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

[strawberry]

is not quite desktop computer 8K TV set really necessary for general public
is technology really evolving or is it just pros/cons shift (high yields vs environment)
fusion reactor could be prof of tech limits

[Gyro]

It's certainly the case in the TV example. When I was in the industry it was all about "we must have 3D support in the HDMI spec right now!"... and that flew like a lead balloon, curved panels etc. There is far too much upscaling required for most content for 4k or 8k resolutions etc.

I've had lots of experiences (particularly with semiconductor manufacturers) of technology looking for an application, rather than the other way round.

[james_s]

It's certainly the case in the TV example. When I was in the industry it was all about "we must have 3D support in the HDMI spec right now!"... and that flew like a lead balloon, curved panels etc. There is far too much upscaling required for most content for 4k or 8k resolutions etc.

I've had lots of experiences (particularly with semiconductor manufacturers) of technology looking for an application, rather than the other way round.

The problem I see is that the TV manufactures all spent years trying to replicate the huge sales volume of the early HD boom when everyone was replacing their old sets with HD. The thing they seemed to completely miss was the fact that the vast majority of people didn't buy new TVs to get HD, they bought them to get a big flatscreen that didn't take up a massive volume of space like the older CRT based sets. I can't even count how many HD sets I saw that were hooked up to only SD sources, most people don't even care about picture quality that much, the cheapest crappiest TV sets have always been the biggest sellers. The TV manufactures should have realized that once everyone already has a thin flat TV there is absolutely NOTHING that can be offered on a new set that will replicate that kind of sales volume.

[Black Phoenix]

It's certainly the case in the TV example. When I was in the industry it was all about "we must have 3D support in the HDMI spec right now!"... and that flew like a lead balloon, curved panels etc. There is far too much upscaling required for most content for 4k or 8k resolutions etc.

I've had lots of experiences (particularly with semiconductor manufacturers) of technology looking for an application, rather than the other way round.

Nothing against curve panels, but as PC monitor. Had one at the company and being able to have 2 windows open side by side, each at 1920x1200, as if it was 2 monitors side by side was a godsend in terms of space saved. But it was only the place were it would look logical to me.

[rsjsouza]

It's certainly the case in the TV example. When I was in the industry it was all about "we must have 3D support in the HDMI spec right now!"... and that flew like a lead balloon, curved panels etc. There is far too much upscaling required for most content for 4k or 8k resolutions etc.

I've had lots of experiences (particularly with semiconductor manufacturers) of technology looking for an application, rather than the other way round.

The problem I see is that the TV manufactures all spent years trying to replicate the huge sales volume of the early HD boom when everyone was replacing their old sets with HD. The thing they seemed to completely miss was the fact that the vast majority of people didn't buy new TVs to get HD, they bought them to get a big flatscreen that didn't take up a massive volume of space like the older CRT based sets. I can't even count how many HD sets I saw that were hooked up to only SD sources, most people don't even care about picture quality that much, the cheapest crappiest TV sets have always been the biggest sellers. The TV manufactures should have realized that once everyone already has a thin flat TV there is absolutely NOTHING that can be offered on a new set that will replicate that kind of sales volume.

I agree with you the industry was still inebriated with the years of a sales surge, but I think the catalytic came slightly before the flat screens: the DVD. The boom caused by the frenzy of DVD technology was the first leap on the video/audio arena that could compete with Hollywood as it was considered "Hi-Q/Hi-Fi enough" to create the concept of home theater. Basically an entire ecosystem was created with many different devices and accessories to grant the most immersive experience.  Not to mention it was much more convenient when compared to the sequential access of the VCR tapes. 

[daqq]

Well, there's the problem - to sell, manufacturers need something new. Not because it's necessary, nor because it adds 500% to the experience, but because if they don't, people don't have a reason to buy stuff as quickly.

My current fridge has some 25 years. Odds are that it'll last another 10 or 20. This is bad from the manufacturers point of view, since I have no motivation to buy a new one. The solution is to either make shitty products that break after some time or to create a product so good with features or parameters better enough to warrant a purchase of a new device whilst the old one is still good.

Improving upon core features is difficult and for many cases is available only to the top names in the established trades. But adding features that sound nice...

