Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

That's why you think fox is great.

It's a shame for you guys being stuck with mpeg2, It's would be a nightmare to go mpeg4 now.

We have MBAFF mpeg4/avc on broadcasts here, which is great because it tries to save bandwidth by only using interlacing on a macro-block by macro-block basis. But it also means we didn't have HDTV until 2005.

Ether way the main reason Interlacing V progressive doesn't make a huge difference with sport is down to current cameras still being lame at capturing motion. most of the bluing you see comes from the cameras not the encoding.

I still find it bizarre that unless you have FIOS there, on cable/satellite you getting channels re-encoded from an already well compressed feed. It's as if very few people give a crap about quality there!

Last time a saw an English premier league match in ESPN2 HD on some crappy cable company I thought, Damn, I've seen SD pictures nearly as good as this back home.

For Anthony P, Interlacing, Yes I know all about that and you haven't mentioned a thing I don't already know, and Yes, no processing however good ( even VA) will managed to recover all the information in the picture lost in the interlacing process, but it does a mighty fine job ( except for the most eagle eye'd ) except on some test patterns that prove the point.
Yes, I'll maintain Interlacing is still a stupid evil for the HD age when most TV's are Natively progressive! You don't see many HD CRT's about any more.

Dish Network went MPEG 4 years ago. But they transmit in HD Lite as do most carriers here because they are in competition for the number of channels offered. I can't tell you how many HD channels I have, 150? But yes OTA is MPEG 2 as of now, but its not the HD Lite that's offered by the satellite or video companies either and its not rechurned into MPEG 4 either. MPEG 2 was chosen because that was what the government went with 20 years ago when choosing which way to go. You can probably thank the U.S. for going HD for what you have over there though. That's why I am saying 4k or 8k is most likely a pipe dream, especially for broadcast. It can't even be offered in a much smaller format now correctly now due to bandwidth.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Dish...ets/1224861222

http://www.neothings.com/wordpress/b...atsc-and-8vsb/

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

NetFlix has double digit growth

so? double digit can be anywhere from 10% wich can barely be called growth to 99% which means doubeling in the time frame given.

and in the U.S. 1/3 of the Internet traffic is NetFlix.

how is that a goopd thing. You have crap quality and few memebers yet it hogs a good chunck of what the internet can handle which means that in order to improve the quality the internet capabilities needs to increase a lot.

All the asinine cracks about PQ and streaming. It sounds like you guys are too cheap to play for a decent connection is the real issue.

my internet is decent enough for what I use it.

Are you saving up for your 4K TVs?

at least that will be smart, not only would the person get something usable but it will also be better quality.

And to say that I don't care about PQ is just being rude.

then why are you rude to yourself. You said over and over that you don't care if BD looks better. It is not rude, it is a fact.

[bhampton]

Originally Posted by doctorsteve

Well, if you're going to give them away later - you might as well give them to me now...


Doc

I aint giving them away. People can fight for them or pitch them after I die. Hopefully that will be never and stuff, of course.

-Brian

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

This comes from the guy who talks about people can't affort $79 or $8o/month internet. Tell people their 1080p TV needs to be replaced with a TV that costs as much as their car

why would the guy need to replace the TV with one that is expensive as a car. Sooner or later everything gets too old or it brakes. That is when people replace stuff. So how is it too hard for someone to buy a new TV for 1000$ or 2000$ and keep it for 3, 5, 10 years then spending 80$ a month. If he saves that 80$ for a year he will be able to buy that new 1000$ TV and enjoy it for the next few years for free.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

That's what the industry engineers say is the optimal size, Google it.

what engineers?

Or if you could it would be so minimal, you couldn't tell which is which

see here you are again saying quality does not matter. Who cares if it is minimal, better is better, quality is quality, so why would someone accept less because, like you, they don't care about quality.

