Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 
5453 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 684

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1330115 23-Jun-2015 18:04 Send private message

timbosan: Resolution is not everything, there is bitrate, compression rate, compression algorithms, colour space conversions, and $$$ decisions in the production of any video.

That's exactly the point that I was trying (failing?) to make in my post :)

3252 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 207

Trusted

  Reply # 1330351 24-Jun-2015 08:24 Send private message

timbosan:
mclean:
timbosan: I was going to say 2 meters is REALLY close for a 60" screen, but the best viewing distance for 4K at 60" is only around 3-4 meters.

IIRC that chart says 4K is not noticeable at more that 2 metres, and full benefit is at 1 metre.

I don't think you are reading it right, and it depends on your screen size.

Are you sure you're reading it right? The purple shaded area shows the region where the benefit of 4K becomes noticeable and the purple line shows where you get the full benefit. At 60" diagonal, the full benefit of 4K, according to that graph, is noticeable at more like 4 feet, isn't it?

267 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 56

Subscriber

  Reply # 1330395 24-Jun-2015 09:27 Send private message

timbosan:
mclean:
timbosan: I was going to say 2 meters is REALLY close for a 60" screen, but the best viewing distance for 4K at 60" is only around 3-4 meters.

IIRC that chart says 4K is not noticeable at more that 2 metres, and full benefit is at 1 metre.


I don't think you are reading it right, and it depends on your screen size.

That's for a 60" screen, 7.5 ft and 3.5 ft respectively.




McLean

19324 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3343

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1330398 24-Jun-2015 09:32 Send private message

The reason I think that chart is wrong is because at 2 meters the limitiations of a 1080 55" are visible. Yet it gives the impression that there is no benefit.




Richard rich.ms

1266 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 111


  Reply # 1330477 24-Jun-2015 10:29 Send private message

What we have (in my view) with 4K is the potential for amazing display quality, however marketing has (as always) overtaken the technology and hence we have lost the base requirements needed to view 4K.  Netflix were quick to jump on the bandwagon and whilst I support their use of 4K, I don't think there is enough emphasis placed on other aspects such as bitrate.  Human vision can only resolve a certain amount of detail, and this quote from http://www.audioholics.com/hdtv-formats/1080p-and-the-acuity-of-human-vision best describes it:

Everyone knows from their high school geometry classes that a circle is 360 degrees (360°).  For angles smaller than 1 degree we use arcminutes and arcseconds as a measurement.  An arcminute is equal to one sixtieth (1/60) of one degree.  "Normal" visual acuity is considered to be the ability to recognize an optotype (letter on the Snellen chart) when it subtends 5 minutes of arc.  We can most certainly see objects below this level, as this describes only our ability to recognize a very specific shape.  Taking this a step further, we find that the lower limit of "resolution" of average eyes equates to roughly ½ the limit of acuity.  In other words, the average person cannot see more than two spots (pixels if you will) separated by less than 2 arcminutes of angle. 

By extending the above over viewing distance you can work out when 4K becomes resolvable.  If you really want to get into it, read http://www.swift.ac.uk/about/files/vision.pdf or one specific about 4K http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/eyesight-4k-resolution-viewing 

Whilst I am a huge fan of 4K, unless I can fit a 120" screen in my lounge, I don't see the point.  I especially don't see the point in 4K 40" TV sets.  (Of course this doesn't apply so much to 4K monitors where you do sit withing a couple of feet or so).

3252 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 207

Trusted

  Reply # 1330501 24-Jun-2015 10:53 Send private message

richms: The reason I think that chart is wrong is because at 2 meters the limitiations of a 1080 55" are visible. Yet it gives the impression that there is no benefit.

"The reason I think that chart is wrong is because at 2 meters the limitiations of a 1080 55" are visible to me."

You might have higher visual acuity than most.

355 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 62


  Reply # 1330682 24-Jun-2015 13:30 Send private message

timbosan:  Netflix were quick to jump on the bandwagon and whilst I support their use of 4K, I don't think there is enough emphasis placed on other aspects such as bitrate. 


Exactly. It's like measuring how powerful your CPU is based solely on the GHz rating or your camera based on the MP rating. But the marketers love this kind of stuff, and let's face it, most of us lap it up!

293 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 13


  Reply # 1331212 25-Jun-2015 10:36 One person supports this post Send private message

I have a 65 inch 4k Sony TV. Which supports 4k Netflix. 

In my experience I cant tell the difference between it running at 1080p and 2160p. Even 720p looks fine to me and I sit about 3 meters from TV. 

I actually changed my plan back to the 1080p Netflix version rather than paying for 4k which looks no difference to my eyes. 



6416 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1555


  Reply # 1331222 25-Jun-2015 10:46 Send private message

I'm on the grandfathered Netflix plan - $7.99/m for HD and 2 streams.

I assume if I switch to the 4K plan to try it out,  if I then go back to the 'HD' plan I will have to take the new price of $8.99.   Not a huge deal obviously, but worth considering.


the other consideration I have for a 4K TV is gaming.  PS4 doesn't do 4K games, but I also hook up my PC to the TV and that should work.  Will that make much difference?

19324 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3343

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1331794 25-Jun-2015 22:44 Send private message

NonprayingMantis: I'm on the grandfathered Netflix plan - $7.99/m for HD and 2 streams.

I assume if I switch to the 4K plan to try it out,  if I then go back to the 'HD' plan I will have to take the new price of $8.99.   Not a huge deal obviously, but worth considering.


the other consideration I have for a 4K TV is gaming.  PS4 doesn't do 4K games, but I also hook up my PC to the TV and that should work.  Will that make much difference?


I have a single gtx970, and it is no way capable of doing anything 4k. Even with all the settings at lowest in GTA5 it isnt holding a good framerate.

Desktop use is fine at 4k 60Hz, now I have a better HDMI cable. Also it cant do deep colour and 60Hz at the same time. But I dont think deep colour makes any difference. When I was trying it over 1080 still had the same banding in dark scenes as with it off.




Richard rich.ms

1 | 2 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic








Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:






Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.