Better than HD - Display technology to look forward to

[STC]

[quote="adam1991"to the point where the consumer is given MOAR MEGAPIXELS in a tiny, crappy sensor.[/quote]

I think you know where I was coming from

[STC]

Scissors!

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19370582

*waiting for a rock*

[richard1980]

"Those will be in sizes 55 inches and above. You will still get a benefit at that size because it offers a greater colour depth and contrast as well as a sharper picture.

"But when the screens are even larger you get a sense of being there - it's like looking through a window.

I disagree with the first statement. Contrast has nothing to do with how many pixels exist. Contrast has to do with the light output difference between an RGB value of 0,0,0 and an RGB value of 255,255,255 (well, actually, the blackest black and the whitest white...which should be those 2 RGB values). And while technically the color depth argument is correct, it doesn't matter if your eyes can't distinguish the various colors.

Additionally, notice the picture in the article. They are targeting a viewing angle of 100 degrees, at 0.75 picture heights. For a 55-inch TV, that's 20 inches away.

[richard1980]

Here's some further evidence, straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/english/aboutstrl1/r1-1-1.htm

I'd also like to quote something I posted on Engadget in response to a guy claiming you could see a difference in 8k on a 42-inch screen at 9 feet (original article):

Let’s get serious here.

Will you benefit from it over 1080p set? Let’s calculate.

Research done by Japanese NHK shows us healthy observers can notice image quality improvement up to the point where spacing between separate pixels is ~0.005 degrees of arc [of viewer’s field of view; regardless of viewing distance]. 0.005 arc-degrees is angular resolution of 200 pixels per degree.

So, for example, if you have two displays, one with angular resolution of 100 and other with 200 pixels per degree, you’d be able to notice difference in quality between those two. But, if you had a display with angular resolution of 300 pixels per degree next to one with 200 ppd, there would be no perceivable difference between those two.

Let’s find out at which point 1080p meets this requirement, for usual viewing distance of 9 feet (2.7432 meters).

At 9 ft distance, pixel spacing must be 0.0094247 inches or less. For 1080p set, this equals to 18.09’’ width or less. With Pythagorean theorem we can find out diagonal measurement. It is ~21’’.

So, at 9 ft viewing distance, 1080p TV set is meeting visual limitations of healthy observers when TV set diagonal measurement is 21 inches or less. That means you’ll benefit from 4K (2160p to be precise) if your TV is bigger than 21 inches.

Let’s see when a 4K TV set meets this requirement, for 9 ft viewing distance too.

At 9 ft distance, pixel spacing must be 0.0094247 inches or less. For 4K (2160p) set, this equals to 36.19’’ width or less. With Pythagorean theorem we can find out diagonal measurement. It is ~42’’.

So, at 9 ft viewing distance, 4K (2160p) TV set is meeting visual limitations of healthy observers when TV set diagonal measurement is 42 inches or less. That means you’ll benefit from 8K (4320p to be precise) only if your TV is bigger than 42 inches.

Any questions?

Except that is not at all what NHK claims. From http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/english/aboutstrl1/r1-1-1.htm:

"Figure 1 shows the relationship between angular resolution （cycles-per-degree: cpd）and the sense of realness when viewing images. The higher the angular resolution, the greater the sense of realness, and the sense gently saturates above about 60 cpd; above 155 cpd, images are indistinguishable from the real object."

It should also be noted that 60 cpd is a visual acuity of 2.0. In layman's terms, that's 20/10 vision. 20/20 vision = 30 cpd. Adjusting NHK's statement for standard 20/20 vision, we get this:

"...and the sense gently saturates above about 30 cpd; above 77.5 cpd, images are indistinguishable from the real object."

So, this leads us to two calculations: One for 30 cpd (where the realness starts to saturate), and one for 77.5 cpd (where objects on screen are indistinguishable from the actual object). 30 cpd = 60 pixels per degree. 77.5 cpd = 155 pixels per degree.

8k has 7,680 horizontal pixels. 7,680 pixels / 60 pixels per degree = 128 degrees field of vision. 7,680 pixels / 155 pixels per degree = 49.5 degrees field of vision.

To achieve a 128 degree field of vision with a 9-foot viewing distance, you need a screen width of about 443 inches. With a 16:9 aspect ratio, that works out to a screen size of 508 inches.

To achieve a 49.5 degree field of vision with a 9-foot viewing distance, you need a screen width of about 100 inches. With a 16:9 aspect ration, that works out to a screen size of 106 inches.

So according to NHK, the smallest screen size a person with 20/20 vision can have to benefit from 8k at 9 feet is 106 inches, while the full benefit of 8k would be observed with a screen size of 508 inches.

It should also be noted that NHK targets a viewing distance of 0.75 screen heights for 8k material, which puts the field of view at 100 degrees. For a 9-foot viewing distance, that works out to a screen size of about 294 inches.

[lithium630]

Of course there isn't much of a difference at 42 inches. 85 inch televisions are not unreasonable. The Verge, Gizmodo and Engadget were all impressed with what they saw.

http://gizmodo.com/5905728/panaso
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/11/shar ... -your-face
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/29/30428 ... nhk-future

[richard1980]

That's been my point the whole time. 50 inches is just too small for the average viewer to see any difference between 720p, 1080p, 4k/QFHD, and 8k. As you go bigger with resolution, you either have to go bigger with screen size or smaller with viewing distance. 720p is about right for the average viewing distance (in the US, assuming Mark's statement is correct...which I have no reason to believe it isn't). Here in the US, we tend to lay out our TV and furniture in a small variety of ways, all of which result in a viewing distance of about 10-15 feet (obviously, there are some people that are capable of reducing the viewing distance, while others have a wife that says "no, you can't put the couch in the middle of the room"...and that's where the real problem comes in.) Trying to position a 50 inch TV and furniture so that 8k resolution becomes beneficial is just unrealistic. You want to take advantage of 8k? Think bigger screens. Really big screens. 100 inches at a minimum. As a maximum, think entire walls. Think about an entire wall being a view of the ocean....and the house is in Kansas (for the non-US readers, that's pretty much dead center of the US...far from an ocean). For just TV viewing, 8k is too much. 4k/QFHD and 8k are the points where we start seeing multi-angle viewing (like the people from MIT developed, where the picture is different based on where you are sitting), multi-viewer 1080p 3d, and who knows what else.