[bigshot]

It looks like you’re assuming a set viewing distance. My screen is larger than 50”, and with my distance, it’s just at the cusp of difference of being able to see 4K resolution. But it seems I’ll have to keep repeating: the advantage of the 4K format isn’t as much resolution as it is HDR.

I'm not talking about a set viewing distance, I'm talking about an optimal viewing angle. If you are at the sweet spot for viewing, resolution isn't the issue. I agree that the main difference between HD and 4K is in contrast and color... but those are the two things that projection can't reproduce as well as regular monitors. But regular monitors don't give the same movie experience as projection... So it evens out. If I had a 50 inch monitor, I would probably want UHD. But with my projector, with my screen size and viewing position, I don't think it would make that much of a difference. I've even attended screenings at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood where they projected blu-rays and they looked perfect. It's more of an issue with a TV set where you're liable to be walking around closer to the screen sometimes and where the contrast levels are broader.

Projection isn't the same as buying a TV set. When you are installing a projection home theater system, you can't just look at different ones and choose. The design of your theater... the throw distance, the angle of the keystoning, viewing distance, screen size, location of the projector and screen, integration of the screen with the speakers, brightness levels and blackout curtains, sound system requirements... all of these things are variables that you have to work out. You can't just walk into a store and say show me what it will be like in my home. I hired an AV tech to help me choose the equipment and design the way it would be installed, and he did measurements and ran them in a calculator and drew up plans. It isn't like walking into Best Buy and looking at the wall of TV sets and just picking one.

TST, I'm with you. The remote and front panel controls are among the biggest considerations when I buy something. I have a Logitech Harmony Hub that makes my iPhone the remote, but it is still quicker to grab the regular remote once in a while... and it's even quicker to hit the power and eject and volume controls on the unit itself! When the lights are out and I'm watching a movie, I don't want to fumble to find the controls.

 

[Davesrose]

I'm not talking about a set viewing distance, I'm talking about an optimal viewing angle. If you are at the sweet spot for viewing, resolution isn't the issue. I agree that the main difference between HD and 4K is in contrast and color... but those are the two things that projection can't reproduce as well as regular monitors. But regular monitors don't give the same movie experience as projection... So it evens out. If I had a 50 inch monitor, I would probably want UHD. But with my projector, with my screen size and viewing position, I don't think it would make that much of a difference. I've even attended screenings at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood where they projected blu-rays and they looked perfect. It's more of an issue with a TV set where you're liable to be walking around closer to the screen sometimes and where the contrast levels are broader.

First, there is no one "optimal viewing angle" (it seems, you're referencing THX, but there are other general guidelines). Secondly, people have been buying large flat panel TVs to be able to have optimum picture quality and wider viewing angle to have more of the movie experience. The only main disadvantage I've seen about getting the largest sizes (85" and above) is that the display doesn't have quite as consistent contrast throughout the frame. I first saw Sony's 4K and 8K cinema projectors at Siggraph (the main convention for computer graphics in the film industry), and on a large cinema screen (that goes into the periphery of vision), it was even more clearly evident how much added detail there was compared to 2K projectors.

When it comes to display shopping: if you're anal, you're going to do the same with TV or projector. I didn't base my OLED TV purchase on going to a store: that has horrible ambient light and who knows what settings. I looked at trusted review sites, and my TV has all the options for me to fine tune black point, white point, and either do fine color calibration or go by SMPTE color bars.

 

[bigshot]

You still haven't clicked through the link I gave you. It gives you both SMPTE and THX standards with optimal, minimum and maximum distances. There is an optimal viewing angle, and it isn't that different for the two. These are the standards they use to design commercial movie theaters.

I work in animation. I went to see Fantasia 2000 in Imax. I came out of it not understanding half of what I was looking at. The screen was so wide, I had to turn my head to look from one end to the other. When the picture would cut quickly, I would have to scramble to find the next focal point where the action was taking place. By the time I arrived at it, the scene had cut again and I was scrambling again. There was a sequence with three interweaved stories. I didn't even realize that I was seeing the same character sover and over because I couldn't follow it at all. I came out of the theater frustrated and with a sore neck. Later on, the director asked me what I thought of his work and I was honest and told him I couldn't make head nor tail of it because it cut so fast. He said, "Wait a minute... where did you see it?" I told him at an Imax theater. He said that the animators were horrified when they saw it in Imax. The execs chose to do that without asking them. It totally ruined the movie. You don't want parts of the screen off in your peripheral vision. It's uncomfortable and frustrating.

