View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Curt Palme CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 24296 Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
Link Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:17 pm Post subject: 4K vs eye resolution |
|
|
Had an interesting conversation with a client last week about eye resolution. He's a sharp guy, knew a lot about everything.
He claimed that we have cones and rods in our eye that equal to 1080p resolution at 1.6 X the width of the screen. (I think I have the numbers right!). He further claimed that unless we're sitting really close to the screen, a 4K image does nothing to enhance the viewing experience. (better color spectrum not withstanding).
When 4K came out, lots of people said it was to get rid of the pixellation of 1080p digital projectors, so I am curious, is the above statement mostly correct, or flawed?
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
barclay66
Joined: 27 Jun 2011 Posts: 1291 Location: Germany
TV/Projector: Marquee 9500 Ultra
|
Link Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Totally correct. Step back more than ten feet from two equally sized 4k and FullHD screens and You won’t be able to distinguish them. On the other hand, contrast and color space improvements will be visible clearly...
Kind Regards,
barclay66
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 12024 Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
Link Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2018 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
According to this article and spreadsheet, with 20/20 vision you don't have enough visual resolution to distinguish 4k pixels unless you sit closer than about 0.9x.
The same spreadsheet says you can't see 1080p resolution farther than about 1.8x, so adjust to your experience and eyesight.
Most consumers sit at 2-4x or farther from their TVs, so 4k resolution is kinda silly for them.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
JayAllan
Joined: 03 Jun 2007 Posts: 175 Location: Los Angeles
|
Link Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is interesting info and I buy onto it. For me ideally a 130 inch screen and about 15 feet back is ideal for watching movies in a dedicated room.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Zolzar
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 252
|
Link Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just watched this video last week. Hits on what you mentioned Curt and lots of other things to take into consideration. I found this to be very informative. No reason other that contrast and color to bump up into the 4K game.
https://youtu.be/VxNBiAV4UnM
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 12024 Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
Link Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2018 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JayAllan wrote: | This is interesting info and I buy onto it. For me ideally a 130 inch screen and about 15 feet back is ideal for watching movies in a dedicated room. |
130" diagonal = 113.3" wide. 15' = 180". So you're sitting at 180/113.3 = 1.59x.
I sit at about 1.1-1.2x but my eyesight isn't 20/20. I like the big image and I don't see any pixel artifacts at that distance, except maybe white-on-black credits, things like that.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 12024 Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
Link Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2018 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This article has a great chart that expresses the distance/size/resolution question pretty succinctly:
It says for a 100" (diagonal) screen you won't see any (resolution) benefits of 4k unless you sit closer than about 11', and you won't see 1080p benefits unless you're closer than about 17'. 100" diagonal = 87" wide, so to see 1080p benefits you need to be closer than about 17'/87" = 2.34x.
The same guy has a spreadsheet that calculates distance, lumens, etc. It says for 1080p on a 100" diagonal / 87" wide screen and 20/20 vision, the ideal distance is 13' = 1.80x. "Any farther and you would not be able to see the full resolution; any closer and you would start to need a higher resolution." For 4k it says the ideal distance is 6.5' = 0.9x.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010 Posts: 1135
|
Link Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
garyfritz wrote: | This article has a great chart that expresses the distance/size/resolution question pretty succinctly:
It says for a 100" (diagonal) screen you won't see any (resolution) benefits of 4k unless you sit closer than about 11', and you won't see 1080p benefits unless you're closer than about 17'. 100" diagonal = 87" wide, so to see 1080p benefits you need to be closer than about 17'/87" = 2.34x.
The same guy has a spreadsheet that calculates distance, lumens, etc. It says for 1080p on a 100" diagonal / 87" wide screen and 20/20 vision, the ideal distance is 13' = 1.80x. "Any farther and you would not be able to see the full resolution; any closer and you would start to need a higher resolution." For 4k it says the ideal distance is 6.5' = 0.9x. |
All of this is why I'm not in any rush to 4K. I sit about 9-9.5' away from my 87" wide screen and unless I replace my screen with something that is 130"+ there won't be enough of an improvement to warrant the change. My back row is approx. 14' and it definitely masks the issues with lower quality 1080p transfers.
_________________ Projector: Modded 9501LC ULtra- MP VIM, Vold VNB, ETECH LVPS, Silver VIM Cables, HD10F's & a V1 case!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 Posts: 10273
|
Link Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LOL, I have been trying to tell people all of this for almost two decades yet they will buy into marketing anyways.
_________________ Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 5681 Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
Link Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Went with a customer of mine today to Best Buy's Magnolia Room, and was very impressed with the $35,000 sound system they had at the entrance. Martin Logan, Macintosh, etc.
But while there did get to look at a few of their 4K displays, and they turn out to perform just as I had expected. They appear to be twice as colorful, but lacking the ability to bring out clear backgrounds, when the higher resolution should make this a big plus. I also remember reading somewhere that a particular older model JVC projector, had become more sort after. Got to only look at the large 4K TV's and did not get to check out projected 4K from the ceiling mounted units. The size ranged from about 55" to 60" and was not cheap or inexpensive units.
