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 :)

4K Televisions

4K TV's are stupid? How about TV's are stupid. I haven't seen any TV that comes even close to a image of consumer sub 2k$ 720p or 1080p projector.
 
Josh Snyder said:
4K TV's are stupid? How about TV's are stupid. I haven't seen any TV that comes even close to a image of consumer sub 2k$ 720p or 1080p projector.
Click to expand...
You may need to expand your inventory of TVs tested. There are some gems out there. Admittedly, there is also a lot of sub-par TVs and displays.

When you start getting into $5K+ projectors there's some really great ones on the market. Can't wait to see what RED's looks like.
 
While I agree with you, Josh, TV's are in EVERY American home (when averaged out), while projectors are in hardly any, percentage-wise. So, back to discussing 4k TV's and people's thoughts on the article and whether they can and will ever be a "necessity". As the article claims, at a viewing distance of ~2.5m you would need a TV of larger than 77" in diagonal proportion to even see pixels on a 1080p TV set.
 
PRO:
I have no probs with 4k as long as the price comes down to normal current rates. Think cameras and computers was a tough retail industry, tv's are the worst. How do you get folks excited to buy a new tv when nowadays tv's lasts over 10 years without breaking (for the most part). If prices of a 4k is what a 1080p tv is now, then I'm sure people will buy (like gifts for christmas or having a second or third TV in the household).

CON:
Programming isn't gonna change anytime soon and thus is there a real need? Buying too early might experience the leapfrog effect where the next great innovation obsoletes the tv - like low power tvs or shatterproof bendable screens or something game changing...perhaps 3D without glasses).

4K tv itself is not game changer like sound or colour. 4k tvs will be like the introduction of stereo sound in tvs (great addition but not big enough to must replace older tv's immediately).

Overall, 4k will take time to be widespread. Broadcasters need to catch up and doubt they're willing. Cable companies can't currently sustain 4k broadcasts and the internet is only as fast as your download speed of the web package.

Anyhow, all the best.

WIL
 
There isn't even any web stream company yet that streams good quality 1080p. Netflix HD for example looks like crap. It's not even close to the quality of 720p Blu-ray rip (yes I've seen few of those).
 
I sit less than a meter away from my flame screen... So for me a small 4k screen would be gold worth. As it is now I need to zoom in to the frame to see pixels 1:1 or look at a real time down sample versions of the imagery. So I think first users will be people working with images, and there is quite a few of us, especially as you need to count the still picture guys as well. Also for editing, people maybe do not want to work in 4k but who does not want to have two HD frames side by side and such. Those image people will probably be the first users. I also think the gaming industry will jump at 4k quite soon. A little bit later youtube, vimeo and all other video streamers will, just as RED, provide good 4k streaming and downloads. It's all ready very much happening right now, just take a look at Ketch skydiving film. It's been clicked quite a few times on youtube and I do not think it's due to it's content as much as to it's picture qualities. People like to watch stuff at good quality, just look at apple. Now they are showing their film trailers in HD, but as soon as they release next generation of computer screens... Well, then I think it will be 4k cinema displays, when that happens, the shit will definitely hit the fan.
 
Björn , not sure what you mean by the quality of the sky dive video. Are you saying people are attracted to the filming style, story and adventurous nature of the piece ?
It's 2K on YouTube. Right click and view the media info.

Something to also consider with the 4K TV's : They only can show 4K when the media was carefully shot to achieve 4K. Shooting on a high resolution camera does not ensure that all that is shot is sharp.

The acid test will be presenting the media on the 4K set with the audience at a realistic viewing distance, but processing the right half of the media at 2K ( resize from 4K to 2K and back to 4K ) and then see if you can see the split on the TV set.
 
Les Dittert said:
Björn , not sure what you mean by the quality of the sky dive video. Are you saying people are attracted to the filming style, story and adventurous nature of the piece ?
It's 2K on YouTube. Right click and view the media info.

Something to also consider with the 4K TV's : They only can show 4K when the media was carefully shot to achieve 4K. Shooting on a high resolution camera does not ensure that all that is shot is sharp.

The acid test will be presenting the media on the 4K set with the audience at a realistic viewing distance, but processing the right half of the media at 2K ( resize from 4K to 2K and back to 4K ) and then see if you can see the split on the TV set.
Click to expand...

If I'm not totally mistaken we downloaded Ketch film in 4k from youtube when sellecting the original quality. And what I mean is that I think many others never have seen such sport event covered with such clean picture quality and off course it takes good focus pulling + a number o things to get the shots, I would not say sharp, but I guess prestine is a better word, as there is quite a lot of DOF in the footage. And to me it does not look filmic in any way, it looks like plastic super TV or such. we where looking at the stuff zoomed in pixel 1:1 on my big cinema display at our office I can only say that it was more people than me in the room that wanted to see it more than once, and none of the guys in the room has any interest in sky diving. But I have to admit they all have a far above average intrest for pixels. But what Im trying to say is that high resolution quality images are usually very liked.

