Forum menu
The fact I can see more detail on this current tv when I move closer tells me my eyes can't even resolve all the detail in normal HD from my sofa.
Again, nonsense. That simply does not relate to the practical viewing experience and the difference you can experience between a HD and UHD set (if your eyes are up to it).
Having said all this, calibration and quality hardware play a significant part.
I'm still blown away by films/drama shot on an Alexa and broadcast properly by BBC/Netflix on my HD Sony (that only needed setting on to 'cinema' and +2 green to get rid of a very slight magenta bias. Looks far better than a lot of 4K demos I have seen where contrast and colour are turned up to the max and it just looks gritty and over processed, a friend who sits on the technical committee of SMPTE and is a VP of mastering technology in the digital cinema world tends to agree with me.
I'll not be going 4K soon until the sort out the data rates compression for delivery over the internet. I demand clean blacks with no banding or I'm not interested. That may be fine for watching footy at super high frame rates on fluro green pitch with red jerseys popping out at you but not for drama/films.
Again, nonsense. That simply does not relate to the practical viewing experience and the difference you can experience between a HD and UHD set (if your eyes are up to it).
How can it be nonsense? For any given object you can see more detail if you are closer, and less if you are further away. So the amount of detail you can see depends on how far you are away. Are you seriously disputing this?
Let's assume we're working within the bounds of something practical!
That was a thought experiment to prove the above point.
There IS definitely a distance from any given size of TV beyond which you will not be able to see the difference. That's unarguable. What we should be discussing is how far away you have to be from any given size before you can tell. The charts are on the internet, however if you disagree with the charts then fine - how far away do you think you have to sit from a 55" telly to see the difference?
How can it be nonsense? For any given object you can see more detail if you are closer, and less if you are further away. So the amount of detail you can see depends on how far you are away. Are you seriously disputing this?
Yeah but moving too close to a pixelated item means it spoils the detail.
How can it be nonsense? For any given object you can see more detail if you are closer, and less if you are further away. So the amount of detail you can see depends on how far you are away. Are you seriously disputing this?
Agreed but only to a point.
Where you appear to be going wrong is there is no actual industry standard for it all. There are guidelines and recommendations from various industry sites (not consistent). So which guideline are you using?
I've seen so much variation in the suggested viewing distances as to make it void in my opinion.
This deterministic approach just doesn't hold any water with people's individual acuity, room setup, immersion, calibration etc.
I can clearly see the difference between 1080p and UHD/4K at outside most of the charts out there. What gives? It doesn't take into account the aggregate quality you get from viewing a 4K source, done properly which goes beyond just a pixel.
Until you've seen a 4K source along side a 2K/1080p source using a well set-up viewing environment, I would reserve lots of judgment.
Here is a RED doc (who have a dog in this fight with 4,6,8K cameras) etc, demonstrating the science behind 4K viewing. It's as relevant as any guideline you could pull up. But RED do know image science.
[url= http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/eyesight-4k-resolution-viewing ]RED 4K viewing[/url]
Agreed but only to a point.
Yes, of course, to a point. What I want to know is what that point is?
So which guideline are you using?
Well, I gambled when I bought a much cheaper HD TV recently. And I seem to have won because when I move closer to the tv than my sofa I can see more detail. Therefore on my sofa I am not seeing all the detail in HD. Therefore the increased resolution of 4K should not be visible either. Am I wrong?
I might be able to, if I got special glasses, had better eyes or somehow set up my room for the perfect experience. But because I'm a normal person not a videophile, I'm not going to do that.
Well, I gambled when I bought a much cheaper HD TV recently. And I seem to have won because when I move closer to the tv than my sofa I can see more detail. Therefore on my sofa I am not seeing all the detail in HD. Therefore the increased resolution of 4K should not be visible either. Am I wrong?
Read the article above.
But because I'm a normal person not a videophile
That's fair enough and that comes down to your individual predisposition.
'm still blown away by films/drama shot on an Alexa and broadcast properly by BBC/Netflix on my HD Sony (that only needed setting on to 'cinema' and +2 green to get rid of a very slight magenta bias. Looks far better than a lot of 4K demos I have seen where contrast and colour are turned up to the max and it just looks gritty and over processed, a friend who sits on the technical committee of SMPTE and is a VP of mastering technology in the digital cinema world tends to agree with me.
That's ultimately because Alexa (and varients) is a great camera, but also ultimately why ARRI have developed the 65 which is 6K.
It does beg the question as most films are now shot on Alexa at 2.8K or more. So fairly *close* to HD. But Netflix has a 4K only remit - and the rest of the industry is pushing in that direction. Alexa also has fabulous colour and dynamic range too which isn't measured in pixels.
