# Now 4K can take over the world?



## ajfotofilmagem (May 13, 2015)

Finally, the association responsible for the BluRay reached an agreement on an optical disc capable of displaying 4K video. :
This will be called Ultra HD BluRay. 8)







More information on the site

http://thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/051215_1230


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 13, 2015)

There is a big issue, more and more movie watchers watch streaming video, and no longer buy DVD's, blu ray or other. The market just isn't there.

There are lots of 4K TV's on the shelves, but people buy them not realizing there is no 4K content and are happy anyway. I have a room reserved in a new hotel that's just opening next month. 55 in 4K TV's in every room. I'd bet there is no 4K content though.


----------



## unfocused (May 13, 2015)

Mt Spokane hit the nail on the head. 

So disc manufacturers finally reached agreement on standards for their obsolete product. Who cares. All this fasination with 4K when no one under 30 ever watches a TV anyway and fewer and fewer over 30 are either.


----------



## jrista (May 13, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> There is a big issue, more and more movie watchers watch streaming video, and no longer buy DVD's, blu ray or other. The market just isn't there.
> 
> There are lots of 4K TV's on the shelves, but people buy them not realizing there is no 4K content and are happy anyway. I have a room reserved in a new hotel that's just opening next month. 55 in 4K TV's in every room. I'd bet there is no 4K content though.



This, totally. I purchased one of the new Samsung 55" 4k UHD TVs in December when prices plummeted (I picked it up for less than $1500 bucks). I brought it home, plugged in the power...and hooked it up to wifi. It's never had any other cables attached. I get all of my entertainment through the built-in apps, many of which support full 4k streaming (including NetFlix, where I get most of my entertainment). I just received a couple of updates to apps just today that added full 4k streaming support. I don't have a blu-ray player, I don't even have a DVD player (well, i have both, through a computer I can hook up to the TV, but I don't use them.) Streaming is where it's at. HBO Now will get me the only couple of missing shows (namely, GoT) that I watch, and I'll have every bit of entertainment I care to have. 

I don't even have Cable TV...just not worth it, all the commercials and the excessive cost. If I want local news, I have an OTA antenna with a 45 mile range that will get me all the news I need (and Hulu actually has newscasts as well now, IIRC.) 

I think 4k is already here. It's just here in a different form than the big cable TV companies and disc sellers would prefer it to be. Streaming is the future. The instant-on, always available, on-demand, high quality 4k future.

Power cable and wifi. That's all I did with my new 4k TV.  I couldn't be happier with the simplicity of it all.


----------



## 9VIII (May 13, 2015)

Hallelujah!

I've been waiting so long for this.

Fingers crossed we'll be getting 10 bit colour as part of the standard, which could have huge implications for Photography.
The only 10 bit colour compatible devices to this point are professional level graphics cards and monitors, hopefully that will soon be a thing of the past.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 13, 2015)

I have some 4K DVDs wildlife at home. Picture quality is amazing. No doubt, this will become standard in near future.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 13, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> There are lots of 4K TV's on the shelves, but people buy them not realizing there is no 4K content and are happy anyway. I have a room reserved in a new hotel that's just opening next month. 55 in 4K TV's in every room. I'd bet there is no 4K content though.


Yes, there are much more 4K TV display (in some countries) than truly 4K content to watch.

4K video streeaming may be the future, but it is certainly not present in many cities where the internet speed is insufficient.

The key question is:
We discussed endlessly about cameras, and produce video content professionally, but not yet had a physical medium to deliver that customer content in 4K. I see some companies eluding brides by promising wedding video in 4K, when it will be delivered only on BluRay Full HD.


----------



## Vivid Color (May 13, 2015)

Okay, this is a little off topic but related to the 4K discussion. I have not bought a TV since 1993 but I plan to buy one at the upcoming Memorial Day sales. Buying a new camera seems easy in comparison. Should I get 4k? 3D? FWIW, I love watching TV shows and movies but I rarely watch sports--the Olympics are the exception. The room I plan to put it in has lots of natural and often bright sunlight and the absolute largest size I could get would be 55 inches. I would love any recommendations and suggestions you may have.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 13, 2015)

Vivid Color said:


> Okay, this is a little off topic but related to the 4K discussion. I have not bought a TV since 1993 but I plan to buy one at the upcoming Memorial Day sales. Buying a new camera seems easy in comparison. Should I get 4k? 3D? FWIW, I love watching TV shows and movies but I rarely watch sports--the Olympics are the exception. The room I plan to put it in has lots of natural and often bright sunlight and the absolute largest size I could get would be 55 inches. I would love any recommendations and suggestions you may have.


