[Mad Lust Envy]

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/

Here's another article with some hard math.

I think 4K is a viable solution for realistically 75 inch TVs in rooms with 10ft distances. You won't gain the full benefit of 4k, but you'll gain some, over 1080p.

But for 65inches or less from closer than 9ft? I call BS. Some good old fashioned expectation bias.


The average TV to seating diatcne is what: 10-12feet? That's not even 1080p territory for 65 inch TVs or smaller.

 

[JeremyR]

As for computer gaming and graphics, that's an issue with the lack of technology to keep aliasing from being such an issue. It's less to do with resolution, more to do with the graphics behind these things.

 
No, it's not (by the way, I am a software developer who has done several OpenGL projects).
 
To drill it down to the simplest of terms, we are rasterizing a vector domain. When you look at a diagonal line in real life, a solid line of light is painted across your retina. On a computer monitor, you are using a grid of pixels to simulate the same experience. This is not a software problem. It's a hardware problem advanced software techniques try to overcome.
 
Another good test, is to take a white screen, and draw one pixel width of a horizontal line across it in black. If you can see that line, technology has not yet reached the point where resolution no longer matters.
 
I know of no screen where at normal operating distances this is true.

 

[JeremyR]

ops, hit the quote button, not the edit one. Deleting post.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Oh, I know that. That sort of test is simple. We will never approach a resolution that can accurately portray what a human eye is capable of.

I'm speaking generally, with actual content, not some closed testing.

 

[scott5526]

Yeah, distance is about as important, if not more than the actual resolution. The stupidity with 4K TV is that TV sizes in parallel to the overwhelming majority of living room conditions and viewing distances will never add up.


To really benefit from 4K without looking like a massive idiot with your nose to the screen is that 4k is only truly viable for monitors (where you're very close to the screen as well as visual acuity being better at such a distance), and front projector displays with huge screens.

I myself owned a 1080p projector for a brief period, and I could see the pixel structure from a standard distance of about 10-12 feet. In this instance, I'd TOTALLY go for 4K. But for TV? It's stupid, and unncessary. I always say, TVs should've stopped at 1440p. This would eliminate pixel structure from basically any normal human being's size/tv distance.

As for computer gaming and graphics, that's an issue with the lack of technology to keep aliasing from being such an issue. It's less to do with resolution, more to do with the graphics behind these things.


Long story short: Go back to your Best Buy, check that 4KTV again. Put your nose up to the screen, then slowly move back. AT WHAT distance do YOU stop seeing pixel structure? At around that point is where you are losing 4K benefits and styepping into 1080p territory. A good test for this is a desktop screen, with the time being diaplyed. The fine white text shows pixels quite clearly. I stop seeing the stair stepping on my clock at around 8feet. from my 60inch. Guarantee most of you don't sit 8 feet from a 60 inch screen.

That's about what I did at Best Buy.  Mind you I only spent a few minutes doing it and I wasn't overly analytical, but the pixels stopped seeming overly blocky on the 1080p from around 2 feet back and the differences weren't immediately noticeable.  I was satisfied at that point that I wasn't going to be sitting within 2-3ft of a 50-60ish inch tv for general purposes and left it at that.

 

[JeremyR]

Oh, I know that. That sort of test is simple. We will never approach a resolution that can accurately portray what a human eye is capable of.

I'm speaking generally, with actual content, not some closed testing.

 
One day we will approach that, and that's why it matters to have higher resolution screens.
 
However this is not a closed testing issue that only happens in a lab. If console games turned off AA, you would see it happening all over the place. The only reason we have AA at all, is to combat this issue.
 
Just because they have done an OK job of it, does not mean we would not benefit from higher resolutions without AA.

 

[JeremyR]

Put your nose up to the screen, then slowly move back. AT WHAT distance do YOU stop seeing pixel structure? At around that point is where you are losing 4K benefits and styepping into 1080p territory.

