24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!

[Davesrose]

4K is perfectly capable of producing an image as good as film in theatrical projection. It's primarily a format for theatrical distribution and digitizing and archiving films for preservation purposes. 8K exists, but it is intended for films shot in large formats like 70mm, Cinerama, etc.

For the home, if you sit at the recommended seating distance, there really isn't any need for anything over 1080p or 2K (which are basically the same). The only benefit of 4K in the home is being able to get up and look closely at the screen.

And like audio, the resolution isn't the real determiner of image quality. I have DVDs that are mastered better than blu-rays.

For me, the bigger jump with 4K home formats isn't so much resolution (though it helps when screens are getting larger), but also standards with HDR. Whereas audible dynamic range was already reached with audio formats with early digital audio, the human eye can see 10-14 stops of light (and traditional TV formats carried 8 stops of DR). Image formats can get up to 32 stops of light for simulation with 3D rendering or post processing of an environment that has bright light and deep shadow (say a picture taken indoors and you want to include a window with bright daylight). Now 4K displays can start comfortably show 10 stops of DR. Cinema cameras and 2K digital intermediates (that are in higher DCI resolutions for widescreen format than 1080P) have also had dynamic ranges exceeding 8bits (currently the best RAW video codecs are getting around 16bits).

I did learn traditional photography in the darkroom and then transitioned to digital. My impression of my first digital cameras were that it had better low light performance than high speed film, but it was also obvious its dynamic range wasn't as good as film (I could "burn" or "dodge" areas to get more contrast out in areas...vs digital bringing in noise). That quickly changed with more generations of digital sensors....now I don't see any advantage with film as a spec. Seeing restored films in 4K, it's also easier to see the limitation of the film source (where a movie title can have different film stocks and ISO for given shots)...as well as lens and focusing technologies.

 

[bigshot]

Turning out the lights in your viewing room and calibrating your black point can help a lot with getting better dynamics in video too. I have a projector, and those generally don't have the best contrast ratios, but with the lights off and on the big screen it isn't much of a problem. A lot of people have fancy 4K monitors, but they watch it like a TV set with the lights on in the room and don't get any of the benefits of the increased dynamics and improved color.

It's similar with audio... Dynamics extend downward. If you have a high ambient noise floor, broad dynamics aren't perceptible below a certain point. Wide dynamics aren't a positive thing on a train or plane or car or in the street.

 

[71 dB]

I have watched movies from VHS tapes on a 14" standard definition TV. Eventually I moved to 32" standard definition TV (the EISA awarded Panasonic with 100 Hz picture and flat screen - it was the best money can buy) and DVD. The increase in picture quality was great! A decade later I moved to 32" HD flat TV and Blu-ray. Massive improvement in picture quality and suddenly movies looked like movies. They even play at the correct speed because there is no 4 % PAL speed-up we Europeans have suffered from in the standard definition era (because of 25 frames per second PAL system).

I fell in love with Blu-ray. It is the first physical video format in my life that feels "good enough", so good that I don't need anything better. Given the reality that the screens I will be watching my movies from will remain rather small, I don't see any reason to go 4K. I have not seen HDR-picture, but to my eyes well-done Blu-rays look awesome. It's not about whether I would see the difference. I'm sure I would. It's about whether I "need" the improvements to ENJOY movies, which is the whole point for me.

I have been upgrading my DVD-collection to Blu-rays, but it is not easy because they released much more stuff on DVD than Blu-ray. Blu-ray releases are also much more "localized" so that a French release of a Japanese movie might have only French subtitles when I need at least English subtitles or preferably Finnish subtitles on non-English movies. So, if a Japanese movie is released only in Japan and France, I am probably out of luck. DVD-releases were often (but not always) much broader: You might have 20+ subtitle languages! Now that Brexit happened and ordering stuff from UK is becoming problematic, I have been ordering Blu-rays from Germany, which is one of the largest markets for Blu-rays. I have to be careful about the subtitles if the movie itself isn't English.

My taste in movies is such that what I would like to collect isn't released widely. I am not into Marvel superhero blockbusters with $300 million budgets. They are boring audiovisual noise to me. If I am having hard time collecting movies on Blu-ray, collecting them on 4K must be really frustrating! That's why I am not jumping on the 4K train anytime soon if ever.

Just watched the movie Firestarter (1984) on Blu-ray. It has got a soundtrack by Tangerine Dream. The picture quality of this German release is far from the best I have seen on Blu-ray, but it is decent. However, the real problem for me with this presentation is the original mono (!) sound which is quite crappy for a 80's movie. 4K would not help that at all.

