Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Japan has picked a resolution for UHDTV - also known as 8k....... yes, 8k.

To steal a line from Way of The Dragon.. "Nobody can do high-resolution TV better than Japanese!"
 
Not sure why. I'm all for 4K , but unfortunatly you can't upgrade our eyes to see more details.

So for 4K on a 70" screen , you have to sit 4 feet away from the screen to see the full 4K detail benefits.
At 9 feet away, 4K looks like 2K

Interesting article. I'd like to double check his 'spec' for the human eye seeing 1/60 of a degree of arc, with 20/20 vision.
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/
 
Last edited:
Les Dittert said:
I'm all for 4K , but unfortunatly you can't upgrade our eyes to see more details.
Click to expand...

No need.


2en8dg7.jpg




Les Dittert said:
Not sure why.
Click to expand...

Because their analysis differs from the one from that blog.

:)
 
Les Dittert said:
Not sure why. I'm all for 4K , but unfortunatly you can't upgrade our eyes to see more details.

So for 4K on a 70" screen , you have to sit 4 feet away from the screen to see the full 4K detail benefits.
At 9 feet away, 4K looks like 2K

Interesting article. I'd like to double check his 'spec' for the human eye seeing 1/60 of a degree of arc, with 20/20 vision.
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/
Click to expand...

That's interesting because I'm sitting a foot away from both a retina and non retina screen and can definitely tell the difference. I also happen to have an 80 inch screen that's 1920x1080 that I can see the pixels on if I get inside of 4 feet. (the retina display is about 2.5K resolution with a pixel density of 220.5 pixels per inch).

My goal would be to not be able to see pixels on the screen at any distance - that's the perfect display, and retina density does that.

So in order to get retina density on my 80 inch display I would need... 7680 pixels wide resolution... 8K. In other words 4K at that size would still (slightly) fall apart, which makes 8K a reasonable goal and acceptable number to shoot for if the perfect viewing resolution is the goal.

That means I can sit CLOSER to my screen and see the benefits. Right now I have to sit far away from my 80 inch screen for the resolution to hold up.
 
Not to rain on the parade… but we live in a bubble. I have yet to step inside the home of any friend or family member who even remotely gives a s**t what resolution their tv is. Or who has their set calibrated properly for colour etc. Or who isn't watching 'HD' through a cable box where the cable company has compressed the signal six ways to sunday in order to push 500+ channels down the pipe.
Many even think that stretching a 4:3 signal to 16:9 somehow makes it HD. They just want BIG with bright over saturated colour, and something thin / light that they can hang on the wall.

Yes we care - but given the amount of B.S. / cost surrounding the switchover from SD to HD, I *doubt* that any North American broadcaster will adopt this new standard while I'm still drawing breath.

This morning I rec'd broadcast specs for a project I'm working on, and they still ask for 4:3 final output - It's 2012 right? I could have shot on my iPhone and met or exceeded what they wanted.

8K will be great, maybe I'll move to Tokyo.
 
Every now and then appears a debate about "limits" of vision. Although the motiv is understandable, there seems to be quite a few false premises, often re-cycled around, leading to innacurate conclusions and significant amount of nonsense later in the chain.

These couple of premises might help to avoid running around in circles:

1) Eyes don't care about pixels. Digital image is "depixelised" in the visual cortex even while watching SD, and focus on content ignores the pixel array. If there is a reason to. Which is subjective.
Mind paints. It can see the pixel or just the image. It can buy the story or spot the BS.

2) Sight accuity does not stop at the point of failing to differentiate an individual pixel.
Same principle as with colors. Counting stepping difference between 96 and 48Khz sound wave is also not common.

3) Still image accuity and motion accuity differ.
Which is why the 8K standard is not in 24p but 120p. Also, eyes do not count frames either.

4) Defining all limits of senses by typical technological tools and its quantification abilities suggests the premise that those human creations are a larger set, containing all reach and properties of the senses as their sub-set. Absurd.


Beyond pixel there lies the impression.
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
Every now and then appears a debate about "limits" of vision. Although the motiv is understandable, there seems to be quite a few false premises, often re-cycled around, leading to innacurate conclusions and significant amount of nonsense later in the chain.