For me and many others, editors, 3D artists and other compositors those smaller screens will most likely not be used on a further distance than an arms reach and then Im quite sure that your down and upscale test would be quite visible. I had 3k CRT screens for our domino a while back. Then we did a lot of upscaling from HD to 3k and such using the best algorithms and those screens where about 35 inch wide. Then the difference of an upscale and a true 3K film scan was very much visible not only for the trained eye. But back then we actually sometimes used the same trick, i.e scaling down to half and back up with Quantels scaling algorithm (forgot the name of it) and by doing so we removed grain from the footage. The down and upscaled image simply lost most of its fine detail grain and when we later printed it back to film it got a new set of grain from the print stock. This kind of "scaling grain removal procedure" works just as well for sensor noise. So I think this is one of the reasons why many people find epic 5k footage downscaled to 2k and then upscaled to 4k DCP's actually looks better than when going from 5k straight to 4k DCP. You simply remove some of the digital unpleasant noise in the scaling process.... However when the dragon is released then we can scale from 6k down to 4k and according to my thinking the 2k's that goes into the downsampling will hopefully provide a very pleasing 4k image. Not to mention dragon 6k ana with anamorphics where you get a superb 2.1 downscale in hight, that's what keeps me up all these nights, cant wait for Jarreds 6k image samples... Squeezing one of them to half hight will provide quite pristine images.
 
Speaking of 4K, I processed some older R1 footage shot at 4KHD, to 3840x2160 (UHD) and was amazed at the result, it looked great but I was expecting it to look a bit mushy with the OLPF and such. I applied very slight sharpening and the result in 4K or UHD was very pleasing. There was some noise at times but it wasn't distracting, in fact I kinda like a little noise or grain.
 
Les Dittert said:
...

Something to also consider with the 4K TV's : They only can show 4K when the media was carefully shot to achieve 4K. Shooting on a high resolution camera does not ensure that all that is shot is sharp.

The acid test will be presenting the media on the 4K set with the audience at a realistic viewing distance, but processing the right half of the media at 2K ( resize from 4K to 2K and back to 4K ) and then see if you can see the split on the TV set.
Click to expand...

I want to see more of that "carefully shot to achieve 4K" footage. I don't know if it will show up clearly as a difference on a 4K TV, but it definitely will on a good 4K projector.
 
First Sony ... now LG. I picked up this morning's edition of the LA Times and "Video & Audio Center" ... a major home theater retailer here in LA is advertising that it has the 84" LG LM96000 in stock. (No price, but I believe it is around $20,000.00.) Hopefully, by this time next year those sorts of prices will be 1/2 or less. If nothing else, I'll have to cruise by and take a look.

I'm sure that after CES we will see even more hit the market.

__________________________________
Scarlet X # 1859 “Bettie Page”
“… preparing to ‘whip’ the competition …”

Zeiss Lenses:

CY 21/2.8
ZF 28/2.0
CY 35-70/3.4
CY 50/1.4
ZF100/2.0

Nikon Lenses:
G 14-24/2.8
G 24-70/2.8
D 80-200/2.8

Tokina Lenses:

11-16/2.8
 
Twojay Dhillon said:
Article claiming they are unnecessary until you get a screen size above roughly 77inches. Thoughts?

http://asia.cnet.com/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid-62213238.htm
Click to expand...

Just a reporter. 20/20 vision is not the limit of human vision, just some acceptable level. With my glasses and improved eyesight I can read well past 20/20 line. So, a chunk of people are going to be less well served by his calculations. now, another issue, when you describe seeing the difference between 720p and 1080p, you are describing the resolution of the portion of the 720p pixel that is smaller. As the 1080p pixel is near 50% by area smaller than a 1080p pixel, the resolution difference of the width of the slither of this overlap is actually approximately 4k in resolution. That revelation is enough to mop most hardliners in the industry up off the floor in the industry. Now you will be hard pressed for people to pick and see the difference in pixel size with subsequent viewings and even switching from one to another unless at a close enough distance for 4k. However, human eyesight does into stop at 4k, and people can pick the greater resolution if looking for it, or very good eyesight. However, for everybody else, it is simple how much more do you enjoy good 1080p over good 720p footage, how much do you enjoy 4k over fullhd. It is not so tangible as that with all people, some might not be able to name it, but their real eyesight and subconscious circuits should pick it up under good conditions and they should feel better about the image. If you don't perceive or feel better about good footage in 1080p over 720p, at a suitable viewing distance, then you are proverbably blind, get glasses. If you go to buy a tv, and you can't perceive or feel better about any particular resolution, and none of the other potential viewers of the tv do, then that resolution might be too high for you to bother buying that set.


@Les, have a look over at the off topic thread, about a redray DIY laser computer touch table project.
 
Bill Sepaniak said:
First Sony ... now LG. I picked up this morning's edition of the LA Times and "Video & Audio Center" ... a major home theater retailer here in LA is advertising that it has the 84" LG LM96000 in stock. (No price, but I believe it is around $20,000.00.) Hopefully, by this time next year those sorts of prices will be 1/2 or less. If nothing else, I'll have to cruise by and take a look.

I'm sure that after CES we will see even more hit the market.
Click to expand...


I remember HD tvs going that high.

Or was I dreaming that?
 
