Jump to content




Photo

Looking topic on Ulra Hi-def display


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 14 January 2016 - 01:45 AM

The year before last there was a lot of talk about the final word in display technology.  Today I saw a Sony UHDTV for around $3200.  It was a 4K display.

 

But I seem to recall a lot of people here talking about a higher resolution technology, but I can't seem to find the discussion nor the links that were posted.

 

Does anyone remember what I'm talking about?


  • 0




#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 January 2016 - 02:09 AM

You might be thinking of NHK's 8K Super-Hi Vision:

http://www.sportsvid...-8k-production/

 

But for the home, 4K HDR is coming first before 8K, which seems to me to be more of a special venues sort of thing.


  • 0

#3 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 14 January 2016 - 03:06 AM

Thanks David.

 

I think that was it.  I was going to put "8K display" in the topic title, but I wasn't sure if that was right or not.

 

And yeah, I actually was debating about whether or not to invest in a 4K TV or wait for the 8K tech to come to the home.  But if it's reserved for conventions and jumbotrons and stuff, then maybe I'll snag a 4K this summer.


  • 0

#4 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3081 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 14 January 2016 - 03:23 AM

There's barely any 4K content available right now, basically just Netflix streaming and YouTube, so I think there's not much point in waiting for 8k to become available if you want a new tv soon. Heck, I can barely stream highly compressed 8-bit 1920x1080 content consistently on those services anyway, so 4K content that's not hardware-based is a total non-starter for me.
  • 0

#5 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 14 January 2016 - 03:34 AM

True, but if I recall the exchange here, there was some talk that either 8K or 16K was the highest resolution that your eye-mind could interpret.  And if that was the case, then I was wondering if I'd be wasting my money on a 4K display now when a new standard was around the corner.
 
I see you're in San Francisco.  Are you streaming YouTube stuff via a nonsecure wifi network or something?

  • 0

#6 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3081 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 14 January 2016 - 03:47 AM

I actually live in Pacifica now. Nope, our wifi network is password protected and we are far enough from the neighbors that there are only ever three people on at any one time unless we have guests. Comcast just sucks.
  • 1

#7 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3081 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 14 January 2016 - 03:58 AM

I think that 8k/16k talk is most likely just speculation and not based in hard science. Are there even any existing 16k displays that would make such a study possible? (shrug)

It seems to me that the biggest factors in being able to perceive a high resolution image would be the size of the screen and the sitting distance of the audience. If the screen is only 50" diagonal and you're sitting 8' away, I'm not sure 8K vs 4K would make any visible difference.
  • 0

#8 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 14 January 2016 - 06:03 AM

I think that 8k/16k talk is most likely just speculation and not based in hard science. Are there even any existing 16k displays that would make such a study possible? (shrug)

It seems to me that the biggest factors in being able to perceive a high resolution image would be the size of the screen and the sitting distance of the audience. If the screen is only 50" diagonal and you're sitting 8' away, I'm not sure 8K vs 4K would make any visible difference.

That's kind of what I was thinking.  I held off on getting any kind of HD TV until last year.  Heh, all those gigs I did at Apple, Intel and Autodesk, and I was still trying to nurse my old SONY from 1983.

 

I purchased a relatively small (34"? ... it's packed away right now) refurbished HDTV for a couple hundred at about the time I was reading the posts here on higher def technology.  And even though it gives a much better picture than the old 480 raster displays, when I get close to it I still see pixilation.  Down at Fry's in Stanford / Palo Alto, they got a 4K SONY listed at $2998 (roughly $3200 with tax) that when I got close to it I didn't get the same pixilation that I see with so many other displays.

 

I was really impressed.  Even if there isn't 4K content out there, the image quality has just in general got to be better than current displays.

 

p.s. I was in the San Mateo area, and had ATT Uverse.  I really got angry with being 20 minutes away from YouTube's HQ and getting dropped feeds as well.  It appears to be cleared up now.


  • 0

#9 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 18 January 2016 - 06:29 PM

You might be thinking of NHK's 8K Super-Hi Vision:

http://www.sportsvid...-8k-production/

 

But for the home, 4K HDR is coming first before 8K, which seems to me to be more of a special venues sort of thing.

Wasn't there talk of 8K being the ultimate in display technology?  I remember someone on this board saying that your eye and brain couldn't take in the definition offered by 8K.  I'm not sure I got the paraphrasing right, and even if I did I'm not sure I agree with it.

 

Does anyone remember the conversation I'm talking about?