You do get shoddy 4K. I wouldn't dispute that. You can get shoddy anything.
As a simple experiment - next time you go to the pictures. Keep an eye on the text in adverts and films. You can easily see the pixels (unless your vision isn't great.) These are 2K top flight DLP projectors.
Not sure what that RED link is meant to say.
But it talks about 50 degree viewing angles as being optimal. But in my living room the 60" TV is 4.2m from my eyes. So:
60" TV is 52" across, or 132cm.
Divide by two to make the viewing triangle into a right angle gives 66cm for the opposite, and 420cm for the adjacent. Tangent is therefore 0.1581 and the angle is therefore around 9 degrees, but double that to get the viewing angle of 18 degrees.
Substantially less than the 50 degrees they are suggesting is natural.
At the centre of the pic, each pixel subtends an angle of 18/1920 or roughly 0.01 degrees. According to wikipedia, the angular resolution of a (presumably average) eye is about 0.02 degrees.
If there's any more in-depth science to overturn this basic geometry, I'm all ears.
next time you go to the pictures
The cinema screen is quite a lot bigger than my telly!
The cinema screen is quite a lot bigger than my telly!
Yeah but you sit further away.
If there's any more in-depth science to overturn this basic geometry, I'm all ears.
Or eyes.
I think the point is to be subjective about it ultimately. Objectivity can get you so far. And with huge variance in the quality of source material and set-up it can be quite tricky to compare.
How many people have detail/edge enhancement turned up with HD sources I wonder?
Substantially less than the 50 degrees they are suggesting is natural
So in an ideal world you would be closer etc.
Even so. From the RED link, cinema viewing angles are 60 degrees in the middle of the cinema. In my room it's only 18 degrees. If I had my entire wall as a projector, that might approach the cinema screen.
I think the point is to be subjective about it ultimately.
Yes but as you say - it's subjective to a point. There are physical reasons that mean more detail above a certain level is not going to be visible.
Yes but as you say - it's subjective to a point. There are physical reasons that mean more detail above a certain level is not going to be visible.
I wouldn't argue with that but it's risky in my opinion to use a catch-all chart for individual viewing recommendations.
Seating position and screen distance is one part of the viewing experience. And that appears to be your yardstick, which is fine because you have the room and set-up you have.
I sit 1.8m away from a 70" wide screen.
Seating position and screen distance is one part of the viewing experience. And that appears to be your yardstick, which is fine because you have the room and set-up you have.
It's one part of the viewing experience, but it's the only one that dictates what detail you can resolve.
However - other fancy features like high dynamic range will make a difference regardless of distance.
I sit 1.8m away from a 70" wide screen.
😯
when I move closer to the tv than my sofa I can see more detail
I find I have exactly the same experience
....if I don't have my contact lenses in or glasses on 😆
molgrips - MemberAgain, nonsense. That simply does not relate to the practical viewing experience and the difference you can experience between a HD and UHD set (if your eyes are up to it).
How can it be nonsense? For any given object you can see more detail if you are closer, and less if you are further away. So the amount of detail you can see depends on how far you are away. Are you seriously disputing this?
Your theory is sound, but is completely out of context here. Unfortunately (as I said before)it does not relate to the practical experience, and is thus completely invalid.
Well, I gambled when I bought a much cheaper HD TV recently. And I seem to have won because when I move closer to the tv than my sofa I can see more detail. Therefore on my sofa I am not seeing all the detail in HD. Therefore the increased resolution of 4K should not be visible either. Am I wrong?
To try and explain it your your terms: Watching HD from my sofa, if I move closer I can see more detail. If I could go in close enough I could see individual pixels. Thing is, if I do the same exercise in SD or UHD, I also see more detail as I move closer. Regardless of this, from my sofa watching the same material, the UHD is clearly much more detailed than HD (and HD than SD). Your theory does not work in practice. [u]Have you actually tried UHD back to back with HD to test your theory? Give it a try, and see for yourself. I'm guessing you have used this theory to convince yourself that you made the right purchase, but have not been able to relate it to real world experience.
Note: I fully acknowledge that not everyone (for their given set up) will benefit from UHD. Some people can't see the difference between SD and HD, unless it is pointed out. However, in my set up, the difference is night and day.
Watching HD from my sofa, if I move closer I can see more detail. If I could go in close enough I could see individual pixels
Yes, but seeing pixels isn't seeing more detail in the image.
The only 4k material I seen is shop demos, and it really was impossible to make an objective decision in the shop since they prevented me from standing far enough away from the screen.