Right now the most cost-effective is in Full HD LED TV. If you want something "future-proof" buy LED 4K.

The whole world rejected 3D TV for everyday use. Watch 3D TV for a few hours can cause headache, spoils the eyes determine the actual distance of objects in front of you, and dizziness. Obviously, these effects are temporary, but the manufacturer recommends NOT watch 3D TV near stairs or other places prone to falls due to spatial disorientation.

Very few TV stations display 4K content outside of Japan, but should check what is available in your area.

Environment with plenty of natural light will worsen the image of any TV. It is recommended to use curtains or film glasses to reduce light, especially in the windows behind the head of the TV viewer.

55 inch size TV ask minimum distance of 3 meters to the TV viewer, not to cause eye strain.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 13, 2015)

Vivid Color said:


> Okay, this is a little off topic but related to the 4K discussion. I have not bought a TV since 1993 but I plan to buy one at the upcoming Memorial Day sales. Buying a new camera seems easy in comparison. Should I get 4k? 3D? FWIW, I love watching TV shows and movies but I rarely watch sports--the Olympics are the exception. The room I plan to put it in has lots of natural and often bright sunlight and the absolute largest size I could get would be 55 inches. I would love any recommendations and suggestions you may have.



The Samsung TV sets look beautiful in the showroom, but that shiny screen will reflect every bit of stray light. I had to return mine, or board up my windows and sliding glass doors.

I ended up buying a Panasonic with a matte IPS screen for less $$ and it has really worked well.

I'd skip 3D. That Samsung I returned was top of the line 3D.

Curved OLED TV screens sound interesting, but they still command a high price. They cost no more to make, but billions of dollars went into their development.

Do some online searching of reviews. Beware that some reviewers are just like camera reviewers, and think that everyone needs a $25K set.

The cheap sets often do cut out essential features, so don't buy one of the $350 sets, go for a mid range. Get a smart TV, the mid range to high end ones are good, the cheap ones are not. I bought a cheap Samsung to use in my bedroom last Christmas. The processor in it is so slow that its nearly unusable, it will not take certain apps that Panasonic offers for them, just as Canon cuts features on entry level cameras.


----------



## nc0b (May 13, 2015)

I justy purchased a Sony 55-inch 4K TV at Best Buy. It was the same price ($1500) as a Sony 65-inch HD TV. At a 4-foot viewing distance in the store (which is would not be doing in my living room), the pixels on the HD were obvious, while invisible on the 4K. The Sony does very nice up-scaling from Blu-ray. I turned OFF the up-scaling in the Sony 6200 Blu-ray player since the TV does a much better job. Unless one is buying a 40-inch or smaller HD in the $500 range, I cannot see purchasing anything but 4K today since the price differential is so minimal. 

I just read that the just released 4K Blu-ray UltraHD specs do not include 3D at all. RIP I assume. It does include 10-bit color and 4:4:4 coding which likely my new TV will not handle. Who knows what the 4K Blu-ray players will cost when they come out, so I will wait for the price to come down over time. Since 4K movies presently cost $30, I will pass on that, too. 

The 4K Blu-ray spec includes a two-layer 66-GB disc and a three-layer 100 GB disc. Hopefully within a year I can rent a 4K disc from Netflix for a reasonable price. As far as streaming goes, I can presently stream HD video from Amazon and Hulu, though Hulu had some freezing problems while Amazon was perfect. Unless one would eventually own a video server to download 4K for later playback, it would seem that many people would not have an adequate download speed to stream 4K video. My download speeds are adequate for HD, but that is the limit. My home is hard wired for GB Ethernet, but most people will have to rely on wireless for streaming. That will likely be a challenge for most wireless routers even if the download speed is adequate from one's ISP


----------



## 9VIII (May 13, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> The whole world rejected 3D TV for everyday use. Watch 3D TV for a few hours can cause headache, spoils the eyes determine the actual distance of objects in front of you, and dizziness. Obviously, these effects are temporary, but the manufacturer recommends NOT watch 3D TV near stairs or other places prone to falls due to spatial disorientation.



The problem with 3D is it's poorly designed and implemented from one end to the other.

