4k resolution coming
- Thread starter jeff_rigby
- Start date
- Status
The material, movies, are shot with a FOV in mind. You need to have approximately the same FOV, or movies will look *very* weird. That FOV is normally between 30 and 36 degrees for cinematic content.
Shifty's graph depicts the transition from one resolution to another at ~32 degree FOV (32*60=1920), a flat panel has slightly lower angular resolution towards the center, and slightly higher at the edges.
Cheers
upnorthsox
Veteran
Lawrence of Arabia was a 45 degree FOV, that's good enough for me!! Seriously though, I was being a bit sarcastic on the 200" screen.
Shifty's graph is doing nothing of the sort, if you're reading in fov into it then you're making the same presumptive mistakes as other are. It tries to show the best distance and display size for a given resolution but because of the biases of its creator it fails miserably and allows wild and and erroneous interpretations to be derived from it.
The whole thing is like watching Fox News fumble its way thru an Obama approval rating story.
You're going to have to back that up with some sort of argumentation.
A 60" screen from 7½ feet away, as per Shifty's diagram, yields a FOV of 2*atan(0.5*60*16/SQRT(16*16+9*9)/ (7.5*12)) = 32.4 degrees. This gives you an average angular resolution of 1920 / 32.4 = 1.01 arc minute.
The angular resolution at the edge is 0.96 arc minute per pixel, at the center it is 1.04 arc minute per pixel
Oooh, irony
Cheers
UniversalTruth
Veteran
The world is not rotating around professionals and it gets really annoying to underestimate the other customers.
Well, the customers can use it for exactly the same. To visualise more tasks simultaneuously on the display. It would be so helpful.
Well, if you ask me for something different, in particular, I will watch beautiful nature scenes on Viasat Nature, will watch my favourite sports events in more details, and will watch my favourite music videoclips. Isn't it enough?
WTH, BTW, I haven't seen anyone to complain that his 2560 X 1600 display isn't worth it... And they use it even to game.
If you read my post carefully, you'd see that I pointed out an example for gamers: View 2 3D 1080p co-op screens side by side (They will have to sit closer to the TV to see the details though). It would also used up roughly the same resources as a 4K resolution content.
But what else for my wife ? Any potential apps ? She's going to laugh at me if I said let's buy a 4K TV.
EDIT:
What exactly are you going to use the 4K TV for ? Where are the 4K content off-the-air and on cable ?
Personally, I have already "left" the living room.
Well, the tech industry is littered with a mountain of failed previous attempts. It doesn't really mean that the next one will surely fail completely. The key is to find a foothold and then move on from there to the next greener and bigger pasture.
People predicted Blu-ray will die a quick death within 1-5 years, but it's still around.
I also doubt physical media will go away. Personally, I'm interested in organic media, like encode data on a piece of fabric.
Let's wait and see some real examples from the manufacturers. I am pretty sure all of them are into H.265.
Lawrence of Arabia was a 45 degree FOV, that's good enough for me!! Seriously though, I was being a bit sarcastic on the 200" screen.
Wah. Don't talk about Lawrence. It's been six years since Blu-Ray's launch and still no Lawrence of Arabia BD.
Edit: But wait! http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=38054358
That same quality could be achieved on that same file with H.264 at a lower bitrate and will be able to be achieved in H.265 with a lower bitrate than that at the expense of higher computational requirements for encoding/decoding. Modern devices benefit more from the smaller file size and lower bandwidth requirements that are enabled by more advanced codecs than they do from the lower processing requirements of using an older codec like MPEG2, especially since dedicated silicon on CPUs/GPUs for encoding/decoding is becoming more common.
Well no-one was asking for a different FOV. Bigger FOV is provided by sitting closer to the screen. The graph shows at what distance a 16:9 aspect TV of a given diagonal size will have one pixel per arc-minute of vision. If you want a much larger FOV, sit closer to the screen. If you are closer than the maximal distance shown in that chart, then you'd benefit from higher resolution. Sit closer than 5' in front of a 40" 1080p set and you'll suffer a lack of resolution. 5' from a 1080p TV is about 32 degrees FOV.Lawrence of Arabia was a 45 degree FOV, that's good enough for me!! Seriously though, I was being a bit sarcastic on the 200" screen.
Shifty's graph is doing nothing of the sort, if you're reading in fov into it then you're making the same presumptive mistakes as other are.
Now maybe some people would want a larger FOV, and the only reason people sit much further from their small TVs now is because it'd be too crowded otherwise. A 45 degree FOV viewed from 5' would need a 50" long screen, 57" diagonal. A screen viewed from 8 feet away, so the whole family can watch, needs to be something like 90". You are talking MASSIVE TVs. People wanting that sort of FOV are the people who set up projectors in their basement. They'll benefit from 4k . They are the niche we are saying that 4k could serve. Everyday Joes, with the TV in the corner of the living room (and a small living room at that across much of Europe, which 40" is about the largest size TV that sells en masse, and 32" is the most popular size in the UK and 40-44" the most common size in the US. Larger FOV TVs requiring higher resolutions don't appear to have a significant market, hence that chart respects the existing FOV that people are comfortable with. Unless you have reason to think that people at large are unhappy with their TV's FOV and would prefer a much larger FOV, yet haven't bought larger TVs or projectors so far because they are waiting for massive TVs with extended resolution, there's no point considering FOV in the viewing resolution considerations.
Viewed from two or three feet! Monitors are all about desk-space, to have lots of open windows and apps. Unless your vision of the future of TV is 16 different TV programs and apps open and displayed simultaneously, that massive FOV isn't needed. Especially for the next generation of consoles where some people are complaining about the lack of 4k capability given the current rumours.
In summary, higher resolution at current FOV isn't needed, and a larger FOV isn't being valued outside of a niche. There's no argument for mass-consumer 4k adoption until people start replcaing their TVs with far larger models. When we have 60" TVs being viewed from 5' and 90" TVs being viewed from 8', then 1080p won't cut it.
UniversalTruth
Veteran
70mm film?! That's massive. I'd have thought digital would be the way to go for 4k. I'm all in favour for the cinema - I thought Dark Knight Rises was a blurry mess when I saw it. Still doesn't stop 4k being extremely niche for home use though, and so virtually irrelevant for games.
I expect VR headsets to be far more relevant.My main issue with 4k is that it may blur all my non 4k viewing experiences. Right now I have native 1:1 mode set on my tv so it passes through 1920x1080 signals untouched. Means that my pc gaming which is all native 1920x1080 looks stunning, my 1080i Directv gets just a simple de-interlace then passes fresh to the tv so it also looks good, and my 1920x1080 Blu-ray movies likewise also pass through untouched and look awesome. The situation right now is ideal basically. If I switch to a 4k tv then that all comes to an end since all my signals will then get "various processing" applied to them to make them match the TV's resolution. So yeah any4k source I had would look great, but then the remaining 99% of my viewing would look not as good as it did on my 1080p tv.
I don't see this as an issue. At any screen size and viewing distance where a 4k TV's "blurring" of a 1080p image would be apparent, I would expect that the larger pixels of the 1080p display would be just as damaging to apparent image quality.
- Status