Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on January 15, 2012, 12:29:11 pm
-
Hi
I am most enthusiastic for 4K. Projection is in my view the best way to present pictures. With 1080P, which is all we have right now, that medium is essentially 2 megapixels. So we have 24 MP cameras and 36 MP coming, but presentation is still 2MP video or if we need any more - print.
4K is essentially 8 MP, so it may catch up with the simplest Ixus, eventually. But if we get 4K video we also get a media that can present 8MP in projection.
Naturally, I would prefer 8K, but I guess we need wait more for that.
Best regards
Erik
-
I am lucky enough to own one of the best 46 inch 1080p plasma screen available on the market today together with a good Bluray player (the also excellent Oppo BDP-93 selling for 600 US$).
The price of those combined is around 250,000 Yen (3000 US$) and wil be going down further in the coming months. These isnt better on the TV side whatever the amount of money you want to spend and the player is also very close to the top.
The quality is simply amazing. Zero ghosting, vibrant colors and an impression of sharpness on motion images that is very impressive even for someone used to very high quality large fine art prints. The reason why this breathtaking level of quality can be achieved at those reasonnable prices is mass production and standardization on an agreed standard for a sufficient amount of time.
On the capturing front, there are excellent devices at high prices, but most of the cheaper ones suffer from obvious limitations like rolling shutter. This shows that 1080p is still in its infantry. Solving those issues in order to fully reveal the potential of 1080p for a broad audience would IMHO deliver a lot more value than 4K.
As a result, to my eyes, 4K would have close to zero value for most consumers, just like resolutions above 12mp have close to zero value for most still photographers.
RED and JVC would be the main benefiter, not the consumers, not even those looking for high quality. The value/price ratio is simply very poor at the moment.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I'm projecting my images on a 1.6 m wide screen. Viewed at 2m the eye outresolves the projector, both visually and theoretically, with a pixel being 1.5 minute of arc. Eye can resolve around 1 minute of arc, but to be able to resolve something we need at least 3 pixels.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/24-how-many-megapixels-do-we-need
With still frames it matters a lot, with motion video far less, but I'm using my projector as much for slide shows as for motion.
When HD arrived, full HD projectors were very expensive but now days they are cheap, prices go down. I don't see the rapid fall of prices on 4K, tough, as it was HD video and Blueray that drove HD prices down.
Best regards
Erik
I am lucky enough to own one of the best 46 inch 1080p plasma screen available on the market today together with a good Bluray player (the also excellent Oppo BDP-93 selling for 600 US$).
The price of those combined is around 250,000 Yen (3000 US$) and wil be going down further in the coming months. These isnt better on the TV side whatever the amount of money you want to spend and the player is also very close to the top.
The quality is simply amazing. Zero ghosting, vibrant colors and an impression of sharpness on motion images that is very impressive even for someone used to very high quality large fine art prints. The reason why this breathtaking level of quality can be achieved at those reasonnable prices is mass production and standardization on an agreed standard for a sufficient amount of time.
On the capturing front, there are excellent devices at high prices, but most of the cheaper ones suffer from obvious limitations like rolling shutter. This shows that 1080p is still in its infantry. Solving those issues in order to fully reveal the potential of 1080p for a broad audience would IMHO deliver a lot more value than 4K.
As a result, to my eyes, 4K would have close to zero value for most consumers, just like resolutions above 12mp have close to zero value for most still photographers.
RED and JVC would be the main benefiter, not the consumers, not even those looking for high quality. The value/price ratio is simply very poor at the moment.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In my view it's always better to have more resolution than is sometimes needed than less resolution than is sometimes needed, provided there is no downside to the greater resolution, such as greater noise. More resolution is also great for cropping.
The problem with HD, (that is full HD at 1080p), is that most sources are currently way below that standard.
I have a fairly recent plasma 65" HDTV model. The best video image quality I've seen so far is from a Bluray at 1080p input, and the highest resolution stills are my own, downsampled to 2mp.
Clearly 8mp, or double the resolution, would be a huge improvement, but what is perhaps not clearly understood is that such increase in resolution and detail would be discernible only from a proportionally closer viewing distance.
Having done some experimentation regarding optimum viewing distances from a 65" screen, I've found that in order to see all the detail provided by a good quality image of a mere 2mp (or 6MB), one should not sit further away than 3 metres, or even 2.5 metres.
For the usual crap-quality HDTV transmissions, viewing from a 6 metre distance is better. To appreciate the extra resolution of an 8mp image on a 65" screen, one would have to sit considerably closer than 3 metres, which is neither practical or desirable.
I once had the experience of viewing an opera in the cinema, recorded in HD and projected with equipment which was possibly 4k, but maybe just 2k. The only seats available were near the front row. The image quality was crap. After the intermission, we discovered some spare chairs and took them behind the back row where there was a walkway. From that distance the image quality was perfectly acceptable.
The advantage of a 4k projection of a 4k source, I guess, would be an acceptable image quality from or near the front row of a cinema theatre, or from a seat positioned just 1.5 metres or closer from a 65" TV in one's living room.
To really appreciate that extra resolution from a 4k source in one's home, one would need a 4k digital projector and a 120" screen.
-
Well, I don't know what 4K is, but I do know what I can see.
Some months ago I had to replace a dead Sony tv we'd had for about 15 years, and whilst in the shop looking at the various displays being touted, my eye fell upon the huge Samsung LEDTV they had. I saw the quality to be in a class of its own and asked the price. The thing was over €3000! I asked if they came in smaller models, and did they have one that would just fit my 82cms wide tv table/cabinet. They could get one, which they did, and I parted with €1030 for 32" of it.
So what's the experience? Quite unlike anything I've seen before, but with poor sound, which came as a great surprise. The previous tv system could play through my existing stereo system, but the Samsung comes with a built-in digibox, and so makes an external one redundant, thus robbing me of direct satellite access through box to stereo system. The work-around is to plug the tv's earphone wire into its socket and get the signal into the stereo system through that. It isn't particularly good.
As far as vision goes, I've found myself, at times, sitting on an uncomfortable upright chair, about a yard away from the set during some HD programmes where the detail in tiny areas is spectacular: particularly attractive this sitting penance for travel documentaries.
Would I buy larger if table and room suited? Probably not. Why not? Because in my opinion, the majority of tv programmes are simply unwatchable garbage. If one can't control the input, what's the point: isn't crisper crap still crap?
Rob C
-
Well, I don't know what 4K is, but I do know what I can see.
Some months ago I had to replace a dead Sony tv we'd had for about 15 years, and whilst in the shop looking at the various displays being touted, my eye fell upon the huge Samsung LEDTV they had. I saw the quality to be in a class of its own and asked the price. The thing was over €3000! I asked if they came in smaller models, and did they have one that would just fit my 82cms wide tv table/cabinet. They could get one, which they did, and I parted with €1030 for 32" of it.
So what's the experience? Quite unlike anything I've seen before, but with poor sound, which came as a great surprise. The previous tv system could play through my existing stereo system, but the Samsung comes with a built-in digibox, and so makes an external one redundant, thus robbing me of direct satellite access through box to stereo system. The work-around is to plug the tv's earphone wire into its socket and get the signal into the stereo system through that. It isn't particularly good.
As far as vision goes, I've found myself, at times, sitting on an uncomfortable upright chair, about a yard away from the set during some HD programmes where the detail in tiny areas is spectacular: particularly attractive this sitting penance for travel documentaries.
Would I buy larger if table and room suited? Probably not. Why not? Because in my opinion, the majority of tv programmes are simply unwatchable garbage. If one can't control the input, what's the point: isn't crisper crap still crap?
Rob C
Did you hear the TV at the shop? Probably not, nobody does nowadays; and a shop is usually a noisy environment, anyway. That, and the race to make them slimmer, is why the quality of the speakers in TVs have been going down. You spend hundreds on TV with an extraordinary image quality, only to find back at home that the sound sucks.
-
Did you hear the TV at the shop? Probably not, nobody does nowadays; and a shop is usually a noisy environment, anyway. That, and the race to make them slimmer, is why the quality of the speakers in TVs have been going down. You spend hundreds on TV with an extraordinary image quality, only to find back at home that the sound sucks.
No, I didn't hear it, and I'd expected to be able to play it through my existing sound system; as annoying, the built-in digibox doesn't show any tv programme lists - I have to go onto the Internet to find out what's coming on during the evening!
;-(
Rob C
-
You spend hundreds on TV with an extraordinary image quality, only to find back at home that the sound sucks.
I think that is ok, I would prefer tvs without any sound at all.
As long as there is a working spdif/hdmi output, almost any stereo will have better components and placement than a general tv. Why pay lots of money to get tv sound that is mediocre at best?
-h
-
The quality of the content of most television programming has not kept up with the visual or sound qualities of the source material. I had hoped that with the arrival of many more broadcast outlets, there would be more intelligent programs available, but as often happens with corporate propaganda, they actually don't want to provide more consumer choice. Thankfully, places like "vimeo.com" are filling the gap, although at the moment it's time-consuming to find programming I like.
The fact that the televisions themselves have mediocre on-board sound systems is not surprising. The need to sell Home Theatre Systems after all. I have been annoyed at the voice reproduction of many programs, I think they mix the sound expecting that most viewers have a HTS. I got an HTS for next-to-free recently from a friend who was upgrading, and now I can hear what they're saying on TV. It's a big improvement, so long as I don't watch anything too dumb.