Articles that say the optimal screen size for a 4k TV is 25 feet. That came from an engineer. Unlike where your info comes from, an opinion.

http://heronfidelity.com/news/beyond-1080p/


I don't know if he is an engineer but I agree with him

Originally Posted by article

Increasing the resolution of a display beyond 1080p can improve the viewing experience

I can't see where this guy says it is not needed

Originally Posted by article

with today’s regular 2D HD content as well

this is the rest of the sentence (for completeness) so imagine how much better it will be if the change is not only in the display but the whole line is 4K

http://news.consumerreports.org/elec...y-12-2010.html

[/quote]

I did not follow all the links, but I was interested to see what engineers in the AV business work at consumers report.

and since I am guessing the rest are the same (since the links are about Youtube) this is what was there

Originally Posted by CR from Youtube Blog

Today at the VidCon 2010 conference, we announced support for videos shot in 4K, meaning that now we support original video resolution from 360p all the way up to 4K. To give some perspective on the size of 4K, the ideal screen size for a 4K video is 25 feet; IMAX movies are projected through two 2k resolution projectors.

1) this is not an engineer, this is some guy that works for Youtube
2)(before anyone comments on this to correct the errors please read on the rest of the list) it is stupid to conclude that because Imax is 4K and is shown on a 25' screens that 4k is useless for things smaller then 25'
3) Imax is not always 25' screen there are smaller ones out there so even if 2 was true the 25' is a BS#
4) the guy that wrote this does not know simple math, resolution is described linearly (i.e. 2k means ~2k pixels in a row , area is square, if you put two 2K images one beside the other you don't end up with 4K you end up with a mess, you would need 4 2K projectors to do that
5) Digital Imax is actually 2K which is why it looks like shit (ask anyone that has been in such a theatre). They use two 2K projectors but the images are not side by side to get to 4K but super imposed. The reason they use two is not for resolution but brightness (2x the light hitting the screen) which is needed so that the large screen not be too dull.

So basically you want me to act as if I have been lobotomized and not believe my own vision, because some idiot that can't get anything right wrote something stupid on a blog and a few others that are ignorant and have no critical thinking skills take it and repeat it.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

For Anthony P, Interlacing, Yes I know all about that and you haven't mentioned a thing I don't already know, and Yes, no processing however good ( even VA) will managed to recover all the information in the picture lost in the interlacing process, but it does a mighty fine job ( except for the most eagle eye'd ) except on some test patterns that prove the point.
Yes, I'll maintain Interlacing is still a stupid evil for the HD age when most TV's are Natively progressive! You don't see many HD CRT's about any more.

agree, never stated otherwise. I am not championing 1080i or saying it should be used. It was all about informing people that 1080i is 1080 and not 540 as slick1ru2 stated, and there is more resolution per frame then 720p.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

You do realize that more people have SD then HD TVs and many feel that HD and Blu-ray is a fad right? It took about a decade to switch over to digital OTA here in the States after geez, 50-60 years of the old standard. Do you think that is going to be dropped again, anything soon?

People don't get paid for Wikipedia, that's true. They donate their time. Wikipedia is a project for humanity, that is what its for, but you may be too immature to realize that right now. There is a lot more going on in the world then making sure you can watch movies in native resolution. Can you even fathom the amount of resources not using a physical media like DVD or Blu-ray would save in precious resources? Those discs are produced in the billions and moved all over the planet. And they are thrown out each year in the millions, sitting in landfills. Do you know it will take decades for Japan to clean up from this year's disaster? Sony alone lost billions from it. Just Sony. And Japan, where much of today's electronics comes from, just had a major part of its electrical grid permanently removed. You can't just add a major power plant overnight. But anyway, you keep thinking those 8K TVs are coming in the next few years.

That same thing can be said about streaming, It can be put into the fad category as well. Computers are no different to tv's and HT equipment, people are always having to spend more on computers every few years (either upgrading an already owned computer or buying a brand new 1 altogether), and if u don't upgrade then u can't enjoy or use whats newly available. Computers can be quite expensive things for a lot people especially with how quickly the industry moves, my new i7 laptop just cost me $1500 (down from $1900), which is I think is quite expensive, and it will only last a few years until I have to upgrade to another 1. Computers certainly aren't pieces of technology that last (just like tv's) because they become obsolete so quickly and in 10 years time the computer u buy today will be no good anymore either.

