4K display

[Eric Ulbrich]

The Penta sounded cool. so I looked it up.

The manufacturer's site claims its an 8 bit display panel. Is that correct?

no its 10 bit with a 16 bit engine in it

http://www.hd2line.com/products/hd2-line-pro/pdp-32w/

You need to get the HD2 pro line, only way to fly...

Penta is coming out in a big way plus with its integration with light illusions lightspace CMS and profiling systems Its a winner in my book.

 

[Shane Betts]

One thing you're not taking into consideration Alexander is the retailers constant need to drive sales. Owning a CRT for ten years or more was as much a factor of old-style marketing as anything technical. Look what Apple have achieved with phones. Who the hell needs to upgrade an iPhone 3 for an iPhone 4? But there they (we) are, lined up around the block for the store to open. The move to BluRay was driven primarily by retailers pressuring manufacturers for another standard due to DVD players dropping in price so far there was no longer any profit in stocking them. So, need it or not, we got BluRay. Now we can see the difference, but back then it wasn't so obvious - and we certainly didn't need it.

Whether or not consumers can actually tell the difference between HD and 4k is largely immaterial. Once the marketing men have done their thing the consumers will be clamouring for it - without ever really knowing quite why...

Just my 2cw.

 

[Eric Ulbrich]

Whether or not consumers can actually tell the difference between HD and 4k is largely immaterial. Once the marketing men have done their thing the consumers will be clamouring for it - without ever really knowing quite why...

Just my 2cw.

Agreed +1

Never underestimate the power of lemmings to run off a cliff only because the lemming before them did it.

 

[Ravi Kiran]

One thing you're not taking into consideration Alexander is the retailers constant need to drive sales. Owning a CRT for ten years or more was as much a factor of old-style marketing as anything technical. Look what Apple have achieved with phones. Who the hell needs to upgrade an iPhone 3 for an iPhone 4? But there they (we) are, lined up around the block for the store to open.

You can't compare TVs with phones. Phones are much cheaper than TVs, people use them constantly, and can use new features, new apps, faster web browsing, etc. A TV is more like a piece of furniture. My parents didn't replace their main TV sets with new sets until the old ones became totally unwatchable. They ran two Sony Trinitrons into the GROUND

The move to BluRay was driven primarily by retailers pressuring manufacturers for another standard due to DVD players dropping in price so far there was no longer any profit in stocking them. So, need it or not, we got BluRay. Now we can see the difference, but back then it wasn't so obvious - and we certainly didn't need it.

I didn't get a Blu-Ray player immediately when it came out, but that wasn't because I didn't want one. It was because I'm not an early adopter. My philosophy was that I'll buy a better player later on for less money and when there are more movies available for cheaper. There are still plenty of people who are fine with watching upscaled DVDs on their HDTVs.

Whether or not consumers can actually tell the difference between HD and 4k is largely immaterial. Once the marketing men have done their thing the consumers will be clamouring for it - without ever really knowing quite why...

If they CAN'T buy a new 1080p TV and only 4K TVs are available, that would help. Of course there are always people with more money than sense who have to buy the best thing available, even if they have no idea what the benefit is. It'll be an uphill battle getting all the broadcast infrastructure up to 4K, especially its only recently been upgraded to HD.

 

[paulherrin]

sorry mike and alex, i just think it's a no-brainer. you're free to disagree, but the technology is already here, and soon enough it will be priced for consumers, it's just a matter of time... don't say it's not, because they're not going to trash it and go back to HD. but if any of you guys want to camp out, i'm sure it will be a good time, i do like camping...

if you want to make the argument that normal people can't tell the difference between 65mm and 35mm, or 4k projection and 2k projection, well say what you will. i consider myself a normal person and i was blown away when i saw 65mm and when i saw 4k, it's like nothing else. the rest of this discussion is just subjective, and i don't care much for it. think what you will, but don't ignore the facts. and if you want to do some research that's not speculation or i think this or i think that or a bunch of maybes... go ahead and please please share your results. but you guys are smart enough to not be left behind looking foolish, so do yourself a favor and find out instead of doubting the evidence. thank you and good luck.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

The size of the display is only one part of the story - it depends on the viewing distance too. I haven't seen a 4K monitor neither a 4K projection, but the difference between a 27" 1920x1080 and a 27" 2560x1440 observing a 18MP DSLR still seems substantial enough from 2 ft away to my eyes - which is my regular working distance. Playing a game (Crysis 2) rendered at 1440p versus 1080p makes a world of difference too. On a relative level, this calls for more detail than a theater screen from a seat in the middle of the theater. From 5 ft away, which is a more likely consumption viewing distance, little difference in terms of resolution. At a 2 ft viewing distance, science shows that the average eye can resolve 4K from a 30" screen - but would love to see how a 4K monitor works out in the real world. Similarly, science also shows that in a standard theater, all but the last few rows can resolve 4K.