I know a few people who don't like the transition to HD, so they'll freak at 4K. I hang around some people who record their participation in amateur motor sports for display online. They fail to understand why they need new camcorders, and a much more powerful computer (or more time) to edit short snippets that will only be viewed on small screens a few times by a few friends. I am sure that 4K will matter to Hollywood and other serious film makers, but I hope it stays away from home consumer use for a few years, at least until I get my money's worth out of my HD camcorder. For a lot of purposes, cheap SD camcorders would be fine, but there are fewer and fewer of them around, so nowadays you pretty much have to buy HD even if you don't need it. (I know, I sound like an old curmudgeon.) I see the value in 4K, but I have a hard time believing that your average consumer will buy into the technology. Editing and packaging HD programming for home use is already not trivial or cheap, and the visual quality of HD for those purposes is just fine. We must be approaching the limits of maximum television screen size, the rooms in most peoples' homes are only so big.
-
You spend hundreds on TV with an extraordinary image quality, only to find back at home that the sound sucks.
Actually I don't mind. It is good enough for generic TVs programs and, like many people, I already own the amp/speakers the TV would have no chance to equal anyway.
You just need to buy a TV with a digital out (optical typically) so that you can connect it with your dac without any loss. For blueray/DVD it is in fact better to connect directly the player to the amp.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm on a satellite system and the picture quality has actually gone down since HD was fully implemented. The satellite people I asked for an explanation mentioned something about bandwidth.
For example I get Italian tv through satellite. With the old analog system I got a reasonable picture of the soccer games. When the satellite company fully integrated HD the picture from RAI went to pieces and became a fuzzy mess. For my second tv I bought an external antenna designed for the HD signal. Amazing. Now I at least get the local channels the way HD was intended. Someone mentioned the travel channels - yes, they are one of the few programs which manage to come in with full HD. I have never received the HD definition over the air that is available on a DVD. It's nice that a new system can come in and have everyone rave about the output, but if the public can't receive even the current definition with present systems then who cares?
-
Editing and packaging HD programming for home use is already not trivial or cheap, and the visual quality of HD for those purposes is just fine. We must be approaching the limits of maximum television screen size, the rooms in most peoples' homes are only so big.
Also, some are of the opinion that younger viewers prefer smaller, not bigger, screens.
E.g., quoting from this article (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-27/sony-sells-lcd-venture-stake-to-samsung-after-losses.html): “TV makers also face what Credit Suisse called a ‘generational culture shift surrounding video consumption.’ Teens live in an Internet-based video culture that doesn’t depend on cable and satellite broadcasts, and they are satisfied with ‘small-screen experiences’ and lower picture quality, the analysts led by New York-based Stefan Anninger said in the Nov. 28 report.”
-
I am most enthusiastic for 4K. Projection is in my view the best way to present pictures.
Maybe.
The problem for projection is that you want a flat surface to project onto, which generally means setting aside a chunk of your wall. One of the catches with projection (usually done from a ceiling mounted device) is that you need to run cables up through the wall/ceiling. This will be difficult for anyone that doesn't own the place that they live in.
The difference between standard definition TV and HDTV is very obvious to anyone with a good pair of eyes. However I'm not sure what 4K video will add on the consumer side. (I've been in a "home cinema" that's equipped with Meridian gear and watched a movie that was projected onto the wall with a 4K projector...)
For home consumption, there are other factors...
(1) how far away from the TV can you sit? The distance between chair and TV has a big impact on TV size...
(2) at what distance does the difference between 1080p and 4K video disappear?
I buy the argument that shooting in 4K will give us better 1080p video when it is scaled down but I'm not sure that we need 4K delivered to the home.
There are other problems for 4K that need to be solved:
- how does 4K video get delivered to the home?
- is another new media format to replace BluRay is required?
- are the current digital TV channels sufficient?
- what about satellite/cable TV?
- if you're streaming 4K video over the internet, can you get an internet connection fast enough for real time viewing? (I suspect that this will be a more of a problem for "middle America" than anywhere else in the 1st world.)
The time lag from DVD to BluRay was large enough that people didn't mind the upgrade too much. If 4K arrives too quickly, it may fail to appeal because nobody is in a rush to spend more thousands on their home entertainment. (Factor in a new TV/projector and a new AVR.)
-
Also, some are of the opinion that younger viewers prefer smaller, not bigger, screens.
E.g., quoting from this article (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-27/sony-sells-lcd-venture-stake-to-samsung-after-losses.html): “TV makers also face what Credit Suisse called a ‘generational culture shift surrounding video consumption.’ Teens live in an Internet-based video culture that doesn’t depend on cable and satellite broadcasts, and they are satisfied with ‘small-screen experiences’ and lower picture quality, the analysts led by New York-based Stefan Anninger said in the Nov. 28 report.”
And it's not a problem just for video - some are so used to MP3 audio "quality" that even CD quality music sounds wrong to them. Sigh.
Recently I had some video on my TV - DVD resolution video but the upscaling worked very nicely. The difference brought a "wow, BluRay looks nice" from someone that is used to Internet resolution everything.
I'm hoping that today's "internet teens" grow out of their "low quality" lifestyle as their purchasing power grows.
-
It's a big improvement, so long as I don't watch anything too dumb.
Reminds me of an old joke : "I bought a TV with 0% interest, and... that was almost true" (freely translated from Belgian, with due credits to www.geluck.com).
To get back to the OT, the advent of 4k could mean affordable prices for 4K displays, and that could be very nice from a still image point of view.
For movies, I still have difficulties to see that a difference between 720 and 1080 on a 1080 screen at normal viewing distance... Hey, perhaps I'm still on the young side. ;D
-
About 3:20 into this they show the prototype of a 4K interchangeable (Nikon) lend camera with a larger sensor. I think they said it would list around $10,000. http://vimeo.com/34948630
-
Do we have the processing power to edit 4k on most computers?
On the move well it's obvious it won't stop there, we do live in a consumer society (rightly or wrongly) the next best thing is already around the corner :o
-
Do we have the processing power to edit 4k on most computers?
What about play 4K?
-
4K? Forget about 4K! It will never succeed in the home environment...
Porn producers are already up in arms about HiDef: it is way too detailed!
-
4K? Forget about 4K! It will never succeed in the home environment...
Porn producers are already up in arms about HiDef: it is way too detailed!
That's a point. (?)
;-)
Rob C
-
Well, the format's new to me. In fact having retired from professional video before 1990 practically everything's new to me, apart from a few things that really bug me about current hardware. Like the ergonomics.
Every real current EFP/ENG camera I see still sits on the shoulder, as mine always did. But all these current pro-am (it'll have to do) devices are held out in front of the operator just as the crummy early consumer WobblyVision video cameras were. Why is this? I find it impossible to imagine that it's a comfortable way to operate. Of course I find the Heath Robinson jury rigs for shooting video with DSLRs, the lack of proper balanced audio facilities and the JelloVision pans pretty unacceptable too.
But there again I'm an old f@rt.
Roy
-
Well, the format's new to me. In fact having retired from professional video before 1990 practically everything's new to me, apart from a few things that really bug me about current hardware. Like the ergonomics.
Every real current EFP/ENG camera I see still sits on the shoulder, as mine always did. But all these current pro-am (it'll have to do) devices are held out in front of the operator just as the crummy early consumer WobblyVision video cameras were. Why is this? I find it impossible to imagine that it's a comfortable way to operate. Of course I find the Heath Robinson jury rigs for shooting video with DSLRs, the lack of proper balanced audio facilities and the JelloVision pans pretty unacceptable too.
But there again I'm an old f@rt.Roy
That's the best kind!
Rob C
-
Sony has a white paper promoting its 4K projection systems
[Sony 4K propaganda](http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/static/files/mkt/digitalcinema/Why_4K_WP_Final.pdf)
The claim is roughly that customers sitting at a distance from the screen less than about twice the picture height will see the difference between 4K and the current 2K (or 1920x1080 HD) systems. Which for typical cinematic aspect ratios means sitting closer than the width of the screen. That document talso indicates that with current stadium-style seating, the front row seats might reach their limits at about 4K or 5K, thog that is not said directly, just implied by the fact that the front rows are a it less than one picture height from the screen.
My cynical guess: Sony will
- promote 4K for cinemas to attract customers because it looks better than their 1080p HD at home (from the front few rows),
- then promote 4K for home theater systems to attract customers who want the full 4K theatrical image quality,
- then try with 8K.
I suspect that screen flatness will become a major limitation ... which Sony or Samsung or such will happily address with something like jumbo OLED screens.
-
The claim is roughly that customers sitting at a distance from the screen less than about twice the picture height will see the difference between 4K and the current 2K (or 1920x1080 HD) systems. Which for typical cinematic aspect ratios means sitting closer than the width of the screen. That document also indicates that with current stadium-style seating, the front row seats might reach their limits at about 4K or 5K, tho that is not said directly, just implied by the fact that the front rows are a it less than one picture height from the screen.
The recommended viewing distance for "home theatre" from THX is such that you have a 30 degree field of vision filled by the TV.
That is substantially more than twice the picture height.
-
The recommended viewing distance for "home theatre" from THX is such that you have a 30 degree field of vision filled by the TV.