I was speaking to the other guy with how to pick a projection system. He doesn't understand what you and I know from experience.

 

[Davesrose]

You still haven't clicked through the link I gave you. It gives you both SMPTE and THX standards with optimal, minimum and maximum distances. There is an optimal viewing angle, and it isn't that different for the two. These are the standards they use to design commercial movie theaters.

I work in animation. I went to see Fantasia 2000 in Imax. I came out of it not understanding half of what I was looking at. The screen was so wide, I had to turn my head to look from one end to the other. When the picture would cut quickly, I would have to scramble to find the next focal point where the action was taking place. By the time I arrived at it, the scene had cut again and I was scrambling again. There was a sequence with three interweaved stories. I didn't even realize that I was seeing the same character sover and over because I couldn't follow it at all. I came out of the theater frustrated and with a sore neck. Later on, the director asked me what I thought of his work and I was honest and told him I couldn't make head nor tail of it because it cut so fast. He said, "Wait a minute... where did you see it?" I told him at an Imax theater. He said that the animators were horrified when they saw it in Imax. The execs chose to do that without asking them. It totally ruined the movie. You don't want parts of the screen off in your peripheral vision. It's uncomfortable and frustrating.

I was speaking to the other guy with how to pick a projection system. He doesn't understand what you and I know from experience.

Again, there are different recommendations (beyond THX). Within SMPTE, my viewing distance/screen size is acceptable viewing angle and just at the cusp of perceptually seeing 4K. You can go in circles trying to convince yourself about what optimal viewing angle there should be: but when it comes to cinema, it's always varied. When growing up, my dad and I would find seats in a movie theater, and my grandfather and grandmother would find seats further back (my grandfather's rule was extending your arm all the way, than extending your thumb and pinkie as edges for the frame). I can understand an argument that you shouldn't include a periphery as our eye resolution is centered towards a pretty narrow angle. However, we scan the environment (and why actual perceived resolution for our visual perception is even higher than 4K or 8K). So I don't subscribe to it, and many people do tend to want a larger screen size. It's also your argument for your projection system (that size trumps resolution). If we were to go by your current stance of "recommended" viewing angles, IMAX and Cinamascope would never had been marketable. Cinemascope was a theater standard. The original IMAX standard is for science museums (and filmed with a horizontal 70mm format). The IMAX in cineplexes is a smaller screen with *usually* an IMAX up-scaled digital format.

To me, the one cinema technology I've abhorred is 3D stereoscope. When watching content, your eye wanders and can scan elements besides the talking character. The object that's in focus and the only thing you can watch is the subject in a 3D movie. I've also noticed that with a good HDR display, the image pops and seems less flat (and to me, better than a 3-D stereoscopic movie).

 

[KeithEmo]

The problem with "standards" that attempt to quantify "what's visible" is that our ability to perceive and pick out details is actually quite complex.
We are actually able to pick out much smaller flaws and details of certian types than others.
And we often perceive details only vaguely - as "the glitter in that scene looks more metallic on screen A than on screen B" or "the water looks more like real water".

I mentioned specular highlights in another post.
Those are the tiny bright "glints" or "points" that you see on shiny metallic objects, and metallic tinsel, and the tips of ocean waves in direct sunlight (which may actually occupy a single pixel).
You may not be able to "see" an individual pixel at a certain distance.... but the smaller pixels in a 4k image still present a more realistic impression of things with specular highlights.
Shiny metal looks more like real metal, and water with sunlight glinting off it looks more like actual water.
How this affects "perceived realism" has been addressed in a few articles in trade magazines... but, since it's difficult to measure, and so somewhat subjective, is rarely mentioned otherwise.
(A single bright 4k pixel will be averaged to become four less bright pixels on an HD screen... and, whatever mechanism is involved in how we perceive it, it does look slightly different.)

