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 :)

Thanks guys, this is all your fault.

I honestly don't see the point.

A lot of people can't see the difference between 720p and 1080p on 100" screens. 2K 3K and 4K are right out. 8K? Really? I don't think it will sell.

I'd rather see 1080 consumer displays mature. I'd like to see true 60p display, and real 10+ bit panels in consumer devices before we move on. Also, how about 1080p OLED TV's at 50+ inches for under $2000 USD?

How about we get SD broadcast completely behind us for a good long while before we start looking at "new standards."

How about we get laptop computers that can process 4K RAW footage in realtime. Pentium 4 and G4 laptops could do that with SD footage, and look at how hard the HD transition was.

How about getting the bandwidth to deliver 1080p over the Internet at BlueRay or better quality?

Maybe it isn't pemature to start thinking about UHD, but I foresee 2K and 1080p delivery for quite some time. More than a decade in any case.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
I honestly don't see the point.

A lot of people can't see the difference between 720p and 1080p on 100" screens. 2K 3K and 4K are right out. 8K? Really? I don't think it will sell.
Click to expand...

I know we here this quoted a lot but do you actually know anyone with a properly setup HDTV who wasn't amazed by the difference?

I think a lot of people bought HDTVs, didn't upgrade there basic cable and expected the image to magically be HD. I think this scenario is responsible for the "a lot of people can't see the difference" rumor.

Show someone with a standard def TV the "Planet Earth" blu-ray on a properly calibrated HDTV and I guarantee they will be stunned.
 
Jon Howe said:
UHD (Ultra high def) TV is now coming! 4K for the masses!

Linky
Click to expand...

From the article:

Processing power is also a major requirement with Ultra HDTV. Current technology is unable to effectively process the Ultra HDTV signal. At 60 FPS, this signal requires processing power at 2400 GOPS.
Click to expand...

2.4 TOPS [2400 GOPS] is a nice figure, but nothing special even today. ATI recently released a $399 graphics card that puts out 2.72 TFLOPS [actual number of operations on the chip is much greater, add ROP operations - pixel and texel fillrate and the number goes into 30-40 TOPS]. The physical resolution supported is 7680x1600 [12.28MP]. In December, they will launch Eyefinity6 edition capable of supporting 7680x3200 [24.57MP], so 8K resolution in 2022 doesn't sound "too shabby" ;)

In September, I had the opportunity to test several apps [DiRT 2, World of Warcraft, Flight Simulator, Google Earth] at that 24.57 MPixel resolution on a system equipped with a single graphics card. Output fidelity can be either 8 or 10 bits per pixel, i.e. DisplayPort 1.1 / HDMI 1.3a, and achieved framerates were between 40-60 - but these are games - Google Earth ran at 117 frames a second.

That card [HD5870] is capable of outputting 26.548 billion pixels in a single second. As far as processing power goes, the power for 8K at 60 fps is here today. In fact, 26.5 GPixel/s fillrate should do for 8K @120 fps.

2023 - by the rate IT industry is going, a wristwatch will have computational power to run 8K at 60 FPS, yet alone discrete graphics parts. As an example, here is a picture from BSN* showing 55 MPixel resolution [24 Dell 2408 displays]:
AMD_ATI_Eyefinity_24LCD_02.jpg


The system had four graphics cards, and due to need for perspective correction, a resolution of 12240x5280 was used [64.63 MPixel]. 64.63 million pixels at 60 frames a second with 8x Anti-Aliasing and 8x Anisotropic filtering. The cost of whole PC system was something in the range of $2500.
 
Last edited:
I'm a huge advocate of hd tv, but I don't think resolution is the bottleneck anymore. At anything less then 100" it's going to be hard to distinguish between 1080p and 4 or 8k.

Like has been mentioned, lets wait until everything else catches up to the resolution before we even think about starting to go higher. i.e. oled, 3d without glasses, broadcast 1080p all around, etc.
 
Steve, I beg to differ.

At the aforementioned BBC demo they showcased a monitor that was maybe 40" big, but 4k. What was amazing that you could not see a single pixel. It was more like a window in the wall.

There def. is a difference between 1080p and 4k.
 