Take some 90% of consumer products equipped with IoT these days - they are mostly useless gimmicks that the marketing department can take advantage off and say that you really aren't up to date if your semi-sentient fridge is not connected to the WobbleTyGoo cloud through the 6G, and can't connect to your Bolloxer account. IoT toaster? Sure. IoT washing machine? Yup. IoT bloody kettle? Of course ( https://smarter.am/collections/smarter-ikettle )! And there are sillier examples.

Most new products today are not revolutionary new concepts that people will buy to get a never before seen feature that will impact their lives. They rarely offer anything but an incremental improvement in parameters over the same priced model from two years ago. But they do offer ever more obscure and sillier gimmicks.

[TimFox]

The current trend in video entertainment seems to be to view cinema content on either a huge wall-mounted flat screen in ones home theater, or on a tiny screen in ones smartphone.

[SiliconWizard]

Uh, sorry but there are much worse uses of technology currently than 8K displays. Why not 8K on a large screen?
4K on a 6" display is already questionable sure, and we have that. Would be a better example.
But there are still way worse uses of technology than that.

And forcing people to use some technology is way, way worse IMHO and what I really have a problem with.

[james_s]

I agree with you the industry was still inebriated with the years of a sales surge, but I think the catalytic came slightly before the flat screens: the DVD. The boom caused by the frenzy of DVD technology was the first leap on the video/audio arena that could compete with Hollywood as it was considered "Hi-Q/Hi-Fi enough" to create the concept of home theater. Basically an entire ecosystem was created with many different devices and accessories to grant the most immersive experience.  Not to mention it was much more convenient when compared to the sequential access of the VCR tapes.

I used DVD for quite a few years before I ever owned a flatscreen. I'm sure it didn't hurt anything but it wasn't the root driving factor, which was the flat screens, loved by housewives everywhere in homes that had big box rear projection sets or the giant 300+ lb direct view CRTs that were offered for a while. Even modest 25" sets were quite bulky and people loved the fact at they could get a reasonably large screen set just a few inches thick. The fact that it could do HD was just a cherry on top.

[eti]

Where does the madness end? Watch THE FILM, not the pixels. People OBSESS over resolution, HDR - they can all parrot spec sheets, and yet remain with no idea about what is actually WORTH watching.... But as long as it's a higher resolution that The Jones' next door? Well.... 

[james_s]

Well, there's the problem - to sell, manufacturers need something new. Not because it's necessary, nor because it adds 500% to the experience, but because if they don't, people don't have a reason to buy stuff as quickly.

My current fridge has some 25 years. Odds are that it'll last another 10 or 20. This is bad from the manufacturers point of view, since I have no motivation to buy a new one. The solution is to either make shitty products that break after some time or to create a product so good with features or parameters better enough to warrant a purchase of a new device whilst the old one is still good.

Improving upon core features is difficult and for many cases is available only to the top names in the established trades. But adding features that sound nice...

The problem is that things like TVs have become way too cheap. We used to be just fine with TVs having a ~20 year life cycle, but that was when a decent TV cost several weeks wages or more. As an example, when I was sorting through my grandmother's stuff after she died I found the receipt for the 25" console TV my grandpa bought in I think 1984, IIRC it was $699 and that was with $100 off since it was a floor model. $699 was a lot of money in 1984, around $2k. Now average TVs are a few hundred bucks for a 50-60" screen.

[eti]

People are INSANE with the amount they spend on A TELEVISION, every 3-5 years. Need their heads testing :LOL:

[Psi]

It's less about the resolution and more about the DPI.

As TVs get bigger and bigger you need to up the resolution to keep them looking sharp.

There's zero point having a 32" TV that's 8k IMHO.

But if you have a projector making a 3 meter image then 8K is going to look much better than 1080p and probably noticeably better than 4k. (Though i cant say i have seen one yet).


It seems probably we will get to the point where an entire wall of your house is a display. And you can do conference calls that simulate your wall joined to other peoples walls. So its like you are both standing in the same room because the DPI & HDR are so high

[NiHaoMike]

There is far too much upscaling required for most content for 4k or 8k resolutions etc.

My 970 (that's now approaching 8 years old) only has about 30% utilization upscaling 1080p to 4K, about 1 TFLOPS. If we assume the GPU performance required scales linearly with pixel count, upscaling 4K to 8K would require 4 TFLOPS, which an entry level RTX 3050 should have no problems with. (That's also ignoring the DLSS hardware in the RTX GPUs which would accelerate upscaling and make things even easier.)

There's zero point having a 32" TV that's 8k IMHO.