My point is at this point of my life I am hardly at all interested of chasing more bits and resolution. I am more interested of getting my hands on stuff that I like and enjoy. Give me a decent Blu-ray of an obscure movie that for some reason resonates with my weird mind and I am happy. How about Michael Haneke's "The Piano Teacher" on Blu-ray with Finnish subtitles? That's what I want, not HDR.

 

[Davesrose]

I have watched movies from VHS tapes on a 14" standard definition TV. Eventually I moved to 32" standard definition TV (the EISA awarded Panasonic with 100 Hz picture and flat screen - it was the best money can buy) and DVD. The increase in picture quality was great! A decade later I moved to 32" HD flat TV and Blu-ray. Massive improvement in picture quality and suddenly movies looked like movies. They even play at the correct speed because there is no 4 % PAL speed-up we Europeans have suffered from in the standard definition era (because of 25 frames per second PAL system).

I'm a child of the 80s and have fond memories of spending time with my dad (a cinephile as well) by renting all sorts of movies on VHS from what was the supplier that had the largest and cheapest selection of VHS movies for rent: Pharmor. It's funny that compared to my dad, I was the first to embrace the new media (until 4K, in which he was first to get an OLED display). In college, I got a DVD drive for my computer, and tried having a mish mash of loudspeakers for fronts and computer speakers in back for a Dolby Surround 5.1 experience with a 19" display. My dad had a 32" Sony CRT and Dolby surround with VHS tape. He has a sister in Vienna....so back then it was considered we wouldn't do much exchanging.

By the time I had more disposable income, HDTV plasmas were becoming the premium TV format (there were also cheaper EDTVs that carried DV resolutions). My 42" Panasonic plasma didn't have Full HD (that was unheard of then), but it's interesting that it still looks better with 1080i/p content (it's native resolution is inbetween, and it must have a better de-interlacer/de-scaler vs upscaler). When my parents first viewed my HDTV (at that point, before HD discs and just a few HDTV channels)....my dad claimed no difference compared to a good DVD. He had started his addiction with DVD collecting (he probably collected over 5,000 total). A few more years, and with the sales of HD-DVD when it was starting to fade, HD-DVD was still something good for spending a few bucks to see what true HD media was like (by that point, blu-ray players were still expensive). I had gotten a Toshiba HD-DVD player and several titles: Warner was good about having a cheaper exchange program of getting the same blu-ray titles. Just like DVD, I first got a blu-ray drive for my computer. I also updated my audio system to HDMI with full 7.1 speakers (including main towers). What's nice about audio systems....I'm still using those 7 main speakers with my current 7.1.4 system.

The good thing about HD standards and being in a family that has members in Europe.....is that since the resolution is the same, many brands do make equipment that is the same model and has the variable refresh rates of PAL vs NTSC. Unfortunately, blu-ray still kept region encoding....so I still have a modded Oppo region free player (and it's arduous with my current Denon 3D audio receiver in that I have to disable enhanced HDMI for it to get it to display an image: which is different than any other source). When I got a VPN, I was also able to order European blu-rays with digital copies and still redeem the digital copies. 4K media is better with sharing between regions since it is region free (though physical media is dying and my dad does more internet rips of North American content for my aunt in Austria).

We're in interesting times if you're just a cinema purist looking for the most esoteric title. I did try plugging a VHS player into my HDTV, and I was just appalled with the quality. From time to time, I still watch SD analog video content on my big screen for its content, but I have to disassociate as to not having a cohesive image on such a large screen. DVD can be hit or miss depending on how it was mastered.....but it is a medium in which there are a lot of out of print titles. I'm not sure the difference in number of titles between blu-ray and HD streaming, but some titles will always just be physical and never re-encoded for online consumption. However, there's also old movies that were scanned and then restored in 4K or 8K....and I've found they can be quite impressive in their new itteration. Certainly not many 4:3 mono B&W titles....but even early Alfred Hitchcock movies have had some uptick (and when I compare a title that was HD vs 4K with HDR, I usually can pick up a difference with deeper contrast range). There's also a number of movies 1980s+ that have been remastered in Atmos/DTS:X. I have found some have been impressive.

I'm closer to my aunt in Vienna thanks to the internet: it's really nice that we can FaceTime vs just speaking over the phone. We do more exchanging of music, American TV shows, and movies. There's also not a concern about PAL vs NTSC with our digital exchanges.

I write this as I just finished watching a documentary about BlockBuster video (and how there's one independent outlet still identified as BlockBuster). Many contributors were going on about physical media and how there's just something about getting that VHS case and opening it (and now amazing young kids about how a movie is stored on something like this). I actually don't have such nostalgia....videotape was good for back then, but it's just terrible from a quality standpoint. 4K to date is the best for a home cinema experience.

