4K?

[Howard V]

Your post is helpful. Maybe it helps to build a bit of a bridge between age groups and political idealogies represented on sites like this. Thanks

 

[Lee Jay]

But your examples have nothing to do with the science which was correct.

No, many things he said were wrong.

For example he said the reason we have wider vision horizontally than vertically is because our eyes are side-by-side. The actual reason is brows and cheeks block vertical field of view.

He said you can't see anything with just cones, which is just flat false.

He ignored visual scanning entirely.

He got both the resolution and frame rate wrong for conventional analog TV. He said it was 640 x 480 at 30fps interlaced. Wrong.

He said the main difference between VHS and DVD was the durability of the media, entirely ignoring the difference between analog and digital.

He confused the difference between pixels and subpixels on displays.

That's just off the top of my head. There were others.

 

[John Sheehy]

Right on. I found out how good 4K framegrabs could be by accident, when playing around with the 4K sequence feature during a passing parade with my ZS100. Selected frames of our passing senator on foot got more hits in my posted galleries than anything else I shot this year. Vacation shots of our daughter and granddaughter playing at the beach and in the water captured great moments I simply would’ve missed, shooting in stills modes. I’m hooked.

I've had a Casio superzoom for at least several years that could do 9MP JPEGs at 40fps for 3/4s, but required a long recovery time before the next burst, unlike 4K all-I grabs.

Of course, I couldn't choose lenses on that non-ILC camera.

 

[sybersitizen]

... the visible difference in REAL (not fake, aliased) detail is huge. I can see clear differences in a 4k image and a 2k version of it on my 39" 4k monitor from 18 feet away, and my vision is nothing like it used to be.

Does anyone else here want to make that kind of claim? I'm curious.

 

[Howard V]

Right on. I found out how good 4K framegrabs could be by accident, when playing around with the 4K sequence feature during a passing parade with my ZS100. Selected frames of our passing senator on foot got more hits in my posted galleries than anything else I shot this year. Vacation shots of our daughter and granddaughter playing at the beach and in the water captured great moments I simply would’ve missed, shooting in stills modes. I’m hooked.

I've had a Casio superzoom for at least several years that could do 9MP JPEGs at 40fps for 3/4s, but required a long recovery time before the next burst, unlike 4K all-I grabs.

Of course, I couldn't choose lenses on that non-ILC camera.

 

[tbcass]

But your examples have nothing to do with the science which was correct.

No, many things he said were wrong.

For example he said the reason we have wider vision horizontally than vertically is because our eyes are side-by-side. The actual reason is brows and cheeks block vertical field of view.

Both are factors but the fact that our horizontal vision is greater than vertical is 100% true. Why it’s true is irrelevant.

He said you can't see anything with just cones, which is just flat false.

Yes that was incorrect but his point was the cones aren’t relevant in good light and for color vision. When watching a color screen the rods are the only thing that matters.

He ignored visual scanning entirely.

Yes but the fact that we see only a very narrow area clearly was scientifically correct. What is true is this fact is not relevant to the discussion.

He got both the resolution and frame rate wrong for conventional analog TV. He said it was 640 x 480 at 30fps interlaced. Wrong.

That was in reference to DVD. Old fashioned broadcast TV was only 320x240 or something similar.

He said the main difference between VHS and DVD was the durability of the media, entirely ignoring the difference between analog and digital.

He confused the difference between pixels and subpixels on displays.

That's just off the top of my head. There were others.

True, those were technical issues he got incorrect.

--
Tom

 

[tbcass]

... the visible difference in REAL (not fake, aliased) detail is huge. I can see clear differences in a 4k image and a 2k version of it on my 39" 4k monitor from 18 feet away, and my vision is nothing like it used to be.

Does anyone else here want to make that kind of claim? I'm curious.

Yes that does seem dubious.

 

[KWNJr]

The reason why we see big difference between 1080p and 4k today is that 1080p video quality in consumer cameras suck bad time. And most of the streaming video suck too due to low bit rate like in youtube. Perfect optimal 1080p quality is actually very good and would be quite sufficient for most of us.

Sounds like the SD video difference (analog) between video from a VTR using 2 inch tape and a VHS VTR.

