Skipping 4K and waiting for 8K?

[Lee A Stewart]

A new (to me) chart:

[Lee A Stewart]

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by Brian81

using an hd display but figuring distance from screen in angle i typically sit and applying it to my own visual acuity and calculating it, i determined i could tell the difference between 2K and 4K, but not between 4K and 8K in motion.

go into a paint program, make the background white, get pitch black brush, turn of anti-aliasing, paint lines and arcs all over and look

then do pitch black thin line with no anti-aliasing animation and watch

guarantee you will see aliasing all over the place even with 4k even with the still much less the mess it will look in motion, need at least 8k with reasonable viewing distances to begin to get rid of that, and until you get rid of that without having to do anything

or just look out the window and then at the screen with one eye, 4k begins to get there, but definitely not there at a reasonable viewing distance

look at a 19" print from a high MP camera and you'll see so much more fine detail than from same pic viewed on a 4k screen of any size from any distance (granted the eye does perceive resolution a bit differently from emissive vs. reflective display tech)

anyway it will be quite a while before 8k is mainstream, 4k tv broadcasts are only just barely getting going, but it will eventually arrive

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

That's completely false comparison comparing real life to watching something on a screen. Real life isn't on viewed a 65" screen, is it?

The fact to see any yield from 4K you have to be under 8ft from a 65" screen, and optimal being 6ft 5 to 4ft 5, you are already getting into ridiculous viewing distances.

those are understated, but even if not, those are anything but ridiculous viewing distances! well within THX recommened distances. Who wants to view a movie or show looking like some little postage stamp that barely takes up your field of view? you want it grand and towering, immersive, more like at a movie theater

how far back do people sit from computer monitors? they sit close. why? because it's not ridiculous

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Never mind most film's don't have 8K worth of information.

currently sure, barely any
but tomorrow is not today, we are not talking today or in two years

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

anyway it will be quite a while before 8k is mainstream, 4k tv broadcasts are only just barely getting going, but it will eventually arrive

If you are referring to ATSC 3.0 - don't hold your breath. There will be extremely little if any 4K broadcasts OTA. Maybe once a year for the Super Bowl. The preferred UHD format they will use is 1080P HDR.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

how far back do people sit from computer monitors? they sit close. why? because it's not ridiculous

People sit close to their PC monitor because they need to read text. If playing games or watching videos they have a tendency to lean back.

[Brian81]

10' from 135" is good for me

[Lee A Stewart]

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

If you are referring to ATSC 3.0 - don't hold your breath. There will be extremely little if any 4K broadcasts OTA. Maybe once a year for the Super Bowl. The preferred UHD format they will use is 1080P HDR.

there have been also a few things on cable, not much yet
eventually it will take over, probably more slowly than HD did (which itself was limited as first, but there were some very interesting things going on in the early days of HD, for instance if you watched the digital HD OTA NBC channel they showed you a totally different broadcast than what they put on SD OTA/SD cable! Not only was the OTA HD NBC channel showing vastly better image quality it had way commercials and way, way less blabbing and showed a lot more action and events, but it did still have the main host intros for the night and all the traditional music each time they went to break stuff and key back stories and interviews, I guess they figured so few were getting the OTA HD at that point and since it wasn't even getting tracked by Nielson I don't think, they were OK with rewarding early adopters with far less commercials and giving a more serious old ABC-like presentation)

one problem is that cable doesn't have much bandwidth for all 4k, heck they are already compressing HD to the brim these days (and that brings up another point, when HD first came out the picture quality on average was much better than today, OTA or on cable, much less hyper compressed) so that may delay things quite a bit, but maybe just putting a limited number of 4k channels they can manage

OTA can, but they do seem to be more and more almost treating OTA like a pest and trying to pretend it doesn't exist (but with people cutting cable more and more they may be wise to act like they are broadcast networks again)

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

lack of 24p is bad
for both future and past stuff, so all movies need to be 3:2 pull down on that 8k set?

[Gac-Man]

New movies filmed digitally only go up to 2k. How would they even look beyond 4k?

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

lack of 24p is bad
for both future and past stuff, so all movies need to be 3:2 pull down on that 8k set?

Those are the specs for NHK's Super Hi Vision. I would have to look up the US specs for UHD2 (8K) to see if they are different.



From the LG 8K OLED 88" Z9 Operating Manual. I am not familiar with 8K @ 30 Hz. No idea what content would have that.

[KcMsterpce]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Those are the specs for NHK's Super Hi Vision. I would have to look up the US specs for UHD2 (8K) to see if they are different.



From the LG 8K OLED 88" Z9 Operating Manual. I am not familiar with 8K @ 30 Hz. No idea what content would have that.

I suspect 8k 30Hz is for console games. The standard target fps for gaming consoles is 30fps.

Also, the C9 has HDMI 2.1 support, which is suspected to be included in the newest console systems, allowing for the potential to theoretically play some games at 8k/30... maybe. lol

[Lee A Stewart]

The US specs are much different than NHK's:



UHD-1 = 4K
UHD-2 = 8K



https://cdn.kramerav.com/web/downloa...aging-wp-1.pdf

[Fjodor2000]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

You don't understand.

[Chart showing recommended viewing distances]

No you don't understand. I'm well aware of those charts. But I'm questioning them.

Because the human eye is able to perceive far more pixels than 4K/8K has. The eye does not have "pixels", but attempts at calculating a megapixel equivalent have been made, see e.g. this article:
https://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

The calculation in that article arrived at an estimate of 567 megapixels. That's quite a lot more than the 8.3 megapixels of 4K resolution. So the human eye should certainly be able to perceive and appreciate a difference between 4K and 8K at screen sizes and viewing distances commonly used.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Fjodor2000

No you don't understand. I'm well aware of those charts. But I'm questioning them.

Because the human eye is able to perceive far more pixels than 4K/8K has. The eye does not have "pixels", but attempts at calculating a megapixel equivalent have been made, see e.g. this article:
https://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

The calculation in that article arrived at an estimate of 567 megapixels. That's quite a lot more than the 8.3 megapixels of 4K resolution. So the human eye should certainly be able to perceive and appreciate a difference between 4K and 8K at screen sizes and viewing distances commonly used.

The goal is to have an immersive experience while watching content. You want to be drawn into what is happening in front of you be it a TV display or a projected image. Foremost is your field of view. You want the images to cover as much of your field of view without causing you to constantly turn your head left and right to see what's going on. That will lessen your experience. At the same time, sitting too far back narrows your FOV and the immersive experience diminishes. You have a different FOV sitting 5 feet from a 65" TV than you do sitting 9 feet.

EXAMPLE: Click to size images to their original size



This is what you see sitting 5 feet back from a 65" TV



This is what you see sitting 9 feet back from a 65" TV

Because we use pixels to create our images they can be measured two ways: total pixels in an image: 2K, 4K, 8K. We can also measure them in pixels per inch: PPI. This is a measurement using the H axis and can tell us the density of the image.

50" 8K TV = 176.23 PPI

50" 4K TV = 88.12 PPI

50" HDTV = 44.06 PPI

24" HDTV = 91.79 PPI. That's a denser image than a 50" 4K TV. The difference of course is the size of the images. As we increase the size of our images the PPI drops. We would have to sit much closer - literally less than a foot away to see not only all the detail in the images but also to fill our FOV. As we lean away from the display the finer details will begin to disappear. Finer details are harder to create. We need higher bandwidth. With a living room sized TV (50") the further we sit back, the smaller the image gets and the less fine detail we see in the images

We can't sit too close because we don't want to see the pixel structure nor do we want to increase our FOV to the point of watching a tennis game instead of a movie.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Gac-Man

New movies filmed digitally only go up to 2k. How would they even look beyond 4k?

Not true. Today's Digital Cinema cameras record at 3.5K, 4K, 5K, 6K, 6.5K and 8K

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

The goal is to have an immersive experience while watching content. You want to be drawn into what is happening in front of you be it a TV display or a projected image. Foremost is your field of view. You want the images to cover as much of your field of view without causing you to constantly turn your head left and right to see what's going on. That will lessen your experience. At the same time, sitting too far back narrows your FOV and the immersive experience diminishes. You have a different FOV sitting 5 feet from a 65" TV than you do sitting 9 feet.

EXAMPLE: Click to size images to their original size



This is what you see sitting 5 feet back from a 65" TV



This is what you see sitting 9 feet back from a 65" TV

Because we use pixels to create our images they can be measured two ways: total pixels in an image: 2K, 4K, 8K. We can also measure them in pixels per inch: PPI. This is a measurement using the H axis and can tell us the density of the image.

50" 8K TV = 176.23 PPI

50" 4K TV = 88.12 PPI

50" HDTV = 44.06 PPI

24" HDTV = 91.79 PPI. That's a denser image than a 50" 4K TV. The difference of course is the size of the images. As we increase the size of our images the PPI drops. We would have to sit much closer - literally less than a foot away to see not only all the detail in the images but also to fill our FOV. As we lean away from the display the finer details will begin to disappear. Finer details are harder to create. We need higher bandwidth. With a living room sized TV (50") the further we sit back, the smaller the image gets and the less fine detail we see in the images

We can't sit too close because we don't want to see the pixel structure nor do we want to increase our FOV to the point of watching a tennis game instead of a movie.

Another (I think inadvertent) argument why 8K is not relevant.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Another (I think inadvertent) argument why 8K is not relevant.

The human eye can see from 3 miles away. 4K is 8 megapixels. The human eye according to science can see 567 mega pixel (for its focus point). To explain things in simplistic terms like resolution is to not understand how this information is gathered to aid the human brain. Practice makes perfect when it comes to you seeing more 8K vs 4K and being able to see the difference.

Lee's charts/pictures are so simplified, I would like to see a true peer reviewed study that explains how it differs from how multiple scientists have come to very different conclusions to what has been posted.

Though honestly thinking there is no discernable difference between HD and 4K at any reasonable distance below 10 feet is so laughable, one has to start there.

8K is not overkill especially for properly transferred sources like a 70 mm/IMAX negative or for future digital answers that are going to best the Alexis 65 if it hasn't happened already.

P.S. Oops I should have read a few posts higher, guess it has been covered!

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Not true. Today's Digital Cinema cameras record at 3.5K, 4K, 5K, 6K, 6.5K and 8K

And while less common, they are finished at 4K. Finished at 8K is around the corner if it hasn't happened yet.

Apparently all the BS about there never is going to be a bluray disc was started by the 8K association which is headed by Samsung who dropped out of the physical media race.

Sony filed trademark for 8K in 2017. The bluray disc association is the one that makes the call, not some group put together to call themselves "official" and "certified".

If anyone is going to make an 8K physical standard it is going to be Sony, and they have a history of being in front (even if not successful) when it comes to saying Joe Public be damned. With the PS5 coming out soon with full 4K physical support and 8K digital, I feel firmly confident that 8K bluray will happen eventually. Sony is too stubborn and that is what I have always liked about them. My favorite brand by far!

Now the only thing that be more fun than seeing them succeed will be pointing out each and every member that parroted what the 8K association stated as "official" instead of letting the market decide. Much like the killing of 3D, it isn't based on any real competition chance, it is based on sabotage. This kind of thinking is how monopolies are formed.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by slimjean

The human eye can see from 3 miles away. 4K is 8 megapixels. The human eye according to science can see 567 mega pixel (for its focus point). To explain things in simplistic terms like resolution is to not understand how this information is gathered to aid the human brain. Practice makes perfect when it comes to you seeing more 8K vs 4K and being able to see the difference.

Lee's charts/pictures are so simplified, I would like to see a true peer reviewed study that explains how it differs from how multiple scientists have come to very different conclusions to what has been posted.

Though honestly thinking there is no discernable difference between HD and 4K at any reasonable distance below 10 feet is so laughable, one has to start there.

8K is not overkill especially for properly transferred sources like a 70 mm/IMAX negative or for future digital answers that are going to best the Alexis 65 if it hasn't happened already.

P.S. Oops I should have read a few posts higher, guess it has been covered!

Ah fair enough them