Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 4K...  (Read 14512 times)
PierreVandevenne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 508


WWW
« Reply #100 on: February 05, 2012, 11:32:39 AM »
ReplyReply

BTW, talking about potentially disruptive technology, here's Corning's take 2 on the future of displays.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZkHpNnXLB0
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615


« Reply #101 on: February 05, 2012, 11:34:04 AM »
ReplyReply

So if anybody has Epson stock, it would be a good point to rethink this investment.
I dont think that displays will fully replace paper in a very long time. People will buy a good printed photography because it is permanent, something that can be passed on between generations, and it will "work" if the electricity fails. People probably wont pay those sums for a jpeg that is uploaded to the jukebox of their lcd image frame.

I am in the process of buying my first grand piano, and I never even considered a digital piano, no matter how good its audible qualities may be. I think that is similar to how I think people feel about paper vs display.

-h
Logged
PierreVandevenne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 508


WWW
« Reply #102 on: February 05, 2012, 12:18:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Could be for our generation. What about the next one. My 8 years old reaction when she saw the corning video was "great, we won't have to use pen, papers and books in the future!". AFAIC, I have two rooms full of books, wall to wall, and love the smell of fountain pen ink, etc... That doesn't seem to resonate with them.

And when we bought our piano, we took a large one for aesthetic reasons, but we took a digital one (Yamaha). The sound isn't perfect, I believe I could do better than random on a double blind test, but the main reason we avoided analog is that you have to maintain a strictly controlled and constant humidity level if you want to keep it in tune.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615


« Reply #103 on: February 05, 2012, 01:12:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Could be for our generation. What about the next one. My 8 years old reaction when she saw the corning video was "great, we won't have to use pen, papers and books in the future!". AFAIC, I have two rooms full of books, wall to wall, and love the smell of fountain pen ink, etc... That doesn't seem to resonate with them.
This son of a friend of mine is always annoyed when he is shown images on the computer. "Play it, play it". Evidently he thinks that all images on a computer are videos that can be started. That generation will start out with a very different set of expectations than mine.

-h
Logged
Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 412



WWW
« Reply #104 on: February 05, 2012, 05:02:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for that link Pierre !
Exactly what I mean. We are just at the beginning.
Computers with a graphical interface started 25 years ago.
Flat screen Display technology started 10-15 years ago.
Now itīs merging into TV screens and communication devices.
Give it another 10-15 years and the film will be reality.

Regards
Stefan
Logged

Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5081


« Reply #105 on: February 07, 2012, 09:11:06 AM »
ReplyReply

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP092.pdf
I interpret this report as 5% of the viewers would have some benefit of 4k at 35" diagonal and 2.7 meters viewing distance.
I do not see where you get that "5% can see better" number: a 95% confidence interval just acknowledges a 5% chance that the results are wrong in some unspecified way.

To me, the BBC testing has the same defect as the Sony white paper: judging the benefits of increased resolution in moving picture display by what the eye can distinguish in side-by-side comparisons of stationary images. It seems very clear to me that moving images have lower resolution needs; think how much worse a frame grab from video looks than watching the video it comes from: pixelation and screen-door effects are far less visible when then images are in motion and you only have 1/24th of a second or less to see each frame before the transit to the next frame adds "motion blur".

What we really need is an ABX test: people watching the same video first at one of 2K and 4K [A], then at the other , then shown a random one of the previous two [X] and asked to try to match X to A or B.

I am inclined to hypothesize that the most relevant experimental data we have so far moving picture resolution needs are from the previous unpublished experiments mentioned in the introduction to the BBC document (my underlining):
Quote
These were carried out with a television display, using television signals representing edges varying in step size, mean brightness and hue. The results indicated that a rise angle of around 1.5 to 3 minutes of arc was just perceptible.
That would make 1920x1080 HD good enough until viewing distance is less than about 1 to 2 picture heights, or less than 0.6 to 1.2 picture widths, or 0.5 to 1 times screen diagonal size.

Sure, people will look at computer screens this close for short periods of time, but how many will watch a movie at home from this close range?

Anyway, I am fairly sure than computer screens (and even iPad screens) will soon go beyond 1920x1080p, and there will be 4K samples around to download and do our own ABX testing with. Perhaps we should pause this theoretical debate until more experimental data arrive.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 09:13:31 AM by BJL » Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615


« Reply #106 on: February 07, 2012, 02:06:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I do not see where you get that "5% can see better" number
"Fig. 9. TV Standard required to provide adequate horizontal resolution for 2.7m viewing distance", 7th column, turqoise, page 6.
Quote
To me, the BBC testing has the same defect as the Sony white paper: judging the benefits of increased resolution in moving picture display by what the eye can distinguish in side-by-side comparisons of stationary images. It seems very clear to me that moving images have lower resolution needs; think how much worse a frame grab from video looks than watching the video it comes from: pixelation and screen-door effects are far less visible when then images are in motion and you only have 1/24th of a second or less to see each frame before the transit to the next frame adds "motion blur".
Moving images are a generalization of still images. A movie might contain sequences with very low motion (or exactly no motion). A movie format that is transparent in all cases would have to cover those cases as well. Do we need a format that is alway transparent? I don't know. How much is it worth to me to have a format that reduce the number of cases where visible artifacts appear? Enough to use Bluray even though I despise the user-friendliness and DRM of that format.

When it comes to aliasing, I would claim that video tends to be more revealing for spatial aliasing than still-images are. So you probably want to hold on to your OLPF and properly suppressed stop-bands in resizing operations when doing video.



-h
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 02:08:39 PM by hjulenissen » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5081


« Reply #107 on: February 07, 2012, 02:15:32 PM »
ReplyReply

"Fig. 9. TV Standard required to provide adequate horizontal resolution for 2.7m viewing distance", 7th column, turqoise, page 6.
I see now --- on the dubious assumption that people buy ever bigger TVs in order to view than from the same 8 foot (2.7m) distance, rather than to allow larger, more comfortable viewing environments that give a good, nearly square on view for more people by seating them further away from the screen.

The graphical presentation of the fraction of people who would benefit from 8K is a fine example of British subtlety.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 03:21:57 PM by BJL » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad