Are 4K TV resolution over kill

[Smokey]

NBC News has just published a blistering attack on the new UltraHD 4K sets, concluding they are likely not worth your time. According to the article at the regular sitting distance, tech fans crazy for sharper resolution are sometimes paying for more pixels than their eyes can actually see.

The 4K TV, which is sold by Sony, Samsung and Panasonic, purports to offer a resolution four times greater than today's 1080p HDTVs. But the NBCNews.com article quotes numerous display and vision experts as saying that the average human eye can't detect the difference between a 4K TV (3820 x 2160 pixels) and a 1080p set (1920 x 1080.)

Adding more pixels to the screen may sound like an advancement, the experts say, but you can only see the extra resolution if you sit a few feet from the screen or buy a set with an extra-large screen, such as Samsung's 84-inch 4K TV.

Don Hood, a professor of ophthalmology at Columbia University, tells NBC News that "there's going to be some density beyond which you can't do any better because of the limits of your eye."

Raymond Soneira, the head of the display testing firm DisplayMate, agree and adds: "A regular human isn't going to see a difference."

In a typical living room, a viewer's 40- to 60-inch TV is positioned at a fixed distance, probably seven to nine feet away. Unless pixel-hungry TV fans buy far larger set, or push their couches much closer, any increases in resolution simply won't be perceived.

Enough pixels already! TVs, tablets, phones surpass limits of human vision, experts say - NBC News.com (http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/enough-pixels-already-tvs-tablets-phones-surpass-limits-human-vision-2D11691618)

[Feanor]

I think it's mostly marketing -- yet another way to route Joe Consumer's money to already wealthier hands and get him further in debt. But I know that Sir Terrence and the pros, (the folks who brought us 3D), and a few high rollers with huge projection systems will disagree, arguing that more is always better.

I admit I'd like a 3820 x 2160 computer monitor but not TV. I sit about 8' from a 50" plasm and it's difficult for me to see -- much less care about -- the difference between a BluRay and a quality DVD.

That raises another point: DVDs certainly vary in quality. If they were all as good as they could be, I wouldn't care about BluRay at all. It's directly analogous to the audiophile situation: guys like us are obsessed with, say, whether amp A is a bit too bright or amp B is a little too warm when the really big differences are between recording #1 and recording #2.

[blackraven]

I love the look of BR on a 4K tv. I think 4K will be great for TV's 60" or larger unless you plan on sitting close to the TV. On small TV's it is overkill.

[recoveryone]

Unless the studio's get behind the technology (content) 4k will be a niche just like 3D. Feanor has a good point concerning the average consumer. Unless the mass market jumps on the bandwagon it will be look upon as a failure. Not that it is not better than the current level of HDTV, but if it is priced out of range and no content to support it why would people bother?

[Mr Peabody]

I haven't seen 4k but have seen similar articles on CNET about it being beyond what our eye can see unless a large screen or sitting up close. Moving the sofa 4 feet from my screen is a good idea, then I can buy a smaller screen :). I wonder how they display the 4k accurately? Is there an actual 4k demo movie? Certainly upsampling wouldn't yield the same benefit as an actual 4k content. You do have to wonder when prices hit the basement and sales plateau if something like 4k is just another ploy to start the cycle all over again.

[bfalls]

Unless the studio's get behind the technology (content) 4k will be a niche just like 3D. Feanor has a good point concerning the average consumer. Unless the mass market jumps on the bandwagon it will be look upon as a failure. Not that it is not better than the current level of HDTV, but if it is priced out of range and no content to support it why would people bother?

Isn't film resolution 4k x 3k? So high-resolution media is available (doesn't require all new media) just needs to be converted for TV/Video playback. I've seen actual 4K on a 4K screen using a 4K player once. It was very impressive. I've also seen several ultra 4K movies and they are very good as well. There's a much larger difference going 1080 to Ultra than I saw going from 480 to 1080.

[blackraven]

Mr. P. you have to see a 4K picture to believe it. Stop by a BB Magnolia store. I have seen the 4K picture several times and it is variable depending upon the movie but on a source made for 4k it is stunning.