Photo editing can certainly use more than 4K. Maybe 5K or 6K would be a more reasonable next step, but what's the cost difference between 6K and 8K nowadays?

[strawberry]

cant see difference between 1280x720 and 2560x1440 on cellphone only battery usage is different
cameras have to much pixels and it reduces light sensitivity and increase noise and compression efforts
10y ago had Sony Ericsson with same quality camera as new top tech developed recently 

[AndyC_772]

But if you have a projector making a 3 meter image then 8K is going to look much better than 1080p and probably noticeably better than 4k. (Though i cant say i have seen one yet).

It's academic; movies just aren't made in that resolution. Most aren't even in 4K, they're upscaled.

I have a true 4K projector with a 120 inch screen. A good 1080P image looks excellent, and the best examples of a 4K image are better still - but a good 1080P image beats a mediocre 4K one hands down.

Most 4K content is pretty mediocre, and if the resolution already isn't the limiting factor, a change to 8K can't offer any real improvement because the information simply isn't there to begin with.

[Psi]

There's zero point having a 32" TV that's 8k IMHO.

Photo editing can certainly use more than 4K. Maybe 5K or 6K would be a more reasonable next step, but what's the cost difference between 6K and 8K nowadays?

Yeah agreed, but that's different, that's a monitor rather than a TV.

[Psi]

Most 4K content is pretty mediocre, and if the resolution already isn't the limiting factor, a change to 8K can't offer any real improvement because the information simply isn't there to begin with.

Gaming content at native 8k is one exception.
But you obviously need the GPU horsepower to do that, and it will take quite a while before that is common place. 
but I just mean there is no lack of 8K gaming content since any game can be run at 8k if you had the hardware.

[AndyBeez]

Thought for the day: Why do I need 4K/8K when playing retro games like Pong or Tetris?

[rsjsouza]

Another example of technology that fails to do something right: future generations will never know that a TV can show an image in less than 5 seconds.

This was a huge push since the old vaccuum tube days and which was fully solved by solid state, only to be hampered now by the lag to boot the embedded OS (or bring it up from its sleep state) and fill a frame buffer.

[SpacedCowboy]

Nothing against curve panels, but as PC monitor. Had one at the company and being able to have 2 windows open side by side, each at 1920x1200, as if it was 2 monitors side by side was a godsend in terms of space saved. But it was only the place were it would look logical to me.

The below is my home-office (the place formally known as 'the shed at the bottom of the garden', post installation of a/c and insulation) setup. The curved monitor is in the middle in portrait, and I really like it...

It's incredibly useful for data sheets when I've got a PCB window up on one of the monitors, and the schematic on the other./Users/simon/Desktop/IMG_0465.jpeg

Or when coding - no more scrolling up and down on colleagues enormous functions/methods to see what's going on - just a glance up or down (I've given up trying to instill a shorter-focussed-methods-are-better approach, apparently throw-in-the-kitchen-sink-as-well approach is a more common coding style...)

The two 4K monitors at the side are easy to work with and can show an enormous amount of detail, but the widescreen one is where I put text so it's easier to read at a glance.

[james_s]

It's academic; movies just aren't made in that resolution. Most aren't even in 4K, they're upscaled.

I have a true 4K projector with a 120 inch screen. A good 1080P image looks excellent, and the best examples of a 4K image are better still - but a good 1080P image beats a mediocre 4K one hands down.

Most 4K content is pretty mediocre, and if the resolution already isn't the limiting factor, a change to 8K can't offer any real improvement because the information simply isn't there to begin with.

Movies used to be shot on 35mm film, IIRC while analog it is roughly equivalent to 8K. I don't know much about the stuff used today for digital cinema. I definitely agree that there is much more to this than resolution, far too many rips of HD movies are such low bandwidth that the resolution is just wasted.

[TimFox]

It's academic; movies just aren't made in that resolution. Most aren't even in 4K, they're upscaled.

I have a true 4K projector with a 120 inch screen. A good 1080P image looks excellent, and the best examples of a 4K image are better still - but a good 1080P image beats a mediocre 4K one hands down.

Most 4K content is pretty mediocre, and if the resolution already isn't the limiting factor, a change to 8K can't offer any real improvement because the information simply isn't there to begin with.

Movies used to be shot on 35mm film, IIRC while analog it is roughly equivalent to 8K. I don't know much about the stuff used today for digital cinema. I definitely agree that there is much more to this than resolution, far too many rips of HD movies are such low bandwidth that the resolution is just wasted.