These couple of premises might help to avoid running around in circles:

1) Eyes don't care about pixels. Digital image is "depixelised" in the visual cortex even while watching SD, and focus on content ignores the pixel array. If there is a reason to. Which is subjective.
Mind paints. It can see the pixel or just the image. It can buy the story or spot the BS.

2) Sight accuity does not stop at the point of failing to differentiate an individual pixel.
Same principle as with colors. Counting stepping difference between 96 and 48Khz sound wave is also not common.

3) Still image accuity and motion accuity differ.
Which is why the 8K standard is not in 24p but 120p. Also, eyes do not count frames either.

4) Defining all limits of senses by typical technological tools and its quantification abilities suggests the premise that those human creations are a larger set, containing all reach and properties of the senses as their sub-set. Absurd.


Beyond pixel there lies the impression.
Click to expand...

So you're saying... perhaps there's more than meets the eye?
 
Everyone talks about resolution, but what about the bitrate?

So many TV channels are crammed into limited space....merely increasing resolution will not do much for quality. As it is, most so called HD programming looks much worse on broadcast as comapred to Blu-Ray. And that's all down to bitrate. For a genuine TV quality revolution we'll need more effecient codecs than h.264.

Red can help themselves and the world by making Redray encoding and decoding public and free. If not, perhaps HEVC will help.
 
The format has been officially approved...:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19370582

I have seen the developments of this technology back in 2006 here in Tokyo. I guess Dragon is going to hit a slight delay until it can be 10K (for downscaling to 8K)... :reddevil:

Peter
 
Liana said:
Everyone talks about resolution, but what about the bitrate?

So many TV channels are crammed into limited space....merely increasing resolution will not do much for quality. As it is, most so called HD programming looks much worse on broadcast as comapred to Blu-Ray. And that's all down to bitrate. For a genuine TV quality revolution we'll need more effecient codecs than h.264.

Red can help themselves and the world by making Redray encoding and decoding public and free. If not, perhaps HEVC will help.
Click to expand...

that's why you ditch it - internet is the way to go. although in many cases, the same issues apply - for now.
 
So is it time for Jim to revised their Dragon specs ?
 
RivaiC said:
So is it time for Jim to revised their Dragon specs ?
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume that by the time we're ready for 10k we'll have a whole new brain. Let's let the 4k display technology reach fluidity before we start getting overly concerned with 8k... Give it a few years.
 
In spite of the constant nagging thoughts about creating a universe that contained greater detail than Adam's and Eve's abilities to discern (no matter where they sat in the garden), God looked to the future, and it was good. ( :
 
There's more to it than just resolution - color gamut is SUBSTANTIALLY improved. And standardized. Thank heavens.

The current situation is:
- us professionals work within an antiquated Rec.709 standard where red is a brick-like color
- viewers watch it on TV sets, computers and phones that totally ignore Rec.709 and have a much wider gamut (redder red, etc) with no set standard

Now at least we'll be allowed to work in a color space that is a little closer to what most consumer display devices actually show.

Not saying that TV manufacturers won't artificially boost the colors beyond this... and skew the white point... and screw with everything...

But at least the professional standard will be something where we can actually use rich colors and consumers with TVs properly set up can see them as intended.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Glen Powell said:
I'm having trouble typing I'm laughing so hard - not at you but at the thought that consumers will actually set up their TV's properly...
Click to expand...

I guess I should have said "the 0.1% of consumers with TVs properly set up can see them as intended."

As opposed to now where it's

"Shall I set up my TV right and get accurate but really boring color"
OR
"Shall I boost the color a bit and get inaccurate but actual pure, nice looking colors"

That's just a lose/lose and I can't wait for Rec.709 to die.

Of course then it's our responsibility to make content that looks damn awesome when those wide-gamut TVs are set up right :) NO HORRIBLE DULL BAD-LOOKING RED SKINTONES, PEOPLE! Most stuff I see shot digitally makes me want to adjust my set, to be honest... but whatever I do, there's no color information there to start with so no adjustment can fix it. Sigh. Less pixels, better colors, I say.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top