Better than HD - Display technology to look forward to

[lithium630]

And before someone says this should allow for more lifelike color reproduction, scientists estimate that the human eye can only distinguish about 10 million different colors. An RGB display can reproduce 16,777,216 different colors...far beyond the estimate for what our eyes can actually distinguish. So those 16 pixels working together don't actually produce more colors that we can see.

But what if they add a yellow pixel??

[richard1980]

We can agree to differ

Here's a similar view to my own:

http://www.tekgoblin.com/2012/01/14/4k- ... ure-of-tv/

Perhaps 4-8k TV's will push your seating position closer to get the best viewing experience? Maybe you fill your field of view similar to IMAX and all you see is screen

Paper beats rock, rock beats scissors, scissors cut paper, and optometry beats stupid bloggers. To put it bluntly, you can either believe what an undergraduate Civil Engineering student from Purdue has to say, or you can believe what optometrists all over the world have had to say for many years. I know, it's a tough choice.

And by the way, here's a quote from Steve Jobs talking about the iPhone 4: "It turns out there’s a magic number right around 300 pixels per inch, that when you hold something around to 10 to 12 inches away from your eyes, is the limit of the human retina to differentiate the pixels." Edit: I just looked up the specs on the iPhone 4. It has a 3.5 inch screen with a resolution of 960x640. Each pixel occupies 1 arcminute at a viewing distance of 10.35 inches. That's very close to the 10.75 inch viewing distance of the 50-inch 8k display (actually, a 50.0 inch 8k screen would put each pixel occupying 1 arcminute at 10.63 inches). That means looking at the 960x640 block of pixels on the iPhone 4 screen from any distance is almost exactly the same as looking at a 960x640 block of pixels from the mythical 50-inch 8k screen at the same distance. So if you want to see what a 960x640 block of pixels on the 50-inch 8k display would look like from your primary seating position, just prop your iPhone 4 up against your TV and view it from your primary seating position. The same image would occupy 240x160 pixels on the 1080p display. So it should be very easy to do a side-by-side comparison.

And I said before, the required viewing distance to fully resolve a 50-inch 8k image is just too close. The only way to resolve the pixels and still have a reasonable viewing distance is to go with a bigger screen.

But what if they add a yellow pixel??

One of these pixels is not like the others:

Care to post the coordinate of the odd pixel?

[bobbob]

sales gimmick. they've realised we're not really interested in 3d outside of the cinema and this is the next

[STC]

I respect everything you have to say Richard, and certainly do this time, but the fact is, that the ITU are developing the standard, which broadcasting are picking up already.
The ITU say in one of their press releases "Some years will pass before we see these systems in our homes, but come they will. The die is now cast..."

Naturally, big screens are where the money is so they will lead production, but as for the average Joe with a 'reasonably' small home and room for a 60" panel, will he be left out? Certainly not!
Would the trend be for homes such as these to sit much closer to the panel to experience the best possible picture? Maybe. Without wanting to resolve each pixel for TV, the choice position would be part way back from that point.

What you consider to be incomprehensible now could just be the thing to do in the future and that sitting 4 feet away from a 60" 4k or 8k panel would be the ONLY way folks with smaller panels would be supposed to view. If you didn't you would be laughed at for not achieving the best possible viewing experience by others.

What other choices would there be for Mr. Joe and his 60" max size limitation? Maybe a 2k screen that doesn't do 1:1 pixel mapping of a 4k broadcast? No, don't think so. The purists would not like that.

How about 8k panels that show 4ki broadcasts and can also display 8kp "yellowray" discs? That does sound nice (The 22.2 sound format that accompanies the standard is crazy-bonkers! *devises way of asking wife if she wouldn't mind 22 speakers and 2 subs in the living room* ).

Perhaps the smaller panels will evolve to curve around your field of view similar to the way professional simulators do, who knows. My point is throughout this thread that evolution in display resolution will always develop and now the next chapter is set in stone. We can look forwards in 20 or so years time to at least a 4k or 8k 60" panel.

The larger displays will drive the technology, and the smaller displays will ultimately follow, whether you will be able to see the pixels or not dependent on seating position, won't play a part.


[edit] Here's a nice way to sum this up:
I just bought a 250MPH super car for driving on the highway!

[STC]

I actually did see the pixel on my MacBook Air 13"
I surprised myself.
Three quarters of the way down and across pretty much.

DOH! it was a speck of crap on my screen! Apologies lol.

[barnabas1969]

We can agree to differ

Here's a similar view to my own:

http://www.tekgoblin.com/2012/01/14/4k- ... ure-of-tv/

Perhaps 4-8k TV's will push your seating position closer to get the best viewing experience? Maybe you fill your field of view similar to IMAX and all you see is screen

Yes, why would we believe science when opinions are so much more fun?

[STC]

^^ Here's a fact for you:
The smallest 8K monitor currently available is 85" - work is in progress to reduce the size.

What size do you propose they are going to reduce to, 84"?

[barnabas1969]

STC, I'm not saying that these TV's will never exist. I'm only saying that this is just a marketing ploy to take more of your hard-earned money. Just like the 250MPH supercar for every-day driving, an 8K display is overkill.

[STC]

^^ If broadcasting and high res movies are going to use the standard, how will it be a marketing ploy if 60" is the largest size I can have in my home?
Would you accept a chip doing a down conversion in your 1-2k 60" TV or would you prefer that no conversion is done on the TV and that it displays 1:1?

