June 25, 2018, 03:48:05 PM

Poll

To 4K or not to 4K?

Yes, I need 4K video for what I do (broadcast, cinema, documentaries etc)
18 (12.2%)
Yes, I want to dabble in 4K now that I have the means to do so.
16 (10.8%)
Yes, but only to watch movies and TV in 4K.
14 (9.5%)
Waiting to see what happens with 4K before I decide.
23 (15.5%)
No, 4K-off!
77 (52%)

Total Members Voted: 148

Voting closed: May 11, 2015, 11:53:04 AM

Author Topic: Do you care about 4K?  (Read 61047 times)

9VIII

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1836
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #120 on: April 26, 2015, 08:13:00 PM »
I find all this talk about 4k television pretty amusing.
Most videos will never be viewed on a television. In case you haven't noticed, most videos are seen on smart phones or tablets. If you are worrying about how your videos will look on a 60 inch television your wasting your time unless you are shooting movies for theatrical or DVD release, which applies only to Sanj and maybe a couple of others here.
I have a 5 inch screen on my phone... I'm thinking the benefits of 4k will be lost by watching it on my phone.
If any human being can see differences between 1080P and 4K, on the same screen of a cell phone, so he is the Superman with his Crypton vision. :P

4K should still be discernible on a 5" screen from 1 foot away. I could actually use 8K at 6" from my face if I wanted to (I can focus as close as 3"), but I have to admit 8K is probably outside the realm of practical usefulness on a cell phone, and it sounds like most people can't focus as close as 6" anyway.

4K should be the high end standard on large phones and "HD" on smaller or cheaper devices.
Tablets can be 8K.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #120 on: April 26, 2015, 08:13:00 PM »

LOALTD

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • My website
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #121 on: May 15, 2015, 03:44:45 PM »
Who needs 4k?  I still mistake 1080p screens for reality, all the time!  Boy, if I had a nickle for every time I bumped into a 1080p video scree, mistaking it for a window!


In all seriousness though, 4k is the future.  Weather you care about it or not.


Some folks are just thinking too small!  My first HDTV was a 27" 4:3 tube 1080i set.  It cost me $800.


If you told me there would be 1080p tablets for $200 that were faster than my Playstation 2 in about 7-8 years, I would've called you insane! Cellphones that could shoot 4k?  I wouldn't even...


It's not too crazy to consider people having wallpaper-like screens in the future.  There are already paper-thin OLED prototypes.  Even 4k would start to look a bit rough at sizes that large, bring on 8k!


And for "content creators" (hate that term, but I guess I just used it) 4k is great for added flexibility in post!  It also looks extra-crispy when downscaled to 1080p


The real barrier to 4k adoption right now is not really cameras or screens, it's more the infrastructure. How do you GET the content to the screen?


Media/Disk space: is unsettled
Bandwidth: is slow
Codecs: not much hardware-based H.265 support right now, which will bring even the highest of end computers to their knees


Great thread, btw!

49616E

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 18
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #122 on: May 15, 2015, 05:32:49 PM »
I find all this talk about 4k television pretty amusing.
Most videos will never be viewed on a television. In case you haven't noticed, most videos are seen on smart phones or tablets. If you are worrying about how your videos will look on a 60 inch television your wasting your time unless you are shooting movies for theatrical or DVD release, which applies only to Sanj and maybe a couple of others here.
I have a 5 inch screen on my phone... I'm thinking the benefits of 4k will be lost by watching it on my phone.
If any human being can see differences between 1080P and 4K, on the same screen of a cell phone, so he is the Superman with his Crypton vision. :P

4K should still be discernible on a 5" screen from 1 foot away. I could actually use 8K at 6" from my face if I wanted to (I can focus as close as 3"), but I have to admit 8K is probably outside the realm of practical usefulness on a cell phone, and it sounds like most people can't focus as close as 6" anyway.

4K should be the high end standard on large phones and "HD" on smaller or cheaper devices.
Tablets can be 8K.

While I can't disagree with what you are interpreting as discernible, I would like to point out that it is not really physically possible to out resolve a 5" 4k screen with the human eye at 1 foot away.

Here is some of the math behind it, I can provide more details if requested:

Let's give the gracious benefit of assuming 20/15 vision here too. That would mean the degrees of acuity this person would have is .0125 degrees. Next the 5" screen would have dimensions of 4.35788" by 2.45131". This would result in a pixel pitch of .001134865 inches per pixel. Viewing this screen at the closest point of 12" while having .0125 degrees of acuity would result in being able to resolve .00261799 inches of detail (using trig). Notice that .00261766" is roughly twice that of the .001134865" of the screen. Remember this is 10/15 vision, which is not really all that common in the population.

