Forum Jump: 
 9Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #451 of 467 Old 10-29-2013, 08:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
Speed Daemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 587
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Liked: 47
My reference to the $100 security camera wasn't about specs. My point was that a cheap security camera doesn't include any PTZ (pan, tilt, zoom) functionality. The human body OTOH has far more capability. Although the human eye can't zoom in the same fashion as a camera lens, it does have the capability to redirect attention. Not only can we mimic pans and tilts, but we can pedestal ourselves up and down...we can articulate (and locomote) our bodies to change our POV with few limits.

And the people who like to say "you can't do that"...well, they're not going to have their orders obeyed. I have yet to see a movie theater equipped with "Brazil"-esque devices to lock down the human body (even the eyeballs!) so that it can't possibly move, or anyone who would want to watch a feature-length film while restrained by such a device.

On the other side of the coin, although video displays are still mostly fixed devices, there's an increasing use of multiple displays, multiplexed displays (picture in picture really didn't catch on, although it deserves a mention) and mixed environments where TV and computer displays can be brought up and used as needed. It doesn't take much imagination to see that people will continue to "think outside the box" when it comes to display technology. I predict a rich and varied future in this realm.

Just yesterday I was stretched out on the couch watching a movie, and realized that my head was oriented perpendicular to the TV screen; I was laying on my side, but the TV still was in its "normal" panoramic orientation. Amazing to think that my brain automatically "fixed" the image, and I didn't see the picture as if it was standing on end!

I think that the state of the art in display technology has only scratched the surface of how it can evolve to accommodate the human being.
Quote:
You know, Coca-Cola won't advertise in REC-709 media because their red isn't available! Not that I need Coke ads... but it makes a point.
LOL...yes, it certainly does! To think that the Coca-Cola Company had absolutely no problem with the colorimetrics of NTSC TV!!!biggrin.gif Was their red available in the various color spaces that NTSC used? I don't think so...

http://www.gottadance.org/gamuts.shtml
"The 1953 NTSC standard had a very nice color range, but the phosphors in use were rather dim. From the late 1950s to late 1970s, televisions became much brighter but suffered a greatly reduced color gamut, thanks to the different phosphors being used. Reds became reddish-orange, and greens became yellow-green. There were no standards that television manufacturers were willing to conform to."

http://01966633.com/t/1038839/rec-601-smpte-c-rec-709-confusion-thread (Another nice reference, right here at AVS Forums.)

I do agree with you about the now self-imposed limitations of "Color TV 1.x" that have been carried over to v2.0 (HD) and beyond. When ATSC came out, I was sorely disappointed to learn that not only was raster scanning retained, but even deprecated things like blanking intervals, IRE 7.5 black levels etc. were inexplicably still part of the D/HDTV system! I can understand why the original HDTV standards like BT.709 were heavily constrained by the low availability and high cost of the equipment that makes all those bits so inexpensive today.

By the same token, now that digital HDTV has paved the way (note that a lot of original HDTV development was done using analog technology), isn't it about time for improvements in colorimetry such as a color space that meets or exceeds the color gamut visible to the best human eyes. (I'm hardly an expert, but if the CIE x axis' lower limit was extended down to 0, and the upper limits on the x amd y axes adjusted accordingly, that's all that needs to be done to include what we currently consider to be the limits of human color perception. I'll leave it to the real mathematicians to figure out the best way to toss out the unused parts of that triangle.) At least BT.2020 is a step in the right direction, compared to BT.709, CCIR 601 and the analog color spaces (ie. SMPTE-C) that came before.

Maybe by the time a 16K standard needs to be agreed upon, that the engineers who work on that standard might want to throw all of the antiquated thinking that's based on things like the color of tungsten and phosphors, take the "clean sheet" approach and replace it all with less arcane and more universal functions that would be a more suitable platform for use in the 21st century.

You get what you pay for.  For professional advice, pay the professional rate.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #452 of 467 Old 03-02-2018, 02:11 AM
Member
 
Drewdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Just found this thread among my favorites and saw no one has posted here in a while. Now that we've had UHD TVs in stores for some time and content is coming from more sources (even YouTube) let's ask the question again.

4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it?

I have an UHDTV I got at Costco. It's a 49" LG and the picture's best attribute is the pixels aren't RGB but whatever color pops from the combined rgb. The 4K sources seem better than standard HD. I haven't seen my UHD Blu-ray in UHD yet so I'll follow up but the YouTube and Amazon UHD do seem sharper than HD.
Drewdawg is offline  
post #453 of 467 Old 03-05-2018, 08:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
richlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Central NC
Posts: 1,486
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 834 Post(s)
Liked: 1036
Thanks for bumping this. For the most part, those who spoke in 2013 had no experience with 4K. Now many have it, it's close to the selling norm in stores/online, and there is material to compare.