Another excellent example I've found is exterior scenes that include a chain link fence in bright daylight..... where, presumably, the wire in the fence sometimes appears as a single pixel wide.
Specifically, look for scenes where there are detailed objects or people walking behind the fence.
As the camera, or objects behind the fence, moves... you see moire patterns between the wires of the fence and the objects behind it...
(These patterns look both clearer and less obvious on a 4k screen... and they tend to be easier to ignore as being "separate from what we're looking at".)

It's also worth noting that there could be several factors at work.....
- most modern 4k TVs are also HDR, while other TVs are not, which results in a significant difference in the dynamic range available on "4k sets"
- virtually all TVs and projectors implement a variety of smoothing, sharpening, and motion processing options to "improve" the picture, and these vary considerably
(for example, a typical sharpening filter operates on groups of pixels, and not on individual pixels, and so affects areas far larger than a single pixel)
- it's also reasonable to assume that any movie intended to become a 4k film or disc will be filmed using cameras with sharper optics and sensors
- (and, of course, any computer graphics created for use with a 4k version of something will be created using different settings as well)

Things get even more complicated when you consider thngs like chroma subsampling.

Thanks to chroma subsampling, your Blu-Ray disc delivers 1920 x 1080 resolution on green, but only half that resolution on blue.
This looks fine on most videos, and on objects like cars and faces, but results in color fringes on small white objects on a dark backgound (like white text on a computer monitor).
You also get color fringes on specular highlights... (with 4:2:0 subsampling, a single white pixel becomes a single green pixel, on top of a set of four blue pixels, and multiple red pixels)
That's why, if you plan to use yur TV as a computer monitor, and use it with text, you want to choose one that supports 4:4:4 chroma subsampling.
Even though Blu-Ray discs use 4:2:0 subsampling, most computer graphic cards will deliver 4:4:4, with full resolution on all colors... and no color fringing.

In general, sets that support full 4:4:4 chroma subsampling cost extra (because it's "a premium feature").
However, because of its higher native resolution, any set that delivers 4k at 4:2:0 can deliver 1080p at 4:4:4...
(It can easily deliver all three color planes at "half of its maximum resolution - which is 4k".)

I would also advise anyone, before they make ganeralizations about "what is possible with 4k projectors", to find some way to look at the image on one of the latest 4k projectors from JVC, or Sony, or Panasonic. The latest LASER illuminated models are extremely expensive, and you're more likely to encounter one at a trade show, or a very high end store, than at Best Buy.... however the sharpness and brightness they deliver are both remarkable... both from across the room... and when you walk up to the screen. And, if you want to talk about what 4k CAN do, and whether the difference is visible or not, it's only fair to compare the best examples of the technology... And, yes, the latest "high end home models" do deliver far better performance that what you'll find in most theaters. And, of course, you can expect this level of performance to become far cheaper over time.

Again, there are different recommendations (beyond THX). Within SMPTE, my viewing distance/screen size is acceptable viewing angle and just at the cusp of perceptually seeing 4K. You can go in circles trying to convince yourself about what optimal viewing angle there should be: but when it comes to cinema, it's always varied. When growing up, my dad and I would find seats in a movie theater, and my grandfather and grandmother would find seats further back (my grandfather's rule was extending your arm all the way, than extending your thumb and pinkie as edges for the frame). I can understand an argument that you shouldn't include a periphery as our eye resolution is centered towards a pretty narrow angle. However, we scan the environment (and why actual perceived resolution for our visual perception is even higher than 4K or 8K). So I don't subscribe to it, and many people do tend to want a larger screen size. It's also your argument for your projection system (that size trumps resolution). If we were to go by your current stance of "recommended" viewing angles, IMAX and Cinamascope would never had been marketable. Cinemascope was a theater standard. The original IMAX standard is for science museums (and filmed with a horizontal 70mm format). The IMAX in cineplexes is a smaller screen with *usually* an IMAX up-scaled digital format.

