botllenecked in Crysis at 2560x1600 beleive it or not and become bottlnecked in pretty much every game at 1920x1080.

 

[onQ]

People seem to misunderstand the point of 4K. it's not just about giving you better detail than 1080P from 9 feet away on a 65" TV it's also about letting you sit 6 feet away from a 65" TV so you can see all the details.

I made a video about 3 weeks ago trying to explain this using a 27" 1080P monitor because a 27" 1080P monitor is like 1/4 of a 52" 4K TV, so looking at one of the corners of a 4K/8MP image on a 27" monitor will give you the same detail that you will be getting from a 52" 4K TV from the same distance that you would look at a 1080P 27" only difference is with the 52" 4K TV you will be seeing the rest of the picture that's not on the 27" 1080P monitor.

With 4K people with only enough distance to watch a 32" 1080P TV can now get a TV over 50" & watch it in that same room because 4K will allow them to sit closer without pixelation, & it will also allow people who have 50" plus TVs to sit closer to it which means they don't have to lose any details trying to sit further away from the TV.


So anyone saying you can't see the difference from 20 feet away on a 55" TV is missing the point.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Just came across this:

Yup, and all you need is 4 PS3's and you too can potentially have this experience in your living room.

Which might seem like a lot, but will probably be pennies compared to how much an actual 4k resolution TV will be.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

In reality it's rather not. Almost all, if not all of today's displays make use of fixed-pixel-display-technologies. So, unfortunately, there will almost always be blurring when the input resolution doesn't match the native resolution of the display.

So, in reality, as of today, it's rather not separate from the resolution.

<snip>

So what's your point ?

The point is that when 4k finally arrives. People will be comparing 1080p (native) on a 55" screen to 2160p (native) on a 55" screen. Or whatever screen sizes are used.

Well, except that the 2160p screen will likely be upscaled. No broadcaster has 1080p streams that are not heavily compressesd. Imagine the situation with 2160p screen that contain at least four times the data. Either they continue with heavily compressed 1080p streams or they have even more heavily compressed 2160p streams. The internet may be a solution. But consider the data requirements on the internet infrastructure to stream compressed 2160p streams versus compressed 1080p streams.

So, if we do the comparison as Almighty is doing it (upscaled versus non-upscaled) then the 2160p screen may actually come out looking worse than the older 1080p screen.

Almighty is NOT comparing 1080p to 720p. He is comparing whether an upscaled image looks better than a non-upscaled image. And, I think to noone's surprise, the non-upscaled image looks better.

So just to reiterate something that Gubbi and Willardjuice pointed out.

Almighty is NOT testing resolution differences. He is testing upscaled versus native, and incorrectly thinking that he's actually testing resolution differences.

With 4K people with only enough distance to watch a 32" 1080P TV can now get a TV over 50" & watch it in that same room because 4K will allow them to sit closer without pixelation, & it will also allow people who have 50" plus TVs to sit closer to it which means they don't have to lose any details trying to sit further away from the TV.


So anyone saying you can't see the difference from 20 feet away on a 55" TV is missing the point.

Except for two extremely inconvenient factors.

First, it's likely that virtually all content will be less than 4k (2160p). Which means non-native. The closer you sit to the TV, the more apparent the upscaling will be. Such that the closer you sit the worse it may look compared to a 2k (1080p) screen.

Second, If you are sitting 6 feet away from a 50"+ screen, FOV is going to start being a problem. I realize some people like that (sitting in the front row of a theater) but for some people not being able to comfortable seeing the entire image without swiveling your head will be a deal breaker. Hence, viewing distances relative to screen size will likely remain unchanged going forward.

It's not like the days of going from a 19" screen 3-4 meters away to a 50" screen 3-4 meters away. Where most of the displayed image still comfortable fits in your FOV. Going from 50"+ 3-4 meters away to 50"+ 2 meters away is going make fitting the entire image comfortable into a person's FOV a rather significant issue for a great number of people.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

People seem to misunderstand the point of 4K.

The increased FOV advantage of 4k has been mentioned several times. However, for that position to hold true would mean people to date have only refused to buy larger TVs because the picture is blurry, and once 4k becomes available they'll buy the large TV they always wanted. I've never known anyone avoid a TV size based on IQ. AFAIK purchasing decision is based on price and how well the TV will fit the room, with oversized TVs avoided as being too dominating in smaller rooms.

 

[UniversalTruth]

I don't think it is so much about the blurriness but about the clarity and crispness of images.
Just compared two images- 1080p and 2160p. The images look almost identical. Almost, with a very slight crispness advantage of the higher resolution. The interesting thing comes if you take this same picture with 800 X 600, then you don't only have less detail but less visible area too, it's a cut part of the bigger image.

Of course, I compared it on my laptop which is 17 inch with 1440 X 900.

 

[onQ]

Except for two extremely inconvenient factors.

First, it's likely that virtually all content will be less than 4k (2160p). Which means non-native. The closer you sit to the TV, the more apparent the upscaling will be. Such that the closer you sit the worse it may look compared to a 2k (1080p) screen.

Second, If you are sitting 6 feet away from a 50"+ screen, FOV is going to start being a problem. I realize some people like that (sitting in the front row of a theater) but for some people not being able to comfortable seeing the entire image without swiveling your head will be a deal breaker. Hence, viewing distances relative to screen size will likely remain unchanged going forward.

It's not like the days of going from a 19" screen 3-4 meters away to a 50" screen 3-4 meters away. Where most of the displayed image still comfortable fits in your FOV. Going from 50"+ 3-4 meters away to 50"+ 2 meters away is going make fitting the entire image comfortable into a person's FOV a rather significant issue for a great number of people.

Regards,
SB

A few companies have been showing off their 4K upscaling technology for their new UHDTVs of course it's not going to be as good as native 4K but I'm sure it will be ok.

& actually the FOV isn't a problem it's a benefit because being able to sit where the TV takes up more of your field of view without pixelation is more like looking at the scene in real life.

Scenes where they used to have to cut away most of the scene & make it a close up just so you can see the detail that they wanted to show now can be shown with more in the shot & still give you that same amount of detail, so being closer to the TV doesn't mean you're going to have to move your head from side to side just to see what you was able to see when you was further away from the TV it means you can get a better look at the important part of the scene without everything else being cut off for you to get the detail.

The increased FOV advantage of 4k has been mentioned several times. However, for that position to hold true would mean people to date have only refused to buy larger TVs because the picture is blurry, and once 4k becomes available they'll buy the large TV they always wanted. I've never known anyone avoid a TV size based on IQ. AFAIK purchasing decision is based on price and how well the TV will fit the room, with oversized TVs avoided as being too dominating in smaller rooms.

Yes I know & some people even have these big TVs in small rooms hooked up in SD. ( I have a few family members with that type of setup ) but as TVs become more & more like pictures that you can hang on the wall a 50" 4K TV isn't going to seem so dominate when you can watch it from a close distance & it look good even when you walk right up to it.

I remember when a 32" TV would make people say "That's a Big TV!" now people look at 32" TVs & say "Why didn't you get a big TV?"

by 2020 46" is probably going to be the norm for new HDTV sizes. especially if OLED & UHDTV are the next wave of TVs.

 

[mrcorbo]

I have often helped to set up surround sound setups over the years. On several occasions I've tried to convince people to re-arrange their furniture to accommodate proper imaging in the primary seating area(s). This has been met with almost universal resistance. I am extremely skeptical that Ultra HD is going to cause a significant number of people to move their furniture around so they can sit closer to their TV.

Right now, people buy the largest TV that they can afford that will "fit" in their existing room. I don't expect the introduction of Ultra HD TVs to change this.

 

[onQ]

I have often helped to set up surround sound setups over the years. On several occasions I've tried to convince people to re-arrange their furniture to accommodate proper imaging in the primary seating area(s). This has been met with almost universal resistance. I am extremely skeptical that Ultra HD is going to cause a significant number of people to move their furniture around so they can sit closer to their TV.

Right now, people buy the largest TV that they can afford that will "fit" in their existing room. I don't expect the introduction of Ultra HD TVs to change this.

It will be the manufactures who make the changes because they will feel better making the bigger TVs now that they have more pixels & the tech to make thinner TVs, so 50" will be replaced by 60" & 70" as the flagship models so it will be just a natural movement so these people who now have 50" in the Living room will over time be the people with 60" - 70" in the living room. when people checkout TVs in the store they don't sit back from them like they should to see what they will look like in thier homes they get up close on them so 4K is going to make it easier for the companies to sell these bigger tvs.