Jon Howe said:
UHD (Ultra high def) TV is now coming! 4K for the masses!
Click to expand...

From link:

Globally, the "mass market" for UHD is expected in 2023 or 2024, when about 10 percent of consumers will have sets at home.
​

Pfft. That's nothing. In 2045, 10 percent of consumers will have 16K TV sets. Get ready! And in 2190, 10% of consumers will have hollodecks, so we better great ready for it now.

In the mean time, I'm still waiting for television programming that is not compressed to within an inch of its life. They should provide barf bags with their television subscriptions for all the artifacts we have to sit through.

A million monkeys with a million typewriters and a million years would eventually come up with an excellent compression system. Unfortunately, cable companies are using 2 monkeys and 1 Speak-and-Spell. So far the best they've got is the "fling poo at it" compression system, which I'm getting tired of.

Satellite companies are even worse: just one monkey and a calculator, but it's still the same poo-flinging codec.
 
But the problem is the broadcasters. Even 1080 is a joke as the broadcasters and cable companies compress the signal within an inch of its life to pump more and more down the line.

BluRay is cool but I haven't seen many HD broadcasts worth watching.

Kind of like music. They invent DVD-A and everyone decides to use MP3 instead. Imagine having a $30,000 sound system connected to your iPod...
 
Daniel Browning said:
A million monkeys with a million typewriters and a million years would eventually come up with an excellent compression system. Unfortunately, cable companies are using 2 monkeys and 1 Speak-and-Spell. So far the best they've got is the "fling poo at it" compression system, which I'm getting tired of.
Click to expand...

The problem is not in compression systems. Efficient real-time broadcast encoders already exist on the market which provide very good picture quality at standard cable HD bitrates.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
I honestly don't see the point.

A lot of people can't see the difference between 720p and 1080p on 100" screens. 2K 3K and 4K are right out. 8K? Really? I don't think it will sell.

I'd rather see 1080 consumer displays mature. I'd like to see true 60p display, and real 10+ bit panels in consumer devices before we move on. Also, how about 1080p OLED TV's at 50+ inches for under $2000 USD?

How about we get SD broadcast completely behind us for a good long while before we start looking at "new standards."

How about we get laptop computers that can process 4K RAW footage in realtime. Pentium 4 and G4 laptops could do that with SD footage, and look at how hard the HD transition was.



How about getting the bandwidth to deliver 1080p over the Internet at BlueRay or better quality?

Maybe it isn't pemature to start thinking about UHD, but I foresee 2K and 1080p delivery for quite some time. More than a decade in any case.
Click to expand...

alexander,

im not certain you are letting your imagination go for the ride...after OLED comes MOLED technology and then it whole buses, sides of skyscrapers etc etc and in comes the need for higher res.I believe higher res always helps, and if for no other reason then the inevitable compression it will get at some point down the pipeline.jmo

S
 
jimhare said:
But the problem is the broadcasters. Even 1080 is a joke as the broadcasters and cable companies compress the signal within an inch of its life to pump more and more down the line.

BluRay is cool but I haven't seen many HD broadcasts worth watching.

Kind of like music. They invent DVD-A and everyone decides to use MP3 instead. Imagine having a $30,000 sound system connected to your iPod...
Click to expand...


Well said. :smilewinkgrin:
 
Funny how most movies are finished at 2K but the want to make TVs with eight times the resolution... I mean, a 4K display for the masses is probably possible in 5 to 15 years, but I don't think 8K will be popular until a while after that...

And I'll be sceptical until I see a terrestrial broadcast that doesn't look rubbish at 1080p like DVB-T does. (Actually, it's only 1080i, isn't it?)... I guess we need REDVB-T...
 
Martin Weiss said:
Steve, I beg to differ.

At the aforementioned BBC demo they showcased a monitor that was maybe 40" big, but 4k. What was amazing that you could not see a single pixel. It was more like a window in the wall.

There def. is a difference between 1080p and 4k.
Click to expand...

I'll rephrase part of my statement Martin. I don't think the mass market will be able to differentiate between 1080p and 4k -8k at normal viewing distances on any size display that is currently mas market (up to 65").

Although when I said resolution wasn't the bottleneck anymore that was my greatest argument against UHD. Let the other stuff catch up.