To me the original premise is faulty: "Let's face it, for the most part, most of the world won't get any benefit out of it because the displays are just too small in the average household to truly see the high-resolution of a 4K monitor." Even at the time, displays were already getting to the 40-55" range and at that level, yes, you can truly see the benefit of 4K at normal viewing distances. My first 4k was a 55" Vizio early in 2015. Even without HDR, the difference in pic was noticeable and exciting. And that was all upscaled -- not native 4K. Bring in a native 4K source, add HDR (let alone HDR10+ and DV), 4K BR and UHD BR players and you have a whole new basis for comparison.

So without a doubt, 4K makes a difference. Will the world falter and skip a beat without 4k? No. Does 4k hugley improve our enjoyment of even 720x480 DVD with upscaling? Yes. What we had with HD is clearly a step below 4K, we get more bang and enjoyment from 4k and with the larger screen sizes (I'm now at 65" BECAUSE of 4K), it is indeed changing our view of the world.
TravisPNW and Ben23 like this.

Atmos/DTS:X HT in Vaulted Room -- LG OLED Settings Options
Yamaha RX-A3060: 7.2.4 or 7.2.2 + Zone2 (switchable); OPPO 203; LG OLED65B6P; Harmony 650 & Home Hub
Base: Mirage OM-6 (FLR), MC-si (C), OM-R2 (SLR), FRx-nine (BLR)
Presence: ELAC A4s (FP), RSL C34Es (RP); 2 aci Titan subs; RP amp: AudioSource AMP100VS
richlife is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #454 of 467 Old 03-06-2018, 11:50 AM
Member
 
A.T.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Colorado
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 35
"4K"
I think upgrading will be a non-issue in 2 years- Thanks to TV companies marketing it will probably all be 3840 × 2160p. If your TV breaks in 2 years I doubt you'll be able to find a 1080p with HDR or Dolby Vision (which I feel makes a substantial difference on the smaller, more common 50" screens). Would I upgrade, sure, but not for the reason you think. I currently sit far enough away from a 50" screen that it wouldn't make much of a difference (in MY MLP), but if people were to come over and beanbag it on the floor in front of me then I wouldn't want their audio and visual to be crappy (okay let's face it I'd probably take the bean bag at 3-4 feet from screen and give them the MLP- I'm a sucker).

"8K"
For the "bean-baggers" in the dedicated future theater; I definitely would want at least a good picture at 3 or 4 ft--when I upgrade to 96" or 108." And will likely take it even further with a big screen x >96", passive 3-D, "8K", Dolby Vision upgrade...but I think that's IT as far as definition goes, color, contrast, etc will continue to improve over time just to feed the upgrade addiction.

"16K"
If in 10-15 years "16K" comes out I'd emphatically say NO; unless a Man in a White Sox jersey comes out of a cornfield and whispers to me "Go the distance"

Aaron
Ben23 likes this.

All ya need is love, and Hi Fi sound.
Asthetix, Audreal, Arcam FMJ, Musical Fidelity, Harmonix, Marantz, Tannoy, MIT, PS3, Panasonic, OPPO

Last edited by A.T.M.; 03-07-2018 at 06:38 PM.
A.T.M. is online now  
post #455 of 467 Old 03-09-2018, 12:16 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 11
HDR seems like the bigger deal to me than the 4k resolution. So I'm going to say... "sorta". Higher resolution is nice, but in everything other than videogames, it's not really going to dramatically enhance my experience as much as better colors and contrast ratio. I don't look at a nice large 1080p TV and think to myself "this looks bad." As long as the TV is good enough and the content being played is native resolution, the worst I think to myself is "this looks soft".

But real film in a movie theater looks soft to me as well. So it's not unnatural or anything.
Ben23 likes this.
Peltz-0 is offline  
post #456 of 467 Old 03-09-2018, 12:19 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 730 Post(s)
Liked: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peltz-0 View Post
HDR seems like the bigger deal to me than the 4k resolution. So I'm going to say... "sorta". Higher resolution is nice, but in everything other than videogames, it's not really going to dramatically enhance my experience as much as better colors and contrast ratio. I don't look at a nice large 1080p TV and think to myself "this looks bad." As long as the TV is good enough and the content being played is native resolution, the worst I think to myself is "this looks soft".