The SMPTE estimates that there are roughly 30 standards in use for digital cinema.
A popular specification (DCI) can be found at  https://dcimovies.com/specification/DCI-DCSS-v141_2021-1013.pdf
That spec references "4k" at 4096 x 2160 pixels, and "2k" at 2048 x 1080 pixels, and specifies that decoders for DCI shall handle both, and be capable of 24 or 48 frames/sec.

[Bassman59]

It's academic; movies just aren't made in that resolution. Most aren't even in 4K, they're upscaled.

I have a true 4K projector with a 120 inch screen. A good 1080P image looks excellent, and the best examples of a 4K image are better still - but a good 1080P image beats a mediocre 4K one hands down.

Most 4K content is pretty mediocre, and if the resolution already isn't the limiting factor, a change to 8K can't offer any real improvement because the information simply isn't there to begin with.

Movies used to be shot on 35mm film, IIRC while analog it is roughly equivalent to 8K. I don't know much about the stuff used today for digital cinema. I definitely agree that there is much more to this than resolution, far too many rips of HD movies are such low bandwidth that the resolution is just wasted.

My local art-house movie theater is showing "2001: A Space Odyssey" from a 70 mm print next month. I saw it last time that print came around here. It is unbelievable: sitting in the middle of a large theater you can still read the writing on the control panels and the space suits.

[james_s]

The SMPTE estimates that there are roughly 30 standards in use for digital cinema.
A popular specification (DCI) can be found at  https://dcimovies.com/specification/DCI-DCSS-v141_2021-1013.pdf
That spec references "4k" at 4096 x 2160 pixels, and "2k" at 2048 x 1080 pixels, and specifies that decoders for DCI shall handle both, and be capable of 24 or 48 frames/sec.

2K sounds like a significant step backward compared to old fashioned 35mm film. Frankly even 4K sounds low for a movie theater sized screen, personally I would consider 8K to be about the bare minimum to be called reasonable and given the high dollar movie industry I'm surprised they aren't using something really exotic.

[TimFox]

The SMPTE estimates that there are roughly 30 standards in use for digital cinema.
A popular specification (DCI) can be found at  https://dcimovies.com/specification/DCI-DCSS-v141_2021-1013.pdf
That spec references "4k" at 4096 x 2160 pixels, and "2k" at 2048 x 1080 pixels, and specifies that decoders for DCI shall handle both, and be capable of 24 or 48 frames/sec.

2K sounds like a significant step backward compared to old fashioned 35mm film. Frankly even 4K sounds low for a movie theater sized screen, personally I would consider 8K to be about the bare minimum to be called reasonable and given the high dollar movie industry I'm surprised they aren't using something really exotic.

The original film Imax standard used 70 mm sprocketed film transported horizontally, with each (huge) frame approximately 70 mm by 48 mm, at 24 frames/sec.
This is larger than the 70 mm frame with vertical transport.
The digital quasi-Imax stuff is available at 4k, 6k, 6.5k, and 8k, with 12k announced but not yet supported.  Some stuff operates at 48 frames/sec.
A laser version operates at 4k and 60 frames/sec.
These digital versions are evolving rapidly.

[ejeffrey]

The red one camera supported 4k 15 years ago and was basically a standard for digital cinematography.  These days 8K is pretty common I think.  A lot of cameras are also designed to trade resolution vs frame rate so you might get less resolution in 2x or 4x slow motion or higher resolution for stills.

[james_s]

The original film Imax standard used 70 mm sprocketed film transported horizontally, with each (huge) frame approximately 70 mm by 48 mm, at 24 frames/sec.
This is larger than the 70 mm frame with vertical transport.
The digital quasi-Imax stuff is available at 4k, 6k, 6.5k, and 8k, with 12k announced but not yet supported.  Some stuff operates at 48 frames/sec.
A laser version operates at 4k and 60 frames/sec.
These digital versions are evolving rapidly.

I've never seen a digital Imax, does it look anything close to the real deal? 12k doesn't sound adequate for such a huge film size and 4k is frankly laughable but maybe it looks better than it sounds.

[TimFox]

I have not seen one myself.  Check the individual film listing carefully, since digital is taking over everything.

[tooki]

Movies used to be shot on 35mm film, IIRC while analog it is roughly equivalent to 8K.