That is substantially more than twice the picture height.
I would also say that most people sit at 3x the distance from the size of their TV or more.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
http://www.bythom.com/
Thom has been in pro video for many years, his points seem relevant.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There is one other problem I can see (well a few really)
As far as shooting on 4k equipment well that's not an issue (I'm sure digital production is already shot at this) Even film stock could do 4k without a problem. So it's not the production that is the issue here.
I see a big problem ahead and it's called "good enough"
When DVD came along most folks were pretty happy to give up the chewed tapes and VCR (though the recording ability lacking was a downer) but DVD was embraced by just about everyone. It's taken quite some time for folks to go from SD (standard def) TV's up to HD ones most have. Do we really think folks are now going to update to 4k type tv's in the same time-scale? I doubt it much longer I would think.
Enter Blu-ray and real HD (let's not forget DVD was a bit better than standard def and looks ok on higher def TV's not as good but decent) Blu-ray has not displaced DVD's for a few reasons. I'm sure most can't be bothered to update their collection to Blu-ray so there is a cost factor here too. Blu-ray will take longer to establish itself in the market and I would bet it probably won't be as popular as DVD (which will be around for a long time) Heck even the old compact disc is still in use they failed to kill that.
Remember the much touted DVD-Audio? Does it sound good? Yes it does and I know because I've DVD Audio capable equipment (well a good pc sound card) sounds fab cannot be denied. What happened? Complete flop? Why..well because everyone can play a CD almost nobody could play a DVD audio disc. Audio CD "good enough" for most.
Now there is an argument that things are changing and internet delivered content will "replace" discs and physical media. I'll agree that will increase a lot over time though I disagree physical discs are doomed they will still be around even if they're not as widely used. The chances of replacing Blu-ray with yet another format almost 0 for years if not longer. If you want to downstream 4k that's going to use a lot more bandwidth than most people have, heck I'd struggle to stream smoothly HD video let alone 4k.
So I see the problem pretty much similar to Blu-ray v DVD. DVD is good enough for most. HD is good enough for most people as well I can't see the consumer latching onto this it's too much, too soon and it took ages to go from SD to HD, making another step so soon is bubble fantasy at least as far as the end consumer is concerned regardless of how you intend to deliver it (via disc or internet) MP3 is still the most popular compressed audio format yet it's not the "best" one by far, it's "good enough"
Good enough is a killer for commercial companies they hate it, but it happens to be the consumer who decides on that one.
-
The recommended viewing distance for "home theatre" from THX is such that you have a 30 degree field of vision filled by the TV.
That is substantially more than twice the picture height.
Indeed, 30 degrees is about 3.45 picture heights. Once upon a time that was a design goal for TV, before HD and BluRay, but now for cinemas that is about what is used for the back rows, and I suspect that home theater will move towards larger viewing angles if and when 4K arrives in the living room, to better match the viewing angle in the front to middle rows of a cinema.
[Edit: rewritten from here; I had misread some of the Sony document.]
Sony's own evidence suggests that about the front half of the rows of a stadium seating cinema will get some benefit from going beyond 2K.
As to video cameras though: Sony's calculations are for full RGB at every pixel, so for Bayer CFA cameras like Red's, matching full 2K projection needs 3K to 4K recording, so dazzling even the front row customers might push even a bit beyond 4K projection, and maybe to 6K or 8K Bayer CFA capture.
-
I really hate to get sweaty and dirty, so I've found that an HDTV and a cable subscription to Animal Planet have worked wonders for my wildlife photography. One problem, however, is the moire that can crop up when using a D3x on an HDTV picture; less resolution cures the moire problem, but make the wildlife shots, mmm, less *life-like.* I think 4K cameras and projection might well be the answer for us wildlife couchers; though I will say that the blur from low resolution screens has been of some benefit for the war couchers.
JC
-
http://www.bythom.com/
Thom has been in pro video for many years, his points seem relevant.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, and I think the big one is the lack of streaming capacity in the US for this format. With more consumers going to streaming video, this is a huge barrier to overcome.
-
Thom makes a lot of valid points. But, I can't say that agree with the idea that the limitation will be delivery.
Over the air broadcast will not be how we get 4K. Cable and fiber have the bandwidth needed. At first it will be a premium service, but it will happen.
Future proofing, as Thom puts it, is what it's all about. 4K won't be mainstream for a while, but I'll put money on its future 5 years from now over 3D.
-
Quite so. But the people with the most disposable income for toys are the older generation, and they also stay home more. Bigger, sharper and better entertainment is important to that demographic.
Michael
-
4k proponents are disconnected from reality if they think 4k will be useful at home, outside of movie theaters and conventions. This chart (http://diymediahome.org/wp-content/uploads/94438971ue6.jpg) (main site down for SOPA protest) shows that 1080p is perfectly fine for standard viewing distances, which are around 3 meters (10 feet) for most people.
I have an 86" 1080p screen * viewed at 3 meters, and that's pretty damn big by home standards, and right at the sweet spot as defined by THX (http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html). Meaning that going for a significantly bigger screen at this distance would make it uncomfortable to watch. Even at that size I wouldn't get a benefit from anything larger than 1080p. Therefore 4k is overkill for anyone who doesn't have their own dedicated home theater room, or have some ginormous living room.
4k is a welcome move for movie theaters and I welcome it wholeheartedly, but home viewing will not be a driver of its adoption. In any case I hope that 4k (and 48/60fps) will be the future instead of 3d gimmickry.
* Rob, you can get a good 1080p projector for around 1000 EUR, and can go to 120" or even 150" if you so desire, as long as your viewing room is light controlled (heavy curtains and shades).
-
I have an 86" 1080p screen * viewed at 3 meters, and that's pretty damn big by home standards, and right at the sweet spot as defined by THX (http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html). Meaning that going for a significantly bigger screen at this distance would make it uncomfortable to watch. Even at that size I wouldn't get a benefit from anything larger than 1080p. Therefore 4k is overkill for anyone who doesn't have their own dedicated home theater room, or have some ginormous living room.
4k could be equally warranted or not warranted in an iPad or at the cinema. The question is not about screen size, but screen size related to viewing distance. I.e. how many degrees of our field of vision is covered, or how large an angle does one pixel amount to (1 arcminute seems to be the accepted limit).
Standards seems to be "3 display heights" or "4 display heights", but it is unclear if this is only due to viewing strain from having too large an image, or viewing strain from having too low resolution.
In the extreme, I can imagine content producers making a "movie" that in practice is 50" diagonally at 1080p to be viewed at 2.5m, but the display is 200" or 500". The remaining screen estate (and resolution/bandwidth estate) could be used for supplementary visual cues, out-of-focus visual "environment" etc. Something similar is done with audio, I think.
-h
-
Quite so. But the people with the most disposable income for toys are the older generation, and they also stay home more. Bigger, sharper and better entertainment is important to that demographic.
Michael
Yes, Michael; but we're dying out. If today's young don't have the same tastes, why will they revert to our dreams later?
Rob C
-
I have an 86" 1080p screen * viewed at 3 meters, and that's pretty damn big by home standards, and right at the sweet spot as defined by THX (http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html). Meaning that going for a significantly bigger screen at this distance would make it uncomfortable to watch.
[Edit: what that calculator calls "recommended THX viewing distance" is in fact the recommended _maximum_ for the _back row_ of a cinema, not at all an optimum viewing distance recommendation.]
THX also recommends, for cinemas, a minimum viewing angle of 36 degrees in the back rows and so clearly a far larger angle for the front rows. So I doubt that the 30 degree recommendation for home theater systems is based on comfort -- it is more likely based on the fact that with current video resolutions 1920x1080 or lower, things get ugly (screen door/jaggies) if you get any closer than about 30 degrees, which is about twice screen width.
Still, I agree that 4K is, at least for now, for cinemas, and in the forseeable future will at most enter the home through high end home theater systems aimed at older, richer, less mobile customers. Maybe with advance downloading (as with iTunes movies) rather than live streaming or yet another physical delivery medium format.
Meanwhile, the next big thing for younger viewers is small things. The movie industry might have to start thinking specifically about how to enhance the movie experience on an iPad or jumbo Android phone, and how to make the legally purchased small screen experience better than the pirated alternatives.
-
The movie industry might have to start thinking specifically about how to enhance the movie experience on an iPad or jumbo Android phone, and how to make the legally purchased small screen experience better than the pirated alternatives.
My view is that the best avenue of growth for the movie industry is... to make better movies.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Future proofing, as Thom puts it, is what it's all about. 4K won't be mainstream for a while, but I'll put money on its future 5 years from now over 3D.
I agree completely.
In the last 12 months I was more or less forced to buy a 3D-capable TV because lesser models were missing features that I did want. I've no plans to ever watch 3D at home because it is completely at odds with how I watch the TV at home. I doubt that I'm the only one faced with that issue but yet my sale is counted as contributing towards the growth of the 3D market at home. Go figure.
-
“My view is that the best avenue of growth for the movie industry is... to make better movies.
Cheers,
Bernard”
Better movies, but from whose point of view – who goes to them today, whose bums on seats?