[recoveryone]

Isn't film resolution 4k x 3k? So high-resolution media is available (doesn't require all new media) just needs to be converted for TV/Video playback. I've seen actual 4K on a 4K screen using a 4K player once. It was very impressive. I've also seen several ultra 4K movies and they are very good as well. There's a much larger difference going 1080 to Ultra than I saw going from 480 to 1080.

Let me put it in this ream Batamax vs VHS, DVIX vs DVD and HD vs Blu Ray the winner was not always the best but the one the studios supported in content (that's in sales and broadcast). I never said 4K was not good, but will it be made available to the masses from top to bottom. For something to be considered revolutionary it needs to be the must have item to the masses or make all other competing formats die off. Will 4K do that to HD? At this point unless the government gets involved placing a mandate on conversion as they did for HD (even if they kept pushing the date back several times) 4k will be a niche format at the consumer level due to price and lack of supported content at the local BB. Target and Wal Mart sales shelves.

Mandates=profits and profits is what drives compliance, making something the next must have item. So tell me where 4k has these elements behind it to make it on the mass market. I said the same for 3D and the proof is in the pudding. Lack of content on both the broadcast level and sales online and Brick stores, ESPN dropped its broadcast and I know of no other channel that is still or trying to bring any 3D content to the masses.

4k will be best used at sports arena's and other large crowd events to give those the feeling of home with 60k plus of there best friends. So native film resolution has always been higher, but they don't produce it (Rent, broadcast or sale) at that level. Until my local BB or Wal mart has a display of movies at 4k for sale within the average cost of DVD or Blu Ray it will be a niche market item for those that will have to special order the content or be a web site that specialize in the content like SACD's, (limited content and higher than average cost). That does not = success

[Smokey]

That raises another point: DVDs certainly vary in quality. If they were all as good as they could be, I wouldn't care about BluRay at all.

After seeing few movies on BR and reading BR reviews, the same thing can be said about bluray movies. One rule of thumb might be that if a DVD got good reviews for its picture quality, there is good chance same movie look awesome on bluray.


I love the look of BR on a 4K tv.I bet DVD doesn't looks too good on 4k TV since there is too much void for TV to fill in. For bluray movies on 4K, eye resolution and sitting distnace will also be factor, so it is a mix result.
Moving the sofa 4 feet from my screen is a good idea, then I can buy a smaller screen :)

If you are using TV as PC monitor, moving sofa closer might not be feasible. Most web sites use white background (like AR) and sitting too close make you go blind.


There's a much larger difference going 1080 to Ultra than I saw going from 480 to 1080.If you take viewing distance out of factor, I believe the reverse will be more true :)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Isn't film resolution 4k x 3k? So high-resolution media is available (doesn't require all new media) just needs to be converted for TV/Video playback. I've seen actual 4K on a 4K screen using a 4K player once. It was very impressive. I've also seen several ultra 4K movies and they are very good as well. There's a much larger difference going 1080 to Ultra than I saw going from 480 to 1080.

I have to agree with bfalls on this. 4K on both a panel(it must be a well designed one, not a Seiko) and projector is simply stunning to behold. Here is the problem.

1. Nobody but the most avid video person will sit close enough to see all of the pixels in 2160p. I would, I already sit pretty darn close to a 60" 1080p plasma television(7ft)

2. The extra resolution is great, but color accuracy(and a wider gamut), the panel dynamic range, black levels, and accurate greyscale and white levels(along with low panel latency) are equally if not more important. Resolution without these characteristics will not be very impressive to the eye.

3. Most of the folks pissing on 4K do not have enough experience with it to come to even a useful subjective conclusion. Only D-Cinema offers native 4K resolution, there is absolutely no software for hometheater(upscaled resolutions don't count).

4. The same argument being made about 4K is also being made about HFR video. Nobody likes change, whether we are talking about the average casual HT enthusiast, journalists, or even old school folks in love with the look of film.

5. One can make the argument that this whole thing is nothing more than marketing, but how do you come to that determination without actually seeing it?

6. Once you have seen good 4K, 1080p looks like DVD. Once you have seen Showscan(60fps), and HFR(48fps), then 24fps films look out of focus when viewing action intensive scenes.

Once there is a set standard for 4K for the home, I think many minds will be changed about it. While we are in a transitory state(with no software to view, and no codecs to enhance efficiency), speculation is high, and so are the negative opinions.