Now if you personally did have 20/15 vision, and for some reason really enjoyed watching a 5" display at let's say 5.2" away from the screen, you would actually be able to resolve the detail as you claim. While if you do that, more power to you if you like it. However, I would like to note, under most normal viewing conditions, this would require people to move their eye around in order to actually see what is happening with the Fovea of their eye, which is responsible for detailed vision. This activity is usually considered uncomfortable.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2015, 05:35:07 PM by 49616E »

SwnSng

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 135
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #123 on: May 15, 2015, 05:49:06 PM »
I find all this talk about 4k television pretty amusing.
Most videos will never be viewed on a television. In case you haven't noticed, most videos are seen on smart phones or tablets. If you are worrying about how your videos will look on a 60 inch television your wasting your time unless you are shooting movies for theatrical or DVD release, which applies only to Sanj and maybe a couple of others here.
I have a 5 inch screen on my phone... I'm thinking the benefits of 4k will be lost by watching it on my phone.
If any human being can see differences between 1080P and 4K, on the same screen of a cell phone, so he is the Superman with his Crypton vision. :P

4K should still be discernible on a 5" screen from 1 foot away. I could actually use 8K at 6" from my face if I wanted to (I can focus as close as 3"), but I have to admit 8K is probably outside the realm of practical usefulness on a cell phone, and it sounds like most people can't focus as close as 6" anyway.

4K should be the high end standard on large phones and "HD" on smaller or cheaper devices.
Tablets can be 8K.

While I can't disagree with what you are interpreting as discernible, I would like to point out that it is not really physically possible to out resolve a 5" 4k screen with the human eye at 1 foot away.

Here is some of the math behind it, I can provide more details if requested:

Let's give the gracious benefit of assuming 20/15 vision here too. That would mean the degrees of acuity this person would have is .0125 degrees. Next the 5" screen would have dimensions of 4.35788" by 2.45131". This would result in a pixel pitch of .001134865 inches per pixel. Viewing this screen at the closest point of 12" while having .0125 degrees of acuity would result in being able to resolve .00261799 inches of detail (using trig). Notice that .00261766" is roughly twice that of the .001134865" of the screen. Remember this is 10/15 vision, which is not really all that common in the population.

Now if you personally did have 20/15 vision, and for some reason really enjoyed watching a 5" display at let's say 5.2" away from the screen, you would actually be able to resolve the detail as you claim. While if you do that, more power to you if you like it. However, I would like to note, under most normal viewing conditions, this would require people to move their eye around in order to actually see what is happening with the Fovea of their eye, which is responsible for detailed vision. This activity is usually considered uncomfortable.

Well if VR becomes mainstream on how we view images/data etc...I believe the holy grail in that space is 16k!
Canon 5D Mark III - Canon 11-24mm F4/L | 50mm 1.4 | 85mm 1.2L | 100mm 2.8L Macro | 70-200mm 2.8L Mark II

49616E

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 18
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #124 on: May 15, 2015, 07:27:56 PM »
I just wanted to note that I read one of 9VIII's posts in a different thread and they pointed out the eye's ability to identify pixel structure on shapes rather than textures. Which is a valid point. So under that premise, and assuming the average person has a angular cone cell size of 31.5 arc seconds with corrected or gifted vision (ends up being 20/10.5 vision) would be able to then resolve the 5" 4k screen at about 7.5" inches. Which I would like to point out is still fairly different than 12".

I did want to say thanks to 9VIII for bringing that point to my attention though.

It is also worth understanding that some peoples cone cell density can be better or worse than the 31.5 arc second assumption. In order for the 12" view distance to work, someone would need an angular cone cell size of 19.5 arc seconds (considering both optics and cone density on the Fovea). Which I am not sure has been observed.

Not trying to pick on the 12" example specifically, just going through examples and providing different scales.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2015, 07:32:42 PM by 49616E »

9VIII

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1836
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #125 on: May 16, 2015, 03:10:45 AM »
49616E, thanks for noticing.

I just did a slightly more detailed post on the subject so I may as well get as much out of it as I can and post the relevant info here as well.


You need to differentiate between the finest high frequency detail that a person can see and the finest low frequency detail.
The issue is that our eyes are designed to work by moving our receptors across the image, not holding steady.
Here, I'll quote the opening sentences of chapter 29 from "Principles of Neural Science: Fifth Edition" (Yes, Neuro used this book as a source in one of his posts once, I took him up on it, the book agreed with me; but more importantly it's chock-full of information relevant to the "4K Debate".)

Quote
VISION REQUIRES EYE MOVEMENTS. Small eye movements are essential for maintaining the contrast of objects that we are examining. Without these movements the perception of an object rapidly fades to a field of gray, a phenomenon correlated with the decreased response of neurons in area V1 (see chapter 25).