 

[magicscreen]

GIYF

You can type into google:
24*192000
16*44100

4608000 > 705600
The Hi-Res is better 6.53 times .

This is pure mathematics.

 

[118900]

GIYF

You can type into google:
24*192000
16*44100

4608000 > 705600
The Hi-Res is better 6.53 times .

This is pure mathematics.

Have you actually read and, more crucially, understood the Nyquist-Shannon theorem?

typing arbitrary mathematical functions doesn’t really help you.

that is pure logic (unless the aim of your comment was just to try and trigger people and troll the board)

 

[castleofargh]

After 400 pages, someone finally noticed that more bits and more samples mean more stuff.

Case closed...

 

[SoundAndMotion]

GIYF

You can type into google:
24*192000
16*44100

4608000 > 705600
The Hi-Res is better 6.53 times .

This is pure mathematics.

TFTT I'd never heard of google before your post.

2 Tylenol is good for a headache.
13 Tylenol is better 6.5 times.

Award-winning chili recipe says 3 tbsp salt.
20 tbsp salt is better 6.67 times.

This is pure mathematics... but one wonders whether mathematically-demonstrated "more is better" answers all questions...

 

[118900]

TFTT I'd never heard of google before your post.

2 Tylenol is good for a headache.
13 Tylenol is better 6.5 times.

Award-winning chili recipe says 3 tbsp salt.
20 tbsp salt is better 6.67 times.

This is pure mathematics... but one wonders whether mathematically-demonstrated "more is better" answers all questions...

The sadness is that the only mathematical proof provided was that more is more, not that it’s better.

 

[71 dB]

GIYF

You can type into google:
24*192000
16*44100

4608000 > 705600
The Hi-Res is better 6.53 times .

This is pure mathematics.

Yes, you can use Google to calculate these. Or you can use WolframAlpha. Or you can do what I use, the good old SHARP EL-5030 Scientific calculator from the late 80's.

Bigger number is a bigger number. Sometimes it is "better." Sometimes it is "worse." Sometimes it doesn't make a difference.

Digital audio is a bit tricky, because it is not always so intuitive. You can use Google also to study sampling theorem and human hearing. The sampling theorem (it is pure mathematics!) says how many samples per second we need to take to achieve the bandwidth we want. Human hearing covers 20 kHz of bandwith and about 130 dB of long term dynamic range, but only about 70 dB off short term dynamic range relevant to music listening. So, to have some safety margin lets have 80 dB of dynamic range. That's 20 dB more than vinyl gives at best. Okay, how many bits is 80 dB? 6 dB/bit => 80 dB / (6 dB/bit) is about 13 bits. Use of shaped dither can increase perceptual dynamic range 10 - 20 dB! So, 13 bits should be enough. If 13 bits is enough, so is 16! That's 3 bits worth of overkill. Young children hear up to 20 kHz and older people less than than. What is your own limit? 17 kHz? 16 kHz? 15 kHz? So, if sampling theory says we need to have a sampling frequency at least twice the highest frequency in our signal we need to go to 44100 Hz or so, but do not need 192 kHz because we are not bats.

16 bit/44.1 kHz covers human hearing for the purpose of music listening. In any situation of practicality and sanity.

Sampling theory also tells us the correctly bandlimited signals can be constructed 100 % accurately. We have one problem however, quantization. It creates distortion and noise. The less bit depth, the stronger the distortion and noise is. Now enters the miraculous savior named dither I mentioned already above. Dither makes an offer you can't resist: It promises to remove distortion caused by quantization entirely for the price of increasing the noise level just a little bit, but the noise doesn't sound as bad as the granulating distortion! Okay, you need 13 bits and you have 16 bits... ...that is 18 dB of safety margin and dither would raise your noise floor by a few decibels. Hmm, surely you can accept that and you get rid of ALL quantization distortion! Even quiet signals are precise and you don't even hear the masking effect of the noise floor, because it is below the short term dynamic range of your hearing. Great deal! Isn't this dither so generous and nice?

When you understand digital audio and you know the facts you realize 16 bit/44.1 kHz already gives you everything you need for consumer audio.

More is better if you need more. It is not better if you don't need more. Human hearing dictates how much we need from digital audio, where the limit is. More can be worse. More bits requires more storage space. More bandwidth means more possibilities for unwanted interferences. Why suffer from such problems if the are no benefits? 24 bits is beneficial in audio production for technical reasons and more bandwidth can be useful in some production situations, but thats it. For consumers it all can be downsampled to 16 bit/44.1 kHz without loss of audio quality. Don't be fooled by Hi-res sellers. They make you pay for your ignorance, your lack of understanding of digital audio and human hearing. Instead listen to people who do understand digital audio and are not after your money. I have no incentive to lie or deceive. I'm just telling how it is.