 
This is absolutely not true. This might be true for watching movies, or anything filmed. But for any content that is computer generated, there is a lot more to it.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

In scientific testing (let's call it scientific), A perfect diagonal line of one pixel width moving at the rate of one pixel jump vertically and horizontally will look perfectly straight at around 9 feet from a 60-inch screen for ME. It will no longer look like pixel stair stepping after that. The point where the line doesn't look like stairs is the limits of YOUR eyes at that specific resolution since one pixel difference will look like a straight line. So beyond that distance,. I wouldn't gain absolutely any benefit over 1080p.


You keep bringing computer games, no AA, but that is not a normal occurence, and again, is limited to specific individuals.

We're talking normal content, which will undoubtedly have post processing done.

But once you get your 4K TV, enjoy justifying it as much as you want. The rare cases where it will matter are so few and far between, especially for the vast majority of consumers.

It's 320kbps vs lossless all over again.

 

[JeremyR]

In scientific testing (let's call it scientific), A perfect diagonal line of one pixel width moving at the rate of one pixel jump vertically and horizontally will look perfectly straight at around 9 feet from a 60-inch screen for ME. It will no longer look like pixel stair stepping after that. The point where the line doesn't look like stairs is the limits of YOUR eyes at that specific resolution since one pixel difference will look like a straight line. So beyond that distance,. I wouldn't gain absolutely any benefit over 1080p.


You keep bringing computer games, no AA, but that is not a normal occurence, and again, is limited to specific individuals.

We're talking normal content, which will undoubtedly have post processing done.

But once you get your 4K TV, enjoy justifying it as much as you want. The rare cases where it will matter are so few and far between, especially for the vast majority of consumers.

It's 320kbps vs lossless all over again.

 
Your example explains a photograph, not a video. So let's finish your experiment.
 
Once you get to the distance where that single pixel length line looks solid, let's rotate it slowly to horizontal. In doing so (without AA), there were be parts of the line that disappear, because the math says the width is less then half a pixel. There will also be parts of the line that's two pixels long, next to a single pixel length. You will be able to tell it's not a solid line as it rotates.
 
Now let's make it even worse. Le's say it was not one line, but 10 single pixel lines one pixel apart. When you get to the point where all you see is 10 diagonal lines, and no pixels, when you rotate them all to horizontal, you will start to see a moire pattern, as each line at some points is two pixels apart, and at other points touch each other. Once they get to horizontal, they will look perfect again.
 
We fix this today with anti aliasing. The problem is for the last experiment, if you turned on AA, you would not longer be able to pick out those 10 distinct lines. When you rotated them they would not look out of place, but you will look like your rotating a strange pattern, and not 10 lines.
 
Now stay in the exact same place without AA turned on, replace your 1080p TV with the same size 4K TV, and do the exact same test at 4K, and the image as the lines move to horizontal will look vastly improved.

 

[Change is Good]

Derailed thread, I see... lol

PSA: I absolutely love my PS4

 

[AxelCloris]

Derailed thread, I see... lol

PSA: I absolutely love my PS4

 
That sounded like self service rather than you servicing the public.

 

[scott5526]

What good thread doesn't get derailed from time to time?

 

[money4me247]

whether 4k resolution is necessary or not, it's pretty cool how fast our technology advances & with that prices of older equipment falls. win win for everyone i think.
 
ya, i just wouldn't buy 4k options at the current price point lol

 

[thatBeatsguy]

  What good thread doesn't get derailed from time to time?

Nothing, but I'm guessing you already knew that.
 
I choose the PS4, partly because I've owned a PS1, 2, and 3. Still, given the current loadout, I don't want to buy either. Both are pretty much garbage until later this year when more titles come out.

 

[Change is Good]

  Nothing, but I'm guessing you already knew that.
 
I choose the PS4, partly because I've owned a PS1, 2, and 3. Still, given the current loadout, I don't want to buy either. Both are pretty much garbage until later this year when more titles come out.

 
LOL. I doubt the consoles, themselves, are garbage because of the lack of launch titles. Wait until you get one and experience it for yourself... you'll eat your words