  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 January 2016 - 06:42 PM

I'm sure one could appreciate an 8K image just as one can appreciate an IMAX image, the real question is viewing distance.  There are plenty of articles on the topic, like:

 

http://www.rtings.co...ce-relationship

 

I may not have the numbers right, but if 7' away is optimal for a 50" 1080P monitor, then I think it would be something like 3.5' away from a 4K monitor that size and 1.75' away from an 8K monitor if it is 50" -- in other words, if you sit any further away than 2' let's say from a 50" 8K monitor, you won't see the difference between it or a 4K monitor.  

 

Or going the other way, if you like to sit 7' from your TV set, you have to start looking at a 200" monitor at minimum to gain any benefit to 8K -- do you have room for a 16' diagonal TV screen in your living room?  (My math is probably off but you get the general idea).   Which is why 8K makes more sense for very large display presentations, assuming you even have true 8K material to show on it.


  • 0

#11 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11234 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 January 2016 - 07:20 PM

These very high resolutions have application in VR. If you're going to produce an image to fill a human being's entire field of view, including eye rotation, you need a lot of pixels for it to look reasonable. VR headsets using 1080p displays per eye are often criticised for insufficient resolution.

 

P


  • 0

#12 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1046 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 18 January 2016 - 07:27 PM

There were a few 8K screens at interbee this year..  pretty impressive in a huge hall.. but except for someone with alot of money and a huge home cinema.. i.e. a sound recordist..  there is no way these screens will be for ordinary homes.. 


  • 0

#13 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2369 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 January 2016 - 10:49 PM

I personally love the resolution game, it just shows how people are influenced by numbers and hype, rather then reality.

The reality is, we're a solid decade away from UHD becoming the norm. Display technology is making a huge transition in the next few years, away from LCD/Plasma and into OLED. The quality and longevity of these display systems will get better over time. Early generations will suffer from the typical high pricing and high failure rate like most new technologies. Buying al LCD UHD monitor isn't a great idea.

Once displays are up to snuff, the next big hurtle is distribution. Currently the internet as a whole is not fast enough to stream 8 bit 4:2:0 UHD @ 50Mbps H265, which would be acceptable quality. I know that sounds insane, but with so many people hitting servers at once, we struggle to stream 15Mbps from sites like Vimeo and Youtube, which as we all know, look like crap. So internet speeds are the big problem and honestly it's both the servers AND home connections which need to be changed. In the last 10 years, internet speeds in the US have increased by a measly 20%, that's the smallest gain of speed in a decade. The booming speed changes of the late 90's into the 2000's are over. The average home connection is still 25Mbps, which is unfathomable when it doesn't cost the internet providers any more money to provide a better service. So that's the first big technology shift which will be needed for UHD presentations at home. Obviously we already have UHD BluRay, but only Sony has signed on for releases.

Finally and the biggest thing is the content itself. As everyone well knows, the vast majority of content is produced and distributed in 1080i/60, not even progressive, not even 24fps (1080o/50 25fps in europe). So we're still doing 3:2 pulldown, we're still interlacing on broadcast and we're still lower then 2k resolution. So content makers need to buy all new equipment, cameras, switchers, editing solutions and broadcasting equipment. Content owners and libraries need to spend billions doing the same thing THEY JUST DID with BluRay and re-scan tens of thousands of films. Heck, from 2000 - today, the vast majority of digitally acquired products are finished in 2k or less! So there is no way to get a real 4k final out of them.

These are the reasons I don't see anything happening for a decade. I honestly think it will take that long before all three of these issues are resolved to the level where UHD makes sense. 4k and 8k at home with 4k and 8k sources? That's so far away, it's not even worth discussing. Lets get all the movie theaters upgraded with 4k laser projectors, lets get the minimal requirement for DCP set to 4k and then we'll start building solutions for the future. Until then, we're living in a 1080 world... and I think we'll be here for A LONG TIME as broadcasters are sick and tired of upgrading after the mandatory switch from 480i to 1080i.
  • 0

#14 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 19 January 2016 - 03:31 AM

I'm sure one could appreciate an 8K image just as one can appreciate an IMAX image, the real question is viewing distance.  There are plenty of articles on the topic, like:

 

http://www.rtings.co...ce-relationship

 

I may not have the numbers right, but if 7' away is optimal for a 50" 1080P monitor, then I think it would be something like 3.5' away from a 4K monitor that size and 1.75' away from an 8K monitor if it is 50" -- in other words, if you sit any further away than 2' let's say from a 50" 8K monitor, you won't see the difference between it or a 4K monitor.  

 

Or going the other way, if you like to sit 7' from your TV set, you have to start looking at a 200" monitor at minimum to gain any benefit to 8K -- do you have room for a 16' diagonal TV screen in your living room?  (My math is probably off but you get the general idea).   Which is why 8K makes more sense for very large display presentations, assuming you even have true 8K material to show on it.

