True 4K Blu-ray - why I will mostly skip if released

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Hi all,
So, with the advent of 4K there is the likely chance we will see physical media @ 4k in 2014 as the BDA has stated they are debating this as we speak. Personally, though, I am finding it hard to get excited about this tech. Reasons:

1) JOE KANE of Video Essentials/DVE fame, said outright in his testing you need a 120" screen before you even start to notice any real benefit of 4k over 2k (1080p) at normal viewing distances. This is an extremely trustworthy source who has been a video expert for a long time...

Don’t get misled by credentials, for they are not foolproof, as for one real world analogy, that’s why people coping with serious things like cancer and such go to different doctors….i.e. for 2nd opinions those later opinions of which can be completely contradictory to the first. As to Joe…..

Joe has said things in the past which were either incorrect or at least incomplete as relating to the total fact(s) and science of the matter at hand, for example - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ch#post7555890
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...oe#post7556046

But all that ^ aside, what you’ve underlined is also incorrect, i.e. “at normal viewing distances” so you’re misquoting your expert, or he’s preaching different things to different people. According to the gospel of Joe, it’s unimportant as to how close an observer gets to the image itself and he admits that he has his own position on this matter and that a lot of other people don’t agree with him. In fact, I don’t know anyone in the motion picture business or in the field of advanced imaging science in general who agrees with him. His position is that “you need to spread the picture out over a larger size before you can truly see what’s in the image” in essence blow it up to a certain size in order to visualize the full amount of detail. He claims “a 1080p image needs to be at least 6 feet wide and a 4K image needs to be at least on a 10 ft. wide screen”. < I think other than possibly for pronouns and such, that is an accurate quote of his position from my listening to him.

But on the contrary, I haven’t read one scientific paper published in a peer reviewed journal, nor have I even heard of a presentation by anyone else expressing Joe’s *theory* which essentially is based upon his belief (through his unpublished testing) that the size of the image needed to visualize true 1080p or 4K image resolution is the same size as that which begins to show apparent encoding artifacts.

The overwhelming consensus of opinion from others is that this simply is not the case and that the only truly limiting factor to possibly being able to appreciate ‘full’ resolution…be it 1080p or 4K resolution is if the observer can’t get close enough to the screen ( ~ 1.5PH) because of perceiving pixel structure because the pixel pitch isn’t dense enough. These days technology has advanced so much that that is really not an issue, for we now have common displays with a very fine pixel pitch.

His *theory*, if it ever was true, would have been validated a long time ago at least in regards to 1080p as it has enormous implications beyond ENTERTAINMENT. I’m talking about significant medical implications (not to mention probable medico-legal implications) because if physicians and scientists believed that you needed 6 ft. screens (his assertion) to fully visualize 1080p resolution structures, they would be using 6 ft. sized 1080p – 2K displays in Diagnostic Radiology suites to view a host of digital imaging studies to examine for subtle evidence of cancer presence, spread etc. which directly determines the management of the disease and can have morbidity as well as mortality consequences if something is not ‘seen’. Instead, they use much smaller displays like these –

For what you know as roughly 2K rez, given format difference of course (note the 21” size, nowhere near Joe’s 6 ft. minimum) -

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/assetDownloadController/LMD_DM_30.pdf?path=Asset%20Hierarchy$Professional$ SEL-yf-generic-153704$SEL-yf-generic-154228SEL-asset-348747.pdf&id=StepID$SEL-asset-348747$original&dimension=original

Or, for 4K rez (note the 36” size, also nowhere near Joe’s 10ft. minimum for that rez) - http://www.eizo.com/global/products/...840/index.html
And in either case, the examiners simply move their eyes closer to the screen to fully visualize either resolution…..rather than standing at the back of the room.