To me, the one cinema technology I've abhorred is 3D stereoscope. When watching content, your eye wanders and can scan elements besides the talking character. The object that's in focus and the only thing you can watch is the subject in a 3D movie. I've also noticed that with a good HDR display, the image pops and seems less flat (and to me, better than a 3-D stereoscopic movie).

 

[bigshot]

You have to remember that acceptable viewing angle is with commercial theaters in mind. The outer regions of acceptable is front row all the way at the side. Ouch! If you're going to deviate from the recommended, it's better to sit further away from the screen rather than closer to it. But in the home, with smaller screens and smaller audiences, you can hew closer to the ideal. It's fine to fudge things a bit, but if you look at how the ideal recommended viewing distance works with screen sizes, there isn't much point to going 4K for higher resolution. It was interesting to run the numbers for a 50 inch set. I didn't realize that 4K would be an advantage there, but it is.

I agree about 3D. I hate the way it forces you to look at the single focal point. If you try to look into the distance or foreground, it hurts your eyes. That drives me nuts. Whenever I've been dragged to 3D movies, I end up taking off the glasses every 15 or 20 minutes to rest my eyes. I have VR headsets and they don't have that problem. Not sure why. But even with them, 3D movies look phony... like little models or something.

 

[Davesrose]

You have to remember that acceptable viewing angle is with commercial theaters in mind. The outer regions of acceptable is front row all the way at the side. Ouch! If you're going to deviate from the recommended, it's better to sit further away from the screen rather than closer to it. But in the home, with smaller screens and smaller audiences, you can hew closer to the ideal. It's fine to fudge things a bit, but if you look at how the ideal recommended viewing distance works with screen sizes, there isn't much point to going 4K for higher resolution. It was interesting to run the numbers for a 50 inch set. I didn't realize that 4K would be an advantage there, but it is.

I agree about 3D. I hate the way it forces you to look at the single focal point. If you try to look into the distance or foreground, it hurts your eyes. That drives me nuts. Whenever I've been dragged to 3D movies, I end up taking off the glasses every 15 or 20 minutes to rest my eyes. I have VR headsets and they don't have that problem. Not sure why. But even with them, 3D movies look phony... like little models or something.

I'm still not really sure how you're concluding 50 inches or below is optimal viewing angle for all home situations at 4K resolutions, and saying your 100"+ screen is great with DVD resolutions. I'm comfortably sitting close to my OLED TV, and it's still not the viewing angle of the first 4K and 8K digital projection presentations I saw. You mentioned one movie in IMAX (Fantasia 200, where you were scanning too much to the sides). Most 4K presentations I've seen in multiplexes now are just within what I deem acceptable angle of view: filling my vision, and subjects that are easy to focus on.

 

[Davesrose]

I would also advise anyone, before they make ganeralizations about "what is possible with 4k projectors", to find some way to look at the image on one of the latest 4k projectors from JVC, or Sony, or Panasonic. The latest LASER illuminated models are extremely expensive, and you're more likely to encounter one at a trade show, or a very high end store, than at Best Buy.... however the sharpness and brightness they deliver are both remarkable... both from across the room... and when you walk up to the screen. And, if you want to talk about what 4k CAN do, and whether the difference is visible or not, it's only fair to compare the best examples of the technology... And, yes, the latest "high end home models" do deliver far better performance that what you'll find in most theaters. And, of course, you can expect this level of performance to become far cheaper over time.

My OLED supports 4:4:4. I brought this up before: I'm not aware of many consumer projectors supporting Dolby Vision. The laser ones such as LGs do have good contrast for a projector, but they still don't tone map 12bit color space.

 

[KeithEmo]

CHeck out the latest models....

"Auto Tone Mapping function which automatically adjust settings based on the mastering information projects HDR10 content at optimum quality. Combining brightness of 2,200 lm, dynamic contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1, and wide color gamut covering beyond the DCI-P3 range, the projector faithfully reproduces latest content including HDR10 and HLG."

From the description of JVC's latest model:
https://www.us.jvc.com/projectors/procision/dla_nx9/

My OLED supports 4:4:4. I brought this up before: I'm not aware of many consumer projectors supporting Dolby Vision. The laser ones such as LGs do have good contrast for a projector, but they still don't tone map 12bit color space.