I fully acknowledge that not everyone (for their given set up) will benefit from UHD
That is what I am saying. I'm saying that in theory you'd have to be pretty close, in most cases more than a normal living room allows, to see the difference. If I were proved wrong, I'd want to know how. Rone's setup is far from what I'd call a normal living room.
However, in my set up, the difference is night and day.
What is your setup?
Yes, but seeing pixels isn't seeing more detail in the image.
Well, exactly.
The only 4k material I seen is shop demos, and it really was impossible to make an objective decision in the shop since they prevented me from standing far enough away from the screen.
So you haven’t done a back to back comparison in any way then. This is exactly my point. Until you have, perhaps be a little more careful about the advice you dish out? You may have convinced yourself with your theory, but imo it is completely invalid. Little point discussing it further until you have tried it for yourself.
If I were proved wrong, I'd want to know how.
One last try.....Because you are oversimplifying it ridiculously, not taking nearly enough practical factors into account. Until you try it for yourself, there is really little point discussing it – I don’t recall you accepting anyone else’s opinion before, even when you have no experience/evidence to back up your argument! Try it for yourself.
What is your setup?
Comparison done on high end 4K Samsung UHD HDR 65’ (so admittedly a big, and fairly high quality screen), viewing distance approx 4-5m (just an estimate would have to measure it). Sources include Blu-ray 4K; Sky Q UHD (and SD and HD); Amazon streamed UHD (HDR) and HD. Other HD screens around the house (24-50’).
You may have convinced yourself with your theory, but imo it is completely invalid.
Why?
even when you have no experience/evidence to back up your argument!
I've got some science here that I've posted up. Of course it's theory, and it could easily be incorrect, but I'll need more information other than 'YOU'RE WRONG'.
I'm all open to discussion, that's why I'm still commenting, cos if I'm wrong I'd love to understand why. But I still don't know why detail that would be invisible to the human eye can improve the picture.
Same as hifi amps with a frequency response of above 20kHz for example.
I had a feeling this would happen.....have a good weekend peeps!
😉
😆
Why would you want to move away from the screen? The whole point of increasing resolution is so you can get closer to the screen without the picture 'pixelating', or have a bigger screen while sitting at the same distance from it. In a shop you should stand as far away from the screen as you would be in your living room. What's the point in going any further back?
In a shop you should stand as far away from the screen as you would be in your living room.
That's what I was trying to do, but I couldn't - the rows of tellies were too close together.
Ahh, I see. A cunning ploy from the shop then.
The two tellies I was looking at (bounded by price) were either 55" 4K or 60" HD. I was trying to decide what each size would look like in our room, but it was hopeless to even try.
Just for kicks:
http://nofilmschool.com/2017/01/red-helium-8k-shatters-highest-dxomark-sensor-score-10-points
Just as shame there's not that much 4k content available.
FWIW, I'm pretty pleased with the telly we ended up with. Still not got round to buying a bluray player for it yet (or a stand).
It's probably got more features than we want/need & we haven't worked out some of the features.
I thought we could just send content from our tablet to the TV, but I have only managed to get this to work once - and it didn't send just the Youtube video, but ended up opening Youtube in a browser window & playing the video within that....I thought we could just find a music video for example and magically fling it at the TV & the TV would display it - this doesn't appear to be as easy as I thought it would be....
And the apps are a bit flaky - I downloaded the Spotify app with much excitement, but it's really slow to open & has failed to open more often than not - it just hangs & sits there.....hmmm.
But, on the whole it's pretty good.
The viewing charts are a right load of guff - they were when we upgraded to HD and they still are now we've gone 4k.
I sit 10ft away from our 55" set and can totally tell the difference, just as it was plain to see the difference between HD & SD on our 40" set before. Even Mrs STR is impressed.
There's quite a bit of 4k out there - Sky Q, Netflix, Amazon, Youtube and BD - Samsungs 4k UHD player can be had for £200 - we got ours free with the tv.
However - the general consensus on AV Forums is that you have to get a reasonably high end panel to reap the benefits
Absolutely. Couldn't put it better.
I think what consumers have to got accept is that we are replicating the cinema now not the generation game. That means sitting close and having an immersive field of view. 4K works better for that.
Like all things bike some people will take a while to appreciate it, others never will, and some will accept it straight away.
But it's the direction we're going in.
I think what consumers have to got accept is that we are replicating the cinema
it's hard to do this though as there is nowhere else you can go to pay as much for your snacks to eat whilst watching a movie at home...
Go to the cinema to buy your snacks and then watch the film at home. 😉