But real film in a movie theater looks soft to me as well. So it's not unnatural or anything.
And DCI/P3 color is another "bigger deal" for me.
erkq is offline  
post #457 of 467 Old 03-14-2018, 08:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 4,429
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1041 Post(s)
Liked: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bott View Post
Let's face it, for the most part, most of the world won't get any benefit out of it because the displays are just too small in the average household to truly see the high-resolution of a 4K monitor.
You state this as though it were a fact (as do some other people). But it's not a fact. It would be some trouble to set up a blind test to see whether human viewers could tell a 2K from a 4K TV picture, but it wouldn't be terribly difficult. It hasn't been done, so far as I know. Instead, all I see are theoretical arguments based on what some people think they know about human perception.

And not only is it not a fact, in my opinion it is not even plausible. It doesn't take into account that dithering should produce a greater apparent color depth on a display with more pixels.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #458 of 467 Old 03-14-2018, 01:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 730 Post(s)
Liked: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
You state this as though it were a fact (as do some other people). But it's not a fact. It would be some trouble to set up a blind test to see whether human viewers could tell a 2K from a 4K TV picture, but it wouldn't be terribly difficult. It hasn't been done, so far as I know. Instead, all I see are theoretical arguments based on what some people think they know about human perception.

And not only is it not a fact, in my opinion it is not even plausible. It doesn't take into account that dithering should produce a greater apparent color depth on a display with more pixels.
It's not "theoretical". Angular perception limits are angular perception limits. It all depends on the angle of view, so that blind test would have to be done at proscribed angles of view.

We don't want "greater apparent color depth". We want Rec.709 or DCI/P3 or BT.2020... not some modified version of these. We want the color depth that the standard calls for. Anything else is fakery.
erkq is offline  
post #459 of 467 Old 03-14-2018, 03:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 4,429
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1041 Post(s)
Liked: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
It's not "theoretical". Angular perception limits are angular perception limits. It all depends on the angle of view, so that blind test would have to be done at proscribed angles of view.

We don't want "greater apparent color depth". We want Rec.709 or DCI/P3 or BT.2020... not some modified version of these. We want the color depth that the standard calls for. Anything else is fakery.
I see. Assuming you meant "prescribed" for "proscribed", your idea of high fidelity is not faithfulness to reality, but faithfulness to a standard. Well, then, thank God for standards organizations; without them, progress would be impossible.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #460 of 467 Old 03-14-2018, 04:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 730 Post(s)
Liked: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
I see. Assuming you meant "prescribed" for "proscribed", your idea of high fidelity is not faithfulness to reality, but faithfulness to a standard. Well, then, thank God for standards organizations; without them, progress would be impossible.
That's absolutely right. I did mean "prescribed". Slip of the key...

Without standards there'd be no accuracy. And without accuracy there'd be no "faithfulness to reality" because "reality" would not be defined. And, you are right, without standards, progress is not possible.

Have you seen a properly calibrated home theater? Gamma especially... gamma is half the battle. Proper gamma gives you that "looking through a window" feeling. Beyond a certain point, more resolution doesn't add much. Proper gamma, color, luminance, saturation become more important by far.
erkq is offline  
post #461 of 467 Old 03-15-2018, 09:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 491 Post(s)
Liked: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by richlife View Post

So without a doubt, 4K makes a difference. Will the world falter and skip a beat without 4k? No. Does 4k hugley improve our enjoyment of even 720x480 DVD with upscaling? Yes. What we had with HD is clearly a step below 4K, we get more bang and enjoyment from 4k and with the larger screen sizes (I'm now at 65" BECAUSE of 4K), it is indeed changing our view of the world.
Well said.

I also upgraded because of 4K... from a 2011 42" plasma to a 65" OLED B7A last month. It's a noticeable difference over 1080p to me... my 4k UHD disc collection is already over 50 titles. Most of the new content looks absolutely amazing. $2500 for the TV was definitely worth it. No buyer's remorse here.

While I can see the 1080p to 4K difference... I can't help but wonder if it's going to be the same with 8K or 16K. Your eyes can only see so much they say...
richlife likes this.

LG B7A OLED 65” - ISF calibrated by Chad B 4/20/18 / LG SJ9 Sound Bar / LG UP970 BR Player / Apple TV 4K
i7 7700k 11GB 1080 Ti 32GB Ram 2x 1TB 960 Evo / XBox One X / Nintendo Switch
Panasonic GH5 with 42.5mm f1.2 & 14-140mm f3.5-5.6 lenses
TravisPNW is online now  
post #462 of 467 Old 03-15-2018, 01:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 730 Post(s)
Liked: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisPNW View Post
Well said.