 

[Mark Toia]

One thing you're not taking into consideration Alexander is the retailers constant need to drive sales. Owning a CRT for ten years or more was as much a factor of old-style marketing as anything technical. Look what Apple have achieved with phones. Who the hell needs to upgrade an iPhone 3 for an iPhone 4? But there they (we) are, lined up around the block for the store to open. The move to BluRay was driven primarily by retailers pressuring manufacturers for another standard due to DVD players dropping in price so far there was no longer any profit in stocking them. So, need it or not, we got BluRay. Now we can see the difference, but back then it wasn't so obvious - and we certainly didn't need it.

Whether or not consumers can actually tell the difference between HD and 4k is largely immaterial. Once the marketing men have done their thing the consumers will be clamouring for it - without ever really knowing quite why...

Just my 2cw.

Correct... Remember the VHS - Betacam war of the 80's Shane. Same thing. The worst picture won the war...
4k, 2k.. people don't care as long as it's cheap, easy and looks sharp and colourful.

Apple are bringing out a 4k Monitor... (so a spy of mine has told me) Iphone 4 screen technology... yowwwwwsaaaaa...
It's been seen by a few already, so hold your pennies for a while longer boys an girls.

 

[Mark Toia]

The size of the display is only one part of the story - it depends on the viewing distance too. I haven't seen a 4K monitor neither a 4K projection, but the difference between a 27" 1920x1080 and a 27" 2560x1440 observing a 18MP DSLR still seems substantial enough from 2 ft away to my eyes - which is my regular working distance. Playing a game (Crysis 2) rendered at 1440p versus 1080p makes a world of difference too. On a relative level, this calls for more detail than a theater screen from a seat in the middle of the theater. From 5 ft away, which is a more likely consumption viewing distance, little difference in terms of resolution. At a 2 ft viewing distance, science shows that the average eye can resolve 4K from a 30" screen - but would love to see how a 4K monitor works out in the real world. Similarly, science also shows that in a standard theater, all but the last few rows can resolve 4K.

WRONG!!!!!.....

Ive seen 4k projection against 35mm Film projection and 2k digital projection Side by side with my own eyes. No matter were I sat in the cinema. Huge difference! huuuuuuge!!!!!

You do however need 4k content to really make a 4k projector sing though. But up-rezed 2k footage looked even better via 4k projector, much better.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I remain dubious.

I had an argument with Jim Jannard, the upshot being I don't see evidence for the notion that ordinary people (i.e. not image making professionals and enthusiasts) can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p in motion images - and I am dubious that they can appreciate 2K vs 4K delivery unless we are looking at IMAX size displays. (and I mean "real" IMAX screens, not the IMAX certified screens.)

The never ending misconceptions on human sight limitations are based on comparing it to the imaging devices with insufficient level of perfection.


60 Hz 4K footage with 240Hz evolved interpolation on an 16 bit OLED with special coating...will provide much better reference than 24Hz 4K footage on an 1000:1 transmissive laggy LCD with refractive or mirror surface. Optimal pixel density per FOV being a prerequisite.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

WRONG!!!!!.....

Ive seen 4k projection against 35mm Film projection and 2k digital projection Side by side with my own eyes. No matter were I sat in the cinema. Huge difference! huuuuuuge!!!!!

You do however need 4k content to really make a 4k projector sing though. But up-rezed 2k footage looked even better via 4k projector, much better.

I am not sure what you are saying "WRONG!!!!..." to, considering you are pretty much agreeing with the theory I mentioned. When I said "all but the last few rows", I meant, a difference between, say 3.8K, and 4K may not be noticeable in the last few rows. Of course a difference between 2K and 4K will be huge wherever you sit. No question about that. But thanks for sharing your experience.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Ive seen 4k projection against 35mm Film projection and 2k digital projection Side by side with my own eyes. No matter were I sat in the cinema. Huge difference! huuuuuuge!!!!!