“In the last 12 months I was more or less forced to buy a 3D-capable TV because lesser models were missing features that I did want. I've no plans to ever watch 3D at home because it is completely at odds with how I watch the TV at home. I doubt that I'm the only one faced with that issue but yet my sale is counted as contributing towards the growth of the 3D market at home. Go figure.”
Well, my new tv offers 3D, but though I would buy the specs, there’s what on offer without paying for yet more channels? I already have hundreds of the mothers and end up watching a maximum selection of around five, mainly BBC 4 and BBC HD, with Aljazeera for the news. The vast horde of ‘product’ is shit, and that’s the killer, not format choices.
Regarding the viewing statistics based on seating position: when I went to the movies, invariably only to the back seats, the movies were the last things I and anyone else in those seats were looking at. Yet another example of basing research figures on flawed data.
Rob C
-
Regarding the viewing statistics based on seating position: when I went to the movies, invariably only to the back seats, the movies were the last things I and anyone else in those seats were looking at. Yet another example of basing research figures on flawed data.
At the risk of taking a joke too seriously, the point obout those minimum viewing angles for the back row is that the viewing angle for those of us who actually watch the movie is _higher_ than 30 or 36 degrees. It is about 50 degrees in the middle of a modern "stadium seating" cinema, 60 degrees or more at the front. Which very roughly matches the concept of normal viewing distance for still images, being a distance about equal to image width. So for those of us who accept about 3000 to 4000 pixels on the long side being the threshhold of "good enough for almost everyone" with normal viewing of still images, 4K cinematic projection should likewise be comfortably "good enough", while current HD or 2K (in pixel counts, about 2MP) is not quite there yet --- for those of us who go to the cinema in order to watch the movie and choose our seats accordingly.
-
You see? Facts that ignore other facts: those back seats we patronised were way up in the air, a good many degrees above any divine, central, co-axial datum; mark you, the other lines doing the rounds there weren't much better, either, but they worked - twice a week at every change of programm. Viva Hollywood! even if we didn't watch you much.
Rob C
-
[Edit: what that calculator calls "recommended THX viewing distance" is in fact the recommended _maximum_ for the _back row_ of a cinema, not at all an optimum viewing distance recommendation.]
You are correct. By my viewing being in the sweet spot I meant that the angle-based distance is 2.9 meters, and visual acuity based maximum is 3.2 meters, so my 3.0 meter distance is pretty much spot on. But perhaps most importantly, it's a comfortable distance and the screen looks big.
Meanwhile, the next big thing for younger viewers is small things. The movie industry might have to start thinking specifically about how to enhance the movie experience on an iPad or jumbo Android phone, and how to make the legally purchased small screen experience better than the pirated alternatives.
While I agree that gadgets are getting smaller, screens necessarily not so. Bendable video displays (http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-amoled-flexiblebendable-display-beautiful-video) are already in prototype, and I bet we'll get them in consumer models this or the following year. Next step is foldable displays, which would stow away for transport - think fo a fan or accordion.
Nevertheless, I only see benefit for 4k in cinema setting, and possibly some yet-to-come heads-up display (ie. no physical screen).
-
Hi,
Yes, but that may also depend on resolution. On the movie side we also have IMAX.
Best regards
Erik
I would also say that most people sit at 3x the distance from the size of their TV or more.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You are correct. By my viewing being in the sweet spot I meant that the angle-based distance is 2.9 meters, and visual acuity based maximum is 3.2 meters, so my 3.0 meter distance is pretty much spot on.
Yes, but that visual acuity standard is based on 1920x1080 resolution, so if you do someday have 4K video, the same visual acuity standards allow the screen to get bigger, or the chair closer. However ...
But perhaps most importantly, it's a comfortable distance and the screen looks big.
... it might well be that the screen size needed to allow several people to view the screen from closer than 2.3 picture heights (Sony's threshold for benefiting from more than 2K) will not make sense except in a few huge super-luxury home theaters. So in practice, 4K video's benefits may be realized only in cinemas, as you say. (4K display of stills, as Erik seems to be talking about, is another issue.)
While I agree that gadgets are getting smaller, screens necessarily not so. Bendable video displays (http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-amoled-flexiblebendable-display-beautiful-video) are already in prototype, and I bet we'll get them in consumer models this or the following year. Next step is foldable displays, which would stow away for transport - think fo a fan or accordion.
Yes; by smaller, I only meant a recent survey confirming a shift in preferences amongst younger people towards viewing on mobile devices, so far smaller than home theater screens. Unless that future foldable screen resembles a bed-sheet!
... I only see benefit for 4k ... possibly some yet-to-come heads-up display (ie. no physical screen).
!
-
Hi,
Yes, but that may also depend on resolution. On the movie side we also have IMAX.
Realistically, for most people the distance to the TV is driven by the layout of their rooms, meaning by the size of their rooms.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
4k on an iPad may well be silly, but in that case 4k on a 200" projected image would be equally silly if the distance to the viewer was scaled proportionally. That was my point.
Talking about resolution requirements related to screen size without taking into account viewer distance makes no sense.
4K on an iPad is silly and laughable. 1080p on a sub 10" screen isn't much different in image quality to standard color printing. So how 4K will help is beyond comprehension. ...
4k could be equally warranted or not warranted in an iPad or at the cinema. The question is not about screen size, but screen size related to viewing distance. I.e. how many degrees of our field of vision is covered, or how large an angle does one pixel amount to (1 arcminute seems to be the accepted limit).
-
... 4k on a 200" projected image would be equally silly if the distance to the viewer was scaled proportionally.
Talking about resolution requirements related to screen size without taking into account viewer distance makes no sense.
Exactly: the two questions to ask are
- A. how big will home theater screens get?
- B. how close to the screen will people be comfortable sitting?
If
(minimum comfortable seating distance)/(maximum home theater screen height) is about 2.5 or more,
or in other words
(minimum comfortable seating distance) > (maximum home theater screen diagonal)
then current "2K" or 1080p is enough.
And that criterion comes from Sony's 4K propaganda, so I am not being unfair to 4K.
With most modern ceilings 8 or 9 feet high, and the bottom of the screen needing to be about 3 feet or more above the floor to avoid an uncomfortable downward looking view (IMAX makes some people sea-sick for related reasons) I get maximum screen heights of about 5 feet, and so the question is how many people would want their eyes within 12.5 feet of the screen, meaning the front of the sofa within 10 feet, the front of the "popcorn and soda table" within 7 feet ... (Serious questions: I am mostly ignorant of home theater layout ... I do not even own a TV, unless streaming on a computer counts.)
-
Realistically, for most people the distance to the TV is driven by the layout of their rooms, meaning by the size of their rooms.
And that's my main argument in saying 4k adoption won't be driven by home consumers. Even though I'm sure we can get affordable 100+ inch LCD/LED/OLED/AMOLED/whatever displays within just a few years at 1080p or better resolution, we won't use the entire screen for viewing a movie due to physical limitations of viewing environment (living room sizes and people's move towards handheld devices). The screens of the future might be wall-sized, but it will display 40-80 inch video in a typical setting unless it's for mood (think digital fireplaces).
!
I wasn't pulling HUDs of displays of virtually any size projected directly to your eye (http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/microsoft-exec-thinks-tablets-may-be-a-fad-talks-of-new-laser-retina-display/) out of my hat. We already live in a scifi world, and it's only getting more so.
-
I wasn't pulling HUDs of displays of virtually any size projected directly to your eye (http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/microsoft-exec-thinks-tablets-may-be-a-fad-talks-of-new-laser-retina-display/) out of my hat. We already live in a scifi world, and it's only getting more so.
Agreed: my very brief comment was meant to complement you for literally "thinking outside the box".
-
I would rather spend the money on a new camera than a home theater set up! :D
-
I would rather spend the money on a new camera than a home theater set up! :D
I couldn't agree more!
Rob C
-
I would rather spend the money on a new camera than a home theater set up! :D
Not really a surprise on a photography forum. Go to Audio Video forum and you'll get a different response.
Also, it's a false dichotomy: one can forgo one generation of camera upgrades and get a decent home theater setup. It's not like everyone needs to upgrade their camera every generation. It was just ten years ago when "generation" actually mean generation, not 2-3 years. My digital camera is just as good as I bought it almost two years ago.
-
And recent threads in other forums would suggest an aweful lot of people would put software upgrades a very distant third to either of those things!
Even pros are distracted by shiny toys ;p
-
As to video cameras though: Sony's calculations are for full RGB at every pixel, so for Bayer CFA cameras like Red's, matching full 2K projection needs 3K to 4K recording, so dazzling even the front row customers might push even a bit beyond 4K projection, and maybe to 6K or 8K Bayer CFA capture.
Any good camera should use some optical low pass filtering to avoid aliasing artifacts, and that's the case for Bayer CFAs, 3chippers, foveons etc. Most of the resolution loss in a Bayer CFA is down to the OLPF rather than the Bayer pattern itself and our visual system is not really tuned to see chroma resolution. So if you had a hypothetical 3 chip 4k video camera, you'd still only measure around 80% of that in linear resolution terms - or you'd have excessive aliasing.
With the Epic at 5k I can still see some good contrast at 4k, and negligible aliasing. Even with older RED One footage at 4k it's pretty clear that there's benefits over 1080p.
The main thing to think about is angle of view. The higher the resolution the closer you can sit, and not see pixels. Just think how the wide field of view of IMAX makes for a very immersive experience.
