Do you have a 4K display?

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It's good to see that you're aware of the difference, a significant majority of the people I talk to are completely unaware. In my opinion it basically amounts to false advertising.

Yeah the whole LED thing was such a crock the way they advertised it. You'd say so what size is your new LCD or did you go LCD or Plasma and they'd respond oh I didn't get an LCD this time or neither, I got a LED technology set instead of an old LCD panel!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

My opinion:

4K is good for proofing, i.e. computer monitors. Mainly because your eyes are right up near the screen and you have lots of great 4k content (your pics).

yeah, awesome for that

For movies, pointless, due to distance from screen, diminishing returns with motion compression, and fact that most content does not resolve beyond 1080p in detail even if encoded at 4k. You need a minimum of a 10ft screen to see significant improvement from 1080p at normal viewing distances per Joe Kane, who is an unbiased industry video expert.

that's absurd

now sure some people won't care or will insist on sitting WAY far back and it won't matter, but to say flat out that you need a 10' screen for UHD video to make any difference is completely wrong, even a 24" set it would make a difference never mind a typical 55" if you sit at a distance that makes you feel anywhere remotely a part of the movie and it's not some tiny little spec in your FOV across a large room

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It's good to see that you're aware of the difference, a significant majority of the people I talk to are completely unaware. In my opinion it basically amounts to false advertising.

Bravo I'm informed of the lies of the industry. Dude, get over it! It's just a marketing term to highlight a new feature that I am particularly thankful for.

Lower power consumption is _always_ welcome.

I'm just as happy as you are that the industry has switched to LED backlighting, it just should have been named differently.

Although most of the first couple years of edge lit LED backlit screens had pretty nasty light bleed and were way worse than CCFL visually. From what I can see it's only been a little over a year since they seemed to have managed to lick that problem at all.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It's good to see that you're aware of the difference, a significant majority of the people I talk to are completely unaware. In my opinion it basically amounts to false advertising.

Bravo I'm informed of the lies of the industry. Dude, get over it! It's just a marketing term to highlight a new feature that I am particularly thankful for.

Lower power consumption is _always_ welcome.

I'm just as happy as you are that the industry has switched to LED backlighting, it just should have been named differently.

I suspect the industry will be skipping right by "true" LED displays, and heading strait for OLED displays. I don't think there is any way to market a "true" LED display (where there are discrete RGB LEDs for each and every pixel) such that the general public would understand the difference relative to an LED Backlit display (either edge backlit or matrix with local dimming.)

LG already has a 77" OLED TV (although it's curved, a feature I personally am not a fan of...I think it's just a gimmick.) Samsung is supposedly readying an 80" OLED display which features an adjustable curvature (again, a feature I think is a gimmick.)

At 80", standard 1920x1080 pixels are MONSTROUS, and there is no question such large screens could benefit from a factor of four shrink in pixel dimensions. I think 4k will do wonders for these large OLED screens...I just hope they end up flat at some point, as I'd prefer not to have some hulking curved monstrosity popping out of my wall, when the intent is to have a 1" deep beautifully flat monstrosity sitting nearly flush and otherwise inconspicuous.

Yeah for sure, consumer regular LED sets won't ever appear. It's going to organic LED.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

From the CNET article:

Larger TVs or closer seating distances make that difference more visible, as do computer graphics, animation, and games...

Like I was saying, if someone is looking at something inherently blurry the resolution of it isn't going to matter.
I recently read that in the EU they're looking at including 100hz (double the standard 50hz PAL frequency) in with the 4K broadcasting spec. The original NHK UHD spec also included a 120hz refresh rate to help improve the image. I have to wonder if the archaic 24hz Hollywood standard frame rate isn't partly responsible for much of the negativity surrounding 4K?

I don't think so, frame rate and spatial resolution are two entirely different things (and lots of TV stuff wasn't shot at 24Hz). Nobody complained about 65mm projections at 24fps looking inherently blurry!

Well actually there is some relation in that they generally shoot at twice the fps so each frame would be taken at a higher shutter rate, so on freeze frame it would show a lot more detail for anything in motion. For normal playback I don't know since yeah less blur in each frame but each frame also swept past the eye faster, I thought it was supposed to largely balance out.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

From the CNET article:

Larger TVs or closer seating distances make that difference more visible, as do computer graphics, animation, and games...