Previous chapters also detail how the receptor cells are excited most by movement.
Given that a cell basically requires that stimulus pass over it, and not linger on it, it follows that when people measure visual acuity using a consistent grid of lines the point at which one cell is going to pass over multiple lines in is going to come much sooner than the point at which it achieves its maximum potential for detecting detail.
I didn't just read this in a book, if you test your own two eyes for high contrast low frequency details, you will find that you can see fine adjustments in shape from quite a distance. My usual test is to draw diagonal lines in an old paint program that does not apply any smoothing, leaving lines nice and jagged ("Jaggies" are the stair stepping effect seen when an angle is drawn on a digital display). As long as the frequency of the jaggies themselves is low enough I can see these relatively fine details out to as far as nine feet on a 100DPI monitor (and sometimes farther depending on how long I look and how tired I am etc... but nine feet is a good number).

Using the exact same monitor, if I look at an image consisting of nothing but alternating black and white single pixel wide columns, the screen goes gray at three feet, just as the angle based calculations predict.

So the commonly quoted numbers are true, if you're looking at a perfectly even grid.
A picture of a person's eyes on the other hand is a perfect example of a shape that will take full advantage of 4K resolution. Actually as far as I can tell it is extremely rare to see something in any given image where details are sufficiently consistent and high frequency to actually blurr out.
As I said, I expect to see blurring on an image of a flat sandy beach, or a large flat concrete surface, but any irregularities will still "pop".
Based on my testing a 4K display as small as 44 inches will still provide extra detail as far as nine feet away.
Actually my primary concern in measuring that was to find the distance where jaggies go away, and an image becomes so detail packed that it should be almost indiscernible from the real thing.
So for my purposes a 44" 4K display should be viewed from further than nine feet away, and when viewing any closer, or using a display larger than 44", I want 8K.
But I'm a little weird like that, most people don't care if they can see jaggies and would prefer to see all the detail, flaws and all, rather than ensuring that their display out resolves their vision.
I also have slightly better than 20/20 vision so you need to grow the screen a bit to give useful viewing distances for the average person.

So if you have 20/20 vision and definitely want to see all the detail (not out resolve your eyes), you probably want a minimum of 50" when viewing at a maximum of nine feet away, or if my math is correct a 67" screen at twelve feet.

mnovaksan

  • PowerShot SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 3
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #126 on: May 23, 2015, 01:04:05 PM »
I care about 4k. That said I'm on the advisory board of an LA motion picture studio, so maybe it's not for everyone. A few reasons why.
  • Quality - 1080p looks better when the original footage is shot on 4k, and then downsized for distribution.
  • Becoming ubiquitous - Even my iPhone 6 can shoot 4k. The quality issue is important
  • Better Compression available - HEVC/H.265 encoding is becoming increasingly the standard for distribution. Much better compression than h.264. So not nearly the drain on broadband distribution.
  • Archive quality - When I'm shooting footage of my family or professionally, I want it to look good on the screens of 2025, not just the ones of 2015.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #126 on: May 23, 2015, 01:04:05 PM »

asmundma

  • EOS Rebel SL2
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • Asmunds Video/photo site
Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #127 on: May 27, 2015, 11:20:39 PM »
I care about 4k. That said I'm on the advisory board of an LA motion picture studio, so maybe it's not for everyone. A few reasons why.
  • Quality - 1080p looks better when the original footage is shot on 4k, and then downsized for distribution.
  • Becoming ubiquitous - Even my iPhone 6 can shoot 4k. The quality issue is important
  • Better Compression available - HEVC/H.265 encoding is becoming increasingly the standard for distribution. Much better compression than h.264. So not nearly the drain on broadband distribution.
  • Archive quality - When I'm shooting footage of my family or professionally, I want it to look good on the screens of 2025, not just the ones of 2015.

Completly agree. I am an entusiast phograper and video maker. No doubt 4k make sence. I have the imac retina and a Samsung 4k Tv. Shoot 4k with ShoGun and A7s. No doubt you can see the difference, however HD is also nice with this camra.  A higher end camra like FS7, will even look better.
Seems to me people are putting up agruments because they don't have the tools themselfs.........

1DXm2 & c200 :  24L, 16-35f4 , 24-70L II, 100L  f2.8, 70-200L 2.8 II IS, 400 2.8 II IS, 85L f1.2, 18-80 cinezoom, Sigma 18-35 f1.8, 2x600RT,- Sony: A7R3, Batis 25&85, FE 16-35 f4, 24-70 f2.8GM, Metabones EF to Sony E adapter
Past; 300d,7D,5D2,5D3,1dx

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do you care about 4K?
« Reply #127 on: May 27, 2015, 11:20:39 PM »