Thank goodness Nintendo gave people the ability to adjust the effect dynamically.
The biggest problem is that rather than ending up with two distinct images every 3D device I've seen only shades out the alternate frames, you can still see everything with both eyes all the time.
That's sloppy on the part of the hardware designers.
The next problem is that they try to blow everything out of proportion, making "mountains in the distance" stick out, when in real life looking at anything more than a few meters away is effectively 2D.
But then you combine that with the fact that the technology is flawed and you just have a great big mess.

3D could be good, even using the technology available today, if they only used it in a very subtly manner. I always use my 3DS with the 3D slider as low as it goes. The flaws in the image aren't really noticeable that way, but the extra dimension of visual information is still present, just enough to give the impression of "near" and "far", basically what should have been the aim of the technology to begin with.
You can get some PS3 games to work like that, but the effect is baked into movies, so they're hopeless.


----------



## 9VIII (May 13, 2015)

As for the practical viewing limitations of 4K, it's basically interchangeable with HD.
You shouldn't have to change anything as far as seating and screen size when moving from an HDTV setup to 4K. 

People like to throw around screen size and distance numbers based on receptor cell size in your eyes, but those tests are based on high frequency static images and not the low frequency moving images your eyes are designed for.
In other words, the limitations commonly stated apply only to fine repeating texture. Smooth sand and cement may look the same, but any patterns and shapes will be noticeably better, something like a person's eyes will look incredibly good in 4K.


----------



## Vivid Color (May 13, 2015)

This is all incredibly helpful! No 3D for me--I have enough problems with migraines and dizziness as it is! I may decide the 4K issue based on sales price and what I see on display. 

I do know that I want a smart TV but are there various kinds? What should I consider or look for? All of my computers are Mac's if that matters. 

BTW, the viewing distance in the room varies from 8 to 11 feet. 

Again, your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated! 

Cheers,

Vivid


----------



## meywd (May 13, 2015)

though I agree that 4k content is available via streaming more than via other media (Disks, Cable,,,) still that is only in the US, maybe in EU, but the rest of the world doesn't have the service or the bandwidth, also cable and satellite TV is not as content-rich as in the US, so the only other option is Blu-Ray, also in the future when 8K hits streaming will be harder, so this is a good step for when that comes, which is the real target for broadcasting companies.


----------



## nc0b (May 13, 2015)

As far as what to look for, everything is HDMI and Ethernet. I don't think it matters you are in the Mac world, as each device has its own UI. TV, Blu-ray and satellite receiver / DVR all have wired Ethernet connections. Am skeptical WiFi will have enough throughput to work with 4K


----------



## jrista (May 13, 2015)

meywd said:


> though I agree that 4k content is available via streaming more than via other media (Disks, Cable,,,) still that is only in the US, maybe in EU, but the rest of the world doesn't have the service or the bandwidth, also cable and satellite TV is not as content-rich as in the US, so the only other option is Blu-Ray, also in the future when 8K hits streaming will be harder, so this is a good step for when that comes, which is the real target for broadcasting companies.



True, streaming is bigger in the more heavily westernized countries, where bandwidth is more readily available. I can see UHD BluRay being valuable in such places. In some ways, a disc will always hold the edge as well...there is the whole uncompressed audio thing, which if you have a nice audio system, can be a big bonus. You definitely don't get that with streaming. You might get an edge on overall IQ as well...but it's pretty amazing what TVs can do these days with their upscaling, blur management and judder reduction algorithms. Even older content that wasn't prepared for 60fps playback has incredibly smooth transitions.

I don't believe bandwidth will be a huge problem when 8k arrives, but I also think 8k will be a little slower in coming than 4k. For most people, the very vast majority of the middle class and certainly those with less disposable income, TV's at the sizes they buy already look phenomenal at 4k (and even 2k with smaller sized TVs). The SmartTV integration with a wide variety of delivery services makes getting high quality content very easy, and if you want, very cheap (i.e. it's very easy to drop cable plans these days and just get all you entertainment from online sources, and disc). It will be a select few, those buying 80" and larger TVs or projectors for their home theaters, who will probably gain something from 8k. 

I'm pretty blown away by my 4k Samsung. I could always see the pixels of my older Samsung TOC 1080p TV, even sitting on my couch. Even if I couldn't discern every pixel clearly, the picture just never felt like "high definition" to me...it felt scratchy. With 4k, I finally feel I'm watching truly high definition video, and I am no longer able to see any pixels. With the built-in upscaling (which does selective sharpening and noise reduction), even older content, as well as more highly compressed web content, looks phenomenal.