 

[bigshot]

I'm still not really sure how you're concluding 50 inches or below is optimal viewing angle for all home situations at 4K resolutions, and saying your 100"+ screen is great with DVD resolutions.

I can detect a difference between DVD and blu-ray. It just isn't enough of a difference to affect my viewing pleasure. The reason I say that 50 inches might require HD more than a ten foot projection screen is because the recommended viewing distance for a 50 inch monitor falls into the range on that chart where 4K would be able to make a difference. When you are sitting the recommended distance away from a ten foot screen, you can't discern a difference. If you run the numbers in that calculator to determine the ideal viewing distance and refer to the chart, you'll see what I mean. It's counterintuitive. I thought a bigger screen might make more difference too, but it doesn't, because bigger screens require more distance, and human eyesight is more sensitive up close. A movie theater also needs more latitude from ideal because they have to get hundreds of people into the room. They can't all have ideal seats like we can in our living room with just three or four people. The people in the front row in a movie theater are going to need to see more resolution than the people in the back row. That doesn't apply in a living room.

Did I explain it clearer this time?

I would advise if anyone wants to make generalizations about the capabilities of 4K projectors, they should look at the price tag of the projector they're talking about and see if it's in the same realm everyone else is talking about. Yes, there are projectors that have great image quality. But they cost considerably more than the $3-4K that most home theater people are able to invest in a projector. $18 grand is an absurd amount of money to spend on something that is likely to be rendered obsolete by a new and better model in five or six years. They aren't selling those to people like us. That is for corporate screening rooms or theaters. And that fantastic contrast level is directly proportional to how good your blackout curtains are... a limitation wives typically put on living rooms. Let's talk real world, not absolute extremes.

 

[dprimary]

It looks like the only way for 4K to make a difference is for screens below 50 inches. But you have to sit pretty close to the screen to get the recommended viewing angle.

Makes sense, for many years I only specified 4k or UHD displays for interactive and collaborative applications.

 

[dprimary]

CHeck out the latest models....

"Auto Tone Mapping function which automatically adjust settings based on the mastering information projects HDR10 content at optimum quality. Combining brightness of 2,200 lm, dynamic contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1, and wide color gamut covering beyond the DCI-P3 range, the projector faithfully reproduces latest content including HDR10 and HLG."

From the description of JVC's latest model:
https://www.us.jvc.com/projectors/procision/dla_nx9/

As far as I know, only projectors can reproduce REC2020. Many of them can do 100% of DCI-P3. Emissive displays are just barely hitting DCI-P3. Only a handful can do 100% of P3.

 

[Davesrose]

CHeck out the latest models....

"Auto Tone Mapping function which automatically adjust settings based on the mastering information projects HDR10 content at optimum quality. Combining brightness of 2,200 lm, dynamic contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1, and wide color gamut covering beyond the DCI-P3 range, the projector faithfully reproduces latest content including HDR10 and HLG."

From the description of JVC's latest model:
https://www.us.jvc.com/projectors/procision/dla_nx9/

So no, no tone mapping of 12bit Dolby Vision...but yes to tone mapping 10bit.

 

[Davesrose]

I can detect a difference between DVD and blu-ray. It just isn't enough of a difference to affect my viewing pleasure. The reason I say that 50 inches might require HD more than a ten foot projection screen is because the recommended viewing distance for a 50 inch monitor falls into the range on that chart where 4K would be able to make a difference. When you are sitting the recommended distance away from a ten foot screen, you can't discern a difference. If you run the numbers in that calculator to determine the ideal viewing distance and refer to the chart, you'll see what I mean. It's counterintuitive. I thought a bigger screen might make more difference too, but it doesn't, because bigger screens require more distance, and human eyesight is more sensitive up close. A movie theater also needs more latitude from ideal because they have to get hundreds of people into the room. They can't all have ideal seats like we can in our living room with just three or four people. The people in the front row in a movie theater are going to need to see more resolution than the people in the back row. That doesn't apply in a living room.

Did I explain it clearer this time?

