Just because technology can do something, doent meant its always right

[thinkfat]

3D on the TV really hasn't caught on, has it? My last TV was an LG with WebOS (big mistake), with 3D, and yes, Avatar was absolutely brilliant. But that was about the only film I ever watched in 3D. The current TV, one of the Sony Bravia Android sets, doesn't feature 3D any more and it's a top-of-the-line, gigantic OLED slab of screen. 3D is gone, IMHO.

[ebastler]

Yes, it seems that 3D has been replaced by 4k and then 8k as the latest fad, "here's why you need to buy a new TV set yet again" sales pitch. All three are equally unconvincing arguments in my opinion...

[bd139]

Resolution is different. It's a function of the size of the screen and the viewing distance.

3d is pointless though. You can strap a couple of 4k screens to your head if you need that. Makes far more sense.

[bd139]

Ah yes that’s one reason I bought a mirrorless recently. The processing on the smartphones is quite destructive. Some of that is actually the finish of the metalwork though and some of it is the low quality jpeg I exported but the phone is doing some weird stuff.

But quite frankly the image is a pretty good approximation of reality and that’s what matters to most people.

I mean if you consider bokeh and grain doesn’t really exist it puts things into perspective. Compromises everywhere and that’s part of the art.

The only reason I still keep a DSLR is because - lenses. All phones have tiny sensors and short lenses and distort all of the perspective. All these kids that think they are fat and that are having nose jobs have not looked at themselves in the mirror properly. I once compared a photo of a group of friends taken on a smartphone with one taken on my camera with a 50mm prime lens. It was then obvious but only on comparison that the further to the edge of the picture you go on the smart phone, the more the faces are seriously distorted.

Worth pointing out here that all lenses have some inherent distortion in them and vignetting. Most of the cameras and some smartphones perform corrections on this on the device or provide lens metadata which Lightroom etc can correct later if required.

And there is a huge difference between a crap smartphone camera and a decent smartphone camera. The span of outcomes is pretty huge depending on how much you spent mostly. Spend £800+ on a smartphone and you might get a decent camera too if you're lucky 

[SiliconWizard]

While 3D TVs were mostly useless - a gadget that you would use a couple times and then would get too annoying and useless to make any sense - more DPI (up to some reasonable value) does add something. Whether you personally find it useless is subjective.

As I mentioned, it's funny to see that many people don't have a problem with a full HD display on a 6" mobile phone, or even 4K now, but would find 4K already too much on a 50" (or over) display. Granted you don't look at them at the same distance, but you can definitely tell a difference between Full HD and 4K on a 50" display at a distance of a couple meters. As to 8K, I haven't seen enough 8K displays of the average size of a TV set to be able to tell. I'd be willing to think that it would make more visible difference for static images than moving ones, though.

[tggzzz]

There is no way that stereo TV will take off. Even if you could magically avoid having polarising/LCD/etc glasses, there are two killer disadvantages:

• there is a "sweet spot" for viewing. Sit too close and the Z-dimension is magnified, or too far away and it is compressed

The same applies to the X and Y dimensions, and that has not hurt the success of TV too much. 

Er, no.

If you work through the geometry of the homologous points, you will understand.

Alternatively, I suggest you find a still picture that is being projected, and walk towards and away from it.

• given a choice between stereoscopic or 60fps + more pixels, I'd opt for fps+pixels

The fact that you prefer something else can hardly be called a killer argument why a technology will never take off. 

Having said that, I have used the stereoscopiv feature (which our TV came with, whether we wanted it or not...) twice in the 6+ years since we got the TV. But I would say it's the glasses and the reduced picture brightness which are distracting me. If it weren't for those drawbacks, I might actually use the stereo mode when watching a movie every now and then.

Everybody else that I have asked has the same opinion.

[Simon]

Worth pointing out here that all lenses have some inherent distortion in them and vignetting. Most of the cameras and some smartphones perform corrections on this on the device or provide lens metadata which Lightroom etc can correct later if required.

And there is a huge difference between a crap smartphone camera and a decent smartphone camera. The span of outcomes is pretty huge depending on how much you spent mostly. Spend £800+ on a smartphone and you might get a decent camera too if you're lucky 

 It was an iphone. But this is more about the physicality's. the smaller the sensor the smaller the lens and the less glass each pixel has. So any defect or distortion in the lens will be more severe. Also you will never correct the perspective. Yes software can help with the fisheye effect.