One advantage I can defiantly see would be going to a format that is 100% consistent with theaters. A film could be shown in theatre at 8k and you could see it EXACTLY the same at home in 8k.... that would be sweet
 
Daniel Browning said:
From link:

A million monkeys with a million typewriters and a million years would eventually come up with an excellent compression system..
Click to expand...

Actually the saying was more: 'An infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters' would eventually come up with something important.

However, now, thanks to the Internet, we know that's not true....
 
Justin O'Neill said:
I know we here this quoted a lot but do you actually know anyone with a properly setup HDTV who wasn't amazed by the difference?

I think a lot of people bought HDTVs, didn't upgrade there basic cable and expected the image to magically be HD. I think this scenario is responsible for the "a lot of people can't see the difference" rumor.

Show someone with a standard def TV the "Planet Earth" blu-ray on a properly calibrated HDTV and I guarantee they will be stunned.
Click to expand...

My comment was about people telling the difference between 720p, which is HD and 1080p, also HD.

So, it isn't the old saw about "uprezzed DVD" but rather a comparison between two good HD formats.

I'll do your BluRay comparison one better. The same BluRay on the same properly set up TV, with the same player (PS3) once around in 720p component analog and again in 1080p HDMI. Most people can't see the difference.

And yes, I unfortunately know hundreds, maybe thousands of people who can't see the difference. I say its unfortunate because I of course can see the difference, and it makes me crazy that they can't.

In fact its easier to say that the only people I know who can reliably see the difference all work in film/video production. Mostly as DP, Operator or 1st AC. Other media and photo pros can see the difference, but not reliably.
 
Martin Weiss said:
Steve, I beg to differ.

At the aforementioned BBC demo they showcased a monitor that was maybe 40" big, but 4k. What was amazing that you could not see a single pixel. It was more like a window in the wall.

There def. is a difference between 1080p and 4k.
Click to expand...

Martin,

I haven't seen 4K displays that small. The smallest 4K I've seen is 100" or so.

I can say I've seen 1080p displays that big, and bigger, where you couldn't see individual pixels. Mostly projectors. I think Sony SXRD brand projectors manage this.
 
sergio arguello said:
alexander,

im not certain you are letting your imagination go for the ride...after OLED comes MOLED technology and then it whole buses, sides of skyscrapers etc etc and in comes the need for higher res.I believe higher res always helps, and if for no other reason then the inevitable compression it will get at some point down the pipeline.jmo

S
Click to expand...

I think getting rid of, or at least alleviating, the "inevitable compression" is another good intermediate goal. If we could get compression in broadcast down to BluRay levels that would be nice.

Your point is that there is always something else to clean up, so why not move along. I disagree. First off I think it mischaracterizes my position, I support improving resolution, but only after serious deficiencies in current displays are addressed. Second, sometimes you need stop advancing a bit of technology and take a look at the whole system.

By way of allegory, think of the GHz race. A few years ago we had processors that were "faster" than we do today. 4GHz was becoming common. Computers weren't completing tasks faster though. They were waiting on memory, or for tasks elsewhere to be completed. Disks were slower... video cards were slow.

Now we are starting to have more balanced systems. Memory and disks are getting fast enough so that CPU's aren't waiting as much. We have lots of cache memory, and lots of cores to exploit parallelism and ease sequential waits. Our computers, with "slower" processors run much faster for almost every task.

The megapixel race for digital cameras also comes to mind, and is a much more direct allegory.

Video is in the same sort of place. What bothers me most about 1080p displays is (in no particular order)low contrast ratios, bad color representation, banding, compression, interlace, response time, color gamut... it goes on and on.

Increasing resolution does not address these problems, and in some cases exacerbates them. Compression will get worse if we increase the number of pixels radically. Interlace will be more cemented, response times will be lower.

I don't shoot RED because of 4K. I seriously don't care about 4K, except in so far as it improves my 2k and 1080p output. I shoot RED because of dynamic range, 35mm lenses/sensor, color and RAW.

So... I am all for improving displays, and for the record improving resolution is on my list of improvements. Its just that a lot of other things have gotten so bad that they need more immediate attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top