Dont be an idiot - 1080, 2160, 4320, 4K, 8K, UHD, etc

[SephYuyX]

Thought this was some interesting food for thought.
I try to watch this guy as much as possible, but this was a really interesting subject I didnt want to overlook.


Further discussion: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1471727/joe-kane-on-4k

In summary, the next step in HD is coming sooner than later, but.. it's just going to be a big money grab because the tech just doesnt exsist yet to fully utilize it.

So basically, I wanted to start this thread to have a discussion on what you guys think about 2160p, and to warn others who dont know anything about it not to get suckered in. Knowledge share go.

I really dont even know where to begin as there is so much good/bad info out there, but watching that video and reading other material will certainly help.


There are also two different sectors, the consumer and industrial, as it always has been is completly different from each other. This will be mostly covering consumer.


There are also misnomers with how the new tech is called, namely 2160 vs 4k vs UltraHD.

Well 2160 is the only correct naming convention for the next step; 4k would actually be the step after that (4320). But of course the shit marketing force is calling 2160 4k, and 4320 as 8k.

UHD is also a crappy term.. what are they going to call 4320, 8640, etc.. marketers suck so much.
http://eduardoangel.com/wp-content/u...andard-res.jpg


Then there is the debate at where quality can even be discerned at. It was originally deduced that 1080 cant be fully understood unless you have a 50" TV, thats actually not the case, it's closer to 72" that you can start seeing the differences between 720 and 1080. So unless you have a 72" TV, that 1080 movie would look just as good as a 720. Hope you didnt spend too much money on that PC monitor or new iPhone just because it supports 1080p.

If thats the case.. how will a 2160 fair? Well, it's assumed that the differences between 1080 and 2160 wont be noticable unless youre looking at a 120" TV. Wow.


That brings up color range and bit depth.

Below graph is the eyes visable color range. The inner triangle is 1080, the outer is 2160.
http://wolfcrow.com/blog/wp-content/...02/Rec2020.png
The below chart shows color depth, and how smooth the transistion is. Currently we use 8bit as a standard.
http://forum.videohelp.com/attachmen...4&d=1286525638

8bit on a large screen (60+) is very noticeable, and you can clearly see where 10bit makes a difference; At a minimum we need 12bit for 1080p. So what with 2160? Well, as youve probably figured out by now.. just double it. We need 24bit color for 2160 to get the full experiance. The catch is, we have no technology for anything above 16.


So you have a bigger res, bigger depth and color (not even going to get in to audio here, or that BS 3D stuff), what does that mean as far as bitrates and size goes?

We are currently using h264 as the go to encode, it does between 10-40mb, and thats a decent rate, as far as compression/quality goes. 2160? If we were to do h264 at even a flat 100mb, it looks terrible. 100mb is very hard to manage, so we need a new encode: h265. At 16mb it does a good job, but will need 32mb to really be standard.


Thats a lot of data flow, how are you going to transfer it? hdmi? Not with current standards. hdmi chokes on 2160, you would need to use 4 hdmi at once to sufficiently transfer.. or just use displayport. Thats right, the overnight random new connection is better than hdmi, at least for now, and in the forseeable future.


There are a lot of things changing, and unfortunately the marketing force is trying to push it out as fast as possible to cash in. We currently dont even have the technology to view 1080p properly let alone 2160.

Whats with all this new "BD Mastered in 4k" crap? Who is dumb enough to yet again rebuy older movies in this new format when our current rigs cant even display a "normal" BD movie?
http://www.ghostbustersnews.com/wp-c...busters_4k.png

I feel sorry for people who just arent aware of this stuff because they can be easily taken in.


Our community is a bit on the lucky side though, gamers will be the first to see 2160, and experience it better than anyone else, but dont bother buying a new monitor or gfx card if it doesnt have a displayport connection.


So this is a lot of info. Whats to take away from it?
New stuff is coming, it's all named wrong and inconsistently, we can barely display 1080 properly, and tech to display 2160 doesnt even exsist on a consumer level. So dont be an idiot, read up on this stuff and tell your non tech friends and family so they dont get suckered in by a retailer.


PS. This is about pushing limits. 2160 will still look better than 1080, even with an inferior setup, or tech that cant fully utilize it.

[hey]

We are currently using h264 as the go to encode, it does between 10-40mb, and thats a decent rate, as far as compression/quality goes. 2160? If we were to do h264 at even a flat 100mb, it looks terrible. 100mb is very hard to manage, so we need a new encode: h265. At 16mb it does a good job, but will need 32mb to really be standard.

