4K Monitors...

[Subhadip Sen]

It depends on the viewing distance. Folks that prefer viewing >8 feet away from their ~50 inch TVs won't see a notable improvement moving from 2K to 4K. My preferred viewing environment is 27 inches at a distance of 3 feet. In this scenario, there's a clear difference between 2K and 2.5K and I need at least ~3K to utilize my eye's potential - Q(F)HD is quite ideal. In a standard movie theater, all but the last couple of rows will benefit measurably from 4K. The first 2-3 rows could even resolve ~6K. This is all theory, of course, I still want to see how it turns out in practice. That said, this is theory we have known about for decades (well before the concept of digital imagery) and 4K was always destined to be the ultimate mainstream standard till bionic eyes are commercialized.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Here we go, on from my previouse post Jeff:

www.engadget.com/2012/01/10/powervr-series6-g6200-and-6400/
www.engadget.com/2012/01/05/ziilabs-debuts-100-core-zms-40-processor-optimized-for-android/

 

[Wayne Morellini]

..As for the move to 4k mentioned elsewhere, moves to bigger screens will make hd look SD (sorry 720p50), those moves in screen size are possible in two years with the technology advancements. I have been meaning to make a special 200 inch+ high gain projection screen for the last 8 or so years, cheap, that can use a cheap projector source..

I am sorry, it occured to me that I made a mistake with my memory before that confused things. The reflective screen i was looking at making years ago was over 200 cm's tall (and of course diagonaly) and not 16:9. So more like 140 inches diagonal and 200 centermeters high. I was not implying that people should have a minimum of 3.5 meter wide screens in their units. The optimum quality would be to have people looking at least normal sized on a head to toe long shoot. This ussually implies 200+ cm high to accomodate most people, or around 200 inches diagonal. So more a good sized living room or garage wall. The psychological secret is small people and objects look less impressive than big people.

 

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

It depends on the viewing distance. Folks that prefer viewing >8 feet away from their ~50 inch TVs won't see a notable improvement moving from 2K to 4K. My preferred viewing environment is 27 inches at a distance of 3 feet. In this scenario, there's a clear difference between 2K and 2.5K and I need at least ~3K to utilize my eye's potential - Q(F)HD is quite ideal. In a standard movie theater, all but the last couple of rows will benefit measurably from 4K. The first 2-3 rows could even resolve ~6K. This is all theory, of course, I still want to see how it turns out in practice. That said, this is theory we have known about for decades (well before the concept of digital imagery) and 4K was always destined to be the ultimate mainstream standard till bionic eyes are commercialized.

This is exactly what I think. As a home user delivery format 4K has a lot of challenges. Getting it to the user and displaying the 4K image will be possible in a few years for a reasonable price, as technology continuously improves But NEEDING it is another matter. People's houses are not getting bigger.. I suspect vast majority of people on this planet don't want more than a 42"TV which they will view from around 3 metres. How big a difference is 4K going to make to all these people?

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Yes, but...

Yes, but...

This is exactly what I think. As a home user delivery format 4K has a lot of challenges. Getting it to the user and displaying the 4K image will be possible in a few years for a reasonable price, as technology continuously improves But NEEDING it is another matter. People's houses are not getting bigger.. I suspect vast majority of people on this planet don't want more than a 42"TV which they will view from around 3 metres. How big a difference is 4K going to make to all these people?

I agree with most of this. I would quibble with your supposition that the vast majority of people don't want a TV bigger than 42". With the thinner and lighter panels coming down the pipe, lower power consumption made possible by newer LED tech and price erosion over time, I expect many people will move up to at least 60" over the next decade. Bigger than that may continue to only interest aficianados, wealthy homeowners and of course, Americans ,-)

BTW, higher native contrast combined with better glare control coatings might make the difference between 2MP (1080) and 8MP (4K) much more noticeable even in the 42" or 50" screen sizes for those who don't sit too far away. Perceived resolution is highly influenced by contrast (see Nyquist theory) so any metric based on "normal" human vision parameters in terms of arc degrees of visual field (screen size/viewing distance orthodoxy) may not be as "fixed" as many people's formulas assume... YMMV.