 

[peskypesky]

TFTT I'd never heard of google before your post.

2 Tylenol is good for a headache.
13 Tylenol is better 6.5 times.

Award-winning chili recipe says 3 tbsp salt.
20 tbsp salt is better 6.67 times.

This is pure mathematics... but one wonders whether mathematically-demonstrated "more is better" answers all questions...

I smashed a cockroach and killed him.
I then smashed him 6 more times, so he's 6 times more dead.

I washed my clothes and then put them in the dryer. When the cycle was done, the clothing felt dry to the touch, but I dried them 6 more times, so they are 6 times drier.

This is simple mathematics.

 

[118900]

I smashed a cockroach and killed him.
I then smashed him 6 more times, so he's 6 times more dead.

I washed my clothes and then put them in the dryer. When the cycle was done, the clothing felt dry to the touch, but I dried them 6 more times, so they are 6 times drier.

This is simple mathematics.

But you didn’t kill/dry them 6.53 times better, just 6. No good

 

[peskypesky]

Yes, you can use Google to calculate these. Or you can use WolframAlpha. Or you can do what I use, the good old SHARP EL-5030 Scientific calculator from the late 80's.

Bigger number is a bigger number. Sometimes it is "better." Sometimes it is "worse." Sometimes it doesn't make a difference.

Digital audio is a bit tricky, because it is not always so intuitive. You can use Google also to study sampling theorem and human hearing. The sampling theorem (it is pure mathematics!) says how many samples per second we need to take to achieve the bandwidth we want. Human hearing covers 20 kHz of bandwith and about 130 dB of long term dynamic range, but only about 70 dB off short term dynamic range relevant to music listening. So, to have some safety margin lets have 80 dB of dynamic range. That's 20 dB more than vinyl gives at best. Okay, how many bits is 80 dB? 6 dB/bit => 80 dB / (6 dB/bit) is about 13 bits. Use of shaped dither can increase perceptual dynamic range 10 - 20 dB! So, 13 bits should be enough. If 13 bits is enough, so is 16! That's 3 bits worth of overkill. Young children hear up to 20 kHz and older people less than than. What is your own limit? 17 kHz? 16 kHz? 15 kHz? So, if sampling theory says we need to have a sampling frequency at least twice the highest frequency in our signal we need to go to 44100 Hz or so, but do not need 192 kHz because we are not bats.

16 bit/44.1 kHz covers human hearing for the purpose of music listening. In any situation of practicality and sanity.

Sampling theory also tells us the correctly bandlimited signals can be constructed 100 % accurately. We have one problem however, quantization. It creates distortion and noise. The less bit depth, the stronger the distortion and noise is. Now enters the miraculous savior named dither I mentioned already above. Dither makes an offer you can't resist: It promises to remove distortion caused by quantization entirely for the price of increasing the noise level just a little bit, but the noise doesn't sound as bad as the granulating distortion! Okay, you need 13 bits and you have 16 bits... ...that is 18 dB of safety margin and dither would raise your noise floor by a few decibels. Hmm, surely you can accept that and you get rid of ALL quantization distortion! Even quiet signals are precise and you don't even hear the masking effect of the noise floor, because it is below the short term dynamic range of your hearing. Great deal! Isn't this dither so generous and nice?

When you understand digital audio and you know the facts you realize 16 bit/44.1 kHz already gives you everything you need for consumer audio.

More is better if you need more. It is not better if you don't need more. Human hearing dictates how much we need from digital audio, where the limit is. More can be worse. More bits requires more storage space. More bandwidth means more possibilities for unwanted interferences. Why suffer from such problems if the are no benefits? 24 bits is beneficial in audio production for technical reasons and more bandwidth can be useful in some production situations, but thats it. For consumers it all can be downsampled to 16 bit/44.1 kHz without loss of audio quality. Don't be fooled by Hi-res sellers. They make you pay for your ignorance, your lack of understanding of digital audio and human hearing. Instead listen to people who do understand digital audio and are not after your money. I have no incentive to lie or deceive. I'm just telling how it is.

Unfortunately, you waste your time trying to explain complicated things to people who can only understand basic math like multiplication and addition.

 

[peskypesky]

But you didn’t kill/dry them 6.53 times better, just 6. No good

next time I will smash him 7 times more.
and dry my clothes 7 times more.

7 > 6.53

 

[71 dB]

Unfortunately, you waste your time trying to explain complicated things to people who can only understand basic math like multiplication and addition.

I think I have fantasies about someone who happens to be on the brink of understanding these things reading my posts and having his/her Heureka moment...