I've seen 4k displays and didn't really notice. Remember you saw them *Side by Side*. Nobody is going to be doing that in a theater. It's easy to pick out SD vs HD on sight. It's much harder to pick out 720p vs 1080p without switching back and forth. I think it's even harder to pick out 1080p vs 4k without a point of reference at non-imax scales.

The nice thing about 4k in my opinion will be the option to display more movies on an IMAX FOV. Although even then I just watched an IMAX movie and picking between 1080p, 35mm and the IMAX wasn't always easy.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

You do however need 4k content to really make a 4k projector sing though. But up-rezed 2k footage looked even better via 4k projector, much better.

Exactly, IMHO this and the price of the TV's/monitors are the biggest sticking points for 4k (in terms of right now) ... because even the "shot on Red" content is typically not immediately ready to go in 4k, and it's far from the majority of content. Obviously, film can be rescanned and Red footage is easy to convert, but I think we need a lot more 4k content before it becomes a "consumer" phenomenon.

Of course, I agree with Jim - it's not a question of IF - just a matter of WHEN ...

(P.S. - I love Apple, but they've got some serious catching up to do ... seriously, ONLY 720P for their downloads and rentals via AppleTV and iTunes??? We are talking about 4k and they aren't even at 1080P yet! It's a disgrace for such an otherwise technologically forward company)

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

if you want to make the argument that normal people can't tell the difference between 65mm and 35mm, or 4k projection and 2k projection, well say what you will. i consider myself a normal person ...

Sorry Paul, but you are NOT a normal person my purposes in this discussion.

I'm not talking about your visual acuity ... in other words I'm not concerned about any limitation of the human vision system. I think we can all agree that a 50" display at 1080p is no where near the limits of human vision. 4K at 50" is probably close to a "retina display" though.

I'm betting you are tuned in to all sorts of image issues. As a very quick example ... most people I know who shoot, pull focus, or otherwise work with lenses noted a lot of breathing and edge fall off in X-Men:First Class. The general public didn't notice a thing. Also, how often do you pick up moire? CA?

Now quick ... ask the wife, the kids, or a wet behind the ears PA if they see the issue. Sometimes I'll be pointing directly at something on the monitors and people on set won't see the issue ... So again - I can't be trusted as a test subject in this instance.

Its training I think.

Do a very quick survey of people you know who are not AV enthusiasts and who don't work with images. To be clear, this disqualifies most artists, 3D animators, Home theater enthusiasts, any cinematographer, editor, colorist, almost all directors ... that kid who works in the AV lab at high school ... even Best Buy employees who work in the games, photo, computer or TV sections. It definitionally excludes every RedUser.

This is not easy ... most of the people I know fall into one of these categories. I'm sure this is fairly common for the folks here.

Now ask them to compare 4 versions of the same clip. DVD, Upscaled DVD, 720p and 1080p. The clips should be of natural subjects (i.e. stuff that might be in a film scene - NOT charts) and the clips should be shown in random order.

Ask them to rank the clips 1-4 in each category: most detail? best color? best motion rendition, best overall.

I did this with a very small group of 10 people. I acknowledge upfront that this is far too small a group to draw solid statistical data from - but it was an unfunded spare time exercise.

DVD was the clear loser, ranked 4th by all viewers in all but one category. Upscaled DVD, 720p had no mathematical difference, each ranking 1st with three viewers, 2nd with 3 viewers, and third with 4 viewers. 1080p came out very slightly ahead of those two, ranking first 3 times, second 4 times, and third 3 times.

The one place DVD was not ranked 4th was motion rendition, where it was ranked ahead of upscaled DVD.

Source was 4K RC28 footage from some old Red One M footage I shot a few years ago. I graded and transcoded with it RedCineX 356 and output as Uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2 1080/24p. Then I used Compressor to convert the 1080p file to DVD (Best quality, max bitrate) and 720p ProResHQ.

I did the DVD playback using a Playstation 3 and captured its signal as NTSC when not upconverted and 1080p when upconverted via Black Magic Extreme 3D. It was recorded as Uncompressed at the appropriate resolution.

Footage was played out to a calibrated Samsung Plasma TV via HDMI using Black Magic Media Express.

Now, going on I can ALWAYS accurately identify each source using this set up.

After the subjects rated the images ... I showed them some tell tales I use to spot the image source. (areas of high detail, potential problem colors etc. ) 7 of the ten subjects could see the tell tales I noted when the images were paused. I tested these subjects again. Now things shook out a bit more as we here might expect.