 

[Lee Jay]

But your examples have nothing to do with the science which was correct.

No, many things he said were wrong.

For example he said the reason we have wider vision horizontally than vertically is because our eyes are side-by-side. The actual reason is brows and cheeks block vertical field of view.

Both are factors but the fact that our horizontal vision is greater than vertical is 100% true. Why it’s true is irrelevant.

But wrong.

He said you can't see anything with just cones, which is just flat false.

Yes that was incorrect but his point was the cones aren’t relevant in good light and for color vision.

Then that's what he should have said.

When watching a color screen the rods are the only thing that matters.

He ignored visual scanning entirely.

Yes but the fact that we see only a very narrow area clearly was scientifically correct.

But largely irrelevant, because of scanning.

What is true is this fact is not relevant to the discussion.

He got both the resolution and frame rate wrong for conventional analog TV. He said it was 640 x 480 at 30fps interlaced. Wrong.

That was in reference to DVD.

No, that's not what he said.

Old fashioned broadcast TV was only 320x240 or something similar.

No, that's wrong too - and in the wrong direction.

"The NTSC selected 525 scan lines as a compromise between RCA's 441-scan line standard (already being used by RCA's NBC TV network) and Philco's and DuMont's desire to increase the number of scan lines to between 605 and 800.[5] The standard recommended a frame rate of 30 frames (images) per second, consisting of two interlaced fields per frame at 262.5 lines per field and 60 fields per second."

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

He said the main difference between VHS and DVD was the durability of the media, entirely ignoring the difference between analog and digital.

He confused the difference between pixels and subpixels on displays.

That's just off the top of my head. There were others.

True, those were technical issues he got incorrect.

 

[tbcass]

Your post is helpful. Maybe it helps to build a bit of a bridge between age groups and political idealogies represented on sites like this. Thanks

The big problem is older people posting on the forums that they can’t see that well any more. They should have their eyes checked for cataracts because it’s a problem that can be easily corrected with a short procedure. I had both my eyes done and, because I have Medicare ins, it cost only $70.

 

[Mackiesback]

I live in "the states" [sic] and I don't know anyone who has gone, or would go, to a store such as Best Buy without knowing which and what level channels they get. Usually the employees will be informed about it as well, and, of course, the websites of the providers. I use big computer monitors instead of a TV, but I looked into getting a large TV a couple of years ago; it took about five minutes to learn if anything was broadcast in 4K, and also how the nearby mountains would affect local channel reception in the case of power and/or cable/internet reception loss.

When I was looking for a new apartment two years ago, all of the property management offices also had this information, as they were asked all of the time.

Largely true, but irrelevant. Good luck finding TVs of a certain size that aren’t 4K or “smart”. No research necessary, while there are a lot of brands, the all are similar in features. 55” smart 4K TV for $375 bucks? No problemo.

 

[Howard V]

But your examples have nothing to do with the science which was correct.

No, many things he said were wrong.

For example he said the reason we have wider vision horizontally than vertically is because our eyes are side-by-side. The actual reason is brows and cheeks block vertical field of view.

Both are factors but the fact that our horizontal vision is greater than vertical is 100% true. Why it’s true is irrelevant.

He said you can't see anything with just cones, which is just flat false.

Yes that was incorrect but his point was the cones aren’t relevant in good light and for color vision. When watching a color screen the rods are the only thing that matters.

He ignored visual scanning entirely.

Yes but the fact that we see only a very narrow area clearly was scientifically correct. What is true is this fact is not relevant to the discussion.

He got both the resolution and frame rate wrong for conventional analog TV. He said it was 640 x 480 at 30fps interlaced. Wrong.

That was in reference to DVD. Old fashioned broadcast TV was only 320x240 or something similar.

He said the main difference between VHS and DVD was the durability of the media, entirely ignoring the difference between analog and digital.

He confused the difference between pixels and subpixels on displays.

That's just off the top of my head. There were others.

True, those were technical issues he got incorrect.

 

[tbcass]

4K is now the standard and the prices are low so when you buy a new TV it will be 4K.