I also upgraded because of 4K... from a 2011 42" plasma to a 65" OLED B7A last month. It's a noticeable difference over 1080p to me... my 4k UHD disc collection is already over 50 titles. Most of the new content looks absolutely amazing. $2500 for the TV was definitely worth it. No buyer's remorse here.

While I can see the 1080p to 4K difference... I can't help but wonder if it's going to be the same with 8K or 16K. Your eyes can only see so much they say...
UHD brings a lot more important advances to the table than just 4k. It brings the DCI/P3 color gamut as well as HDR. UHD is going to look a lot better than HD just because of those two things. Almost all UHD disks are mastered from 2k sources anyway, so it's all upconversion fakery anyway at this point..

I have 10 foot wide 16/9 screen. It's hard to tell any resolution difference from 1 screen width or further. Closer... definitely.

What your eyes can see is 1 arc-minute. That's the bottom line limitation.
TravisPNW likes this.
erkq is offline  
post #463 of 467 Old 03-15-2018, 01:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 491 Post(s)
Liked: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
UHD brings a lot more important advances to the table than just 4k. It brings the DCI/P3 color gamut as well as HDR. UHD is going to look a lot better than HD just because of those two things. Almost all UHD disks are mastered from 2k sources anyway, so it's all upconversion fakery anyway at this point..

I have 10 foot wide 16/9 screen. It's hard to tell any resolution difference from 1 screen width or further. Closer... definitely.

What your eyes can see is 1 arc-minute. That's the bottom line limitation.
Glad I sit close. The 65" is perfect and the UHD details (and colors) are obvious. It's hard to say what has looked the best... but I'd rank Planet Earth II near the top of my personal list.
Ben23 likes this.

LG B7A OLED 65” - ISF calibrated by Chad B 4/20/18 / LG SJ9 Sound Bar / LG UP970 BR Player / Apple TV 4K
i7 7700k 11GB 1080 Ti 32GB Ram 2x 1TB 960 Evo / XBox One X / Nintendo Switch
Panasonic GH5 with 42.5mm f1.2 & 14-140mm f3.5-5.6 lenses
TravisPNW is online now  
post #464 of 467 Old 03-15-2018, 02:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 730 Post(s)
Liked: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisPNW View Post
Glad I sit close. The 65" is perfect and the UHD details (and colors) are obvious. It's hard to say what has looked the best... but I'd rank Planet Earth II near the top of my personal list.
I believe the second Planet Earth is a true 4k UHD. Cool!
erkq is offline  
post #465 of 467 Old 03-15-2018, 03:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 491 Post(s)
Liked: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
I believe the second Planet Earth is a true 4k UHD. Cool!
Yep.

I hear ya about the upscale fakery... and I like to check realorfake4k.com just to get the scoop on my purchases.

... and yeah, PE2 is the real deal. Amazing footage and looks stunning on my OLED. I just picked up Blue Planet 2 and it's also true 4K. Gonna be a treat to watch. Eye candy galore.
Ben23 likes this.

LG B7A OLED 65” - ISF calibrated by Chad B 4/20/18 / LG SJ9 Sound Bar / LG UP970 BR Player / Apple TV 4K
i7 7700k 11GB 1080 Ti 32GB Ram 2x 1TB 960 Evo / XBox One X / Nintendo Switch
Panasonic GH5 with 42.5mm f1.2 & 14-140mm f3.5-5.6 lenses
TravisPNW is online now  
post #466 of 467 Old 03-15-2018, 03:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 730 Post(s)
Liked: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisPNW View Post
Yep.

I hear ya about the upscale fakery... and I like to check realorfake4k.com just to get the scoop on my purchases.

... and yeah, PE2 is the real deal. Amazing footage and looks stunning on my OLED. I just picked up Blue Planet 2 and it's also true 4K. Gonna be a treat to watch. Eye candy galore.
Thanks for that realorfake4k.com site. You're more "in the know" than I.
TravisPNW likes this.
erkq is offline  
post #467 of 467 Old 12-27-2018, 12:36 PM
Member
 
PewPewK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 4
I can say, without a doubt, that 4K makes a huge difference on my monitors, at least. Seriously, it felt like visual fidelity jumped 10x when I made the switch from a 1080p to 2160p monitor.
PewPewK is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Community News & Polls



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off