4K seems to be taking things backwards once you get around the punchier colors that appears as over saturation. Just could not see or discern any improvements due from the higher or 4X the resolution.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
deronmoped
Joined: 03 Nov 2006 Posts: 1154 Location: San Diego
|
Link Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
At CES this year, me and my buddy got to view images from 4K PJ's. The one thing that was noticeable was how detailed the long distant shots were. I remember one where you could make out the details of cars, whereas you would not be able to with a lower resolution image. I though it was pretty cool, but kinda useless, when it comes to movies. Actually, I think of it as more of a distraction. I mean, do not producers of movies, set the "focus", on the subject, to focus your attention, set the mood... They do not want other parts of the image to take away from what the subject is.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
AnalogRocks Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 26690 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
Link Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
deronmoped wrote: | At CES this year, me and my buddy got to view images from 4K PJ's. The one thing that was noticeable was how detailed the long distant shots were. I remember one where you could make out the details of cars, whereas you would not be able to with a lower resolution image. I though it was pretty cool, but kinda useless, when it comes to movies. Actually, I think of it as more of a distraction. I mean, do not producers of movies, set the "focus", on the subject, to focus your attention, set the mood... They do not want other parts of the image to take away from what the subject is. |
Yep depth of field.
The first time I noticed this was on the James Bond Dr. No bluray. They did an astounding job on that restoration. zI remember watching the back ground in most of the shots.
_________________ Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ask4me2
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 Posts: 4
|
Link Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
deronmoped wrote: | At CES this year, me and my buddy got to view images from 4K PJ's. The one thing that was noticeable was how detailed the long distant shots were. I remember one where you could make out the details of cars, whereas you would not be able to with a lower resolution image. I though it was pretty cool, but kinda useless, when it comes to movies. Actually, I think of it as more of a distraction. I mean, do not producers of movies, set the "focus", on the subject, to focus your attention, set the mood... They do not want other parts of the image to take away from what the subject is. |
A 4K TV or projector will only show the details that is in razor sharp focus and may even enhance these creative narrow DOF effects. I do not see any problems with 4K equipment other than it is more transparent and need better source material and closer viewing distance to show its full potential.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
deronmoped
Joined: 03 Nov 2006 Posts: 1154 Location: San Diego
|
Link Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I watched the 4K version of "The Matrix" the other night. The only thing different I noticed was, Laurence Fishburne's face, not a pretty image. Beyond that, the added resolution did nothing for the movie.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
gjaky
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 Posts: 2789 Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
Link Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
deronmoped wrote: | I watched the 4K version of "The Matrix" the other night. The only thing different I noticed was, Laurence Fishburne's face, not a pretty image. Beyond that, the added resolution did nothing for the movie. |
It is not honest to expect much from a movie that heavily relies on 20 year old CGI. Now if it would have been shot in 70mm I would say otherwise...
_________________ projectors in the past : NEC 6-9PG xtra, Electrohome Marquee 6-7500, NEC XG 1351 LC ( with super modified Electrohome VNB neckboard !!!)
current: VDC Marquee 9500LC
The MOD: VNB-DB, VIM-DB
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
deronmoped
Joined: 03 Nov 2006 Posts: 1154 Location: San Diego
|
Link Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's funny that you say if it was in 70MM, that's because there seemed to be a ton of film like artifacts (film grain) noticeable. I don't know what could of caused that, added grain (in the original print) to try to reproduce a film-like image or a by product of the process to get it to 4K?
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
deronmoped
Joined: 03 Nov 2006 Posts: 1154 Location: San Diego
|
Link Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
So I took a look at the technical specifications and it was shot in 35MM film, I assumed it was video. So it looks like processing the film into a 4K version really enhanced the film grain.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
gjaky
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 Posts: 2789 Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
Link Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is also known as dithering, that is mosty used to mask digital artifacts or blocking by means of adding noise to the picture that tricks our brain.
_________________ projectors in the past : NEC 6-9PG xtra, Electrohome Marquee 6-7500, NEC XG 1351 LC ( with super modified Electrohome VNB neckboard !!!)
current: VDC Marquee 9500LC
The MOD: VNB-DB, VIM-DB
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oneill
Joined: 14 Feb 2019 Posts: 1
|
Link Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gjaky wrote: | It is also known as using probiotics for healing your gut and dithering, that is mosty used to mask digital artifacts or blocking by means of adding noise to the picture that tricks our brain. |
I had no idea dithering was a thing. Is it widely used?
Last edited by Oneill on Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:45 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 12024 Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
Link Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Very, and for a long time. I worked on a graphics system (PLATO) back in the 1970's. It had a 512x512 display (the very first networked graphic display system, as far as I know) but it was either on or off. No grayscale. I remember somebody wrote a program to display grayscale images on the PLATO screen, probably 1974 or so. That was my first exposure to dithering.
Basically they broke the monochrome image into 4x4 "superpixels," and then displayed between 0 and 15 pixels based on the brightness in that area, like this:
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|