So my first camera was marketed as 35-300mm zoom, it war actually 6.2-60 something mm. You could tell the difference. I would often do panoramic montages as a way of increasing resolution and found I prefered them. But it was not because of the resolution. I would be zoomed in at 250-300 "mm" which put the lens at 50-60mm which gives correct perspective. pictures shot at 6.2mm were just crap, you could see it was not natural.

[Simon]

While 3D TVs were mostly useless - a gadget that you would use a couple times and then would get too annoying and useless to make any sense - more DPI (up to some reasonable value) does add something. Whether you personally find it useless is subjective.

As I mentioned, it's funny to see that many people don't have a problem with a full HD display on a 6" mobile phone, or even 4K now, but would find 4K already too much on a 50" (or over) display. Granted you don't look at them at the same distance, but you can definitely tell a difference between Full HD and 4K on a 50" display at a distance of a couple meters. As to 8K, I haven't seen enough 8K displays of the average size of a TV set to be able to tell. I'd be willing to think that it would make more visible difference for static images than moving ones, though.

You will not see any better above 4k, peoples eyes are just not that good. As for phones, there is less choice and they are used at a closer distance but I do have mine set to medium resolution and can't tell the difference. Most of these things exist - because they can and because if one puts more pixels in just for marketing then the others have to as well. If people actually understood and genuinely cared about the environment all these sleezy manufacturers would be out of business.

[ebastler]

Resolution is different. It's a function of the size of the screen and the viewing distance.

I don't get the "depends on the screen size" argument.

Users will adjust the viewing distance from the screen roughly in proportion to the screen size, such that the screen fills a comfortable total viewing angle: Close enough to see what's going on, while not so close that you have to constantly scan your limited field of view across the large screen. Since the angular resolution of the eye remains constant in these scenarios, and the comfortable full viewing angle remains roughly constant as well, the required number of pixels across the screen should be a constant too.

(That being said, I realize that my personal preference in screen size is probably untypical. TV, including watching DVDs and streamed video, plays a small role in my daily life, and I don't want to devote an altar to it in the living room. So we have a 32" TV set, receive broadcast TV via a terrestrial DVB-T2 antenna, and are perfectly happy with a full HD screen.)

[tggzzz]

Resolution is different. It's a function of the size of the screen and the viewing distance.

I don't get the "depends on the screen size" argument.

Users will adjust the viewing distance from the screen roughly in proportion to the screen size, such that the screen fills a comfortable total viewing angle: Close enough to see what's going on, while not so close that you have to constantly scan your limited field of view across the large screen. Since the angular resolution of the eye remains constant in these scenarios, and the comfortable full viewing angle remains roughly constant as well, the required number of pixels across the screen should be a constant too.

(That being said, I realize that my personal preference in screen size is probably untypical. TV, including watching DVDs and streamed video, plays a small role in my daily life, and I don't want to devote an altar to it in the living room. So we have a 32" TV set, receive broadcast TV via a terrestrial DVB-T2 antenna, and are perfectly happy with a full HD screen.)

When HDTV was first being developed, it became apparent that there were two differing motivations.

We are familial with the motivations in Europe and the US. But in Asian countries typically rooms are smaller and people sit closer to the screen, so higher resolution means pixels don't look so big and blocky.

[Simon]

When HDTV was first being developed, it became apparent that there were two differing motivations.

We are familial with the motivations in Europe and the US. But in Asian countries typically rooms are smaller and people sit closer to the screen, so higher resolution means pixels don't look so big and blocky.

NO! it's about angular resolution!, sit close to a small screen or further from a large screen, the result is the same......

[tggzzz]

When HDTV was first being developed, it became apparent that there were two differing motivations.

We are familial with the motivations in Europe and the US. But in Asian countries typically rooms are smaller and people sit closer to the screen, so higher resolution means pixels don't look so big and blocky.

NO! it's about angular resolution!, sit close to a small screen or further from a large screen, the result is the same......

I'm not quite sure what you are saying,but I think you have misunderstood.

In Asian countries they often sit so close to the screen (small room size) that individual SD pixels are too visible. HD with the same screen size and same distance has smaller and therefore less visible pixels.