Yes and no. First, just a quick reminder that the oft-cited figure of 21Mp for 35mm refers to 35mm photographic film, which is run horizontally through the camera, giving a 36x24mm frame, whereas 35mm movie film runs vertically, with a maximum frame size of around 22x16mm.

Either way, though, the maximum resolution and the typical resolution vary wildly. Only the sharpest, slowest of films (low ISO) get the maximum resolutions, but require tons of light. Fast (high ISO) films for low light had markedly lower resolution, and modern digital can easily exceed those.

Additionally, there’s a huge difference between the film negatives and a typical release print, which is many generations removed from the negatives: release prints suck. (I’ve gone to special movie screenings done with fewer-generations-removed prints, and the difference is striking.) If I had to guesstimate, I’d say a typical release print probably tops out at 4K, if that, and many aren’t any better than 2K.

[tooki]

2K sounds like a significant step backward compared to old fashioned 35mm film. Frankly even 4K sounds low for a movie theater sized screen, personally I would consider 8K to be about the bare minimum to be called reasonable and given the high dollar movie industry I'm surprised they aren't using something really exotic.

4K is more than enough for a movie screen, more or less independent of size. Our eyes have finite resolution, and typical 20/20 eyesight can’t resolve more than about 5K when the screen is filling our central field of view. (See attached image from https://www.4kshooters.net/2014/08/11/4k-resolution-and-the-human-eye/ )

Add in the fact that we don’t need as much resolution for moving pictures as for still ones, and it becomes a fool’s errand to strive for more — on the output. It’s more data to distribute, and less efficient to display, since each subpixel needs borders and internal structures, regardless of how large it is, so lower resolutions yield more light transmission.

On the recording side, more resolution makes sense, since it gives more flexibility to crop, etc. in post.

[strawberry]

90deg must be lover optimal resolution than 11K. gausian curve

[NiHaoMike]

A little detail often missed is that while displays have the same resolution for color and brightness, most video formats in common use (at least for content distribution) halve the color resolution. Thus, on a 1080p display, 4K downscaled to 1080p looks a little better than most native 1080p content.

[eti]

Time to just give up and admit it; apart from convenience, film is, and was BETTER, always, in ALL respects.

[TimFox]

Time to just give up and admit it; apart from convenience, film is, and was BETTER, always, in ALL respects.

For stills, the only technical advantage of digital over film is that high-speed film is now hard to find, and high-ASA digital works reasonably well compared with 35 mm film.
However, you will take my 4x5 and 8x10 inch film cameras from my cold, dead hands.

[BrianHG]

I think a desktop 8k, with that stupid cleartype disabled, is just perfect for reading .pdf documents with 2 facing pages.
At least I imagine so.as cleartype still has a minor enhancement on large 4k monitors and does improve 2k displays at the cost of that annoying color fringing around the fonts with fine vertical lines.

[tooki]

Time to just give up and admit it; apart from convenience, film is, and was BETTER, always, in ALL respects.

Honestly? No, at least not for 35mm and smaller.

Digital has surpassed film, especially in low light, where there’s no comparison. A modern DSLR or digital cinema camera can produce great images at ISO speeds film could only dream of.

[Miyuki]

Movies used to be shot on 35mm film, IIRC while analog it is roughly equivalent to 8K.

Yes and no. First, just a quick reminder that the oft-cited figure of 21Mp for 35mm refers to 35mm photographic film, which is run horizontally through the camera, giving a 36x24mm frame, whereas 35mm movie film runs vertically, with a maximum frame size of around 22x16mm.

Either way, though, the maximum resolution and the typical resolution vary wildly. Only the sharpest, slowest of films (low ISO) get the maximum resolutions, but require tons of light. Fast (high ISO) films for low light had markedly lower resolution, and modern digital can easily exceed those.

Additionally, there’s a huge difference between the film negatives and a typical release print, which is many generations removed from the negatives: release prints suck. (I’ve gone to special movie screenings done with fewer-generations-removed prints, and the difference is striking.) If I had to guesstimate, I’d say a typical release print probably tops out at 4K, if that, and many aren’t any better than 2K.