Like I was saying, if someone is looking at something inherently blurry the resolution of it isn't going to matter.
I recently read that in the EU they're looking at including 100hz (double the standard 50hz PAL frequency) in with the 4K broadcasting spec. The original NHK UHD spec also included a 120hz refresh rate to help improve the image. I have to wonder if the archaic 24hz Hollywood standard frame rate isn't partly responsible for much of the negativity surrounding 4K?

The archaic 24Hz Hollywood standard is changing, as well. The recent Hobbit movies were shot at 48 frames per second. James Cameron is apparently shooting Avatar 2 and 3 (and however many more there may be after that) at 60fps. A 60Hz refresh rate fits well with 240Hz 3D BluRay playback as well. Several cable providers are already clearing bandwidth in order to have more free in order to deliver native content in 4k resolution (and I believe there may already be some 4k content distribution, with 2k downgrade on those channels when 4k isnt' available.) It isn't just TVs that are moving forward into a new era of quality and resolution...the technology used to create and deliver the content we view on them is moving forward as well.

Nay-sayers are simply uneducated as to the big picture. It isn't just 4k TVs that will be playing back ancient Standard HD content (720p). It is 4k TVs that will be playing back native 4k content, from TV and BluRay, as well as internet enabled content delivery networks like NetFlix (which has adopted Super HD for a lot of it's content already, and is also working on preparing their system for delivering 4k content.)

Even assuming one "only" watches 1080p content on a 4k TV. That 2k content is supersampled (more pixels than necessary are rendering it), therefor it still looks better than on a native 2k device.

>24fps doesn't necessarily work out so well for movies though as it makes things seem too real in a sense which actually can make movies seem more fake in a way, you notice anythng that wasn't done perfectly more and it makes the actors seem less larger than life and a bit more like Joe or Jill down at shop rite or like something you shot with your camcorder in the back yard. It depends.

I could see it working better for something like Avatar, strong 3D, you want to smoothly immersed in that world and it's largely all CGI.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It looks bad! You can see the make-up and you are able to discern the fake props.

because of 48 fps?.... i doubt that.

In the sense that the brain now treats the movie as if it were viewing real life. 24fps puts the brain into a different state where it knows things are not quite right and you are not just looking around. So when effects and make up and props are not quite perfect it just mentally sort of blends a bit more into being a movie but at high frame rate it sticks out a bit more. I never saw the Hobbit at all so I didn't make that particular direct comparison myself.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

There is a huge distance between 480I and 1080p, but I find that mostly I'll watch dvd quality upscaled video which is tolerable. I'll watch satellite broadcast hd signals which are fine, but not really that impressive. I have a 3d tv and I don't hate the glasses and I don't mind the crud where they try to send debris out of the screen towards you, but the content isn't there.

I like basketball in 3d. Baseball and football aren't all that impressive.

So my issue is that I don't know there will be a clamor for content. If Directv comes out with ten channels, Wil that make Comcast and other cable providers respond in kind? So I say no thank you until they flood my screen with higher quality programming.

And honestly... with football we are still getting blah hd feeds. I think it is cbs who down grades the image quality and it is noticeable. Give me 1080p first for a few years before I even consider upgrading.

Nah it is FOX that downgrades the football! To begin with they are at only 1/2 the MP since it's 720p channel but now they are sending out such a crap signal that it looks truly like that old school wide screen DVD res stuff that used to be broadcast at the start of HD.

CBS and NBC football show WAY more detail.

 

[mhlas7]

I think that 4k will be making its way into the home as 4k tv's are becoming more abundant, cheaper and content becomes more available. Once 4k has made its way into our tv's consumers will demand devices that can record in 4k. As far as 4k recording devices, right now they are mostly professional products such as cinema cameras that are used to make almost all major movies. The 1Dc is probably the lowest end 4k camera available now. Sony just announced a 4k handycam at CES but even if this makes it makes it to market I can't see consumers purchasing it until 4k tv's are more common. I could see canon putting 4k video into the next 5D and maybe the 7D.

As far as photography goes, 4k displays are perfect for editing as most cameras made in the last 5 years have enough resolution to fill up a 4k display (many have resolution much higher than 4k). For photography I can see many people wanting 4k displays on their editing computer to take advantage of the resolution these cameras already have.

Personally I really want to get 4k monitor. Dell just announced a 28" 4k monitor for $699 which is the cheapest 4k monitor yet and I think this might be the one to buy right now.

 

[mkabi]

I just got my 60" 1080p TV, 2 years ago.
So I'm not going to upgrade anytime soon.
But that doesn't mean that the next guy shouldn't.