Lastly, when sound arrived on film, people hated it. When color arrived, people complained about it. When ultra widescreen film hit, people were overwhelmed. When 5.1 digital sound came to theaters in 1992, people complained it was too loud and distracting(which I agree with). Last year we had HFR video come to theaters, and it was wildly panned by everyone(they are not complaining about it on the last Hobbit movie though). Each and every time we cross a new threshold in cinema and HT, it is met with complaints from folks who do not like change very much.

Recovery type individual, Just like 720p and 1080p made it to the masses(as well as 480p), then 2160p will get there as well. Everyone is looking to sell, sell, sell, whether it is hardware, or software. You cannot make any money from a niche product. The laser disc is a prime example of that, and so is the minidisc, DCC, SACD and DVD-A.


But I know that Sir Terrence and the pros, (the folks who brought us 3D), and a few high rollers with huge projection systems will disagree, arguing that more is always better.

Feanor, please do not put words in my mouth. More is not always better, and neither is less. There is always a point of diminishing returns with both audio and video. For audio, while I love the sound of 192khz 24bit audio, most folks would not hear the benefit, but I do. Anything above 24/48khz is a point of diminishing returns for most folks, especially most older folks whose hearing is compromised by age. Some folks think anything more than 2D is a point of diminishing return, but I disagree as well - as there is a big return with HFR and 3D(and throw Atmos and Auro 11.1 in that mix as well). The eyesight of some, and the hearing of others can limit what they audibly and visually perceive. Anything beyond ones own perceptual ability is a point of diminishing return. So no, for some folks, more is not better. We do not need more resolution at this point, we need more realistic visual spatialization(can anyone say holograms?)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

After seeing few movies on BR and reading BR reviews, the same thing can be said about bluray movies. One rule of thumb might be that if a DVD got good reviews for its picture quality, there is good chance same movie look awesome on bluray.

Not really. If a different master is used for both, one can look like crap, and the other can be quite stunning. Blade Runner is a prime example. My DVD copy looks like low resolution video. However thanks to a strong remastering effort, the Bluray looks quite stunning and film like.


I bet DVD doesn't looks too good on 4k TV since there is too much void for TV to fill in. For bluray movies on 4K, eye resolution and sitting distnace will also be factor, so it is a mix result.

One cannot make this assumption without taking the video scaler into consideration. A good scaler can make 480p look just like 720p. It can make video look more like film.


If you are using TV as PC monitor, moving sofa closer might not be feasible. Most web sites use white background (like AR) and sitting too close make you go blind.

This all depends on the size of the monitor.

If you take viewing distance out of factor, I believe the reverse will be more true :)[/QUOTE]

You cannot take viewing distance out of the factor, that is the very basis for the extra resolution.

[Feanor]

Feanor, please do not put words in my mouth. More is not always better, and neither is less. There is always a point of diminishing returns with both audio and video. For audio, while I love the sound of 192khz 24bit audio, most folks would not hear the benefit, but I do. Anything above 24/48khz is a point of diminishing returns for most folks, especially most older folks whose hearing is compromised by age. Some folks think anything more than 2D is a point of diminishing return, but I disagree as well - as there is a big return with HFR and 3D(and throw Atmos and Auro 11.1 in that mix as well). The eyesight of some, and the hearing of others can limit what they audibly and visually perceive. Anything beyond ones own perceptual ability is a point of diminishing return. So no, for some folks, more is not better. We do not need more resolution at this point, we need more realistic visual spatialization(can anyone say holograms?)
Ha, well it seems I didn't put all that many words in your mouth that weren't already there.

In your case your are an expert professional and very attuned to notice differences and maybe young enough not to be affected by hearing & vision decline. In my case I'll admit up front to some hearing and vision limitations, mostly age related. (I'm an example of the ageing population.) I don't hear anything above 10 kHz; my vision is still sharp with correction and I have full color distinction, but I get eye stain easily. The most recent Hobbit movie I watched in 2D because I had a headache for the first 40 minutes watching the previous one in HFR/3D.

As for sound, despite the HF limitation, I can still hear very small sound differences, (in many cases, too small for me to care about).