[barnabas1969]

First of all, if you can't see the difference between the 1080p display and the 8K display, what's the point of buying the more expensive one?

Second, if the TV down-converts the 8K broadcast image to my 1080p display, the result will be that groups of 16 pixels from the 8K image will be averaged into a single pixel. The color of that single pixel will be the same color that your eye would have detected from those 16 pixels anyway... unless you like to sit with your face nearly touching the screen.

And finally, broadcasters don't have the capacity to broadcast such an image... and probably won't for at least the next decade anyway.

[STC]

^ Yes, this whole discussion is about 2 decades away possibly more

[adam1991]

STC, I'm not saying that these TV's will never exist. I'm only saying that this is just a marketing ploy to take more of your hard-earned money. Just like the 250MPH supercar for every-day driving, an 8K display is overkill.

"BUT LOOK! THIS CAMERA HAS MORE MEGAPIXELS! MORE IS BETTER!!!! THIS IS AMERICA!!!! MORE IS BETTER!!! MUST HAVE MOAR MEGAPIXELS OR IT'S CRAP!"

no, only better is better. More is only more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaxU0ut ... re=related

"more geebees".

[barnabas1969]

"BUT LOOK! THIS CAMERA HAS MORE MEGAPIXELS! MORE IS BETTER!!!! THIS IS AMERICA!!!! MORE IS BETTER!!! MUST HAVE MOAR MEGAPIXELS OR IT'S CRAP!"

no, only better is better. More is only more.

Sure, everyone wants to print their pictures on an 8'x10' (that's feet), right?

[STC]

/firestorm avert setting on

^^ More IS better if you like to zoom in and crop your pics, yes indeed. More pixels please!

[barnabas1969]

/firestorm avert setting on

^^ More IS better if you like to zoom in and crop your pics, yes indeed. More pixels please!

Good point... for pictures anyway. Still not a good reason for an 8K TV.

[STC]

Phew, thanks. I thought I was going to get burned at the stake!

[lithium630]

/firestorm avert setting on

^^ More IS better if you like to zoom in and crop your pics, yes indeed. More pixels please!

Good point... for pictures anyway. Still not a good reason for an 8K TV.

If broadcasts were 8K, it could open the possibility of zooming television. The use would obviously be limited, but I could see zooming in on a football game to see if it's a touchdown, or on the discovery channel to see small insect up close. It's always nice to have options.

[richard1980]

For a 50 inch display, the benefits of each resolution are seen in the following viewing distance ranges:

480p (720x480): Greater than 17.28 feet
720p (1280x720): 17.28 to 9.64 feet
1080p (1920x1080): 9.64 to 6.33 feet
QFHD (3840x2160): 6.33 to 2.91 feet
8k (7680x4320): 2.91 feet to 10.63 inches

The question becomes, what resolution fits for a typical viewing distance? In my experience, average Joe tends to sit 10-15 feet away from his TV. If average Joe buys a 50-inch TV, 720p resolution is the best match. But does average Joe actually buy a 720p TV? No. Average Joe goes to the electronics store and looks at TVs from just a few feet away...close enough to observe the difference between 720p and 1080p. Not only that, but he's got a salesman yapping in his ear about how great the 1080p TV is. So Joe buys the 50-inch 1080p TV, takes it home, and positions it 10-15 feet away from where he sits, not realizing that he has lost the ability to see all those extra pixels. Joe just wasted his money.

Simply put, 1080p is already a gimmick. Sure, there are some people that will put the 1080p TV in the viewing distance range that allows them to benefit from the extra resolution, but average Joe doesn't.

Moving on to QFHD, if 2D 50-inch QFHD displays hit the market, the same problem will exist. Only I think that in such a case, the introduction of QFHD displays to the consumer market has the potential to raise awareness about viewing distance and screen size, and how they both affect Joe's ability to see the pixels. I think this will curb sales of 2D UHDTVs.

I think 1080p is pretty much the market limit of how many pixels you will get to view at one time. With the introduction of QFHD and higher resolutions, I think we'll see a shift in the way we view things. That's assuming the market actually buys into the shift. We may end up getting stuck at 2D 1080p for a while. QFHD and/or 8k may get passed over.

[adam1991]

/firestorm avert setting on

^^ More IS better if you like to zoom in and crop your pics, yes indeed. More pixels please!

To qualify: the consumer mania for "more" intersects with the corporate mania for "higher profits" to the point where the consumer is given MOAR MEGAPIXELS in a tiny, crappy sensor.

End result: Joe Sixpack is happy and has what is for him "bragging rights", but ends up taking ever crappier pictures.

I wouldn't want to see the zoomed in 16 megapixel image from that $179 camera.

Give me 2 megapixels in a high quality sensor any day.

Or, just get a D800 plus some serious glass.

[mark1234]

In my experience, average Joe tends to sit 10-15 feet away from his TV.

Maybe in your gargantuan US houses this is true. No where near true in pokey little British homes though. My TV is probably around 5-6 feet distance, and this is fairly normal. I can tell the difference between SD and HD, but not between 720 and 1080. Mind you, I don't wear my specs whilst watching TV so I'm probably not the best judge either.

the consumer is given MOAR MEGAPIXELS in a tiny, crappy sensor

So, so true. This is why I don't get why people care in the slightest about Nokia's PureView technology. 40 odd megapixel with a sensor size that is probably more appropriate for 4 megapixel, and some tiny little camera-phone lens. Why, why, WHY?????