A lot of Australians now have HDtv's (in fact I only know 2 people who don't own 1), though not as many have blu-ray players, it wouldn't surprise me if more than half of our population have HDtv's now, especially considering tv's are 1 of the 1st things people buy here when they have extra money to spend. Our market and what we value when buying products here (due to many factors) is different to the U.S market and what u value, so I can't claim to know what goes on in your country just like u can't claim to know what goes on here.

Also just because someone has access to the internet doesn't mean that they use it for streaming or for downloading movies, music and games, in fact most people above 40 wouldn't use the internet for those things. Imo you would find that a small percentage of the WORLDS population use the internet for streaming, I reckon less than 10-15% percent to be honest, so that would make streaming services a niche product also. As for the environmental issues u made reference to, about disc's being put into landfills etc, well I feel I do enough for the environment and I'm not going to give up something I enjoy just for that reason, that's where some environmentalist are over obsessive, expecting people to give up and sacrifice everything in life just to save the earth.

[slick1ru2]

Funny how the ONLY 4k content available ANYWHERE now is...STREAMING, on YouTube. You can't see it OTA, satellite, cable or buy a disc with it of any kind.


http://www.tgdaily.com/software-feat...treaming-video

[slick1ru2]

Interesting article on the pros and cons of 4k coming. The responses are also interesting.

http://www.electronichouse.com/artic...ssary_in_hdtv/



Is 4K Necessary in HDTV?

April 11, 2011 | by Grant Clauser

At CES this year I saw a number of 4K or 4K x 2K (3840×2160) resolution TVs and projectors on display. The only time I’ve seen so many 4K displays under one roof was at Infocomm, a trade show that focuses on the professional, commercial and large-venue market (think Jumbotron) not the home market. A recent article by DisplaySearch analyst Paul Gray suggests there’s not much of a need for 4K displays (except in limited circumstances) and that there are several important issue which could impede their implementation.

But 4K displays may be coming to the home, and you may have good reason to want one. Let’s take a look at some of the issues:

First, several companies have been actively showing 4K prototypes, and one even plans to market products within the next 12 months—that company? None other than Toshiba. The product will be a glasses-free 3D TV—the big one (55-ish-inches) it showed at CES this year. Sony, Panasonic, LG and Samsung all showed 4K resolution flat-panel displays at CES, though Toshiba so far has been the only company with confirmed plans to get them to U.S. retailers.

Is 4K necessary?

The answer to that depends on a lot of things. First, there’s no 4K content. No broadcaster, Blu-ray disc or VOD stream has 4K content, or the ability to deliver 4K at this time. Let’s face it, 4K is a heck of a lot of data and bandwidth, and many delivery mechanisms are already taxed just trying to meet the requirements of 1080p, 3D and multi-channel audio.

Certainly packaged media could do it, but is there a reason to? As more content delivery moves to online distribution, consumers are relying less on physical discs. Of all the distribution methods, Blu-ray offers the best picture and audio, but as we’ve seen with digital music, that’s not always people’s top priority.

Can you see the difference? According to Gray, if you sit 10 feet from your TV you’d need a display at least 55-inches in order to notice the increased resolution. The industry sells a fair number of 55-inch and up TVs, so that’s reasonable-enough motivation. For a company like Mitsubishi, which only focuses on big TVs, the added resolution may be just the thing to help set them apart from competitors. What about projectors? Could a projector aimed at a 100-inch screen benefit from 4K? Possibly, but again there are still issues.

Because there’s no 4K content, a 4K display would have to do some heavy processing on 1080p content. Video scaling of that sort can do a wonderful job, or it can introduce its own errors, or possibly highlight issues in the source that wouldn’t be apparent on a 1080p display. So far, the 4K displays I’ve seen looked good, but not mind-blowing.

What about cost? Any TV based on new or improved technology is going to cost more. We saw that when HD was introduced, when LED came along and then 3D. That’s something we should stop being shocked about. Of course 4K TVs would cost more. I’m OK with that as long as the value proposition of that increased cost is justified. With increased production and consumer adoption, costs eventually come down, and then manufactures come up with something else innovative to command a premium price.

