Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Tok

Also, I don't think many of the download/streaming brigade realize how much money the cable companies collect goes to paying for channels like AMC and others that produce a number of highly demanded shows. If the cable TV revenue stream goes away, the channels will have to make it up elsewhere if viewers want to continue seeing the quality produced shows.

There's too much of people wanting to get everything they demand and paying little or nothing for it. The race to the bottom continues...

People think the streaming services will magically just stay the same in the future. It will end up as expensive as current cable bills. What I don't want is a streaming service that offers all you can eat movies churned out in bit rate starved fake (in my opinion) 720p. Films are more than disposable entertainment for me.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Tok

Agreed. There's too much money on the table in the current model that they they to figure how to make up for if the model is going to change.

agree

The people that claim cutting the cord is easy are not sport fans and have little need for live event coverage. I still think that some of them are getting content they want through questionable means. I know some that have watched a few pirated streams of DirecTV Sunday NFL ticket when their team was in a big game. And I am sure a lot of those streaming/download proponents aren't buying TV episodes on iTunes or relying on Netflix exclusively.

I think it depends what we are talking about. If it is streamers, I agree, if not and it is all "cord cutters" then I disagree. I don't have cable, sat or fiber TV or anything else like that, just OTA. I watched part of yesterday's football game (NO against NE) on Fox (I am not a football fan but after we all watched a film together my BIL asked me to switch it to the game to see what was happening) and the day before I watched Hockey night in Canada on CBC (now I am a Hockey fan) with some friends. Yes there are more choices and games on sports speciality channels, but there is plenty of sports on normal network TV.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Tok

I don't see selling films in 4K as being a push for the general TV viewer to upgrade. That's probably blasphemy at this site, but we are an extremely small minority here compared to the average consumer. Sure we help drive the industry by adopting new tech, but the industry cannot rely on just us. So until things like the Superbowl and other major events are broadcast in 4K there won't be much to push casual viewers to buy 4K.

It's possible casual veiwers might not need much of a push to buy 4K displays. 4K displays could conceivably become the de facto standard if manufacturers decide that's what they're going to make. 3D compatility is a fairly standard feature today not because consumers were beating the bushes for it but because manufacters decided to include it with little or no price premium.

Granted, that won't be happening anytime soon (if ever). But the cost differences between manufacturing UHD and HD displays should shrink over time and if they get small enough offering both starts to make less and less sense.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by octagon

So basically any and all reviews (or impressions or first looks or whatnot) of a - just to pick a number - $20,000 display are useless if the person writing that review cannot afford a $20,000 display.

And why? Because the person writing the review might have some sort of axe to grind because he can't afford the display and since there's no way to be sure we have to dismiss any opinions offered by anybody who can't afford the display in question.

Seriously?

And we have to take this reasoning a step further and limit speculation about future technologies to people who can afford them now?

Seriously???



Please. It was presumptuous, condescending and completely out of place here whether it was intended that way or not. At best, unsolicited life coaching is the stuff of private messages and even then it would still be pretty freaking presumptuous.

I think another thing that is being overlooked in all these reviews or fans of the tech on certain sites is that many are equipment dealers or have ties to those networks. IOW, it's in their own best interest to get someone with the dough excited enough to plunk down $25k on a 4K unit.

I've never really seen a dealer bash a high-end product that returns high margins on a per unit basis.

I am not against the tech but the reality is that 4K is going to be a hard sell for most until it becomes just another bullet point on the feature list and that doesn't guarantee that 4K content is a grand slam.

Is 4K better? Yes... but it remains to be seen if more than a minority see it as a major increase over HD content to justify paying for it.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Tok

I think another thing that is being overlooked in all these reviews or fans of the tech on certain sites is that many are equipment dealers or have ties to those networks. IOW, it's in their own best interest to get someone with the dough excited enough to plunk down $25k on a 4K unit.

I've never really seen a dealer bash a high-end product that returns high margins on a per unit basis.

I am not against the tech but the reality is that 4K is going to be a hard sell for most until it becomes just another bullet point on the feature list and that doesn't guarantee that 4K content is a grand slam.

Is 4K better? Yes... but it remains to be seen if more than a minority see it as a major increase over HD content to justify paying for it.

But there are people out there that don't think HD sets justify the upgrade but they still upgraded simply because they needed a new tv. I don't see any difference with 4k. Eventually, years down the line 4k might be standard on all TV sets. More broadcasts, especially sport may be common then also. I am pretty sure my tv supplier in the UK has got 4k transmission on the radar.

Sorry, just noticed a couple of posts above, Octagon has said similar thing so I am just repeating.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

But there are people out there that don't think HD sets justify the upgrade but they still upgraded simply because they needed a new tv. I don't see any difference with 4k. Eventually, years down the line 4k might be standard on all TV sets. More broadcasts, especially sport may be common then also. I am pretty sure my tv supplier in the UK has got 4k transmission on the radar.

Sorry, just noticed a couple of posts above, Octagon has said similar thing so I am just repeating.

I think what pushed a lot of people to upgrade to HD was the flat panel wall mountable TV that was promised for years but finally delivered to the consumer market in the last decade at affordable prices.

4K sets are happening. The jury is out if consumers will spend on 4K content. Is it going to be enough of an upgrade to entice consumers to move to a 4K BD disc or buy into something like the server solution?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Tok

I think what pushed a lot of people to upgrade to HD was the flat panel wall mountable TV that was promised for years but finally delivered to the consumer market in the last decade at affordable prices.

4K sets are happening. The jury is out if consumers will spend on 4K content. Is it going to be enough of an upgrade to entice consumers to move to a 4K BD disc or buy into something like the server solution?

Even some streaming services are heading in the 4k direction. Although, IMO, it will not be taking full advantage of 4k sets.

I guess we should wait a few months and then comment again. My stance is that I can't wait for 4k. I hope it is a success. Bluray will continue to be a big part of my entertainment regardless. It is not exactly a hardship to watch a bluray after all.

[Wendell R. Breland]

OK, time to see if you can "see" UHD , posted a PDF here.

[cricepng]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

OK, time to see if you can "see" UHD , posted a PDF here.

So with your ability to see this at 19" for the 1920 and 11" for the 3840, this means you have to sit 42% closer to get the full picture from 4K. Considering this, a person who is sitting at an ideal place for acuity (perceiving detail) on a 1080p/2K display will need to figure is sitting 42% closer for 4K is really what they want to do.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by cricepng

So with your ability to see this at 19" for the 1920 and 11" for the 3840, this means you have to sit 42% closer to get the full picture from 4K. Considering this, a person who is sitting at an ideal place for acuity (perceiving detail) on a 1080p/2K display will need to figure is sitting 42% closer for 4K is really what they want to do.

Let's not forget that 4k is also intended for computer displays and will be a godsend for graphics artists, image editors etc.. Also, tablets, which people hold pretty close to their face. Basically, I believe you will see benefits even on the smallest screen. Finally, I don't know how big your living rooms are in the US, but in Uk most people I know don't sit 10 feet from their display. More like 7-8 feet.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by cricepng

So with your ability to see this at 19" for the 1920 and 11" for the 3840, this means you have to sit 42% closer to get the full picture from 4K. Considering this, a person who is sitting at an ideal place for acuity (perceiving detail) on a 1080p/2K display will need to figure is sitting 42% closer for 4K is really what they want to do.

The post stated the bars represent the ideal, in the real world the bars would be larger because the H resolution will be < 1920 or 3840 (Nyquist–Shannon sampling).

Our first row seats are 15' foot from the 106" screen, at that distance I can see a lot more than real world 1920 can provide and almost everything 3840 real world can provide. It will not bother me that I can not see every last pixel of 3840 at that distance.

BTW, that was 19' (feet) not 19" (inches)

[cricepng]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Your science is very off. Also I have no idea what “too much field of vision” means. Since I can’t see how that can be true unless someone has a serious eye disorder.

I assume you do not sit in the front row of the theater. Why not? I'll bet one of those reasons is that you cannot take in the full screen from that close and trying to do so for a full movie probably results in eye fatigue for the average person.

As to my science being off, visual acuity is based on commonly accepted scientific standards of one arcminute of perception given 20/20.

http://webvision.med.utah.edu/book/p.../#introduction

http://www.cis.rit.edu/jaf/publications/sig96_paper.pdf

and others.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by cricepng

I assume you do not sit in the front row of the theater. Why not? I'll bet one of those reasons is that you cannot take in the full screen from that close and trying to do so for a full movie probably results in eye fatigue for the average person.

As to my science being off, visual acuity is based on commonly accepted scientific standards of one arcminute of perception given 20/20.

http://webvision.med.utah.edu/book/p.../#introduction

http://www.cis.rit.edu/jaf/publications/sig96_paper.pdf

and others.

Just sit where your comfortable. No need for charts and Einstein's theory of tv and projector watching. Some of us might want to sit closer to the screen. It's more immersive that way. Why is it that most children watch their favourite shows close to the tv? It's the immersion, always has been always will be.
(Before we go there, I'm not talking tablet and smartphone viewing for youngsters, just tv)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by cricepng

I assume you do not sit in the front row of the theater. Why not?

because the seats are way too low and you need to look up all the time and your neck hurts after a while

I'll bet one of those reasons is that you cannot take in the full screen from that close and trying to do so for a full movie probably results in eye fatigue for the average person.

eye fatigue? you do realize that the real world is 360 degrees around you and what % of it you see does not change if there ius a screen in front of you or not I don't see how the screen size will play a role in that. If the screen is too small you see more of the walls and stuff and if the screen is bigger you see more of it and less of the other stuff that you are not interested in seeing when watching a film.


Even if you forget all that, let's put it all into perspective. Any seat in the theatre should be less then 1.5 screen width (unless it is an extremely bad theatre) so wehre you sit in a theatre (first row or last row) should be much less.

As to my science being off, visual acuity is based on commonly accepted scientific standards of one arcminute of perception given 20/20.

http://webvision.med.utah.edu/book/p.../#introduction

http://www.cis.rit.edu/jaf/publications/sig96_paper.pdf

and others.

I get what you are saying here and I followed the links(and checked them out). But none of that explains what you said earlier "1400-1500 horizontal lines of resolution is the best that humans can perceive" I want the scientific study that shows those numbers. Not a discussion of the eye chart and its uses.
An arcminute is an angle (1/60 of a degree) and an angle will depend on distance. so for example


if you look at the triangle made by the green point the base (line with two red points) is the same size as the triangle made by those two points and the red one just above the green one but the angle is very different because the red point is further.

And if you look at



even though the angle at A is the same the lengths of C1B1 is different from C2B2 and C3B3.


Also to quote from the first articles where he is talking about the Snell chart acuity and human vision

Target resolution thresholds are usually expressed as the smallest angular size at which subjects can discriminate the separation between critical elements

(right after the chart with Snell notation i.e. 20/20 and decimal notation)

You would want the pixel structure to be much smaller then what you would assume it is with 20/20 vision at a given distance. When watching a film you don't want to clearly see every pixel like a mosaic but to have it all melt together into a nice image.

PS let me guess you just googled and posted what first came up, the first one is tenuously relevant (at least it discusses visual acuity as needed for the discussion) but the second one is completely irrelevant (it is a discussion on lighting and its effects on acuity).

[cricepng]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

eye fatigue? you do realize that the real world is 360 degrees around you and what % of it you see does not change if there ius a screen in front of you or not I don't see how the screen size will play a role in that. If the screen is too small you see more of the walls and stuff and if the screen is bigger you see more of it and less of the other stuff that you are not interested in seeing when watching a film.


Even if you forget all that, let's put it all into perspective. Any seat in the theatre should be less then 1.5 screen width (unless it is an extremely bad theatre) so wehre you sit in a theatre (first row or last row) should be much less.


I get what you are saying here and I followed the links(and checked them out). But none of that explains what you said earlier "1400-1500 horizontal lines of resolution is the best that humans can perceive" I want the scientific study that shows those numbers. Not a discussion of the eye chart and its uses.
An arcminute is an angle (1/60 of a degree) and an angle will depend on distance. so for example

While our peripheral vision can be good, you need to consider peripheral vs. central vision. The former may be particularly influential in creating presence. With too wide a visual angle, the most meaningful material in a scene may lie in the peripheral region, requiring a great deal of eye-shifting to take it in; with too narrow an angle, peripheral mechanisms may be inadequately stimulated.

This is why when you are talking with a group of people, your naturally turn your eyes so that they are looking directly at the person who is talking or to who you are addressing, even though you can see them in your peripheral vision. Unfortunately, there is little research as to how much detail we fail to pick up at what points on our periphery, but it should be obvious that the larger the screen at a given distance will result in not being able to pick up all of the detail if that detail is too far from your central vision.

Several months ago I spent more than a full weekend (about 18 hours in all) researching and another 8 hours the next weekend creating a spreadsheet for colleagues here in Papua New Guinea who (most of them probably still have tube TVs because HDTVs are so outrageously expensive here) are curious about technology. I went into the venture with an open mind about 4K. I like technology and was very pleased with the improvement of BD over DVD. While I did read articles that were obviously bias against 4K, I also gave equal attention to articles that were extremely pro 4K. I tried (as much as is possible) to ignore the obvious irrationality present in those articles and look at the main reasons that could be behind 4K being great or not so great.

The resulting spreadsheet and accompanying paper were written as much as possible assuming no knowledge of technology or mathematics. I liked a formula from wikipedia about this, but didn't trust it, so I essentially recreated it from scratch. I had my wife (who was a math major) and another math genius check my figures. I came up with the same formula that was in the wikipedia article, this verifying its validity.

VD=DS/(√(((〖NHR/NVR〗^2 )+1)×) CVR×tan 1/60) if you use a calculator, make sure it is set to degrees)

Where:
VD: Viewing Distance
DS: Diagonal Size
NHR: Displays Native Horizontal Resolution in pixels
NVR: Displays Native Vertical Resolution in pixels
CVR: Vertical resolution of the video being displayed (in pixels)

It was another half day of playing with the formula so that it was looking for NVR instead of VD that I determined a maximum vertical resolution of around 1400-1500.

I have long since thrown out almost all of my research and calculations and will not be spending another weekend recreating it. If you are really like math, you can play with the equation to reduplicate my work.

The essential thing is that I tend to believe more empirical reasoning on whether something is valid than anecdotes and word of mouth. Because there are no true blind studies comparing 4K to 2K (and I doubt there will ever be any true blind studies), I choose to rely on other means of determining whether the difference is real. It was only after I did my own research that I determined 4K (while offering some improvement over BD) is not all that it is cracked up to be.

[ack_bak]

I have always been a technology adopter, so I would like to think that I will embrace the next best thing with open arms as long as:
- It offers a noticeable upgrade versus what we have now
- Is not too cost prohibitive

I am currently watching about 11-12' back from a 125" screen. I think I would benefit from 4/8K, but I would probably wait awhile for prices to drop and the technology to evolve. Anyone remember how poor the first standalone BD players were? I owned a Samsung BDP1000 and that thing was slow as molasses and finicky...

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by cricepng

While our peripheral vision can be good, you need to consider peripheral vs. central vision. The former may be particularly influential in creating presence. With too wide a visual angle, the most meaningful material in a scene may lie in the peripheral region, requiring a great deal of eye-shifting to take it in; with too narrow an angle, peripheral mechanisms may be inadequately stimulated.

Human vision is above 180 degrees and so obviously no flat screen no matter how big can come close to filling it unless you stick your face to it or we are talking a curved screen where your face fits in the curve.
Peripheral vision applies to the outer edge of that so I don't see where peripheral vision comes into play into this discussion.

More interesting will be to discuss binocular/stereoscopic vision (i.e. what you see with both eyes) that is 120 degrees.

or tunnel vision (a disorder where someone is seriously limited in what they can see) and is considered a form of blindness when you can't see more than 60 degrees.

If we use that 60 degrees (because it is easy), a very narrow part of your binocular/central vision you end up with an equilateral triangle and so all three sides are the same. in other words, the width of the screen and from one corner of the screen and you are the same so you would be closer than one screen widths away.

This is why when you are talking with a group of people, your naturally turn your eyes so that they are looking directly at the person who is talking or to who you are addressing, even though you can see them in your peripheral vision.

no, that is due to social mores. It implies that you are giving your attention to that person and listening. That is why when you don't (unless it is a situation where it makes sense not to look at them) the usual reaction will be "hey what are you looking at"

Unfortunately, there is little research as to how much detail we fail to pick up at what points on our periphery,

there is a bit, but I find it odd that you know exactly how many lines we can see but somehow you say the data does not exist.

but it should be obvious that the larger the screen at a given distance will result in not being able to pick up all of the detail if that detail is too far from your central vision.

maybe, but what does that have to do with anything? Yes maybe (for a large enough screen) it would make sense to have more pixels in the middle, but who cares if the extra detail at the edge is there or not. You also have the additional problem where you don't know where the person will focus.

Several months ago I spent more than a full weekend (about 18 hours in all) researching and another 8 hours the next weekend creating a spreadsheet for colleagues here in Papua New Guinea who (most of them probably still have tube TVs because HDTVs are so outrageously expensive here) are curious about technology. I went into the venture with an open mind about 4K. I like technology and was very pleased with the improvement of BD over DVD. While I did read articles that were obviously bias against 4K, I also gave equal attention to articles that were extremely pro 4K. I tried (as much as is possible) to ignore the obvious irrationality present in those articles and look at the main reasons that could be behind 4K being great or not so great.

The resulting spreadsheet and accompanying paper were written as much as possible assuming no knowledge of technology or mathematics. I liked a formula from wikipedia about this, but didn't trust it, so I essentially recreated it from scratch. I had my wife (who was a math major) and another math genius check my figures. I came up with the same formula that was in the wikipedia article, this verifying its validity.

VD=DS/(√(((〖NHR/NVR〗^2 )+1)×) CVR×tan 1/60) if you use a calculator, make sure it is set to degrees)

Where:
VD: Viewing Distance
DS: Diagonal Size
NHR: Displays Native Horizontal Resolution in pixels
NVR: Displays Native Vertical Resolution in pixels
CVR: Vertical resolution of the video being displayed (in pixels)

It was another half day of playing with the formula so that it was looking for NVR instead of VD that I determined a maximum vertical resolution of around 1400-1500.

I have long since thrown out almost all of my research and calculations and will not be spending another weekend recreating it. If you are really like math, you can play with the equation to reduplicate my work.

so basically if I understand you correctly those numbers did not come from scientific research but from a calculation based on some formula that you created but now you don't have that info so that anyone can see what assumptions you made or even if you made a mathematical error?

The essential thing is that I tend to believe more empirical reasoning on whether something is valid than anecdotes and word of mouth. Because there are no true blind studies comparing 4K to 2K (and I doubt there will ever be any true blind studies), I choose to rely on other means of determining whether the difference is real. It was only after I did my own research that I determined 4K (while offering some improvement over BD) is not all that it is cracked up to be.

If it offers "some improvements" then how is it "not all that it is cracked up to be"? what determines if improvement matters or not or how much? One can say if there is improvement or there is no improvement but anything else is just BS value judgement. If Bob goes to the store and he is owed a penny he might say "I want it, it is important to me", while frank says "who cares for a penny".

[Steedeel]

As much as it pains me to admit it, I think streaming/downloading is going to win out. Why do I say that, you may ask? Well, even hardened home theatre enthusiasts are turning to streaming. It is evident on this forum and this forum is a bluray forum. That pretty much tells the whole story. People who were committed to collecting are jumping ship. I am speaking, of course, in general terms. There are many collectors, like myself, who love limited edition packaging and special collectable cases, busts etc.. I fear we are a dying breed though. I wish it wasn't the case as I love bluray, but as usual in this world, cheap and convenient is winning out. Netflix, amazon etc.. Is winning the day IMO.
I feel this has even more serious ramifications however. The IMO, sad obsession with social media and such seems to be putting the legacy of movies at risk. Movies are becoming more and more, disposable entertainment. Something that is not cherished, simply watched and then discarded. The younger generation watch them on smartphones, tablets and probably smartwatches soon enough. Already, the immersiveness of film is lost to those people. After all, a movie like Avatar is not going to be the same experience as it would be on a large tv or home cinema. If the younger people of this world don't see movies as a big deal, why bother with big tv. Maybe a smartphone or even a minuscule smartwatch will suffice for all their needs. Fast forward ten years from now and one can only imagine the poor state of affairs true movie lovers find themselves in. Dwindling TV set availability, and even a nice big pc monitor being hard to find. After all, PC sales are dwindling at an alarming rate.
The final nail in the coffin could be the current trend of tv shows being more popular than movies. We may see less and less movies made in the future.
I believe streaming and downloading represents the start of this decline and I can only hope that people will see sense and continue supporting the quality of Blu-ray Disc. I think I am fighting a losing battle though.

[hazelwu]

I'll keep buying until new releases become streaming only.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

As much as it pains me to admit it, I think streaming/downloading is going to win out. Why do I say that, you may ask? Well, even hardened home theatre enthusiasts are turning to streaming. It is evident on this forum and this forum is a bluray forum. That pretty much tells the whole story. People who were committed to collecting are jumping ship. I am speaking, of course, in general terms. There are many collectors, like myself, who love limited edition packaging and special collectable cases, busts etc.. I fear we are a dying breed though. I wish it wasn't the case as I love bluray, but as usual in this world, cheap and convenient is winning out. Netflix, amazon etc.. Is winning the day IMO.
I feel this has even more serious ramifications however. The IMO, sad obsession with social media and such seems to be putting the legacy of movies at risk. Movies are becoming more and more, disposable entertainment. Something that is not cherished, simply watched and then discarded. The younger generation watch them on smartphones, tablets and probably smartwatches soon enough. Already, the immersiveness of film is lost to those people. After all, a movie like Avatar is not going to be the same experience as it would be on a large tv or home cinema. If the younger people of this world don't see movies as a big deal, why bother with big tv. Maybe a smartphone or even a minuscule smartwatch will suffice for all their needs. Fast forward ten years from now and one can only imagine the poor state of affairs true movie lovers find themselves in. Dwindling TV set availability, and even a nice big pc monitor being hard to find. After all, PC sales are dwindling at an alarming rate.
The final nail in the coffin could be the current trend of tv shows being more popular than movies. We may see less and less movies made in the future.
I believe streaming and downloading represents the start of this decline and I can only hope that people will see sense and continue supporting the quality of Blu-ray Disc. I think I am fighting a losing battle though.

Chill Steedeel....

CDs are supposedly dead but you can still buy them.... same with a lot of supposedly other dead media formats.

Streaming is replacing rental and cable on demand... streaming might be bigger at some point but the reality is that the studios won't want to walk away from the profits that come from the hard media market.

Remember those combo packs we buy with Digital Copy are probably being used to pump up those services numbers also. Less than 10% of the titles I came with digital copies and I have redeemed most of them. The reality the only ones that have gotten used were the kid friendly titles. So I redeemed them, but I have never out right purchased a film from Vudu or iTunes.

Streaming isn't going away but I don't think we have to worry about BD fading anytime soon.