Graeme
-
The main thing to think about is angle of view. The higher the resolution the closer you can sit, and not see pixels. Just think how the wide field of view of IMAX makes for a very immersive experience.
Graeme
A lot of years ago when Ben Hur was released (1959 or so) it was showing at one theater in San Diego and you needed to reserve seats ahead of time. I was 12 at the time and went with my friend up the street. We were in the second row and it was a really big screen (can't remember the technology used only that it was several years before Cinerama) and that darn chariot race really immersed us!!!
-
I bet it did immerse! The vision I have of 4k+ is that it fills a wall, you sit close, and it's like "home" IMAX, with stunning levels of detail and a large field of view. You could do the same with a smaller display, but our eyes are more comfortable focusing at a larger distance necessitating a larger screen.
I find the old viewing distance recommendations for TVs and screens to produce too small a field of view. I like a good sized field of view, but as IMAX DP's know, you've got to really shoot with the larger screen in mind. But when you get it right, it's superb in a way that a "normal" sized field of view just can't compete with.
Graeme
-
...
With the Epic at 5k I can still see some good contrast at 4k, and negligible aliasing. Even with older RED One footage at 4k it's pretty clear that there's benefits over 1080p.
Graeme, I do not have solid data, but I can believe that my numbers were pessimistic and that 5K Bayer is about a match for 4K full RGB recording. Experiments with Foveon X3 sensors suggests a higher ratio (like twice as many Bayer CFA photosite locations as X3 locations) but that could be judgements based on the "aliasing enhanced crispness" caused by the Foveon sensors' unmitigated aliasing, rather than a fair resolution comparison. And I have no doubt that 4K Bayer CFA exceeds full resolution 1920x1080 HD, despite the "count the red and blue pixels only" argument of some X3 partisans.
Anyway, I am sure the Red is ready to up the stakes to 6K or whatever, if that is where the video resolution race goes.
-
Graeme, I do not have solid data, but I can believe that my numbers were pessimistic and that 5K Bayer is about a match for 4K full RGB recording. Experiments with Foveon X3 sensors suggests a higher ratio (like twice as many Bayer CFA photosite locations as X3 locations) but that could be judgements based on the "aliasing enhanced crispness" caused by the Foveon sensors' unmitigated aliasing, rather than a fair resolution comparison. And I have no doubt that 4K Bayer CFA exceeds full resolution 1920x1080 HD, despite the "count the red and blue pixels only" argument of some X3 partisans.
Anyway, I am sure the Red is ready to up the stakes to 6K or whatever, if that is where the video resolution race goes.
Canon's approach with the C300 is to not use Bayer at all. There is one RGGB for each pixel in the 1920x1080 output. Thus rather than a 2K with Bayer, the C300 is an 8.3MP sensor producing 2K video.
If Canon continues to follow this approach with the "C" DSLR, then we would expect to see a 33.2MP sensor delivering 4K video.
But just maybe that is a bit too much to ask for.
-
Canon's approach with the C300 ... is one RGGB for each pixel in the 1920x1080 output. Thus ... the C300 is an 8.3MP sensor producing 2K video.
It is interesting for us armchair camera designers to have Canon try yet another CFA and processing system, but I am for now puzzled by that approach of using a roughly 4000 pixel wide array of photosites to produce 1920x1080 RGB output, since I agree with Graeme that using this number of pixels with Bayer CFA array can out-resolve 1920x1080 (except with subject matter that is all red and blue, no green!) Maybe Canon seeks a win on noise by on-chip binning of the GG pair in each RGGB?
-
Well, Canon C300 does use a Bayer CFA - they just don't demosaic it traditionally. They read each of the repeating blocks of 4 photosites - two greens a red and a blue as one. By summing the greens they lower aliasing a bit.
Out of interest I programmed such a demosaic to compare against others. Such a "average green" method is slightly superior to the ignoring of one of the greens entirely, but not by too much. A more complex demosaic to half resolution using all the data with a downsampling filter produces a much sharper result at the expense of some aliasing, but by far and a way, the nicest is a full resolution traditional demosaic, showing lower aliasing by far, better resolution and contrast on edges, and lower chroma moire.
Of course, the method Canon uses works oh-so-much better than their previous line-skipping cameras, but it's no replacement for a full demosaic.
Graeme
-
I find the old viewing distance recommendations for TVs and screens to produce too small a field of view. I like a good sized field of view, but as IMAX DP's know, you've got to really shoot with the larger screen in mind. But when you get it right, it's superb in a way that a "normal" sized field of view just can't compete with.
Incidentally I just came back from watching the latest Mission: Impossible at an IMAX theater. Sitting near the middle of the theater does produce quite a large image (duh) - but it can be replicated today with home theater projection. I could do it today with my screen, although I'd have to sit probably two meters away from it, though. I haven't done the math on how big the screen would have to be to get a benefit from 4k, but I'm sure it would be there.
Nevertheless, while it is technically possible even today, it is highly questionable whether such viewing is feasible in a living room environment, ever. Families would have to clear up an entire wall for a TV or projection screen, and they'd have to be very close to the floor due to the height of the screen, which causes further problems with placement of coffee tables and couches.
4k projection will be great for those of us who are big enough movie buffs to have a home theater, but for the vast majority it won't bring any benefit due to screen sizes, viewing distances, and living room layout.
-
If people like the effect they'll adapt their homes, just as they did when stereo replaced mono and flat screen TVs replaced tubes. Even if that doesn't happen, there's more than enough movie buffs to make it worthwhile.
Graeme
-
Hi,
I have an 1.7 m wide projection screen and look at 2m distance. At that distance 1080P is lacking, especially for stills. Motion is much less demanding.
The problem with 4K is in my view distribution media. Perhaps it could fit somehow on Bluray?!
Best regards
Erik
If people like the effect they'll adapt their homes, just as they did when stereo replaced mono and flat screen TVs replaced tubes. Even if that doesn't happen, there's more than enough movie buffs to make it worthwhile.
Graeme
-
Well, Canon C300 does use a Bayer CFA - they just don't demosaic it traditionally.
And given the output of the C300 that's been presented on the Internet thus far, this appears to be working very well for them.
-
At that distance 1080P is lacking, especially for stills. Motion is much less demanding.
I find that motion is "different". More foregiving wrgt blurryness or lack of resolution, more demanding wrgt aliasing. Having aliases move slowly in the opposite direction of movement is really annoying.
The problem with 4K is in my view distribution media. Perhaps it could fit somehow on Bluray?!
If they can fit 1080p60 (for 3D?), then 4k@p15 should put similar demands on everything. p24 is less than double that, meaning that computation specs probably would have to be bumped, bandwidth increased or quality per pixel decreased and/or a new, more efficient codec introduced.
-h
-
And given the output of the C300 that's been presented on the Internet thus far, this appears to be working very well for them.
It works very well indeed in comparison to what they've done before. Compared to what can be achieved through a traditional Bayer approach it's lacking. The averaging of the greens "takes the edge" off the image - literally!
Graeme
-
Hi,
I have an 1.7 m wide projection screen and look at 2m distance. At that distance 1080P is lacking, especially for stills. Motion is much less demanding.
The problem with 4K is in my view distribution media. Perhaps it could fit somehow on Bluray?!
Best regards
Erik
Or perhaps the technology to deliver 4k at very reasonable bit-rates has already been demonstrated, even if it's not quite yet into a product you can buy. 2 years ago I was able to show people 4k at 10mbit/s at NAB on a large projection screen. The audience was a room of video professionals and they were stunned - and kept being amazed even on repeat presentations of the RED Ray codec. Since that presentation we've shown a working RED Ray prototype to many people in a more private environment, and with a slightly relaxed bit-rate to allow for automated encoding.
So such a bit-rate can more than fit on a BluRay disc, but I doubt that disc formats will be used in the future rather than some form of non-physical distribution.
Graeme
-
I find that motion is "different". More foregiving wrgt blurryness or lack of resolution, more demanding wrgt aliasing. Having aliases move slowly in the opposite direction of movement is really annoying.If they can fit 1080p60 (for 3D?), then 4k@p15 should put similar demands on everything. p24 is less than double that, meaning that computation specs probably would have to be bumped, bandwidth increased or quality per pixel decreased and/or a new, more efficient codec introduced.
Keeping bitrates constant while upping res by four times is not going to happen without drastic hit on image quality. BD compression is already very efficient, and even if there are improvements, they are nothing close to 50-100% required. Throwing more computational power at the problem doesn't change this. edit: Graeme's post above sounds promising (and surprising).
BD is a standard, and even if it was updated with 4k in mind, a 4k movie doesn't fit on one BD. Therefore we'd need a new physical media or more likely it will be digital distribution. Latter is something I'm not looking forward to. I haven't seen any online distributor offering decent bitrates with HD content and surround audio, let alone DTS HD MA audio. Then comes the licensing issues - I want to own my content, not license it.
-
edit: Graeme's post above sounds promising (and surprising).
To add to the story of that event, they didn't even tell me they were doing the demo, and I thought they were showing the normal uncompressed demo reel off the server. It was only when the reel finished did I figure out I'd been tricked.... It had been the REDRay encoded demo all along. The original goal of the project was produce a great looking 4k file that would fit on a standard red laser DVD - hence the REDRay name. But then discs were heading out, but we couldn't think of a better name for the project. We also wanted a more relaxed attitude to encoding rather than a user-intensive control of settings so the bit-rate got relaxed, but still way within what BluRay is capable of.