DVD was still a clear 4th with 7 of 7 viewers. Upscaled DVD was clearly 3rd, with 6 out of 7 viewers rating it so. 720p was second with 3 viewers rating it 1st, three rating it 2nd and one rating it 3rd. 1080p was narrowly first with four viewers rating it 1st and three viewers rating it 2nd.

Its a small test ... however I know I was startled by the data.

I don't think this test is strong enough to make definitive conclusions from though. First off, it wasn't double blind. As I noted I can always see the difference. To address this, I seated myself so I could not be observed by the test subjects.

Also, there is the matter of the TV switching modes - which it prominently displays. I solved this by using a grip as an assistant and a couple of 4x4 floppies to hide the screen during mode changes. The grip hid himself behind a 4x4, and we used the other 4x4 to cover the part of the screen that shows image modes. I am not entirely certain this was 100% effective.

So, who else has studied this?

 

[Tom Lowe]

Alexander, have you ever gotten up close to a real 4K LCD/OLED and looked at proper 4K material? Did you see Sony's OLED at NAB? I have a hard believing that anyone could actually see a 4K monitor like that, and then question whether an average person could tell the difference. The difference is massive and overwhelming. When viewing 4K material on a 35" screen, for example, it almost seems like we are staring through a window... but even sharper!! It was pretty mind-boggling.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Alexander, have you ever gotten up close to a real 4K LCD/OLED and looked at proper 4K material? Did you see Sony's OLED at NAB? I have a hard believing that anyone could actually see a 4K monitor like that, and then question whether an average person could tell the difference. The difference is massive and overwhelming. When viewing 4K material on a 35" screen, for example, it almost seems like we are staring through a window... but even sharper!! It was pretty mind-boggling.

OK ... I'm getting a bit frustrated. Some of you are either not reading what I write, or have reading comprehension issues.

To answer your direct question, yes I have seen 4K material on 4K displays. I've said that already in this conversation. To be clear, I shoot Red, and I've both evaluated and finished my work using Sony 4K projectors.

To restate, I have no problem whatsoever seeing the difference.

The problem is that I am just like you: a trained observer.

The problem is that you are all "thinking" about the issue, and basing your thinking on the observations of highly trained observers.

I have stated a hypothesis : untrained observers will have difficulty observing the differences in high resolution motion images.

I have a secondary hypothesis: training will improve an observers ability to discern differences.

I have tested the hypothesis in the best fashion my budget allows, as I detailed above. That limited test confirms both the primary and secondary hypothesis - in so far as the test allows. I believe that there are problems with the test to be earnest. The biggest issue is that I only had a test group of 10 people ... you can't draw any serious statistical inferences or conclusions from that.

What I would conclude is that my test confirms that it is reasonable to question the benefit to consumers of high resolution displays. It indicates that a better and more comprehensive study is warranted.

The open questions are:

Can ordinary untrained observers see the difference?

What factors influence the ability - or inability to see differences. (I would like to test a much broader range of resolutions, both spatial and temporal. I'd like to examine, or at least record participants visual acuity, and corrective lenses if any ... it goes on.)

Can any such factors be controlled. Is training the only difference?

Science is hard ... it doesn't work by just having an opinion.

Given the amount of money behind the media industry ... it surprises me that no one can point to any real studies related to this. NHK, Sony and Red are all committed to 4K+ but I can't find any science done to see if or how it matters to audiences.

Let me put that differently ... let's assume it matters to audiences, and let's assume that I am right ... audiences need a "visual education" to see and appreciate the difference.

So, would it be better for Sony, Red, NHK and all the others to know that based on science today, to know how to overcome audience resistance to buying another new TV and to start "training" audiences today.

Now some of you are arguing a market perspective. 4K is coming because manufacturers have to sell new things, its out, it'll get cheaper and so on.

Why? The implicit assumption is that they'll make more money that way. That's an open question. They might not.

Today, most computer displays are 1920x1080 even at fairly large sizes ... this is a step backwards, as screens used to be higher resolution. 1920x1200 was standard ... and you could more readily find higher resolution displays. Especially as you looked at larger screen sizes.

So, before you conclude that bigger and better is the unquestionable way of the future ... take a good hard look.

OK, so what's my motivation in asking?

Well, as I've said REPEATEDLY, I can see the 4K difference.

I want 4K to succeed and become a standard. I don't want to live in a world where 1080p is all that's on offer.