I don't think I would see any significant improvement with 8k, not at this screen size, anyway. If later in life I am able to "upgrade" to a larger home capable of supporting a huge TV, then 8k might hold some value, but until such time, at least as far as playback is concerned, 4k is pretty amazing. Now, when it comes to 8k recording, that is a totally different story. I'm all for more resolution when it comes to recording video. There are so many benefits to having more and higher quality data. I suspect 8k and maybe even 10/12/16k in the future will be useful things for those interested in doing cinematography. Especially if 4k settles in as a long-term TV video entertainment standard...8k can be downsampled to 4k, increasing quality.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 14, 2015)

Streaming does not have sufficient throughput for 4K video in 99% of cities on the planet. This should improve in the coming years, but there will always be places where the internet is precarious and subject to temporary interruptions.

In this sense, physical media capable of storing 4K video is exciting for enthusiasts "the more resolution the better."

Events with exact time, as shows in structures assembled especially for that day, can not depend on luck to the internet to work without interruption at the crucial moment. A disc will always work, needing only power that can be provided by generators.

Rejoice, all of which are investing in 4K video.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 14, 2015)

Vivid Color said:


> I do know that I want a smart TV but are there various kinds? What should I consider or look for? All of my computers are Mac's if that matters.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> ...



New models are coming out frequently, May-June is usually when new models come out each year. I'd read reviews and pick a specific model or two and stick with that decision unless you don't like it when you get to a store.

Remote controls are a area of big disappointment for me. I have a horrible time using the junk remote for my Samsung, and since they now encrypt the remote signal for newer TV sets, you are limited to one crummy control. 

So, there are apps for smartphones - Right? I downloaded the Samsung App for my iphone, only to find it did not work. Digging into it, and its hidden deeply, I found that my smart TV could not work with Samsungs own app.

The higher end ones work with the Samsung App, but its not the best.

So, check out remotes and see how you like them, and see if third party remotes and apps will work. Don't assume, check it out carefully. There are lots of Samsung Remote Apps, for example, they just do not work on newer models due to the encryption.


Here is just one review site, but beware, they may be reviewing TV sets by specification or watching in a room that has not windows or extraneous light sources so a shiny screen does not cause issues.

http://www.smartreview.com/samsung-un55ju7100-55-inch-4k-ultra-hd-smart-led-tv

As for Remotes, this one looks far better than the remote that came with my Samsung that requires two hands to use and is not lighted.

http://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-smart-remote-hands-on-with-the-best-tv-clicker-yet/


----------



## Tugela (May 14, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Mt Spokane hit the nail on the head.
> 
> So disc manufacturers finally reached agreement on standards for their obsolete product. Who cares. All this fasination with 4K when no one under 30 ever watches a TV anyway and fewer and fewer over 30 are either.



And yet, when I walk around my neighborhood at night, and see all the living room windows of the shiny new condo developments filled with Yuppies, every single one of them has a glowing big screen TV attached to the wall.

If your theory is correct, why is this happening?


----------



## rfdesigner (May 14, 2015)

hmmm 4k?

Where I live (UK, ~13 miles from Southampton, rural but hardly isolated) I get about 6Mbit on ADSL.. on a good day.. sub 1M on a bad one, I can just about stream BBC iplayer on low bandwidth setting. There is no optical fibre, there is no cable, just ADSL on a phone line. Sure central London has good bandwidth but rrural areas are often served very badly. In the UK the most wealthy often live outside the cities so people have enough money for manufacturers to aim products for them, but no one seems willing to pay to put a cable of any sort in.

Thank goodness for recorded media.. that doesn't drop out every five minutes.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 14, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> hmmm 4k?
> 
> Where I live (UK, ~13 miles from Southampton, rural but hardly isolated) I get about 6Mbit on ADSL.. on a good day.. sub 1M on a bad one, I can just about stream BBC iplayer on low bandwidth setting. There is no optical fibre, there is no cable, just ADSL on a phone line. Sure central London has good bandwidth but rrural areas are often served very badly. In the UK the most wealthy often live outside the cities so people have enough money for manufacturers to aim products for them, but no one seems willing to pay to put a cable of any sort in.
> 
> Thank goodness for recorded media.. that doesn't drop out every five minutes.