You don't have to believe me or the next person here that tells you that "to see the difference you need to sit very close."

Here read it on CNET: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57610862-221/four-4k-tv-facts-you-must-know/

Yeah sure, you can see the difference on Retina display, but really... you sit very close to it. Measure it, I'm sitting less than 3 feet from my computer screen. When I pull out my iphone or a friends ipad, it isn't more than 2-3 feet away.

You want to see the difference between 1080p? I guess wait for the 8K TVs?

How far away from your TV do you sit?

My TV is a couple years old, but I have a Samsung 59" Plasma, and I generally sit about 7-8 ft away from it...short living room.

C

About 10-12 feet.

 

[jrista]

From the CNET article:

Larger TVs or closer seating distances make that difference more visible, as do computer graphics, animation, and games...

Like I was saying, if someone is looking at something inherently blurry the resolution of it isn't going to matter.
I recently read that in the EU they're looking at including 100hz (double the standard 50hz PAL frequency) in with the 4K broadcasting spec. The original NHK UHD spec also included a 120hz refresh rate to help improve the image. I have to wonder if the archaic 24hz Hollywood standard frame rate isn't partly responsible for much of the negativity surrounding 4K?

The archaic 24Hz Hollywood standard is changing, as well. The recent Hobbit movies were shot at 48 frames per second. James Cameron is apparently shooting Avatar 2 and 3 (and however many more there may be after that) at 60fps. A 60Hz refresh rate fits well with 240Hz 3D BluRay playback as well. Several cable providers are already clearing bandwidth in order to have more free in order to deliver native content in 4k resolution (and I believe there may already be some 4k content distribution, with 2k downgrade on those channels when 4k isnt' available.) It isn't just TVs that are moving forward into a new era of quality and resolution...the technology used to create and deliver the content we view on them is moving forward as well.

Nay-sayers are simply uneducated as to the big picture. It isn't just 4k TVs that will be playing back ancient Standard HD content (720p). It is 4k TVs that will be playing back native 4k content, from TV and BluRay, as well as internet enabled content delivery networks like NetFlix (which has adopted Super HD for a lot of it's content already, and is also working on preparing their system for delivering 4k content.)

Even assuming one "only" watches 1080p content on a 4k TV. That 2k content is supersampled (more pixels than necessary are rendering it), therefor it still looks better than on a native 2k device.

>24fps doesn't necessarily work out so well for movies though as it makes things seem too real in a sense which actually can make movies seem more fake in a way, you notice anythng that wasn't done perfectly more and it makes the actors seem less larger than life and a bit more like Joe or Jill down at shop rite or like something you shot with your camcorder in the back yard. It depends.

I could see it working better for something like Avatar, strong 3D, you want to smoothly immersed in that world and it's largely all CGI.

That isn't really because of a higher frame rate. It's because of the age of the technology...no one yet knows how to maximize 48fps or 60fps potential. There is the lack of motion blur, which is the thing most people "notice" when they view something filmed and played back at a frame rate higher than 24hz...there isn't much motion blur.

As Hollywood gets more familiar with higher frame rates, and as the software they use to post-process improves, these issues will fade and eventually cease to be an issue. I highly suspect that motion blur, when and where appropriate, will become the domain of post processing software, which will use temporal blending across frames and other techniques to restore (and even enhance) motion blur where necessary.

As Hollywood post processing labs get more familiar with how scenes may look too real, or where in each scene the "fake" shows through, they will develop ways to hide those things. That's all they have really done up till now. Even 24/30fps video long ago clearly showed all the "fakery" of a hollywood scene...it took years for CGI and post-processing/green screen technicians to learn how to blend things and process things such that you couldn't tell the difference. They already have that knowledge now, all they need to do is apply it in a way that is more suitable to higher frame rates.

In a few years, the early issues that sometimes make 48/60fps cinematography a little "too real" will be lost in the past, and their benefits will be fully realized....and will pair very nicely with 4k TVs.

 

[RGomezPhotos]

I tried a Mac Pro with the SHARP 4k display attached to it. I tell you, it was pretty amazing. If you think HD is impressive, 4k will blow you away. Everything looked amazing on that display. I just looked at the display and thought "I can edit photos all day on this. No problem".

The SHARP is $3500. But SHARP, ASUS and Lenovo are all coming out with with 28" 4k displays under $800 THIS year. I'm kinda wondering about quality since a Dell Ultrasharp 27" is about $900. Still, this is a good sign.