[recoveryone]

Sir TT, I am SO PROUD OF YOU SIR, you presented your case in the most comperhensive style and grace Sir. For the many years we both have shared time on this site I can call this a water shed moment in AR histroy :). I can not argue one point you made, as you came for the halls of higher knowledge in this area and I come from the land of cost vs reward. 4k will get its chance same as all the other new technology over the years, so no one person can truly know how this will or will not take. I know you are always on the cutting edge and I on the wait and see boat. But I still stand by my statement about the needed support from the studios, if they do not push this format it will not live a bright shinny life as the added resolution can bring.

[noddin0ff]

I admit I'd like a 3820 x 2160 computer monitor but not TV.

This is what I'd want higher resolution for on a tv--for use as a 50" dual purpose computer monitor and entertainment thingy. Text and vector rendering on the tv will likely be more important as tech marches on. I'm unlikely to notice the resolution difference in movies, but I do like crisp text. Granted, I haven't tried my current set as a monitor. Maybe it's better than I think already...

[Feanor]

This is what I'd want higher resolution for on a tv--for use as a 50" dual purpose computer monitor and entertainment thingy. Text and vector rendering on the tv will likely be more important as tech marches on. I'm unlikely to notice the resolution difference in movies, but I do like crisp text. Granted, I haven't tried my current set as a monitor. Maybe it's better than I think already...
What I don't personally understand is why computer output at 1920x1080 looks so much better on my Samsung 23" LED monitor via DVI than on my Panasonic 50" plasm TV via HDMI. Is there an explanation??

[blackraven]

There are more Pixels per square inch with the 23" than the 50". The Pixel density is higher in the 23" period. Just go look at tablets, the ones with the higher pixel density look better than the lower ones. Thats why 4K TV sets look great even close up on large screens. If I sit too close to my Samsung 55" TV in 1080P the picture looks crappy. Take a look at the Sony 4K TV at Best Buy. You can get right up on the picture and it looks great.

The $20K digital XRay monitors we use at work have extremely high pixel density. Even when we magnify the picture and zoom in on an area, it is hard to see the pixels from 12" away.

[Feanor]

There are more Pixels per square inch with the 23" than the 50". The Pixel density is higher in the 23" period. Just go look at tablets, the ones with the higher pixel density look better than the lower ones. Thats why 4K TV sets look great even close up on large screens. If I sit too close to my Samsung 55" TV in 1080P the picture looks crappy. Take a look at the Sony 4K TV at Best Buy. You can get right up on the picture and it looks great.

The $20K digital XRay monitors we use at work have extremely high pixel density. Even when we magnify the picture and zoom in on an area, it is hard to see the pixels from 12" away.
This all makes sense but isn't the whole explanation. I sit farther from the TV and its pixels per angle of vision is about the same as for monitor.

[blackraven]

Speaking of 4K, my son told me he had read that Vizio and Polaroid are coming out with $1000 4K TV's next year. I also heard on talk radio that the movie industry is going to start filming for 4K.

I was just over at Best Buy yesterday and looked at the Sony and Samsung 4K TV's. The pictures are stunning. If you can't tell the difference them you need to get your eyes checked. Everything has richer colors, more detail and texture.

[Feanor]

Speaking of 4K, my son told me he had read that Vizio and Polaroid are coming out with $1000 4K TV's next year. I also heard on talk radio that the movie industry is going to start filming for 4K.

I was just over at Best Buy yesterday and looked at the Sony and Samsung 4K TV's. The pictures are stunning. If you can't tell the difference them you need to get your eyes checked. Everything has richer colors, more detail and texture.
The issue for me isn't whether I can SEE the difference between 720, 1080, or 4K but whether I CARE about it. Earlier I stated that I really didn't care about the diff between high quality DVD and BluRay.

Of course there are people who WILL care but might they comprise a niche market for the foreseeable future. The industry WILL NOT pass up the opportunity to skim the early adopters, and I'm not talking only about the equipment makers but also the program creators and distributors. Eventually higher resolution will become standard but that could be decades away.

[astrallite]

I'd certainly prefer to play games at 4K, particularly anything with alot of still images like top/down games, RPGs, platformers, etc. Of course I'm referring to PC games as a PS4 or XBone isn't going to be able to drive any of this. To bad until HDMI 2.0 all we have is split screen 4K MST garbage on the PC.