What is this even supposed to mean?

[Kaisha]

What good is a 4K screen when we still have 1080p screens that still have shit black levels, pixel refresh rates not being as good as they should, 120hz still not being a normal thing, among other issues. It's all buzzwords as far as I'm concerned.

Is only relevant stuff for movie theatres since they actually have the screen sizes to accommodate a larger resolution for a digital projector, vs. having to get an IMAX projector set up.

What is this even supposed to mean?

Means the bit-rate for h264 encoding isn't efficient for higher resolution material. The current proposed h265 standard is much better at maintaining greater picture quality on larger images with a relatively low bitrate in comparison to h264 at the same resolution.

[hey]

Oh. That was worded terribly. And Err, that's not true at all. H264 works just fine at 4k. You certainly do not need 100 mbps for anything to look decent at 4k. You need less than 2x the bitrate to get comparable quality when going from 1080p to 4k with h264. Obviously that can still be fairly high, but not for certain type of content, and it certainly won't look terrible, as you put it. It'd be a significant advantage over that 10-40 mbps 1080p video. Yes, of course h265 will be a big improvement, but it's hardly required.

[hey]

lol, 25 minutes in or so, he basically says it's impossible to see a pixel on a 55" 1080p screen no matter how close you get. I can see the space between pixels on my 27" 1440p monitor from 3-4" away.

I mean, obviously a small screen from 50' away isn't going to make a difference no matter how high/low the resolution is, but if you're closer, it absolutely makes a difference.

edit: hmm, ~47 minutes in they talk about bit depth, and the size requirements to increase to 24+ bits...is that even a valid concern? I know 10 bit video compresses to smaller file sizes than 8 bit with the same quality despite a higher bit depth. Surely the same thing applies when going higher?

[Boyiee]

Seriously some bad/weird information going on in here.

You've got to be a fucktard twat if you think you think there is no difference between a 20-30inch 1080p monitor and a 30inch 2650x1600 monitor. Here are some eyes, use them. Maybe even try turning the monitor on.

[Kalmado]

What good is a 4K screen when we still have 1080p screens that still have shit black levels, pixel refresh rates not being as good as they should, 120hz still not being a normal thing, among other issues. It's all buzzwords as far as I'm concerned.

I read something similar on Cnet today regarding tvs in general. Paragraph taken from article:

Contrast ratio is basically a lie, refresh rate (120Hz, 240Hz, 600Hz, etc.) is complex and ultimately subjective, viewing angles for LCD and LED-backlit LCD TVs are bunk, and LED does not mean a better picture (while we're at it, all HDMI cables are the same)., Here is the article: http://reviews.cnet.com/tv-buying-guide/

I'll be buying a new tv in the next 3 or so weeks and it will be my first newer tv. I had planned on getting a plasma, but those are non existent practically in my area. After all of the reading and talking with different stores I don't think I've read/heard two of the same things and am so confused on what's actually important to get.

If some of you who feel confident in your tv knowledge would like to steer me in the right direction so I won't be an idiot I'd appreciate it! I'm looking to spend at most $600. Needs to be 50" or bigger. Do not care about "smart, 3d, etc". Thank you!

[Buffy]

I've bought easily 150 + TVs in the last 3 years for work.

If you want the best bang for your buck, the best option is Insignia. Insignia is Best Buy's in-house brand, but it is actually manufactured by LG. So essentially it is a LG TV, just re-skinned.

Of those 150+ TVs I've bought, I've had zero bad out of the box and none that have failed in the last 3 years.

I recently purchased a 55" LED TV from Best Buy for 750$

Also don't get Plasma if the room is small, the heat from it can get strong. LED > LCD for picture in my opinion, but you can get a bigger LCD TV for the same price.

edit: I just saw the part where you want a max of $600, but larger than 50". Almost certainly going to have to go LCD then.

Here is your 50" option @ $500: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Insignia...&skuId=6039067

Here is your 55" option @ $650: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Insignia...&skuId=4676582

And last, here is your 55" LED option @ $700 (On Sale right now!): http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Insignia...&skuId=4792294

There is no 50" LED option, closest is 55" or 46"

There are, of course, other non-insignia versions, but they are more expensive and (in my opinion) not worth paying for the name recognition.