Here in Brazil, broadband is also concentrated in urban centers, and some cities with 1 million inhabitants do not have fast internet enough to watch 1080P video streaming.

Some people in CanonRumors speak as if the planet had at its disposal all innovative technologies. That's why some visitors of this site consider that members of CanonRumors are just rich snobs.


----------



## rfdesigner (May 14, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > hmmm 4k?
> ...



I think that's just people being like people everywhere.. they look around themselves and think they and their surrounds are normal.. At least here in the UK we generally have a pretty broad world view (which I'm sure is still biased), and realise some parts of the world are miles ahead some are miles behind, The US is rather unusual in being so sparsely populated generally and so concentrated in cities, very different to the UK or many other countries I've been to.


----------



## RunAndGun (May 15, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'd skip 3D. That Samsung I returned was top of the line 3D.
> 
> Curved OLED TV screens sound interesting, but they still command a high price. They cost no more to make, but billions of dollars went into their development.



I agree on 3D. My 92" Mitsubishi can do 3D. I have a pair of glasses and I've watched TWO whole 3D movies on it(it doesn't help that it's a PITA to do it because my receiver won't pass the 3D signal). I can see the effect, just like at the theater, but it's not _that_ special. I've even shot it and watched it in a production environment and it's still meh…

Curved screens are a gimmick. They provide zero benefit to the viewer at the sizes and viewing distances in a home environment and it's actually a detriment(in my opinion, anyway).

OLED, though, can't get here fast enough on the large screen, mass produced, widely available, consumer front. I have two professional OLED monitors(one 17" and one 7.7") and two OLED VF's(an aftermarket for my C300 and the native Sony one on my F55). OLED eats LCD's lunch(there are no "LED Displays". LED is being used as the backlight source on TV's/monitors that call themselves "LED", but the display tech is still an LCD panel).

BTW, my Sony F55 is a native 4K camera, but I don't have any way to monitor it's 4K signal/image. 4K production quality monitors are still $$$.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 15, 2015)

Cinematography cameras like the 6K Red Dragon or the Alexa 65 with 6.5K open gate will all be down sampled to 4K (in fact most editing etc is done in 2K still) so oversampling is very much the order of the day in high end cinematography going forwards. Im not convinced about 8K display let me explain why. In the average European multiplex the screen diagonal is 55/56 feet, the ONLY place to see true 4K is in the front three rows any further back it become 2K resolution. The industry is not going to re-build hundreds of multiplexes and 8K viewing would put you in no mans land between the front row & the screen. The same principle applies to TVs our homes didnt suddenly become larger to accomodate larger screens to retain the same viewing distance. Without this a 65" 8K TV would require you to sit closer to the screen which becomes more uncomfortable for general viewing. 

8K will help with compression artefacts when down sampling to 4K and in any concantination errors, it will support a wider color gamut and be great for cleaner VFX pulls etc and for IMAX.


----------



## jefflinde (May 15, 2015)

has there been any discussion of the actual media that is used? I would like to see i large capacity disc released that could be used as a hard copy back up. Currently the M-Disc is 25GB but i need so many to create a hard copy of my photo library. hopefully they can get a 100gb format or something even larger.


----------



## Tugela (May 15, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Cinematography cameras like the 6K Red Dragon or the Alexa 65 with 6.5K open gate will all be down sampled to 4K (in fact most editing etc is done in 2K still) so oversampling is very much the order of the day in high end cinematography going forwards. Im not convinced about 8K display let me explain why. In the average European multiplex the screen diagonal is 55/56 feet, the ONLY place to see true 4K is in the front three rows any further back it become 2K resolution. The industry is not going to re-build hundreds of multiplexes and 8K viewing would put you in no mans land between the front row & the screen. The same principle applies to TVs our homes didnt suddenly become larger to accomodate larger screens to retain the same viewing distance. Without this a 65" 8K TV would require you to sit closer to the screen which becomes more uncomfortable for general viewing.
> 
> 8K will help with compression artefacts when down sampling to 4K and in any concantination errors, it will support a wider color gamut and be great for cleaner VFX pulls etc and for IMAX.



Those theoretical viewing distance arguments are nonsense and only apply to large scale objects. Higher resolution makes a difference when small scale detail is the object of attention.

People make these arguments so they can resist upgrading their work output to higher quality products where the need to be rigorous in attention to detail is critical and shoddy work is obvious. It is more about protecting their backsides and enabling laziness than doing what is good for the consumer.