I think people can't see the difference, and I think that's because they don't understand what they are looking at. Just like most people can't tell good lighting from bad lighting.

I do NOT believe its an inherent limitation of human vision, but essentially an educational problem.

I also believe that its one we can overcome, but we have to actually understand what people can and can not see, and how we can best teach them to see images "better", i.e. more like we, professional image makers, see them.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Sorry, I did not read the entire thread. Can I ask, what 4K LCD have you seen, and what 4K material was on it?

People are very, very familiar with staring at LCD displays for 5 or 10 hours a day -- at work on their computer, at home on their computer, at home on their HDTVs, etc. Believe me, proper 4K leaps off the screen when you are sitting 2 or 3 feet away from it.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this matter. Time will tell. I predict massive adoption of 4K monitors in the next five years or so.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Alexander - I kinda understand what you are saying (to prove your point ... people like "us" are the only ones bitching that 1080P looks really "bad" and is terribly deficient, I've never heard that from a layman.)

However, and this is a big distinction, just as our eye has been trained to tell the difference ... I think that the public will be the same way. It just may take a little longer, since much of the public is still working their way up to 1080P.

Also, this is obvious but should be stated - as screen size increases beyond the typical 60" max range I think 4k will become far more meaningful. The only problem with that is honestly how far away are we from an affordable 80" or 100" 4k display? Trust me, I wish we were there now ....

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Sorry, I did not read the entire thread. Can I ask, what 4K LCD have you seen, and what 4K material was on it?

Good question .. here is my answer:

To answer your direct question, yes I have seen 4K material on 4K displays. I've said that already in this conversation. To be clear, I shoot Red, and I've both evaluated and finished my work using Sony 4K projectors.

If you are asking specifically about 4K LCD or OLED displays ... I've seen them. I didn't find the experience meaningfully different from 4K projection. It was a difference of scale, not of kind.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Good question .. here is my answer:

A projector is not an LCD. That is the entire point I was making. The difference between 1080p and 4K on a projector is not as pronounced, IMO, as the difference between 1080p and 4K on a 35" OLED or LDC monitor. Ask anyone who saw the Sony OLED at NAB. They will tell you. In fact, sitting 3 feet from a 4K monitor is a much more dramatic difference than seeing 4K projected, in my experience. This is why I was stunned that anyone who has really seen 4K monitors with proper 4K material would ever question whether consumers can tell the difference. There is no question about it: they can, and will.

 

[paulherrin]

seeing a difference and articulating a difference are two entirely different things.

i remember as a kid seeing an imax projection. i didn't know anything about image quality, etc. but I was blown away! and not just because it was a huge screen... there was so much detail. now, i may be able to articulate why it was superior to projections i had seen before, but the fact was that it was more than obvious to me, a normal child, that it was a nicer image.

i'm not talking about subtle differences in image quality, artifacts, etc. that only a "trained professional" will ever notice. i'm talking about a huge increase in clarity, detail, and texture. the fact is that it doesn't matter whether the general public can articulate the difference in a side by side, or more importantly standing on its own. you don't want them to be worrying about that, and i honestly don't care whether they do or not. i want them to have some kind of experience or connection to my work. and sure that can still be achieved with a standard definition projector (and i've used one for that purpose), but a beautiful image flawlessly displayed can have a greater chance for emotional influence that may more fully immerse the viewer. that's all there is to it, and that's all that i care about. the technology is there for the taking, it will be widely publicized, the marketers WILL educate the public in order to make sales, and the greatest test will be when people decide (as soon as the price is there). they're not going to chuck the advancements away to keep HD forever, because eventually it will be the same price to produce either.

i would wager average people can easily tell the difference between SD and HD (and more so today than in the past... people learn) as your testing suggests (the difference between 720 & 1080 is comparatively slim). and HD isn't even 2.5 times the resolution of SD, whereas 4K increases by 4x the resolution. not that it would keep scaling up like that, there is an observable limit... but we're not past it yet.

at the end of the day i really don't care for this kind of subjectivity. 4k is in the future, we'll see how long it takes before it's in the average home, but eventually it will happen. it's just a price and content thing right now. eventually, that won't be a factor. i don't see how you can argue with any of that, except by subjective argument. there isn't an especially good or easy way to test this objectively. but when all the major companies are pouring billions of dollars into the technology, and visionaries in the industry are gearing up for it, i feel it would be foolish not to prepare at this point. do what you will, but at least make some kind of an effort. believe me, you don't want to be 'that guy'.