Some of my housemates can't even tell the difference between well-encoded 1080p blu-ray and low-bitrate standard definition for streaming. Admittedly they don't have the best eye sight, some of them, but there are plenty of people who either can't see or don't care.

On a 40in set (what I have in my living room) the difference between SD and HD is considerable at a reasonable viewing distance. Some DVDs and some SD streamed video scales better than others and to be honest still looks reasonably good. I have actually been considering whether a 720p plasma would have been a better purchase than my 1080p set, for our size of living room.

I suppose what I'm trying to get at is, I don't think there is a point in having 4K for sets below 50 inches. Computer monitors for professionals? Hell yes, I own a retina MBP, it's terrific. But consumer TVs? Mostly, no.
 
Test me, test me, ...

Test me, test me, ...

I had a chance to view some demo material on the 84" Sony XBR-900 LCD panel and we did the obvious experiment of walking right up to the screen, then backing up to the wall opposite (roughly 40'). None of us could reliably claim any greater perceived resolution or IQ from 40' so I readily concede there are limits to the advantage of a UHD display over a 1080 FHD unit. That said, every single one of us could easily see the difference in the 15-20' range which is outside the theoretical limit.

I think its safe to say that to get the most out of UHD, viewing should be done within 2 screen heights. It's also fair to say that if your normal viewing distance is more than 10' (3 meters), then you will need at least an 84" screen to really "get" the benefit. Stipulated.

Here's the thing, average humans are 5' 8" tall and live in dwellings with 8' ceilings with viewing rooms rarely more than 24' in any dimension. Using the 20/20 reference for human vision and assuming that having the bottom of the screen all the way to the floor is impractical I would place the max real world home screen at around 150" diagonal. Based on aesthetics and allowing that people may do other things in their homes besides watching TV (if you can believe that) I doubt there will ever be much demand for screens larger that 120" other than purpose built home theater rooms.

While there may be 42" or smaller UHD displays intended for computer use and small rooms, I see 50" as the "entry" size with 65" being the (relative) value option and 80" plus as the high end for the next 24 months with pricing dropping very rapidly. If Vizio's success is any guide I'd expect lots of under $5,000 UHD displays for sale in 2013 with marginal to decent IQ.

Bottom line, those people who cheery pick factoids from technical writings about human visual acuity are spreading disinformation.

IMO creation and distribution of decent quality UHD content in quantity is a bigger hurdle than making the displays available - price points that enable serious adoption rates will come, sooner or later.

Cheers - #19
 
Rob,
The TV sets have 11520 discreet Red Green and blue 'pixels' across. ( 3840 times 3 ) .
They can display actual 3840 stuff easily, and you can see it if you are close enough. ( a magnifying glass helps ! )
Projectors will overlap the RG and B 'dots' because they are made that way, but they are also prone to optical aberrations and color convergence issues as well.
Projectors have a harder time displaying actual 4k because they are not direct view devices. They are subject to the quality of the optics throwing the image to the screen.

I prefer projectors for movie watching. Monitors for working.


Rob McDonough said:
I want to see more of that "carefully shot to achieve 4K" footage. I don't know if it will show up clearly as a difference on a 4K TV, but it definitely will on a good 4K projector.
Click to expand...
 
There have been some interesting studies and we've talked about them on this board before. But from a more "butt in chair" opinion....

Between NAB 2012 and today I've now seen my work on 14 different 4K displays not including projectors. Those ranged from 36 inches to about 12 feet. I have to say when you see it in person it's pretty wonderful.

I'll have some more footage used for demoing new screens early next year too. I can't wait.
 
Phil Holland said:
There have been some interesting studies and we've talked about them on this board before. But from a more "butt in chair" opinion.... I have to say when you see it in person it's pretty wonderful.
Click to expand...

Without a doubt, seeing your own material ... that you shot .... edited, etc. gives you a unique perspective. I just got back from Video & Audio Center and I had an opportunity to watch the 84" LG LM96000. They had 4K demo content from LG (primarily pretty landscapes and city-scapes) playing off a hard-drive (probably some sort of media server). They had the viewing chair about 10-12' from the panel. All I can say is that it certainly looked impressive ... both from close-up (2-3') and from 10-12' away in the brightly lit retail show room. The salesman and store manager had no idea of the whole REDRAY/Odemax business model. They got really excited when I explained it to them, since the have had no real answers to customers who have been asking when 4K content might be available. Nonethless, the manager said they have already sold a good number of LG panels.

Now ... for the good part: They are already on sale! A whole $3,000.00 off the list price. You can get you very own 84" LG panel today (they have them in stock) for a mere $16,999.99! (I brought my wife along, and while she was impressed ... she also had the check book .... so I guess you have figured it out ... there is no 4K panel in my immediate future.)


__________________________________
Scarlet X # 1859 “Bettie Page”
“… preparing to ‘whip’ the competition …”

Zeiss Lenses:

CY 21/2.8
ZF 28/2.0
CY 35-70/3.4
CY 50/1.4
ZF100/2.0

Nikon Lenses:
G 14-24/2.8
G 24-70/2.8
D 80-200/2.8

Tokina Lenses:

11-16/2.8
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top