In the CRT floor model days the thought of everyday people having 46" TVs in their homes was just crazy because the big TVs were only 25" back then, now just about everyone you know has at least a 46" TV in their home. so you never know how things are going to turn out we might see people with OLED being put up like Wallpaper in their living rooms by 2020.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

In the CRT floor model days the thought of everyday people having 46" TVs in their homes was just crazy because the big TVs were only 25" back then...

Because the tubes were massive and expensive.

so you never know how things are going to turn out we might see people with OLED being put up like Wallpaper in their living rooms by 2020.

If OLED is that cheap, sure. There's no denying larger sets will happen over a course of some decades as the tech allows it. This'll be accompanied with improvements in storage and network infrastructure to actually enable higher resolution content. That wasn't the emphasis of this thread, though. The fact technology will advance means me may as well start a thread "holographic gaming". The initial focus was on 4k sets being available and becoming a mainstream tech and a target for consoles. This thread has gone in circles explaining why that's not happening any time soon.

Unless someone can present a bit of research that shows 4k sets are going to be very cheap starting next year and those upgrading their TVs will buy them, or that people's buying habits are going to change to spend far more on 4k sets than they did on LCDs or CRTs, then surely this thread is done (other than tracking developments)?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

It will be the manufactures who make the changes because they will feel better making the bigger TVs now that they have more pixels & the tech to make thinner TVs, so 50" will be replaced by 60" & 70" as the flagship models so it will be just a natural movement so these people who now have 50" in the Living room will over time be the people with 60" - 70" in the living room. when people checkout TVs in the store they don't sit back from them like they should to see what they will look like in thier homes they get up close on them so 4K is going to make it easier for the companies to sell these bigger tvs.

There are already 60"+ and 70"+ flagship model HDTVs. Guess how much of the market they make up?

4k isn't going to do anything to make them easier to manufacture. Quite the opposite as the panels will be more difficult to manufacture and hence the price is going to be quite significantly larger.

It certainly isn't going to make 60"+ TVs with the associated price tags that much more attractive to people that don't already have 60"+ TVs. And even those that do have one will be unlikely to buy another one so soon after getting their current 60"+ TV, especially when you factor in the cost.

You want to know why TV manufacturer's are pushing 4k? They want a premium (read 5-10k+ USD) marketable technology to differentiate from the almost commodity prices that LCD HDTV's are currently running. Every TV manufacturer out there is hoping that 4k (unlike 3D TV) allows them to sell premium TV's in the 30-40" range for 5k+ USD.

And it certainly will do that. But I think they are greatly misjudging how many people are going to want to buy TVs in that price range. Just like people were, for the most part, unwilling to spend that much for 3DTVs.

Unlike 3DTVs, however, 4k panels won't be able to reduce in price as much as 3DTVs were when demand failed to materialize for the overpriced sets. The 3DTVs just used some added silicon and repurposed existing technology. Even when they were priced high, the added cost to manufacture was only a small fraction more than regular LCD TVs. 4k panels on the other hand will be significantly more costly to manufacture.

Regards,
SB

 

[onQ]

Because the tubes were massive and expensive.
If OLED is that cheap, sure. There's no denying larger sets will happen over a course of some decades as the tech allows it. This'll be accompanied with improvements in storage and network infrastructure to actually enable higher resolution content. That wasn't the emphasis of this thread, though. The fact technology will advance means me may as well start a thread "holographic gaming". The initial focus was on 4k sets being available and becoming a mainstream tech and a target for consoles. This thread has gone in circles explaining why that's not happening any time soon.

Unless someone can present a bit of research that shows 4k sets are going to be very cheap starting next year and those upgrading their TVs will buy them, or that people's buying habits are going to change to spend far more on 4k sets than they did on LCDs or CRTs, then surely this thread is done (other than tracking developments)?

Westinghouse shows off 4K TV
While the 4K format has yet to make an impact on the consumer market, budget brand Westinghouse is preparing its D55QX14K TV for release in 2013.

The company had the prototype on display at CE Week in New York, and while specifications and pricing are not yet finalized, Westinghouse says it's going to be "affordable."