Cheers - #19

 

[L. Langer]

AMD is running a 4K graphics demo at their CES booth with their current GPU tech if anyone wants to go see it.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Perception of resolution is dependent on many factors.
One is distance. Other one is viewing environment.

Some of display technology related factors:
contrast, pixel fill factor, surface reflection/refraction, refresh rate...

 

[Aaron Shirley]

There are so many 4K monitors (TVs) being released that we can hardly keep track. I wonder what that means to shows shot on 1080P?

Jim

There are so many 4K monitors (let alone TVs) being released that I can hardly find them... Of course, I'm speaking behind the curve because I've only been looking at what is currently for sale, and the fact that like 3 brands have one for sale, means they're on their way. I remember in the early 00's, coming close to buying a medical LCD to be able to grade 2k, but chickening out on the $15,000 price tag, and now they are handy for less than $900.

As for the chatter about the supposed diminishing returns of 4K, here's another way to look at it:
I remember the first time I saw a real IMAX film at the local science museum (Discovery Place in Charlotte, what's up!?) and I was completely blown away, not really by resolution or detail (even though this was back when 70mm was king, and video's big arms race was getting over 600 scan lines), but the fact that this moving image was filling up my peripheral vision!?! I went to every new show they had (anyone remember "Beavers! The Biggest Dam Movie Ever!"?), for a while, (not to mention going to others around the world, when work had me travel) and I studied the composition above everything else, because what really fascinated me was the nagging question, "Why am I not going blind, insane, or at least vomiting from sitting so close to (relative to the size of) the screen?" ...and sometimes "Why am I almost vomiting and pulling out my hair during only some of these IMAX movies?". The answer, of course was; when you have that much control over the viewer's view, you can't be too brutal. IMAX commonly places the key object rather small in the center of the screen and fills the surrounding back ground with pretty scenery. Cinematic 3D-CGI doesn't rock, shake, or spiral dive the camera down a cliff.

The first time I saw Digital IMAX (AKA 4K) I did my research, made sure it was at least shot partially with an IMAX film camera, and purposely sat closer than normal (I usually sit in the center of the movie theater, but this time I sat about 10 feet from the screen), and I, too, was underwhelmed. I was happy with the "blemishless print"; there was no aliasing on the titles like on the earlier "digital prints" that got around before Sony, Disney, and TI set the digital projector standards; and I could not, even at such a close vantage point, see or even perceive any pixels. I don't think the idea really hit me until I read this thread, but maybe the eventual use for all that extra resolution, once we get beyond the point where we can perceive any increase in detail at any distance from the screen, past the point where atmospheric perspective starts to degrade the image, is to put it all into the peripheral. Center the lead character/hero in an EX-wide shot, make everyone sit really close, until it looks like a Med-CU, and let the audience "feel" the presence of the villain enter the room, wayyy off in the corner (or edge of the ellipse??... the penumbra???) of the screen...

 

[Marc Wielage]

It depends on the viewing distance. Folks that prefer viewing >8 feet away from their ~50 inch TVs won't see a notable improvement moving from 2K to 4K. My preferred viewing environment is 27 inches at a distance of 3 feet. In this scenario, there's a clear difference between 2K and 2.5K and I need at least ~3K to utilize my eye's potential - Q(F)HD is quite ideal. In a standard movie theater, all but the last couple of rows will benefit measurably from 4K.

There's a good white paper report from Sony that talks about the benefits of 4K for theatrical projection:

Does 4K really make a difference? 4K Digital Projection in the Theater Environment

Bear in mind they're promoting their own 4K projectors, so it's not 100% neutral. The answer basically boils down to the threshold of reality for 2K pixels. In other words, if you sit close, you'll see the difference -- assuming it's from a 4K source. But a lot depends on exposure, color correction, lighting diffusion, and other creative decisions.