[Simon]

Yes and as soon as you move further away your screen gets bigger. I have a 42" monitor and 27" monitors. Both 4k, both look the same because I sit as close as 0.5m from the 27" ones but will be about 1.5m from the 43" one. The eye has an angle of view, The pixels actually take up an angle of our vision so it is about angular resolution. if we can see 150 degrees across and want a 4k monitor that is 150/4k gives you the angular resolution. That is fixed because we will always change our distance from the monitor based on it's size unless you are like my ex colleague with eye sight problems that had a 32" and put his eyes up to it with enlarged text.

[bd139]

Interested to see where monitor tech goes. I have a 27” 4k and a 27” 5k next to each other and the 4k one looks horrible now. More pixels really does help with text sharpness and eye strain.

[tom66]

I just don't "get" 8K.

I have 4K monitors for my PC.  These are 28" across and I sit two feet away from them so consequentially, I can resolve the added detail.  I think 5-6K would be the maximum resolution before I could no longer resolve the detail.  I have perfect 20-20 uncorrected vision.

A TV screen is typically 8-10 foot away from the user.  You can't even see the benefit of 4K at that distance with a screen up to 65".  It looks better than 1080p but you aren't getting the "full" experience.

For video editing and filmmakers I can see the advantage of doing all the mastering in 8K and producing a 4K output.  And those people will probably benefit from an 8K monitor 50" across two foot away from their eyes.  But for the general public watching the film on their TV?  I just don't see it.

TV manufacturers will push it because it's the next big thing, like 3D, but I expect it will fizzle.

[tggzzz]

Yes and as soon as you move further away your screen gets bigger. I have a 42" monitor and 27" monitors. Both 4k, both look the same because I sit as close as 0.5m from the 27" ones but will be about 1.5m from the 43" one. The eye has an angle of view, The pixels actually take up an angle of our vision so it is about angular resolution. if we can see 150 degrees across and want a 4k monitor that is 150/4k gives you the angular resolution. That is fixed because we will always change our distance from the monitor based on it's size unless you are like my ex colleague with eye sight problems that had a 32" and put his eyes up to it with enlarged text.

My point was about TV, not computer monitors, and in conditions where they cannot change the distance.

Hence your statements, while correct, do not refute the two differing reasons for interest in HDTV when it was being developed.

[ebastler]

Yes and as soon as you move further away your screen gets bigger. I have a 42" monitor and 27" monitors. Both 4k, both look the same because I sit as close as 0.5m from the 27" ones but will be about 1.5m from the 43" one. The eye has an angle of view, The pixels actually take up an angle of our vision so it is about angular resolution. if we can see 150 degrees across and want a 4k monitor that is 150/4k gives you the angular resolution. That is fixed because we will always change our distance from the monitor based on it's size unless you are like my ex colleague with eye sight problems that had a 32" and put his eyes up to it with enlarged text.

My point was about TV, not computer monitors, and in conditions where they cannot change the distance.
Hence your statements, while correct, do not refute the two differing reasons for interest in HDTV when it was being developed.

Seems to me that the two of you are talking about the same thing. The point is that a TV in a small room, where you need to sit close to the screen, should not be a huge 80"+ screen. It would be very inconvenient, since you can't even see the full field of view without constantly turning your head like watching a tennis match...

So you choose a smaller screen size which gives you an agreeable field of view, and hence the pixels will be smaller too. You don't need higher resolution than for a large screen which sits at a larger distance.

One can argue whether the step from 2k to 4k is worthwhile (it is probably noticeable enough for most people). But there seems to be a broad consensus that the proposed step to 8k is just marketing hyperbole.
 

[tggzzz]

Yes and as soon as you move further away your screen gets bigger. I have a 42" monitor and 27" monitors. Both 4k, both look the same because I sit as close as 0.5m from the 27" ones but will be about 1.5m from the 43" one. The eye has an angle of view, The pixels actually take up an angle of our vision so it is about angular resolution. if we can see 150 degrees across and want a 4k monitor that is 150/4k gives you the angular resolution. That is fixed because we will always change our distance from the monitor based on it's size unless you are like my ex colleague with eye sight problems that had a 32" and put his eyes up to it with enlarged text.

My point was about TV, not computer monitors, and in conditions where they cannot change the distance.
Hence your statements, while correct, do not refute the two differing reasons for interest in HDTV when it was being developed.

