« on: October 12, 2014, 04:57:37 PM »
For any footage with minimal movement between frames, 4k at 25p/30p will yield benefits over 1080p at the same frame rate. But slow moving footage such as those samples used to sell 4k TV's is not the norm. Certainly parts of some nature documentaries could fit the bill, but not all. Almost all TV shows and films move much faster as the creators want the content to capture your attention, not the technology.These higher res displays look radically better!I fully agree - for stills, these displays with that DPI/PPI and size are getting to the point where there's no need for further improvement. It's just like a scaled up retina display. No longer are you tied to seeing pixelated images. Just everything appearing like a perfect print (if the viewing angles, colour gamut and all that are good enough).
Man that new Dell sounds amazing! Maybe I got the UP2414Q too soon!
I mean think about it, these displays are like getting INSTANT, FREE 8MP and 14MP 24" and 27" prints!
It looks so much better than regular HD monitors, that it is not even funny. My PA241W HD monitor looks so fuzzy now and pixellated it's got to go!
And some of the 4k video samples I've seen are pretty amazing. It's so much more like you are really there looking at something.
However, I disagree about the need for 4k video (and beyond) with current frame rates. Video is usually shot with a 180' shutter - in other words 1/50th for PAL (25fps) or 1/60th for NTSC (30fps). Each frame of 4k footage is approx 8MP. How many images of moving scenes with a 1/50th shutter speed would resolve much more than 2MP? The background is typically not moving too much but out of focus, and the foreground will have motion blur. 4k (8MP) and 8k (32/33MP) are great - if the temporal resolution is there to match the spatial resolution. NHK have been playing about with 8k at 120fps (allowing for a natural looking 1/250th shutter), and that should be great.
Most 4k footage you see in showrooms uses a very clever trick - it all has minimal movement between frames - either a time-lapse with a fixed camera position, slow motion, or footage of a waterfall or some other scene which doesn't really move. In other words, with the slow frame rate they've cheated and found a way around the whole unnatural shutter speed while maximising resolution. However, watch any real life 4k footage and it'll fall apart. I remember when 1080p was a new thing - they were advertising it on standard def TV, and the footage always looked amazing. However, everything was always in slow motion to make the SD feed appear sharper.
For stills, these displays make perfect sense right now.
I can't agree, I've been looking at lots of 4k samples and they tend to look a lot better to me. Maybe for a 100% non-stop action movie it's less of a big detail, but for other stuff and certainly for nature videos, wow.
My point is merely that for the extra spatial resolution of 4k to be noticeable over 1080p for typical TV/movie footage (not slow motion/time lapses/tripod based static samples you see in TV showrooms, or, at a pinch, slow moving nature documentaries), the temporal resolution will have to increase too.
4k and beyond no doubt is the future for video. It has big benefits for big screens. But lets not have just one aspect of resolution increased with the other left in the dust. Lets keep some balance between spatial and temporal resolution.