 

[Howard V]

I live in "the states" [sic] and I don't know anyone who has gone, or would go, to a store such as Best Buy without knowing which and what level channels they get. Usually the employees will be informed about it as well, and, of course, the websites of the providers. I use big computer monitors instead of a TV, but I looked into getting a large TV a couple of years ago; it took about five minutes to learn if anything was broadcast in 4K, and also how the nearby mountains would affect local channel reception in the case of power and/or cable/internet reception loss.

When I was looking for a new apartment two years ago, all of the property management offices also had this information, as they were asked all of the time.

Largely true, but irrelevant. Good luck finding TVs of a certain size that aren’t 4K or “smart”. No research necessary, while there are a lot of brands, the all are similar in features. 55” smart 4K TV for $375 bucks? No problemo.

Yah, our 2K LG tv was $1,100 eight years ago!

 

[tbcass]

4x6 prints? I find that hard to believe unless the 1080 photos are lacking in something besides resolution. Any old piece of garbage camera can produce a good 4x6 print.

 

[Howard V]

Your post is helpful. Maybe it helps to build a bit of a bridge between age groups and political idealogies represented on sites like this. Thanks

The big problem is older people posting on the forums that they can’t see that well any more. They should have their eyes checked for cataracts because it’s a problem that can be easily corrected with a short procedure. I had both my eyes done and, because I have Medicare ins, it cost only $70.

 

[Howard V]

4x6 prints? I find that hard to believe unless the 1080 photos are lacking in something besides resolution. Any old piece of garbage camera can produce a good 4x6 print.

 

[John Sheehy]

... the visible difference in REAL (not fake, aliased) detail is huge. I can see clear differences in a 4k image and a 2k version of it on my 39" 4k monitor from 18 feet away, and my vision is nothing like it used to be.

Does anyone else here want to make that kind of claim? I'm curious.

There are some phenomena in which my claim would be ridiculous, I agree. If I said that I could see a B&W one-pixel-check checkerboard pattern at 4K from 18 feet away, rather than a solid grey, I would find it just as ridiculous as you do.

IMO, that's what people think of as "appreciable resolution" and where most anecdotes about the limits of human perception come from: bleeding light in all directions annihilating simple fine resolution patterns, but that has absolutely nothing to do with how the eyes and brain can appreciate the properly-located weighted center of an edge or point of light that is not buried in a tight repeating pattern of fine details.

The scenario that people think is the limit of perception (seeing grey instead of checks) is only the limit of seeing checks, and not the limit of any edge placements.

 

[sybersitizen]

... the visible difference in REAL (not fake, aliased) detail is huge. I can see clear differences in a 4k image and a 2k version of it on my 39" 4k monitor from 18 feet away, and my vision is nothing like it used to be.

Does anyone else here want to make that kind of claim? I'm curious.

There are some phenomena in which my claim would be ridiculous, I agree. If I said that I could see a B&W one-pixel-check checkerboard pattern at 4K from 18 feet away, rather than a solid grey, I would find it just as ridiculous as you do.

IMO, that's what people think of as "appreciable resolution" and where most anecdotes about the limits of human perception come from: bleeding light in all directions annihilating simple fine resolution patterns, but that has absolutely nothing to do with how the eyes and brain can appreciate the properly-located weighted center of an edge or point of light that is not buried in a tight repeating pattern of fine details.

The scenario that people think is the limit of perception (seeing grey instead of checks) is only the limit of seeing checks, and not the limit of any edge placements.

I have a pretty good 40" 4K TV purchased last year, and I've done stringent still image tests using my own high-detail content with 4K resolution and HD (2K) resolution side-by-side on screen. My vision (with glasses) is about average. I can't even get more than 11 feet from my TV in the room where it's located; and long before I reach that distance any attempt at resolution distinction has already become hopeless. I'm unable to see any difference unless my eyes are a few feet from the screen.

Tests like this are of course highly dependent on rescaling algorithms, so that represents a significant variable. With no smoothing at all, there is a considerable loss when downscaling 4K content to HD ... but I assume decent inbuilt smoothing algorithms are the norm rather than the exception. Could be wrong.

I don't know what else I can say. That 18 foot claim is still astonishing.

 

[tbcass]

There’s a lot of other considerations besides resolution. Color depth, dynamic range and contrast come to mind.