Seems to me that the two of you are talking about the same thing. The point is that a TV in a small room, where you need to sit close to the screen, should not be a huge 80"+ screen. It would be very inconvenient, since you can't even see the full field of view without constantly turning your head like watching a tennis match...

So you choose a smaller screen size which gives you an agreeable field of view, and hence the pixels will be smaller too. You don't need higher resolution than for a large screen which sits at a larger distance.

One can argue whether the step from 2k to 4k is worthwhile (it is probably noticeable enough for most people). But there seems to be a broad consensus that the proposed step to 8k is just marketing hyperbole.

While I take your points about what is sensible and/or desirable, it comes down to the available screen sizes and room size. It is wrong to assume that the room size is the same in Asia and Europe/USA.

While I too was surprised at the differing incentives for HDTV, that statement came from people developing the HDTV standards and technology.

[2N3055]

The human eye has an angular resolution of about 1 arcminute (0.02 degrees or 0.0003 radians) .

That is 0.3 mm at 1 m distance.. or 85 DPI... Ever wondered why that 85 DPI was so prevalent with monitors?
So if you where to watch a 42" screen at 1m distance (16x9 930mm W x 520mm H) that would need only 3100x1734 pixel to be as good as eye can be.
And you won't be watching from 1m like somebody well said above.

Super high res is bulls**t and waste of resources..

[tggzzz]

I've seen two picture technologies that stand out from the rest.

35mm stereoscopic pictures on 100ASA slide film, i.e. about 5000x3000 pixels per eye. It is necessary to have the maximum possible depth of field, since people's eyes wander around the scene scene looking for details. If they can't focus on the details, it is uncomfortable.

Showscan movies, which I saw in the late 80s. They were much superior to the IMAX movies in the neighbouring theatre, and I saw the Showscan movies a several times. It is difficult to determine the resolution, but it was a 65mm image on 700 film, projected at 60fps. As far as I can tell, that equates to a resolution of around 5000x2500 pixels, but the high frame rate will improve the apparent resolution.

Thus, without experiencing the pictures myself, I would expect that 5k*3k is worthwhile, and that 60fps is definitely preferable for moving pictures.

If you want to, say, have multiple documents visible simultaneously even though you can only perceive one at any given instant, then higher resolution might be useful.

[2N3055]

.....
If you want to, say, have multiple documents visible simultaneously even though you can only perceive one at any given instant, then higher resolution might be useful.

Larger size screen is useful.

I have  34" Samsung 34J550 UWHD 21:9 in front of me... I don't use dual monitor setup anymore...
It has 3440x1440 pixels.. cca 110 DPI . I cannot see individual pixels without magnifying glass.

Going more than that is stupid. It brings nothing. Once you get at approx. 100-120 DPI more important would be contrast, dynamic range, color calibration and viewing angles.... Ironically, those can be better optimized if pixels are bigger....

[tooki]

I've seen two picture technologies that stand out from the rest.

35mm stereoscopic pictures on 100ASA slide film, i.e. about 5000x3000 pixels per eye. It is necessary to have the maximum possible depth of field, since people's eyes wander around the scene scene looking for details. If they can't focus on the details, it is uncomfortable.

Showscan movies, which I saw in the late 80s. They were much superior to the IMAX movies in the neighbouring theatre, and I saw the Showscan movies a several times. It is difficult to determine the resolution, but it was a 65mm image on 700 film, projected at 60fps. As far as I can tell, that equates to a resolution of around 5000x2500 pixels, but the high frame rate will improve the apparent resolution.

IMAX has over three times the area of a frame as Showscan. So in terms of actual resolution, there’s no contest. The apparent increased sharpness of Showscan could be due to the fact that at 60fps, it means the slowest shutter speed possible is 1/60s, as opposed to 1/24s of regular 24fps film. That means less motion blur. (Of course you can use a faster speed when shooting, but you’re limited on the slow end.)

If we take your estimate of 5000x3000px for standard 35mm still photography (36x24mm) and extrapolate it to Showscan and IMAX, we get around 5920x3552px for Showscan and 10355x6213px for IMAX. (35mm movie film frames are much smaller than 35mm still photography frames.)

[tggzzz]

I've seen two picture technologies that stand out from the rest.

35mm stereoscopic pictures on 100ASA slide film, i.e. about 5000x3000 pixels per eye. It is necessary to have the maximum possible depth of field, since people's eyes wander around the scene scene looking for details. If they can't focus on the details, it is uncomfortable.