That's kind of what I was thinking.  As an example, I have a lot of animated features.  They actually look terrific on regular DVD on my computer monitor.  I repurchased a number of the on bluray, and where the image is certainly much sharper, at a certain viewing distance the DVD seems just as enjoyable as the bluray. 

 

To be fair I did notice that the remastered bluray disks were using fresh clean prints with no grit or other junk on any of the frames.  Even the film grain was gone (which actually doesn't bother me). 

 

So I got to wondering how much more definition am I going to really perceive on a huge 4k TV verse an 8K display?  Personally I don't much.

 

Another example.  Two DVDs; "King Arthur" and "The Last Legion".  I had both on DVD.  Both looked great on my hidef TV.  I then bought the bluray disks.  They were slightly sharper, but to be honest I was just as happy with the DVDs.

 

Older films with fresh prints might benefit, but it doesn't like stuff shot today needs it.

 

Just my opinion.


  • 0

#15 Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos

Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Student
  • Athens

Posted 19 January 2016 - 03:52 AM

 

 

To be fair I did notice that the remastered bluray disks were using fresh clean prints with no grit or other junk on any of the frames.  Even the film grain was gone (which actually doesn't bother me). 

 

Isn't it sometimes even desirable, as it adds a certain charm?

 

 

 

So I got to wondering how much more definition am I going to really perceive on a huge 4k TV verse an 8K display?  Personally I don't much.

 

 

 

What do you perceive when you walk into a shop with all those shiny new TVs, and they're showing one of those special videos and DVDs or Blu Rays made to showcase the TV's resolution? 


Edited by Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos, 19 January 2016 - 03:53 AM.

  • 0

#16 Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos

Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Student
  • Athens

Posted 19 January 2016 - 03:54 AM

By the way, are the 4K Blu Rays already on sale for some films?


  • 0

#17 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 19 January 2016 - 04:54 AM

 

Isn't it sometimes even desirable, as it adds a certain charm?

 
 

 

What do you perceive when you walk into a shop with all those shiny new TVs, and they're showing one of those special videos and DVDs or Blu Rays made to showcase the TV's resolution? 

 

Charm?  Maybe for some.  To me persistence of vision and smooth motion is more important than keeping an artifact of the photochemical process.

 

If grain is endemic to the artistic presentation, then I think it's okay.  Otherwise I see it as a layer of information that isn't needed.

 

Example; I have two copies of Disney's "The Rescuers Downunder"; DVD and Bluray.  The DVD has a layer of light brown grain over the image.  It's like someone dabbed every frame of the film with a sponge dipped in brown ink.  It's not really too bothersome because it is the result of using that specific print.  The bluray edition has none of that, and is crystal clear, which actually makes the film more enjoyable.

 

Personally, I think grain is more of a nostalgia blast for people.  I grew up when film grain was a fact of life.  But seeing older films get cleaned up and given new life via digital restoration, again to me, enhances the viewing experience.

 

Seeing it on a 4K display makes it that much more pleasurable.


  • 0

#18 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 19 January 2016 - 05:07 AM

Tyler; I think it's more a case of industry wanting to squeeze out every last dollar they can out of the current technology verse wanting to bring new product to market for the sake of satisfying the consumer.

 

We saw it with the computer industry in the 90s (and a little in the 80s) where the minute a new PC or component for the PC architecture was put out, it was already obsolete.  The companies were in an R&D frenzy trying to out compete one another to gain the largest market share and cash in.

 

Here it seems to be more of a cooperative effort because unlike computer tech firms these companies need one media standard for various formats. 

 

Side note; I remember dumping a lot of money into Hi-8 way back when and getting burned.  I'm wondering if some people here are investing in 4K when 8K may or may not be coming in a few years.


  • 0

#19 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1046 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 19 January 2016 - 05:18 AM

Not a 4K camera thats for sure.. they have all got alot cheaper than ENG,s were 5 years ago.. ok lenses went up.. but they have a much longer shelf life.. I wouldn't buy an Amira now .. as there is alot of 4K being shot.. mostly for HD delivery but people want to future proof and muck around with the 4K image .. for good or for bad..

 

I worked with a cameraman from NHK.. Japanese national tv channel.. run as its own planet it seems.. but he said NHK were pissed off they didnt invent or get into 4K .. and now 8K has become their next plan to lead the world in camera spec,s and prestige .. and thats tax payers money so they will just keep on spending it.. 


  • 0

#20 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1367 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 19 January 2016 - 05:44 AM

Its the computer games industry that drives bigger and better screens - not the film and video industry.

 

C


  • 0


Pro 8mm

Zylight

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

CineTape

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Tai Audio

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Zylight

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Visual Products

CineLab

CineTape

Technodolly

Pro 8mm

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc