|reply to zod5000 |
Re: I'm not convinced
That, and the amount of compression already used on those crappy HD channels for cable makes them even worse. I think the big thing with 4K is getting it more commonplace. You can already get 4K displays, they are just really expensive, and you do not really see a difference except at a close distance, on a much larger size screen than what you would need. I think 70" is a bit of an exaggeration, since its more about pixel density. 1080p on a 55in screen looks kind of crappy compared to 1080p on a 42in screen from the same distance. Once we hit 300 pixles per square inch, the eye can only tell the difference by feel and smoothness, and there can be no more detail shown to the eye. a 55" display, with a 4K resolution has the same pixel density as a 27.5in display with a 1080x1920 resolution. The better the pixel density, the better the picture. Most computer screens currently look better than TVs because they have a much higher pixel density. I refuse to buy a large 1920x1080 TV, because the content looks crappier the larger you go, because the pixels have to get bigger or more spread out. the higher the PPI, the better it looks.
Except most people have their TV's on one side of the living room and the couches/chairs on the other.
Barring that yes on a 55" TV you can see pixel's if you sit too close it (ie 2 or 3 ft). Once you get to 6ft away (which I would guess is the average length of a living room. maybe even on the short side) you don't really notice it.
So UHD will only benefit those with really large TV's, and those who sit really close to their TV's.
Computer monitors make more sense because people sit much closer to them.
I still stand by my argument that for most consumers, you will need a rather large TV to see a significant quality improvement over 1080p.
My 42" viewed from about 5.5 ft only is barely noticeable between 720p and 1080p. However if you view it from 2ft away you can really notice it. How many people sit 2ft in front of their TV sets?
Stop spreading MYTH of 4K being useless on small TV's
compression artifacts are bigger than a pixel.
Very obviously, 4K compression artifacts at 20Mbps look much smaller and fainter than 1080p compression artifacts at 5Mbps.
There are people who complain that Netflix and iTunes don't look as good as Blu-Ray. (Some look really close: e.g. "Hugo" on Netflix in SuperHD; that is an amazing Netflix compress, better than some of the worst Blu-Rays) But as a rule of thumb, 1080p at low bitrates won't look as good as 4K at higher bitrates -- even 10 feet away from a 50 inch TV. because of compression artifacts
4K is going to look better even on smaller TV's and farther view distances, because broadcasters will be forced to use higher bitrates for 4K to make it look better than 1080p.
Even downconverted 4K->1080p looks better than 1080p filmed natively. There's an inherent amount of pixel blur for cameras recording at native resolution (e.g. bayer pattern issues / demosiacing).
So, we should stop saying 4K is useless to 100% of people at screen sizes less than 60 inches. The story is more complex than that.
Yes, yes, some people won't notice a difference...
But enough people will do, especially during the day 4K costs only fifty dollars more than 1080p -- then it's definitely worth it, as long as other image metrics don't degrade (e.g. contrast, etc).
Yes, yes, we should keep streaming only to higher bitrate 1080p, but content makers aren't likely to do that, without the dangling carrot of 4K. Some will treat 4K simply as a glorified image-quality-enhanced 1080p -- viewed at normal distances that 1080p is today viewed at -- because there's a lot of unnecessarily-quality-degraded 1080p out. The "4Kness" will preserve the 1080p clarity better.
Small 4K TV's also make excellent computer monitors, some people are actually using some of the cheaper 4K TV's as computer monitors.
Now stop spreading MYTH of 4K being useless on small TV's
Cheap 4K is coming anyway. Prices will fall quickly in the next few years. The 39" chinese 4K TV costs only $600 (Skyworth 39E780U) and the 50" SEIKI 4K TV costs only $1300. Google them.
It's a good way to force content makers to do higher bitrates (regardless of what resolution is being transmitted).
If 4k was useless then the recent craze on hd and retina for smartphones, tablets and laptops wouldn't exist... And it is noticeable.
|reply to mdrejhon |
High resolution displays are awesome.
ie - retina macbook pro.
4k is going to be incredible.
I bet if Apple puts out a retina screen for the iMac it will be 4K.
4k; 3840 x 2160
15" retina; 2880 x 1800
I would say that would probably work. Would need dual GPUs though for any reasonable performance.
"If something about the human body disgusts you, complain to the manufacturer" - Lenny Bruce
What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.