There's certainly advanced in compression to be had, but at this stage, they rely upon serious horsepower being thrown at both the encode and decode.
Graeme
-
Quite so. But the people with the most disposable income for toys are the older generation, and they also stay home more. Bigger, sharper and better entertainment is important to that demographic.
Michael
Not so sure about that. My wife watches all her favorites via cable and HD when available. But the key is that cable bandwidth is limited. HD programs via cabled are typically severely compressed. But how would you know since there is nothing to compare to in a simple manner. In fact my wife has a hard time telling any difference when switching between say an HD broadcast program and the cable supplied SD one; the TV tends to upconvert also. BTW she has no interest in doing this but I do. As someone above stated: It's a man thing.
-
Here is a problem. We barely have started using HD. They are also working on the Ultra High Definition standard (which is around 33 MP) and with that coming down the pipe, bothering with 4K is just illogical. Why don't we just allow HD to mature and then switch to UHD when it is ready? Then we can skip this whole 4K thing entirely.
-
Have you seen the NHK UHD experiments? I try to see them often as they remind me that resolution is a necessary, but not sufficient factor for a good image. The aesthetic in their images is often so bad, it reminds me of what ultra-high-def VHS might look like.
The NHK camera that does 8k is not practical. There is no content other than demo material in the 8k format. I've not been able to measure it's resolution to verify it produces anywhere near 8k of resolution.
There are practical 4k+ cameras out there now that have been shooting a number of years producing a vast amount of content. 35mm film, if scanned and treated with care can be used to create an incredibly vast amount of 4k content.
That is why 4k is important for the home, and 8k is way off being useful in the home.
Graeme
-
I predict: 2012 will be the year of the commercially available 4k for broader public.
does somebody remember "Total recall" with Arnold Schwarzenegger, there is a scene in the beginning of the movie where he sits with his (believed to be) wife Sharon Stone in front
of a huge projection, which actually covers the whole wall of the room ?
I think scenes like this DO have influence further than many think, as well as Startrek´s communicator has got Motorolas engineers design mobile phones.
Resolution does matter, I am using 30 " computer monitors now for some years with 2560x1680 and this is definitely an advantage even at a viewing distance of one meter or less.
I also own a quite good Full HD Pana Plasma with 50 " now but for running internet on this its not sharp enough at least not when I compare this with my 30 " experience.
Now looking scaled up full HD on the 30" is definitely better than the full hd with native resolution on the 50 " (whereas the plasma may have the better color space I think)
I am hundred percent sure that 4k once it´s available will be supported by cheaper monitors (I read the actual price tag is now about 7/8 k $ for a 60 ") all bigger display companies work on such displays and show them on the fairs now. They are even working on 8K monitors, but these are still prototypes maybe 3-5 years away from market launch.
Eizo has now a 36" 4K desktop monitor (25k€) and if I had the money I´d sure buy that one.
The distribution technology is also developed, maybe not in Europe or in USA but take a look at South Korea or Japan where people have fibreglass Internet access with more than 100 Mbit - now there are experiments with speeds of 1 Gigabit per second.
The connection is also there, we have thunderbolt with 10 Gigabit/sec.
It all falls into place - and it all makes sense , I want it and for 3-5k I would buy it.
I want to output my photos on it, zoom in and have the freedom of electronic softproofing, image manipulation on the fly and also timelapses in this resolution.
Who will need a large print after this technology is available mainstream ? If I were Epson or Canon I´d be afraid.
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
Hi,
I hope that you are right, but in my view things may take longer time. I have just spent some hours in front of my 1080p screen wanting some more.
Epson are making projectors, too, by the way ;-)
Best regards
Erik
I predict: 2012 will be the year of the commercially available 4k for broader public.
does somebody remember "Total recall" with Arnold Schwarzenegger, there is a scene in the beginning of the movie where he sits with his (believed to be) wife Sharon Stone in front
of a huge projection, which actually covers the whole wall of the room ?
I think scenes like this DO have influence further than many think, as well as Startrek´s communicator has got Motorolas engineers design mobile phones.
Resolution does matter, I am using 30 " computer monitors now for some years with 2560x1680 and this is definitely an advantage even at a viewing distance of one meter or less.
I also own a quite good Full HD Pana Plasma with 50 " now but for running internet on this its not sharp enough at least not when I compare this with my 30 " experience.
Now looking scaled up full HD on the 30" is definitely better than the full hd with native resolution on the 50 " (whereas the plasma may have the better color space I think)
I am hundred percent sure that 4k once it´s available will be supported by cheaper monitors (I read the actual price tag is now about 7/8 k $ for a 60 ") all bigger display companies work on such displays and show them on the fairs now. They are even working on 8K monitors, but these are still prototypes maybe 3-5 years away from market launch.
Eizo has now a 36" 4K desktop monitor (25k€) and if I had the money I´d sure buy that one.
The distribution technology is also developed, maybe not in Europe or in USA but take a look at South Korea or Japan where people have fibreglass Internet access with more than 100 Mbit - now there are experiments with speeds of 1 Gigabit per second.
The connection is also there, we have thunderbolt with 10 Gigabit/sec.
It all falls into place - and it all makes sense , I want it and for 3-5k I would buy it.
I want to output my photos on it, zoom in and have the freedom of electronic softproofing, image manipulation on the fly and also timelapses in this resolution.
Who will need a large print after this technology is available mainstream ? If I were Epson or Canon I´d be afraid.
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
Erik
there is even more: The announced Canon 4k Videodevices and if you think of it - 8K video has about 33 Mpix.
This may be pretty exactly what will come out of the new chips from Sony and Canon in the "Full Format" 24x36 range with over 30 Mpix.
The Japanese (and Koreans) make plans longer and more strategically than western companies.
They have built a potential platform support and infrastructure during the last years, HD is a done Business in Asia, they need something new to secure their revenues.
We should not believe only because the US and Europe are a bit late compared to the Hightech Asian countries we are the main target of their business plan.
We are massmarket and will fill their RD costs on the volume, but their center markets are Korea and Japan (and maybe now China) where the competition for Hightech is
hard and very much giving these companies their positioning against their competitors.
This is how Asia ticks today. And the japanese/korean Public is technology crazy like nobody here in Europe or the US. They pull development not us here in the "old and shrink to dying" countries. I know this will give many "western" people hickups, but that´s the reality like it or not.
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
This is how Asia ticks today. And the japanese/korean Public is technology crazy like nobody here in Europe or the US. They pull development not us here in the "old and shrink to dying" countries. I know this will give many "western" people hickups, but that´s the reality like it or not.
Looking at todays technology, I am sometimes frustrated that customers (and thereby manufacturers) are so occupied with easily measured/specced parts of technology, and so little interested in the aspects that are harder to quantify (but may be more important to users in the long run).
"4k" is easily coined, PR-people can relate to it etc. But "real end-to-end resolution that is good enough to be transparent to a given user in a given setting" is a lot more complex. For the actual viewer it is hopefully more relevant, though.
-h
-
Yes, end to end 4k is going to be the key. Up-sampling 1080p doesn't cut it. And so much 1080p actually measured sup-1080p to begin with...
Graeme
-
I have a relatively large setup in my fitness room: a 300 cm diagonal screen (a motorized decent business screen though, not a cinema grade one), and a Sony HD projector hooked to a BluRay player. At this point, I feel this is enough in terms of resolution. Maybe I'll be blown by 4K when I see it though. One never knows. I'd rather have more light out of the projector rather than more pixels. Have a smaller 240 screen at home, and it does work quite well. In both cases, you are usually able to see individual hairs on the heads of actors, or very minor make up defects. For full wall screens, there is also the paint solution (for example http://www.paintonscreen.com/) which a friend uses and which gives nice results. It could indeed be that in the near future a lot of people will have a full wall painted that way, and will learn to appreciate 4K, but for me, that would be on 300cm+ screens.
It could also be that when this is reality, people will compare aliasing in individual hairs of actors...
.
-
Perhaps when they come out with "real" definition or the same resolution as our eyes see, then I'll be happy.
-
They are also working on the Ultra High Definition standard (which is around 33 MP) and with that coming down the pipe, bothering with 4K is just illogical. Why don't we just allow HD to mature and then switch to UHD when it is ready?
There is plenty of evidence in this thread that even 4K will barely be of benefit in the home, and it is almost certain that the next step from 4K to 8K will be a completely useless bandwidth hog for home viewing (even with 1984-style full wall displays.) Even in cinemas, Sony's data in arguing for 4K over 2K suggest that very few seats if any will be close enough to get a benefit from 8K over 4K: 8K smells like a spec.-driven gimmick, like 16MP sensors in tiny-sensor compacts with maximum apertures so small that diffraction overwhelms sensor resolution.
P. S. Waiting for the even better technology that will come some day is a great way to save money, because if done consistency, we would never upgrade. But it does not make sense for people who want to see an improvement in the short to medium term, not just in some technological afterlife.
-
Erik
there is even more: The announced Canon 4k Videodevices and if you think of it - 8K video has about 33 Mpix.
This may be pretty exactly what will come out of the new chips from Sony and Canon in the "Full Format" 24x36 range with over 30 Mpix.
The Japanese (and Koreans) make plans longer and more strategically than western companies.
They have built a potential platform support and infrastructure during the last years, HD is a done Business in Asia, they need something new to secure their revenues.
We should not believe only because the US and Europe are a bit late compared to the Hightech Asian countries we are the main target of their business plan.
We are massmarket and will fill their RD costs on the volume, but their center markets are Korea and Japan (and maybe now China) where the competition for Hightech is
hard and very much giving these companies their positioning against their competitors.
This is how Asia ticks today. And the japanese/korean Public is technology crazy like nobody here in Europe or the US. They pull development not us here in the "old and shrink to dying" countries. I know this will give many "western" people hickups, but that´s the reality like it or not.
Typical Japanese and Hong Kong homes are much smaller than European or US homes, so 4k makes even less sense there for consumers. Don't know about rest of Asia.
-
Typical Japanese and Hong Kong homes are much smaller than European or US homes, so 4k makes even less sense there for consumers.
Going beyond 4K makes sense ... if you sit at a distance from the screen about the screen height or less, so less than half the screen diagonal. I suppose people could do that even with moderate size screens, like viewing a 30" diagonal screen from 15" away, or 40" from 20" away, but I really do expect it to happen with any home screen size, even in the long-term.
-
Going beyond 4K makes sense ... if you sit at a distance from the screen about the screen height or less, so less than half the screen diagonal. I suppose people could do that even with moderate size screens, like viewing a 30" diagonal screen from 15" away, or 40" from 20" away, but I really do expect it to happen with any home screen size, even in the long-term.
Assuming you didn't miss any "no"s in the above passage, I disagree. It is very hard to setup a living room to allow for 100" plus screens in homes or apartments. You need proper viewing distance, for the screen to be close to the floor, and clearance in front of the screen.
It's no problem for those of us who can dedicate a room for a home theater, or are such movie buffs that they put cinema before feng shui, and can afford such a setup, but for the 99% it's not an option; especially with 4k which asks them to drop a few thousand euros to replace their 1080p TV they just bought a few years ago.
Caveats: the upcoming generation watching movies on their laptops might change things as they are comfortable sticking their noses to a big screen, as would heads-up-displays, direct drawing to the eyes with a laser, or contact lenses with screens on them (all of these are at least on proof-of-concept stage, no scifi).
-
Removal of "screen door effect" is a reason why it might still be successful in areas where smaller homes are more common. Living in Australia, houses are typically large (we just recently overtook the US for largest average house size) but it's a good point about many parts of Asia and even Europe.
However, even a smaller screen if you sit closer you can start to pick up the screen door effect from a 3LCD projector - higher pixel density would tend to remove that, allowing you to sit closer without reducing the quality.
I think Feppe is probably onto something with the point about emerging HUD technology and similar, though.
-
Hi,
I could easily make the projection screen larger. It's a motorized, mounted on the roof, so it is nonobtrusive when not in use.
Best regards
Erik
Assuming you didn't miss any "no"s in the above passage, I disagree. It is very hard to setup a living room to allow for 100" plus screens in homes or apartments. You need proper viewing distance, for the screen to be close to the floor, and clearance in front of the screen.
It's no problem for those of us who can dedicate a room for a home theater, or are such movie buffs that they put cinema before feng shui, and can afford such a setup, but for the 99% it's not an option; especially with 4k which asks them to drop a few thousand euros to replace their 1080p TV they just bought a few years ago.
Caveats: the upcoming generation watching movies on their laptops might change things as they are comfortable sticking their noses to a big screen, as would heads-up-displays, direct drawing to the eyes with a laser, or contact lenses with screens on them (all of these are at least on proof-of-concept stage, no scifi).
-
Removal of "screen door effect" is a reason why it might still be successful in areas where smaller homes are more common. Living in Australia, houses are typically large (we just recently overtook the US for largest average house size) but it's a good point about many parts of Asia and even Europe.
However, even a smaller screen if you sit closer you can start to pick up the screen door effect from a 3LCD projector - higher pixel density would tend to remove that, allowing you to sit closer without reducing the quality.
A non-issue, depending on the PJ. I'm on my second projector, both LCD, and the first Panasonic PT-AX200 720p PJ didn't have a screen door effect, and neither does my current Epson 8350 1080p PJ. I've projected up to 120".
I could easily make the projection screen larger. It's a motorized, mounted on the roof, so it is nonobtrusive when not in use.
I'm sure you can, but I'm talking about the masses. Motorized screens are expensive, and even then one has to re-arrange a typical living room to be able to watch it at a comfortable height and distance.
-
I'm sure you can, but I'm talking about the masses. Motorized screens are expensive, and even then one has to re-arrange a typical living room to be able to watch it at a comfortable height and distance.
The future will show what display sizes will be available at economic price points. The world have gone from 32" to 40" to 46" in a few years now, I dont see it stopping yet. Many people would buy a 100" lcd if it was <10mm thick, used <150Watts, cost less than $2000.
People can watch their display at pretty much any distance. If the distance is small enough compared to the display size, they will be able to distinguish high-quality 4k from high-quality 1080p*). This is true for iPad-type displays, 40" tvs and 200" home cinema setups.
The recommendation is to sit at a distance equal to approximately 3-4 times the display height, but this could be as much to conceal limitations of the format as anything else. If screens covering a larger field of view become more prevalent, I predict that movies will be framed different - spending more of the screen real-estate on stuff that is not critical to the story, but perhaps adds to the "feeling of being there" (ala what Philips are trying to do with their rgb wall lighting system).
-h
*)There are of course limits to how close people can focus their eyes, but I dont think that is very relevant.
-
A non-issue, depending on the PJ. I'm on my second projector, both LCD, and the first Panasonic PT-AX200 720p PJ didn't have a screen door effect, and neither does my current Epson 8350 1080p PJ. I've projected up to 120".
Then you haven't been that close to the image. Even on the latest 1080p 3LCD models once you get close enough you can see it.
At normal viewing distances and conditions you don't notice it but if people have smaller areas then it's more likely to be seen.
-
Assuming you didn't miss any "no"s in the above passage, I disagree.
I missed a crucial "not", so we agree. See correction above.
Irony and bad typing are a bad combination!
-
The future will show what display sizes will be available at economic price points. The world have gone from 32" to 40" to 46" in a few years now, I dont see it stopping yet. Many people would buy a 100" lcd if it was <10mm thick, used <150Watts, cost less than $2000.
While you are correct on all accounts, my main argument is and has been that living room arrangements and viewing distances don't allow for a big enough screen to get the benefit from 4k in consumer surroundings - this excludes most enthusiasts -, unless some disruptive tech comes along.
I'm done here, as I've rehashed that argument at least three times now.
Then you haven't been that close to the image. Even on the latest 1080p 3LCD models once you get close enough you can see it.
At normal viewing distances and conditions you don't notice it but if people have smaller areas then it's more likely to be seen.
What's the point? I realize we're on LL which is full of pixel peepers, and there's a place for such activity. But what on earth would be the point in pixel peeping a 100" screen? I guarantee you won't see a screen door effect at reasonable screen sizes and viewing distances with the PJs I mentioned unless you use binoculars. Likely quite a few other PJs are the same.
I missed a crucial "not", so we agree. See correction above.
Irony and bad typing are a bad combination!
Heh, thought so :)
-
While you are correct on all accounts, my main argument is and has been that living room arrangements and viewing distances don't allow for a big enough screen to get the benefit from 4k in consumer surroundings - this excludes most enthusiasts -, unless some disruptive tech comes along.
Yes we have repeated our arguments back and forth a couple of times now.
I still don't get how one can argue screen-size and resolution without taking distance into account. People are using screens from 3.5" to 200", they are sitting at 0.3 meter to 20 meter distance. They are viewing 100x100 pixel MMS videos and 4k DCI. For some combination of screen size and viewing distance, 4k will be warranted.
I imagine some student homes where a 32" 1080p might be somewhat improved by a 32" 4k, without sitting "20cm from the screen".
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP092.pdf
I interpret this report as 5% of the viewers would have some benefit of 4k at 35" diagonal and 2.7 meters viewing distance.
Nit-picking aside, I think that for the majority, 720p is plenty for video, even at 50". There are many other quality aspects than resolution (encoding quality, avoiding frame-rate conversion, color accuracy etc), and the tendency to talk about only spatial resolution is bad.
-h
-
Feppe - over the Christmas / New Year period I was watching a 3LCD projector at home for about a month. I've watched, literally, dozens of different models over the years, including the very latest. The screen door has been improved, but it's still there. 4k will reduce that effect just as 1080 over 720 improved it (along with general technology improvements).
-
Feppe - over the Christmas / New Year period I was watching a 3LCD projector at home for about a month. I've watched, literally, dozens of different models over the years, including the very latest. The screen door has been improved, but it's still there. 4k will reduce that effect just as 1080 over 720 improved it (along with general technology improvements).
Which PJ was it? I just pixel peeped my Epson 8350, and the screen door is visible to 1.5m or so on a 86" screen. I normally view it at 3m.
-
The two most recent? TW-5500 and TW-9000W. I think out to about 1.5m to 2m is right (don't have it right in front of me now), and with a still image (you don't notice it on moving images until you get a little closer). The screen size was 105" (diagonal).