Actors and actresses are nervous as it is, just about HD. I know of a major network series where one of the stars stopped the studio from switching to HD capture, because she was concerned that HD would be too real and unflattering (compared to film, on which most of the series was shot). If you can see four times the wrinkles, age-lines, and eye bags in 4K... actors will be concerned. Sharpness is not always our friend.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

There are so many 4K monitors (let alone TVs) being released that I can hardly find them... Of course, I'm speaking behind the curve because I've only been looking at what is currently for sale, and the fact that like 3 brands have one for sale, means they're on their way. I remember in the early 00's, coming close to buying a medical LCD to be able to grade 2k, but chickening out on the $15,000 price tag, and now they are handy for less than $900.

As for the chatter about the supposed diminishing returns of 4K, here's another way to look at it:
I remember the first time I saw a real IMAX film at the local science museum (Discovery Place in Charlotte, what's up!?) and I was completely blown away, not really by resolution or detail (even though this was back when 70mm was king, and video's big arms race was getting over 600 scan lines), but the fact that this moving image was filling up my peripheral vision!?! I went to every new show they had (anyone remember "Beavers! The Biggest Dam Movie Ever!"?), for a while, (not to mention going to others around the world, when work had me travel) and I studied the composition above everything else, because what really fascinated me was the nagging question, "Why am I not going blind, insane, or at least vomiting from sitting so close to (relative to the size of) the screen?" ...and sometimes "Why am I almost vomiting and pulling out my hair during only some of these IMAX movies?". The answer, of course was; when you have that much control over the viewer's view, you can't be too brutal. IMAX commonly places the key object rather small in the center of the screen and fills the surrounding back ground with pretty scenery. Cinematic 3D-CGI doesn't rock, shake, or spiral dive the camera down a cliff.

The first time I saw Digital IMAX (AKA 4K) I did my research, made sure it was at least shot partially with an IMAX film camera, and purposely sat closer than normal (I usually sit in the center of the movie theater, but this time I sat about 10 feet from the screen), and I, too, was underwhelmed. I was happy with the "blemishless print"; there was no aliasing on the titles like on the earlier "digital prints" that got around before Sony, Disney, and TI set the digital projector standards; and I could not, even at such a close vantage point, see or even perceive any pixels. I don't think the idea really hit me until I read this thread, but maybe the eventual use for all that extra resolution, once we get beyond the point where we can perceive any increase in detail at any distance from the screen, past the point where atmospheric perspective starts to degrade the image, is to put it all into the peripheral. Center the lead character/hero in an EX-wide shot, make everyone sit really close, until it looks like a Med-CU, and let the audience "feel" the presence of the villain enter the room, wayyy off in the corner (or edge of the ellipse??... the penumbra???) of the screen...

"Extreme", was my favorite I Max. We also have an omni Max (i think it was called) down the coast that goes 180 degrees. These people were serious, unlike many others.

This is what I have been telling people for years, but people are often somewhat blind in vision ad mentally as well. So they have problems thinking or seeing past what they see, lieraly and often with some arrogance about it. A number of people may have limited eyesight, or were drinking when they see some of the things they comment on. We can do the calculations on good vision, and it is probably around 24k pixels accross for a 120 degree arc, (these figures were wrong due to illness, see latter post) but the truth is that at around a 16th of that the human eye starts integrating surround in colors, from my testing. So you get diminishing returns from visual impact the high resolution. I forget why, but at three times the resolution (still talking horizontal) you should start getting integration in pixel brightness, though actual limit is 24k, anyway it happens to be close to 4k. Anyway, given the poor blurry vision, 4k might be a good medium resolution. It is also why I want to be at 4k and am not overly interested in 8k. However, emmisive displays drops the resolution in half, which would be..2k, but I did the testing on an emmisive display to begin with . This would however, mean that the resolution would be 8k on an non emmisive display (probably from lack of vusal blooming). This resolution is 1/9th of total resolution volume than 24k, I have often wondered if 2400dpi is a true resolution limit, or represents a point where the spot is so small it stops registering luminance, or the seperation of bars, bwb stripe would exactly match it, but I have never seen anything on how the basic 2400dpi unit was determined, anybody know?

