| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10273
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4901
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
 Link Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Interesting. DCI projectors and media are already available in 4K resolution (4096x2160) and the projector and media spec does not yet allow for 8K PJs, so it will be interesting to see what usage it gets.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg_mitch
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5321
|
| Link Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Ok I have seen this many times. What does DCI stand for? Digital Cinema ???
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4901
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Link Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greg_mitch wrote: | | Ok I have seen this many times. What does DCI stand for? Digital Cinema ??? |
Digital Cinema Initiatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Initiatives
The wiki page has a link to the spec.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg_mitch
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5321
|
| Link Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Ah thanks...I first read about it when there was a ruckus in that A* site thread with cineramax.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10273
|
| Link Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The interesting things is that for most stuff this exceeds the human ability to resolve. Thus, using the extra resolution to go beyond your peripheral vision might just help on the immersion front.
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Link Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure how you'd feed the inputs, but this could be used for an HD wall, with 16 full-def HD images (4x4 matrix). Great for those who can't make up their mind what they want to watch. 
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Link Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WanMan wrote: | | The interesting things is that for most stuff this exceeds the human ability to resolve. Thus, using the extra resolution to go beyond your peripheral vision might just help on the immersion front. |
If you sit as close to the screen as I do (1.2 screen widths), even this kind of resolution isn't NOT exceeding the human ability to resolve. It's getting close - probably close to where we want to be, actually.
On an 8' screen, an 8k projector is projecting about 1000 pels per foot, or just under 85 ppi. I guarantee you that I could tell a HUGE difference between 20 ppi (HD), 40 ppi (4k), and 80 ppi (8k) - at my viewing distance.
Human visual acuity at 20/20 is AWESOME. It's going to be awhile before we have displays and sources that are exceeding that visual acuity at typical viewing distances.
I say, "BRING IT ON", though!
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
perisoft
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2920
Location: Ithaca, NY
|
| Link Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Managing the optics necessary to project (or record) at that resolution is going to be a real pain in the ass. I suspect that unless there are some really big breakthroughs in optics (which, barring materials research, are unlikely) the main price component of these systems will be optics rather than display mechanics / electronics.
That said... "Super Hi-Vision"? For f*ck's sake...
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Analog Marty
Joined: 09 Jan 2007
Posts: 129
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| Link Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ahhh Geeeez, why do I feel like I need an upgrade already ?
I just put out that fire from the hole in my pocket from the PS3 too.. 
_________________
A 92kg Sony Vacum sitting in my room...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | WanMan wrote: | | The interesting things is that for most stuff this exceeds the human ability to resolve. Thus, using the extra resolution to go beyond your peripheral vision might just help on the immersion front. |
If you sit as close to the screen as I do (1.2 screen widths), even this kind of resolution isn't NOT exceeding the human ability to resolve. It's getting close - probably close to where we want to be, actually.
On an 8' screen, an 8k projector is projecting about 1000 pels per foot, or just under 85 ppi. I guarantee you that I could tell a HUGE difference between 20 ppi (HD), 40 ppi (4k), and 80 ppi (8k) - at my viewing distance.
Human visual acuity at 20/20 is AWESOME. It's going to be awhile before we have displays and sources that are exceeding that visual acuity at typical viewing distances.
I say, "BRING IT ON", though!
SC |
I am not sure where you are getting this, but I doubt you would tell a huge difference. This topic used to come up on AVS and I believe you could sit something like .6 or .7 widths away with 4k. For your seating distance, 1080p and 2k were close. I had lunch with Scott a couple of months ago and he said that you can not see pixels when you back away from the screen till the image fills your vision with the Sony 4k pj.
I noticed a thread on AVS like this recently. I agree with what most were saying and that is an improvement in other areas especially color would be money better spent than an increase in resolution.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4901
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spanky Ham wrote: | | For your seating distance, 1080p and 2k were close. |
I'm confused by this. Did you mean 4k? 1080p is 1920x1080, 2K is 2048x1080. They are essentially the same, so they better be close!
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10273
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | WanMan wrote: | | The interesting things is that for most stuff this exceeds the human ability to resolve. Thus, using the extra resolution to go beyond your peripheral vision might just help on the immersion front. |
If you sit as close to the screen as I do (1.2 screen widths), even this kind of resolution isn't NOT exceeding the human ability to resolve. It's getting close - probably close to where we want to be, actually.
On an 8' screen, an 8k projector is projecting about 1000 pels per foot, or just under 85 ppi. I guarantee you that I could tell a HUGE difference between 20 ppi (HD), 40 ppi (4k), and 80 ppi (8k) - at my viewing distance.
Human visual acuity at 20/20 is AWESOME. It's going to be awhile before we have displays and sources that are exceeding that visual acuity at typical viewing distances.
I say, "BRING IT ON", though!
SC |
I'm guessing that at 1.2 you are talking for a 1.78 aspect image, but clarify if needed. In either event, your eye's sensitivity to resolution is less for horizontal than it is for vertical.
With a 16:9 aspect screen of X height and 1.78X width the recommendation is to sit 1.5 times the width (2.67X) from the screen if you have 20/20 vision in order to be able to resolve 1100 line-pairs. Isn't this nothing more than a matter of proportions? If you have twice the vertical resolution you could then sit half the distance away (1.33X).
I am not sure how you think at 1.2 screen width distance (2.136X) you feel almost 2200 lines will be able to be resolved without resolving only a portion of the field (and not the entire field concurrently).
And this says nothing about other factors. Boy, can anyone imagine a small a piece of dust inside the projector chassis has to be to fake a pixel state? 
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | | Spanky Ham wrote: | | For your seating distance, 1080p and 2k were close. |
I'm confused by this. Did you mean 4k? 1080p is 1920x1080, 2K is 2048x1080. They are essentially the same, so they better be close! |
No, I meant both are close to the resolution limits.
| WanMan wrote: |
I'm guessing that at 1.2 you are talking for a 1.78 aspect image, but clarify if needed. In either event, your eye's sensitivity to resolution is less for horizontal than it is for vertical.
With a 16:9 aspect screen of X height and 1.78X width the recommendation is to sit 1.5 times the width (2.67X) from the screen if you have 20/20 vision in order to be able to resolve 1100 line-pairs. Isn't this nothing more than a matter of proportions? If you have twice the vertical resolution you could then sit half the distance away (1.33X).
I am not sure how you think at 1.2 screen width distance (2.136X) you feel almost 2200 lines will be able to be resolved without resolving only a portion of the field (and not the entire field concurrently).
And this says nothing about other factors. Boy, can anyone imagine a small a piece of dust inside the projector chassis has to be to fake a pixel state? |
You seem to remember this better than me. Somewhere there is a chart with resolution and seating distances floating around.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4901
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think you are talking about this one:
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
Wan, I've seen the horizontal vs. vertical claim you mention before, but can't find a credible reference for it. The only references I could find for that is that it is true for subjects with high astigmatism. Can you point us to a credible study or reference material that explains this?
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If that guy is correct, then it is around 1.7 screen widths for 1080p. I don't remember it being that far, but I could be wrong. I plugged 4k into his calculator and it says around 1 to 1. Of course, this is based on 20/20 vision.
I looked at the article and at the bottom it states that:
"Also, the Imaging Science Foundation (ISF) states the the most important aspects of picture quality are (in order): 1) contrast ratio, 2) color saturation, 3) color accuracy, 4) resolution. "
Hmmm, something I have always thought. Maybe the ISF isn't so bad after all.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10273
|
| Link Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not only is one limited by the amount of vertical resolution within one's field of view, but your field of view is finite, too.
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Link Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WanMan wrote: | | Not only is one limited by the amount of vertical resolution within one's field of view, but your field of view is finite, too. |
Duh. What's your point? Do you watch a movie with your eyes glued perfectly to screen-center, or do move your eyes - you know, look around, follow the action?
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5238
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Link Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
One thing about having more pixels with digital would be you could have digital correction of panel alignment without degrading the resolution. I posted a few screen shots from an RS2 that showed what looked like very bad panel registration or what we consider bad convergence. With the current batch of digitals there really not much you can do to correct for this with only 1:1 pixel mapping. You could also correct for bad geometry in less than ideal installations, so a digital becomes more like an analog device like a CRT.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Photo Albums
Register
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