[Kalmado]

Last time I went to Best Buy the "tv expert" said Insignia was made by Samsung...lol. My wife and I both disliked all of the LG's we've looked at. Maybe it's our eyes? I know others like LG. We checked on Sam's club today and they have a new JVC that just came out last month it looks like. Fits the size we want, budget, etc. If anyone has an opinion on the tv in the link provided please share it. http://www.samsclub.com/sams/50-60hz...navAction=push

We also saw a Westinghouse 46" LED for only $400, but I just don't trust it. Read a lot of bad things regarding Westinghouse. http://www.samsclub.com/sams/46-west...navAction=push

[djzombie]

It was originally deduced that 1080 cant be fully understood unless you have a 50" TV, thats actually not the case, it's closer to 72" that you can start seeing the differences between 720 and 1080.

I was always told(when i was selling tvs - and it could be wrong) that the difference was discernible when you got above 40" tvs. Also don't buy a plasma if the tv is going in a really bright well lit room, they really only perform well in very dark theatre quality rooms.

Dont buy a westinghouse. Ever. I had people return that shit same day because out of the box there were red lines down the tv or the screen was super dull.

Some suprisingly bright and clear tv's that were fairly new and unheard of brands were element and apex. Both were really inexpensive but the displays were just amazing despite that.

Another thing to consider if you're actually at a store looking at tv's, though I can only speak for target, all their demo tvs are hooked up either via broadcast antenna or coaxial cable, not a single set is hooked up through hdmi(at my store at least, from what i heard from others it was the same in other stores around the area) so what you're looking at in the store does not reflect the quality you will get at home using hdmi cables.

[djzombie]

screw you interwebs, i hit submit once!

[Prothescar]

need more focus on making nice big OLED screens more readily manufacturable for existing resolutions before making big pointless new ones that no one cares about

[Kerberoz]

I don't understand the point of movies going higher and higher resolution while still being 24fps slideshows. Extra pixels mean jack shit when they're dedicated to blur most of the time.

[Niya]

About the TV discussion, I just have to re-post this once more...
There is no "LED TV"!It's just a fucking marketing term with no sense behind it, LED is a backlight type, LCD is the panel type... All "LED TVs" are plain LCD panels with LED backlight. "LCD TVs" might still have CCFL backlight, but that's rather unlikely for newer models.

And about the higher and higher resolutions: can't link to a source since it was from a german IT magazine, but on any 1080 TV you can't discern the difference between 1080p and 720p video material when you're more than 2-2.5 times the panel diagonal away from the screen (and that's the recommended viewing distance).
4k displays just worsen this even more, unless you're just half a meter away from the panel you simply can't see any difference in quality. And it will probably be some more years before there are enough working solutions for delivering 4k material. Not to mention that there's practically no fitting source material nowadays (apart from a few new movies or shitty upscales). TV broadcasting in anything higher than 1080p will probably take another decade or 2...

[octopus]

I wanted an HDTV as soon as I could get my hands on one. I can't say I feel the same about 4K TV. Maybe the next xbox/PS4 will change my mind...

[kuronosan]

About the TV discussion, I just have to re-post this once more...
There is no "LED TV"!It's just a fucking marketing term with no sense behind it, LED is a backlight type, LCD is the panel type... All "LED TVs" are plain LED panels with LED backlight. "LCD TVs" might still have CCFL backlight, but that's rather unlikely for newer models.

I'll give you a minute to think about this.

[Boyiee]

I'm sure Insignia's are great, but I had to return two of them to bestbuy since December. Mainly for sound issues. Came home with an LG and it blew it away in pretty much every aspect except for the amount of HDMI ports, which a HDMI switch from Amazon solved within 2 days.

[Niya]

I'll give you a minute to think about this.

Curse those typos... Was meant to say "[...]are plain LCD panels with LED backlight."

[Fairy-Killer]

I'm all for getting everything up to 120Hz and 99% color gamut before we move on to the next set of resolutions. And resolution is pretty easy to understand: The more pixels you're pushing, the closer to the screen you can get before seeing the pixels.

I think our hardware has some catching up to do before we can fully embrace 4k. Hell, look how long it has taken for 1080p.

[kuronosan]

Hardware has catching up to do before 3D ceases to be a gimmick.

The problem is marketers and it always will be the problem.

AMAGAD OPPORTUNITY TO SELL MOAR EXPENSIVE SHIT TO INCREASE OUR PROFIT MARGINS AND INCREASE CREDIT DEBT NO1CURR CUZ MONAY

Our grandchildren will have children before any of this technology is really mainstream at this rate.