What about confusion? I remember attending a DisplaySearch conference several years ago, before there were any 1080p TVs in the market or even publicly shown. At that time, the industry was still fighting over the benefits of 720p vs 1080i when an analyst predicted the introduction of 1080p TVs. Some attendees scoffed at the idea, said we couldn’t see the difference and that another resolution spec would just add confusion to the market and impede sales. When know how that worked out. History is a great tool for predicting things like this.

But back to the “is it necessary” question. I think the answer is yes. Among the premium models from the major TV makers, there really isn’t wide variation in picture quality. If you pick a TV from the top two lines of the top three or four brands, you’ll get a very good TV. One may have slightly better blacks while another has slightly more natural greens. You may like the smart TV menu of one brand over another, or the industrial design of one brand over another, but within reason, they’re all pretty good. The manufacturers know this, and it’s why they’re looking for something else. 4K may be that something else.

And here’s another reason 4K may be necessary—FPR. This year LG is introducing 3D TVs based on frame pattern retarder (FPR) technology. These are the TVs that use passive, polarized glasses rather than the battery-operated active-shutter glasses (LG also makes 3D TVs that use active-shutter technology). One issue some people have raised with this technology is that it reduces the full 1080p resolution to 540 for each eye. Moving to a 4K panel could solve that issue (if it’s actually an issue, meaning, if the viewer can even notice). At a meeting I had with LG Display representatives at CES, the company said that a 4K version of their polarized 3D TV would likely be coming—possibly even this year.

As we know, 1080p came, and the world didn’t end. We settled on a terminology (full HD), video scaling improved, and content eventually became easily available. Now 3D is here with its early adopter issues and growing pains. I expect 4K will come to the consumer market and eventually will overcome its obstacles the same way every other innovation has. I just hope I don’t have to buy another Blu-ray player.

Comments

Posted by Grant Clauser on 04/21/11 at 07:55 AM
@Jeffery—TV? You’re thinking too small. Try a 100-inch screen and 4K projector for your game rig.

Posted by Jeffery Neves on 04/21/11 at 07:46 AM
FINALLY! Won’t 4K tv’s give us gamers a way to “max out” our video cards on a large scale screen?

Posted by Todd A on 04/20/11 at 11:19 AM
Is it needed? No. Only around 20% of US homes have BluRay players right now so current 720P, 1080i&p HDTV’s capabilities aren’t utilized by most right now. Couple that with the people who have HDTVs but DON’T have HD boxes, whether satellite or cable and the use for higher resolutions is non-existant.

Technology for technologie’s sake.

Posted by Grant Clauser on 04/20/11 at 08:51 AM
@RW—you make good points, but 10 years ago a lot of people said SD was good enough, but now no one wants to go back to that.
4K can mean a great deal with autostereoscopic and passive polarized 3D.
But don’t blame the manufacturers. Each consumer is in charge of his or her money, so “good enough” will be an individual’s choice.

Posted by RLW on 04/12/11 at 01:35 PM
4K TV? The answer to a question that no on asked. Le’s face it, folks are just now getting used to buying and using 1080P TVs. And this is because the prices have finally gotten down to sane levels.

The industry may push hard for the adoption of 4K TVs, but I think the consumers are gonna push back even harder and say “Enough is enough!” No oe is looking forward to replaceing all the gear they bought in the last 3 years simply because the mfgrs. need to make some extra bucks…

Doesn’t anyone subscribe to the notion of “good enough” anymore? IMHO, 1080P is plenty good enough for 99% of the tv-buying and viewing public. I predict that 4K (and 3D) are gonna be technologies that are ultimately rejected by the buying public.

-RW-

[Harry Caul]

A nuclear test?

No.

[Steedeel]

4k is coming, as is 48 frames per second. Next generation, but it is coming. Also do not rule out 3d still being used in 5-10 years time. There is a lot of potential for sporting events and concerts. It might be just another option but it will be watched by millions. The word 'fad' is used far too much. If enough people buy the new tvs there is no reason why 3d channels cannot be offered in thr future.

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

That's what the industry engineers say is the optimal size, Google it.

Then those "industry engineers" are just as clueless as you are.

