4k not just the top need

[Jason L]

A great read from on what the SMPTE engineers view as the top needs for a camera and display.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/why-4k-might-not-be-636485


As the Dragon and even the Epic meet and surpass all three of the most important needs compared to other cameras.


What they see as the most important for a camera.
1. Color Sience and Dynamic Range
2. HFR, High Framerate Recording
3. 4k resolution


It's great to see that Red is focused on all three.
This also makes me even more excited to see what the new color sience looks like.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

The study of “better” pixels involved examining the wider range that the human eye can perceive. Using “nits” (a measurement of light sources), Griffis related that direct sunlight can reach 1.6 billion nits while starlight can be 0.0001 nits.

He pointed out that while it’s unlikely that any single image will vary that dramatically, a still outdoor image (see the above example), might include direct sunlight that could produce 300,000 nits on a car, while a shadow might only reach 15 nits. “In the real world we can see these at the same time,” Griffis said, adding that this is not the case with today’s television sets.

According to the exec, today’s displays have a far more limited range that only reaches approximately 100-120 nits for the brightest white, while cinema caps at just 48 nits (14 FootLamberts) for the brightest white. “That is one of the problems we have in representing the real world. That is like looking trough the world through a peephole,” Griffis asserted, adding however that that industry is in a time of change with a “new generation of displays that are capable of much higher performance and getting much closer to representing what the human eye can see.“

What is a useful range for entertainment? Dolby’s research concludes that creation of a future TV standard that ranges from 0. 005-20,000 nits can be the ideal—and is an achievable goal. “That is 200 times brighter than where we are today,” Griffis said.

Not sure what that research was based on, or how thorough it is to lead to conclusions about the "ideal", but there are a bunch of holes in it. Exploration is beneficial but there are times when engineers do not have the full information and miss the practical knowledge outside of the lab and sometimes get carried away.

This is one of those times.


a) The example scene with 300,000 nits on car's sun reflection and 15 nits in the shade is a scene with 20,000:1 contrast ratio. This is within DR of OLEDs.


b) Current displays reach up to 600 nits, not 120 nits. Those are used in mobile devices. The purpose of their maximum brightness is outdoor usage. In interiors they are generally too bright to look at. Computer screens most commonly reach 300 nits and are most commonly set in the 100-200 nits range as they are not very pleasurable at maximum brightness setting. TV screens reach around 350 nits. They are also too bright to look at in interiors at those levels, so 120 nits is the common target setting for a dimly lit room and not maximum brightness of the screen.


c) Seeing on your own and being served to watch are not the same types of visual experience, latter is more tasking. When one turns their head to a brighter scene brain expects and gradually and naturally adapts, so do eyes. Edited and unpredictable scene gives a brain and eyes a surprise/shock which requires sudden and unnatural adaptation and may easily be damaging with long term exposure if experiences are more stressful for the senses than natural ones by any type of value.
Therefore, the same criteria cannot be applied.


d) Brightness of surrounding space and brightness of a flat surface emitting light, especially the one looked at, differ in their effect on the eyes. Latter is more straining.
This is mostly because 1) all perceived luminosity is coming from the same focus distance and hitting the pupil differently 2) the nature of reflected and emitted light differs.
Therefore the same criteria cannot be applied.


e) Eye adapts to lower brightness and content is more pleasurable if pupils do not have many shocks for light adaptation.


f) Luminance of a very high brightness screen in interior is in too much contrast to ambient lighting and potentially damaging to eyes just by that factor alone.


g) Watching different shots with jumps of 20000 nits of brightness would not be particularly beneficial experience for the eyes or the brain (reason being mentioned under "c"), mildly put, although it may seem as a cool fantasy for a technology inspired person.


h) Most people usually turn down the maximum brightness on their current screens at their current maximum brightness range because it naturally bothers them.

 

[L. Langer]

I just want headsets with 3D displays and surround sound. Is that too much to ask for?

 

[Wayne Morellini]

... Dynamic Range
2. HFR, High Framerate Recording
3. 4k resolution.

I've been telling people the need for p50/60 for nearly a decade (also dynamic range), let alone actual high speed. Maybe small manufacturers will be stuck on 24fps for a while. Moving "pictures" rather than moving scenes.

 

[Joel Arvidsson]

I've been telling people the need for p50/60 for nearly a decade (also dynamic range), let alone actual high speed. Maybe small manufacturers will be stuck on 24fps for a while. Moving "pictures" rather than moving scenes.

Plus 1 on 50p/60p. I just like smooth motion for scenes with faster motion in it.