I would advise if anyone wants to make generalizations about the capabilities of 4K projectors, they should look at the price tag of the projector they're talking about and see if it's in the same realm everyone else is talking about. Yes, there are projectors that have great image quality. But they cost considerably more than the $3-4K that most home theater people are able to invest in a projector. $18 grand is an absurd amount of money to spend on something that is likely to be rendered obsolete by a new and better model in five or six years. They aren't selling those to people like us. That is for corporate screening rooms or theaters. And that fantastic contrast level is directly proportional to how good your blackout curtains are... a limitation wives typically put on living rooms. Let's talk real world, not absolute extremes.

I don’t know of anyone who watches a movie at the front row of a stadium theater (due to awkward angle of viewing upwards). I do know there are plenty of orientations and screen sizes where 4K resolutions can be perceived...by the numbers. As stated, my TV is larger than 50” and gets close to SMPTE recommendations of 4K. As for price: price of resolution is always going down. Most new TVs are UHD, and there are projectors under $3K that have UHD resolution.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I seem to argue with you, as you claim to be an expert in everything sound.
[1a] Even resorting to refusing to acknowledge terminology Dolby uses! [1b] An expert that thought only UHD discs support TrueHD?
[2] For example, you're now obfuscating 7.1 SDDS (that uses 5 center channels and 2 surround channels) with Dolby surround 7.1 (now granted, the distinction is channel layout: not who was the first with discrete channels). Last Action Hero was not the first movie mixed for and released in Dolby 7.1: it was SDDS. AS ALL SOURCES SAY, TOY STORY 3 WAS THE FIRST MOVIE MIXED FOR DOLBY 7.1.
[3] NONE If you're going to claim the SDDS mix in Hellboy(2004) was the same 7.1 mix used in blu-ray, then you're clearly wrong.
[4] Another example: Look up Dolby Digital and it lists all "versions". Dolby Digital+ uses E-AC-3, a codec based on previous AC-3.
[5] Previously you've said I don't know what a track is because for some reason it would be different in an audio program vs video production program. [5a] Now this analogy is like refusing to acknowledge h.263 and h.264 are not seperate specs still within MPEG-4

1. Which is hypocritical baring in mind in another thread you stated "I'm no sound expert..." and not just hypocritical but nonsensical! You're "no sound expert" but have decided to argue with someone who's worked professionally specifically in film sound for over two decades!
1a. Of course I do, tracks and channels have been around far longer than Dolby and despite Dolby being one of the most influential companies in film sound, they don't get to dictate the terminology that all professionals use. And just because as a "no sound expert" you obviously don't understand the professional sound terminology (even though it's been explained to you!) that doesn't mean actual professionals don't!
1b. I didn't realise standard Blurays support TrueHD as I've never seen one, I've only ever seen TrueHD employed on UHD blurays. Nevertheless I was technically incorrect, my only excuse is that professional sound engineers don't author blurays.

2. No, that's an example of you getting it wrong! You stated "the first recognized theatrical movie mixed for and released in discrete 7.1 was Toy Story 3 in 2010", which is FALSE! More recently you've stated "I was assuming we were talking about 7.1 surround", in which case your statement is still FALSE! SDDS is a discrete 7.1 surround format. Dolby 7.1 is has a different speaker layout which I previously stated and which you've decided to argue with! ("Pretty much all major movies have been mixed in 7.1 for 15 years or so, long before Atmos was invented but it gets complicated here because there are various different speaker layouts for 7.1, some are purely theatrical, some purely consumer and some which are both.")

3. You clearly have a reading problem, I've said several times that virtually all the sound mixes used on Bluray (and DVD previously) for major films are re-versioned (re-mixed)!

4. Dolby lists all of their digital formats as "Dolby Digital", even those that obviously have nothing to do with AC-3, such as TrueHD and Atmos! DD+ is based on the previous AC3 codec but is not AC3, it's Enhanced-AC3.

5. And clearly you don't know what that "some reason" could be, which is not surprising for someone who's "no expert" but what is surprising is that you'd continue to argue about it with someone who is!
5a. Nope, it's absolutely nothing even remotely like that false "analogy"!

G