Optimal Size for a TV can only be described for a specific case. X sized room, Y sized display, Z people you need to be able to see it, etc.

It is completely absurd to claim there is a universal optimal sized TV for a generic unknown purpose based purely on the resolution desired.

And I've worked with a lot of engineers, and just because one says something doesn't make it remotely true.

You are resorting to the "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy.

[Arissa4ever]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

4k is coming, as is 48 frames per second. Next generation, but it is coming. Also do not rule out 3d still being used in 5-10 years time. There is a lot of potential for sporting events and concerts. It might be just another option but it will be watched by millions. The word 'fad' is used far too much. If enough people buy the new tvs there is no reason why 3d channels cannot be offered in thr future.

Let It Come. I just won't adapt to it. And i'm sure many others like myself won't.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Arissa4ever

Let It Come. I just won't adapt to it. And i'm sure many others like myself won't.

Many? How about most.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

Then those "industry engineers" are just as clueless as you are.

Optimal Size for a TV can only be described for a specific case. X sized room, Y sized display, Z people you need to be able to see it, etc.

It is completely absurd to claim there is a universal optimal sized TV for a generic unknown purpose based purely on the resolution desired.

And I've worked with a lot of engineers, and just because one says something doesn't make it remotely true.

You are resorting to the "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy.

You are resorting to the "I know more then the experts with degrees" illogical fallacy.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

You are resorting to the "I know more then the experts with degrees" illogical fallacy.

He's right. And I think you mean "than" not "then".

Saying "the optimal size for a 4K TV is 25 feet" can't be right. It's only about twice the number of pixels in width and twice in height as a 1080p TV.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

He's right. And I think you mean "than" not "then".

Saying "the optimal size for a 4K TV is 25 feet" can't be right. It's only about twice the number of pixels in width and twice in height as a 1080p TV.

4096 x 3112 vs 1920×1080 An IMAX screen uses two 2k projectors. An average IMAX screen is 72 × 52.8 ft.

[Steedeel]

'Experts' said most people cannot see the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 32 inch tv. I have a 32 inch tv in my bedroom and i can see the difference. There goes that expression again! 'most people'. Must be the most overused word on this forum and others like it.
I still think another tv technology will come out that will mean people may want screens bigger than 50 inches. Maybe OLED will be it (although i think it is unlikely)

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

'Experts' said most people cannot see the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 32 inch tv. I have a 32 inch tv in my bedroom and i can see the difference. There goes that expression again! 'most people'. Must be the most overused word on this forum and others like it.
I still think another tv technology will come out that will mean people may want screens bigger than 50 inches. Maybe OLED will be it (although i think it is unlikely)

Most people can't tell the difference at a normal viewing distance, including you. Most likely some many could standing a foot away. But, people don't watch TV from foot away. I am farther away then that from my laptop. Just because you think you can see a difference doesn't mean anything either. Unless you have participated in a double blind study, you only think you can tell the difference. And not only that, you only think you can tell which is which IF you could actually see a difference.

Goes right back to that video I posted. People can't tell which is which most of the time. All that can didn't think the cost difference was worth it.

But since you aren't going to be in any blind tests. Check these out.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post9157454





Tell me which is which.



The results were really eye-opening: The majority of the people present felt that from a distance of 4 meters and beyond from the 130’ screen, the resolution difference between the two projectors was from minimal to insignificant! We even had 3-4 people who in fact thought that the 720 projector was the 1080 one! Some thought that the 1080 had better depth, but all agreed that if you have a very good 720 projector and you are not planning to sit very close to the screen or to project more than 130’, then the upgrade to 1080 is not necessary.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...340&highlight=



The results were very interesting and pretty much confirmed the results of our previous shoot-out: The differences in terms of perceived resolution by the two projectors when fed by 576i SD and 1080i HD film material were from non-apparent to very small!
This is even more interesting if you consider that the comparison for the 720 model was rather unfair, as it had not only to deinterlace the signal as the 1080 model, but to also downscale it to its native resolution!

[Steedeel]

Slick1ru2, please don't tell me what i can or cannot see with my own eyes. I CAN see the difference, if you cannot well that is not my problem.