FWIW, I don't wear glasses and I do tend to have better accuity (noticeably) than many of my friends and peers, but I'd take a punt and say it's 6/6 and theirs is actually slightly degraded. Being in my 40's, I doubt I have the acuity that I exhibited as a child anymore :-)
I'll make a point of specifically measuring next time.
-
Funny......
The same people who swear they can see Micron size differences in Prints and that this makes sense to print with 300 or more DPI on 2x3 meters deny that there will be an improvement when this same thing shall happen on a video screen...............hmmmmm ???
I believe a 100" AMOLED 4k or better 8k screen will be exactly what I want to see in my Livingroom, hopefully in latest 5 years from now.
Regards
Stefan
-
Hi,
When I got my first flat panel TV at 42" and 720p I tried to sit as close as possible (< 2m). After that I upgraded to a 1024x768 projector and 1.5 m wide screen. Resolution at 3.5 was barely acceptable, so it was difficult to find seating. Three years ago I got 1080p projection and upgraded to a 1.75wide screen. Now we can sit 2.5m from the screen but resolution could be better. With 4K I could probably keep viewing position and maybe even getting a larger projection screen.
A 100" at 8K would be a nice way of displaying images, instead of prints. I would love it! ;-)
Best regards
Erik
Funny......
The same people who swear they can see Micron size differences in Prints and that this makes sense to print with 300 or more DPI on 2x3 meters deny that there will be an improvement when this same thing shall happen on a video screen...............hmmmmm ???
I believe a 100" AMOLED 4k or better 8k screen will be exactly what I want to see in my Livingroom, hopefully in latest 5 years from now.
Regards
Stefan
-
A 100" at 8K would be a nice way of displaying images, instead of prints. I would love it! ;-)
I believe that the DR could be a lot higher than paper if your room is properly darkened. That might be the closest to "viewing HDR without the tonemapping" that we get.
-h
-
This is exactly my opinion. And why I think Prints are doomed !
I already use my full HD 50" plasma more for viewing images than I do prints.
There is simply no match for he color and contrast the Plasma can deliver, I can zoom in and I can calibrate it !
I have spent the best 10 Bucks since years for a 10m DVI to HDMI cable (Ebay). This I plug into the second port of My MacBook Pro 17
and run the plasma as a Second screen, I have calibrated it with my iOne Pro and this really rocks !!!!
I only say Vimeo timelapses with full HD on 50" (my Apple TV did only 720p)...............YES !!!!
Once you have seen this, it is easy to understand that this kind of displays (and larger) will take over FAST, I´m already an addict !
Regards
Stefan
-
Hi Stefan,
I guess that folks like you and me wanting flat screen for stills are a very small minority, unfortunately.
Best regards
Erik
This is exactly my opinion. And why I think Prints are doomed !
I already use my full HD 50" plasma more for viewing images than I do prints.
There is simply no match for he color and contrast the Plasma can deliver, I can zoom in and I can calibrate it !
I have spent the best 10 Bucks since years for a 10m DVI to HDMI cable (Ebay). This I plug into the second port of My MacBook Pro 17
and run the plasma as a Second screen, I have calibrated it with my iOne Pro and this really rocks !!!!
I only say Vimeo timelapses with full HD on 50" (my Apple TV did only 720p)...............YES !!!!
Once you have seen this, it is easy to understand that this kind of displays (and larger) will take over FAST, I´m already an addict !
Regards
Stefan
-
we had some discussions about soft profing devices becoming the main target of output over at Linkedin with People like Karl Koch and other Colormanagement Pro´s.
Fact is that the capabilities of even todays displays surpass print in almost any aspect, with the resolution and the brightness being the main drawbacks right now.
But as this is to be solved very soon (4k/8k res , AMOLED and sizes up to 100 ") I think it is clear now that a large viewing device will be the central part of anybodies livingroom of the future. There will be differing qualities, as of resolution and color depth which will express in pricing, but for a professional grade display there should be a pricerange of under 10k$ US possible especially when massproduction will start.
So if anybody has Epson stock, it would be a good point to rethink this investment.
Regards
Stefan
-
BTW, talking about potentially disruptive technology, here's Corning's take 2 on the future of displays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZkHpNnXLB0
-
So if anybody has Epson stock, it would be a good point to rethink this investment.
I dont think that displays will fully replace paper in a very long time. People will buy a good printed photography because it is permanent, something that can be passed on between generations, and it will "work" if the electricity fails. People probably wont pay those sums for a jpeg that is uploaded to the jukebox of their lcd image frame.
I am in the process of buying my first grand piano, and I never even considered a digital piano, no matter how good its audible qualities may be. I think that is similar to how I think people feel about paper vs display.
-h
-
Could be for our generation. What about the next one. My 8 years old reaction when she saw the corning video was "great, we won't have to use pen, papers and books in the future!". AFAIC, I have two rooms full of books, wall to wall, and love the smell of fountain pen ink, etc... That doesn't seem to resonate with them.
And when we bought our piano, we took a large one for aesthetic reasons, but we took a digital one (Yamaha). The sound isn't perfect, I believe I could do better than random on a double blind test, but the main reason we avoided analog is that you have to maintain a strictly controlled and constant humidity level if you want to keep it in tune.
-
Could be for our generation. What about the next one. My 8 years old reaction when she saw the corning video was "great, we won't have to use pen, papers and books in the future!". AFAIC, I have two rooms full of books, wall to wall, and love the smell of fountain pen ink, etc... That doesn't seem to resonate with them.
This son of a friend of mine is always annoyed when he is shown images on the computer. "Play it, play it". Evidently he thinks that all images on a computer are videos that can be started. That generation will start out with a very different set of expectations than mine.
-h
-
Thanks for that link Pierre !
Exactly what I mean. We are just at the beginning.
Computers with a graphical interface started 25 years ago.
Flat screen Display technology started 10-15 years ago.
Now it´s merging into TV screens and communication devices.
Give it another 10-15 years and the film will be reality.
Regards
Stefan
-
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP092.pdf
I interpret this report as 5% of the viewers would have some benefit of 4k at 35" diagonal and 2.7 meters viewing distance.
I do not see where you get that "5% can see better" number: a 95% confidence interval just acknowledges a 5% chance that the results are wrong in some unspecified way.
To me, the BBC testing has the same defect as the Sony white paper: judging the benefits of increased resolution in moving picture display by what the eye can distinguish in side-by-side comparisons of stationary images. It seems very clear to me that moving images have lower resolution needs; think how much worse a frame grab from video looks than watching the video it comes from: pixelation and screen-door effects are far less visible when then images are in motion and you only have 1/24th of a second or less to see each frame before the transit to the next frame adds "motion blur".
What we really need is an ABX test: people watching the same video first at one of 2K and 4K [A], then at the other , then shown a random one of the previous two [X] and asked to try to match X to A or B.
I am inclined to hypothesize that the most relevant experimental data we have so far moving picture resolution needs are from the previous unpublished experiments mentioned in the introduction to the BBC document (my underlining):
These were carried out with a television display, using television signals representing edges varying in step size, mean brightness and hue. The results indicated that a rise angle of around 1.5 to 3 minutes of arc was just perceptible.
That would make 1920x1080 HD good enough until viewing distance is less than about 1 to 2 picture heights, or less than 0.6 to 1.2 picture widths, or 0.5 to 1 times screen diagonal size.
Sure, people will look at computer screens this close for short periods of time, but how many will watch a movie at home from this close range?
Anyway, I am fairly sure than computer screens (and even iPad screens) will soon go beyond 1920x1080p, and there will be 4K samples around to download and do our own ABX testing with. Perhaps we should pause this theoretical debate until more experimental data arrive.
-
I do not see where you get that "5% can see better" number
"Fig. 9. TV Standard required to provide adequate horizontal resolution for 2.7m viewing distance", 7th column, turqoise, page 6.
To me, the BBC testing has the same defect as the Sony white paper: judging the benefits of increased resolution in moving picture display by what the eye can distinguish in side-by-side comparisons of stationary images. It seems very clear to me that moving images have lower resolution needs; think how much worse a frame grab from video looks than watching the video it comes from: pixelation and screen-door effects are far less visible when then images are in motion and you only have 1/24th of a second or less to see each frame before the transit to the next frame adds "motion blur".
Moving images are a generalization of still images. A movie might contain sequences with very low motion (or exactly no motion). A movie format that is transparent in all cases would have to cover those cases as well. Do we need a format that is alway transparent? I don't know. How much is it worth to me to have a format that reduce the number of cases where visible artifacts appear? Enough to use Bluray even though I despise the user-friendliness and DRM of that format.
When it comes to aliasing, I would claim that video tends to be more revealing for spatial aliasing than still-images are. So you probably want to hold on to your OLPF and properly suppressed stop-bands in resizing operations when doing video.
-h
-
"Fig. 9. TV Standard required to provide adequate horizontal resolution for 2.7m viewing distance", 7th column, turqoise, page 6.
I see now --- on the dubious assumption that people buy ever bigger TVs in order to view than from the same 8 foot (2.7m) distance, rather than to allow larger, more comfortable viewing environments that give a good, nearly square on view for more people by seating them further away from the screen.
The graphical presentation of the fraction of people who would benefit from 8K is a fine example of British subtlety.