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Aaron, I forgot to mention, about screen size and sickness.

There is a portion of vision that is often represented by a seat half way to two thirds the way down the cinema, where discernible periphial vision maxes out, any wider then you have to keep looking around to see what is there. I think this is close to what I Max uses. Inside this zone is another sub zone of clearer periphal vision that normal cinema might strive for. Finally, there is a small section of clear central vision, which is what TV used to strive for. That larger discernable periphial field is what we are striving for.

However, there is a problem. A number of people get overwhelmed by too much detail and motion, maybe of a nervous disposition like adrenal insufficiency, So they feel overwhelmed by something that fits the feild of view of an I Max, or a smaller field of view which has lots of motion. This is why I said, I think it was 40%+ households may not have the biggest screen (even if they could fit it in and afford it) because at least one member of the household maybe like this, and maybe one of the parents and will want a smaller screen. What this means, is as you observed, you have to be carefull on how you manage your shot, no shake about handheld, probably even if you want to stress people out, size your subject in and use peripheral scenery and side action (your villain, there has been extra wide screens before) as a norm. This would probably give you the best results with the occasional motion scene like car chases where the subject is still in the central or first peripheral zone, and the/audience for the audience to concentrate on with the rest in peripheral passing by. Any time the subject is full screen there would probably be little violent or random motion. The problem is that this may suite a number of people but other people will prefer the inner peripheral zone with this level of motion that can't handle big action motion in it, still others might require everything to be in the central vision zone. So we see big physiological/neurologcal challenges, in making picturers, the balance maybe to pull down or use of peripheral motion to suite our target audience, for those who doubt, believe me grandma might not want to see the latest Imax sized installment of The Matrix 4 .

Still there is another challenge, it means that in reality, we need signalling standards and display systems that automatically resize the screen based on the feild of few the movie was made for, and individual audience members preference, which suits laser projectors. Jim? In this way we can have a 100 inch screen that sizes to 42 inch for normal viewing, but sizes up for extra wide movies where the villain hides in the corner of our vision, which would look small, obviouse and out of proportion on a 42 inch screen.

 

[Aaron Shirley]

That's right, OMNI-MAX is what the science theater in Charlotte with the concave screen was called! I think we have only IMAX in the DC area.

When you say 2400dpi and 24k horizontal are you talking print, or video monitors, or just theory?

Reading your thoughts on field of veiw makes me think of the old "action-safe", "title-safe", "4x3-safe" zones. Maybe more complex zones (fields of vision) will be the direction this will all take.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Actually, I got that wrong. 2400dpi is the reported real limit of human vision, but luminous displays tend to drop that number in half, I guess because of luminosity making the pixels bloom into one another. However, I did a rough conversion on the spot for the outer useful field of view, I have been suffering MS like symptoms, which spell crap for my film career, maybe I can get a job in studio management . The real field is closer to 110 than 120, and at least 90 to accommodate variences in human vision, including some warping between my horizontal and vertical vision. The resolution is way out too, I did some down conversion from memory with the 120 degree figure, but started with the original figure by mistake. The real figure is somewhere around 72-84k, or less, so plenty of room left for Red to develop. The truth of the matter is that only a very small portion at the center of our vision does this, and the eye flicks around using this to get personal with detail. Many people probably have blurry vision closer to 300 dpi +. From reading about how to improve your eyesight without glasses, I can also tell you that people's brains can also miss the 2400dpi spot in their vision and use lower resolution surrounding vision instead. So, most of us, with age, might not be able to see what our kids could,

I would be glad if human vision was lower resolution, as I am needing to hit a 9600dpi target for my virtual reality system design for 2400dpi (that let's the cat out of the bag). As you can see 2400 dpi is a pain to do as it is.

I'm glad to hear that the industry has standards to deal with fields of view, I didn't know. I am a technocrat, I base things on science, testing and my own design work, I have come up with a number of new things. This morning I have come up with a idea for a new compact refrigeration method, but I do not know if it is efficient enough, or will work at all, as I do not have the experience in fluid/gas engineering.