June 20, 2018, 02:26:35 AM

Author Topic: Now 4K can take over the world?  (Read 15210 times)


  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4153
    • Mark Gordon Communications
Re: Now 4K can take over the world?
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2015, 11:26:48 PM »
The BluRay 1080P has not yet become hegemonic in most countries, and now we wait for the Ultra HD BluRay 4K ...

...Nothing wrong to want to be always up to date by investing in the newest video standard. But there are cases that need to be explained pou Freud. ???...

...Let's be honest:
Mega companies must invest in more advanced technology to display its market leadership...

 ...someone who finds insufficient 4K video to watch in the living room, you can not settle for only 50 megapixel photos.

I won't repeat your full comments, but I would give them a big "Plus 1."

I get that some people are videophiles who simply enjoy watching the highest resolution on the largest home screen possible. But, the subject matter here involved "taking over the world."

Blu-Ray has been around for more than a decade. Yet, it still remains a niche product. Go to any video rental store (if you can find one) and you'll see a lot more DVDs than Blu-Ray discs. Usually the Blu-Rays only get rented when all the DVDs in a popular title have been rented out. Most people won't even pay the extra dollar or so to rent a Blu-Ray if they can get a DVD.

I made the comment earlier that most people under 30 are watching videos on phones, tablets or laptops. Someone responded that "Yuppies" have big screen televisions. I'm sure they do. But that misses the point. The trend is with the 18 to 30-year-olds who stream everything on their personal devices and wouldn't even think of actually paying for access to network or cable television. I suspect  that video being consumed on Facebook with iPhones is probably 100 or 200 times greater than all the video being watched on 4K televisions.

4K will no doubt become a standard for serious filmmakers. But, I suspect the bulk of video that will be consumed for the next decade or so will be viewed on small screens and very few consumers will care whether or not its 4K or HD or even "standard" definition.

Unless you are a professional filmmaker aiming for theatrical releases, the only reason to buy 4K is to entertain yourself.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Now 4K can take over the world?
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2015, 11:26:48 PM »


  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1833
Re: Now 4K can take over the world?
« Reply #31 on: May 16, 2015, 02:37:10 AM »
Visual acuity is affected by distance, since it is a matter of angular resolving power. In the case of human visual acuity, our acuity is about 1/60th of a degree on average, maybe about 1/80th of a degree at best. Get closer, and finer details are more visible, get farther and finder details can no longer be resolved independently...


As for the practical viewing limitations of 4K, it's basically interchangeable with HD.
You shouldn't have to change anything as far as seating and screen size when moving from an HDTV setup to 4K.

People like to throw around screen size and distance numbers based on receptor cell size in your eyes, but those tests are based on high frequency static images and not the low frequency moving images your eyes are designed for.
In other words, the limitations commonly stated apply only to fine repeating texture. Smooth sand and cement may look the same, but any patterns and shapes will be noticeably better, something like a person's eyes will look incredibly good in 4K.

Jrista the numbers you quoted are exactly what I was referring to.

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".)

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.


  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3044
Re: Now 4K can take over the world?
« Reply #32 on: May 16, 2015, 03:15:08 AM »
Finally, the association responsible for the BluRay reached an agreement on an optical disc capable of displaying 4K video. ::)
This will be called Ultra HD BluRay. 8)

More information on the site


I can't wait... as an audiophile and to some extent a videophile... if I'm going to spend my dollars to own or rent something, I want the absolute best source material and that comes from physical media (although you can download some lossless audio legally).

There will always be a market for it, as the vinyl market proves that you can make money in the niche game.

Not all understand this. Unfortunately.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Now 4K can take over the world?
« Reply #32 on: May 16, 2015, 03:15:08 AM »