Showscan movies, which I saw in the late 80s. They were much superior to the IMAX movies in the neighbouring theatre, and I saw the Showscan movies a several times. It is difficult to determine the resolution, but it was a 65mm image on 700 film, projected at 60fps. As far as I can tell, that equates to a resolution of around 5000x2500 pixels, but the high frame rate will improve the apparent resolution.

IMAX has over three times the area of a frame as Showscan. So in terms of actual resolution, there’s no contest. The apparent increased sharpness of Showscan could be due to the fact that at 60fps, it means the slowest shutter speed possible is 1/60s, as opposed to 1/24s of regular 24fps film. That means less motion blur. (Of course you can use a faster speed when shooting, but you’re limited on the slow end.)

If we take your estimate of 5000x3000px for standard 35mm still photography (36x24mm) and extrapolate it to Showscan and IMAX, we get around 5920x3552px for Showscan and 10355x6213px for IMAX. (35mm movie film frames are much smaller than 35mm still photography frames.)

I suspect that 70mm film is faster than 100ASA, so the grains will be larger, and hence reduced spatial resolution.

I presume that persistence of vision will reduce the perceived grain size via the optical equivalent of dithering.

I guess those two effects cancel out to some degree, hence my guess at 70mm film's resolution.

60fps will definitely improve the perception of motion. ISTR Trumball determining that are dimknishing gains in producing movies at more than 66fps, hence Showscan's 60fps.

[tooki]

I suspect that 70mm film is faster than 100ASA, so the grains will be larger, and hence reduced spatial resolution.

I don’t know where you’d get this idea, nor the notion that motion picture film doesn’t come in an array of speeds. The emulsion doesn’t care what size film stock it’s coated onto.

Anyhow, at least today, the only remaining manufacturer of motion picture film, Eastman Kodak, makes 65mm camera film* in the same ISOs as 35mm: 50, 200, 250, and 500. (Observe that none of these come even distantly close to the high ISOs modern digital cameras can capture cleanly.) The data sheets (one per film speed) — and thus the specs — are identical for all film sizes it comes in, from 8mm through 65mm.

As an aside, no wonder 70mm movies are so rare, and 60fps 70mm even rarer: at 24fps, a 1000 foot reel’s runtime is just under 9 minutes and costs around $1500, according to the price list I’m looking at. So at 60fps, that’s just three and a half minutes! (35mm is less than half the cost.) The intermediate film is even more expensive, but print film is massively cheaper.

*camera and intermediate films are 65mm, print film is 70mm.

[tggzzz]

I suspect that 70mm film is faster than 100ASA, so the grains will be larger, and hence reduced spatial resolution.

I don’t know where you’d get this idea, nor the notion that motion picture film doesn’t come in an array of speeds. The emulsion doesn’t care what size film stock it’s coated onto.

Of course it doesn't care; the photo-chemistry is the same.

My suspicion is based on looking at the single frame of 70mm film in my possession.

Anyhow, at least today, the only remaining manufacturer of motion picture film, Eastman Kodak, makes 65mm camera film* in the same ISOs as 35mm: 50, 200, 250, and 500. (Observe that none of these come even distantly close to the high ISOs modern digital cameras can capture cleanly.) The data sheets (one per film speed) — and thus the specs — are identical for all film sizes it comes in, from 8mm through 65mm.

As an aside, no wonder 70mm movies are so rare, and 60fps 70mm even rarer: at 24fps, a 1000 foot reel’s runtime is just under 9 minutes and costs around $1500, according to the price list I’m looking at. So at 60fps, that’s just three and a half minutes! (35mm is less than half the cost.) The intermediate film is even more expensive, but print film is massively cheaper.

*camera and intermediate films are 65mm, print film is 70mm.

Thanks for the hard numbers. It appears that my suspicion was pretty accurate, despite your snide comment.

For my 35mm stereoscopic slides I had to use 64ASA film, in order to minimise[1] the visible grain. Only one speed you mention is slightly slower (~1.3 times) than that, the others being ~3, ~4, ~8 times faster.

One day perhaps I'll digitise them to try to see the relative grain size.

[1] not eliminate. With stereoscopic slides the grain is more visible for several reasons: you are looking at the film without projection optics, the natural tendency to closely examine all parts of the scene, and grain structure manifesting itself as depth structure.