----------



## jrista (May 15, 2015)

Tugela said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Cinematography cameras like the 6K Red Dragon or the Alexa 65 with 6.5K open gate will all be down sampled to 4K (in fact most editing etc is done in 2K still) so oversampling is very much the order of the day in high end cinematography going forwards. Im not convinced about 8K display let me explain why. In the average European multiplex the screen diagonal is 55/56 feet, the ONLY place to see true 4K is in the front three rows any further back it become 2K resolution. The industry is not going to re-build hundreds of multiplexes and 8K viewing would put you in no mans land between the front row & the screen. The same principle applies to TVs our homes didnt suddenly become larger to accomodate larger screens to retain the same viewing distance. Without this a 65" 8K TV would require you to sit closer to the screen which becomes more uncomfortable for general viewing.
> ...



Small scale detail is only visible if your close enough for your eyes to resolve it. Visual acuity is affected by distance, since it is a matter of angular resolving power. In the case of human visual acuity, our acuity is about 1/60th of a degree on average, maybe about 1/80th of a degree at best. Get closer, and finer details are more visible, get farther and finder details can no longer be resolved independently. Sitting a few feet from even a moderately large TV (say 55") isn't exactly the most comfortable viewing circumstance.

At the distances I sit from my 4k screen in my home, which is actually shorter than the recommended distance for a 55" TV (my living room is long but narrow), I cannot see pixels. Detail is amazingly crisp. If the pixels were reduced in size by a factor of four, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. My visual acuity with my contacts in or glasses on is very good at 20/10, so it isn't like I'm incapable of resolving very fine detail.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 15, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Finally, the association responsible for the BluRay reached an agreement on an optical disc capable of displaying 4K video. :
> This will be called Ultra HD BluRay. 8)
> 
> 
> ...



I can't wait... as an audiophile and to some extent a videophile... if I'm going to spend my dollars to own or rent something, I want the absolute best source material and that comes from physical media (although you can download some lossless audio legally).

There will always be a market for it, as the vinyl market proves that you can make money in the niche game.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 15, 2015)

The BluRay 1080P has not yet become hegemonic in most countries, and now we wait for the *Ultra HD BluRay 4K *...

In another CR topic someone says clearly see the superiority of 4K (compared to 1080P) on the screen of a cell phone. It would be impossible for the visual acuity of a normal human being, but perhaps the extraterrestrials participate in Canonrumors also ... 8)

Nothing wrong to want to be always up to date by investing in the newest video standard. But there are cases that need to be explained pou Freud. ???

Maybe it's just a desire to show "superiority" over other normal beings.
It may be a need to flaunt personal wealth, to mask their personal weaknesses. :-X

Let's be honest:
Mega companies must invest in more advanced technology to display its market leadership. But some people here already say they will wait for video 8K (32 megapixel) as 4K is no longer enough for him.

I understand that someone who finds insufficient 4K video to watch in the living room, you can not settle for only 50 megapixel photos. He should look for cameras capable of taking photographs of at least 200 megapixel.


----------



## unfocused (May 16, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> The BluRay 1080P has not yet become hegemonic in most countries, and now we wait for the *Ultra HD BluRay 4K *...
> 
> ...Nothing wrong to want to be always up to date by investing in the newest video standard. But there are cases that need to be explained pou Freud. ???...
> 
> ...



I won't repeat your full comments, but I would give them a big "Plus 1."

I get that some people are videophiles who simply enjoy watching the highest resolution on the largest home screen possible. But, the subject matter here involved "taking over the world." 

Blu-Ray has been around for more than a decade. Yet, it still remains a niche product. Go to any video rental store (if you can find one) and you'll see a lot more DVDs than Blu-Ray discs. Usually the Blu-Rays only get rented when all the DVDs in a popular title have been rented out. Most people won't even pay the extra dollar or so to rent a Blu-Ray if they can get a DVD. 

I made the comment earlier that most people under 30 are watching videos on phones, tablets or laptops. Someone responded that "Yuppies" have big screen televisions. I'm sure they do. But that misses the point. The trend is with the 18 to 30-year-olds who stream everything on their personal devices and wouldn't even think of actually paying for access to network or cable television. I suspect that video being consumed on Facebook with iPhones is probably 100 or 200 times greater than all the video being watched on 4K televisions.

4K will no doubt become a standard for serious filmmakers. But, I suspect the bulk of video that will be consumed for the next decade or so will be viewed on small screens and very few consumers will care whether or not its 4K or HD or even "standard" definition. 

Unless you are a professional filmmaker aiming for theatrical releases, the only reason to buy 4K is to entertain yourself.


----------



## 9VIII (May 16, 2015)

jrista said:


> Visual acuity is affected by distance, since it is a matter of angular resolving power. In the case of human visual acuity, our acuity is about 1/60th of a degree on average, maybe about 1/80th of a degree at best. Get closer, and finer details are more visible, get farther and finder details can no longer be resolved independently...



Ahem...



9VIII said:


> As for the practical viewing limitations of 4K, it's basically interchangeable with HD.
> You shouldn't have to change anything as far as seating and screen size when moving from an HDTV setup to 4K.
> 
> People like to throw around screen size and distance numbers based on receptor cell size in your eyes, but those tests are based on high frequency static images and not the low frequency moving images your eyes are designed for.
> In other words, the limitations commonly stated apply only to fine repeating texture. Smooth sand and cement may look the same, but any patterns and shapes will be noticeably better, something like a person's eyes will look incredibly good in 4K.



Jrista the numbers you quoted are exactly what I was referring to.

You need to differentiate between the finest high frequency detail that a person can see and the finest low frequency detail.
The issue is that our eyes are designed to work by moving our receptors across the image, not holding steady.
Here, I'll quote the opening sentences of chapter 29 from "Principles of Neural Science: Fifth Edition" (Yes, Neuro used this book as a source in one of his posts once, I took him up on it, the book agreed with me; but more importantly it's chock-full of information relevant to the "4K Debate".)



> VISION REQUIRES EYE MOVEMENTS. Small eye movements are essential for maintaining the contrast of objects that we are examining. Without these movements the perception of an object rapidly fades to a field of gray, a phenomenon correlated with the decreased response of neurons in area V1 (see chapter 25).



Previous chapters also detail how the receptor cells are excited most by movement.
Given that a cell basically requires that stimulus pass over it, and not linger on it, it follows that when people measure visual acuity using a consistent grid of lines the point at which one cell is going to pass over multiple lines in is going to come much sooner than the point at which it achieves its maximum potential for detecting detail.
I didn't just read this in a book, if you test your own two eyes for high contrast low frequency details, you will find that you can see fine adjustments in shape from quite a distance. My usual test is to draw diagonal lines in an old paint program that does not apply any smoothing, leaving lines nice and jagged ("Jaggies" are the stair stepping effect seen when an angle is drawn on a digital display). As long as the frequency of the jaggies themselves is low enough I can see these relatively fine details out to as far as nine feet on a 100DPI monitor (and sometimes farther depending on how long I look and how tired I am etc... but nine feet is a good number).

Using the exact same monitor, if I look at an image consisting of nothing but alternating black and white single pixel wide columns, the screen goes gray at three feet, just as the angle based calculations predict.

So the commonly quoted numbers are true, if you're looking at a perfectly even grid.
A picture of a person's eyes on the other hand is a perfect example of a shape that will take full advantage of 4K resolution. Actually as far as I can tell it is extremely rare to see something in any given image where details are sufficiently consistent and high frequency to actually blurr out.
As I said, I expect to see blurring on an image of a flat sandy beach, or a large flat concrete surface, but any irregularities will still "pop".
Based on my testing a 4K display as small as 44 inches will still provide extra detail as far as nine feet away.
Actually my primary concern in measuring that was to find the distance where jaggies go away, and an image becomes so detail packed that it should be almost indiscernible from the real thing.
So for my purposes a 44" 4K display should be viewed from _further_ than nine feet away, and when viewing any closer, or using a display larger than 44", I want 8K.
But I'm a little weird like that, most people don't care if they can see jaggies and would prefer to see all the detail, flaws and all, rather than ensuring that their display out resolves their vision.
I also have slightly better than 20/20 vision so you need to grow the screen a bit to give useful viewing distances for the average person.

So if you have 20/20 vision and definitely want to see all the detail (not out resolve your eyes), you probably want a minimum of 50" when viewing at a maximum of nine feet away, or if my math is correct a 67" screen at twelve feet.


----------



## sanj (May 16, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, the association responsible for the BluRay reached an agreement on an optical disc capable of displaying 4K video. :
> ...



Not all understand this. Unfortunately.


----------