Exactly
35mm capture can be around that 6-8Mp, it is also near the optics limit
But digital capture way outperforms it, and most movie grade 4-8k cameras will have bigger sensors giving way better quality than film
And when you project from prints, they degrade pretty fast. If you have just a few passes then you are surpassed by 4k, even if it was made to this high quality at start. And can end up worse than HD after a few weeks 

[f4eru]

Perhaps you can do a realistic 8K representation of the mushiness of a CRT picture
That yould really be pleasing to the eye, more than sharp pixels.

[Psi]

cant see difference between 1280x720 and 2560x1440 on cellphone only battery usage is different

The difference is night and day between 720P and 1440p on a phone watching youtube.
You can tell between 1080p and 1440p however it's much less obvious and you kinda need high bitrate native content which you almost never have on a phone.

[eti]

Anyone saying “digital is better than film” Can sit for hours and type many paragraphs, and say all they like about it, but they clearly don’t understand physics and how film works.

Film is better. Period. It’s physics, not an opinion. Dynamic range is almost infinite too

[bd139]

Anyone saying “digital is better than film” Can sit for hours and type many paragraphs, and say all they like about it, but they clearly don’t understand physics and how film works.

Film is better. Period. It’s physics, not an opinion. Dynamic range is almost infinite too

Absolutely no way. It really doesn't actually matter which is superior from a physics perspective or any theoretical side because photography is 80% subjective art and 20% technology.

Now the important bit is digital is far far better because of the opportunities it creates post capture which cannot be replicated by any film workflow in the art department. The end product is what is important.

A fine example here. I blew the sky out on this completely



But it was shot in 14-bit RAW which meant the sky could be pulled back out again



Try doing that with an enlarger and some colour paper...

Have been doing photography for about 30 years through 35mm film, large format and digital and at film is as dead as anything. Film is good fun but that's about it.

Now for the kick in the teeth. Most smartphones are better now than any 35mm body on the market. The only poor area is the lenses. In fact the most important bit of photography are the lenses and the post production workflow. Everything else is moot.

Shot on a iPhone. It even mustered some bokeh...



The real point is that you can argue about physics until the world implodes but you can take really damn good photos with a potato if you know what you are doing. And good is subjective and not related to physics at all. I've printed stuff out of my old 6MP D70 fairly large and it looked great.

[ebastler]

Anyone saying “digital is better than film” Can sit for hours and type many paragraphs, and say all they like about it, but they clearly don’t understand physics and how film works.

Film is better. Period. It’s physics, not an opinion. Dynamic range is almost infinite too

Rather than making categorical statements, it would help if you define what "better" means to you.

With photographic film you get a tradeoff between resolution (grain size) and sensitivity and dynamic range (ISO value and the range of gray values which a "spot" on the film can assume). With digital cameras you get a similar tradeoff (larger pixels have a larger full-well capacity, hence larger dynamic range). For digital cameras the physical pixel size and dynamic range are "hard-coded" in the sensor, while in analog photography you can use different film types. But digital cameras can adjust the resolution vs. dynamic range balance too, by binning pixels together.

If you use "spatial resolution * pixel dynamic range" as your performance critierion, I am pretty certain that digital sensors beat analog film for any chosen balance of resolution vs. dynamic range. If you choose "spatial resolution * low-light sensitivity" as your performance criterion, I am very certain that digital beats analog.

Don't take my word for it: See e.g. https://www.imaging.org/site/PDFS/Papers/1998/PICS-0-43/622.pdf; the key figure is attached below. Hint: That is a 1998 paper. Digital sensors have made more progress than film since then...

[eti]

My late friend, Peter Whitehead, was tour cameraman for the Stones and was friends with, and did promos for Pink Floyd (He lived next door to them) and also The Dubliners.  He worked extensively with the BBC, and when he told me something, I’d take his word for it over anyone alive, as he REALLY knew his stuff. He was no “ amateur photographer“, you can Google him if you like.

Film is better. He’s got cans of unseen footage, many many stacks of which I lifted with my own hands when he moved house. Each can was worth a MINIMUM of circa £50,000 to any number of media outlets, and he had around 200 of them.

I’ll take his word on film being best, apart from it being my own informed view too. Colour range of natural substances cannot be anywhere NEAR “emulated” by pixels.

Google him, he was falconer for the King of Saudi Arabia, and friends with Howard Marks, David Hockney, Michael Caine, ex boyfriend of Marianne Faithfull… yes I’m name dropping, because he’s a legend of pop music video production, he KNEW his stuff back from when he began.

Sorry and all that, but he was an authority on film and that’s how I see it. 

>> https://www.independent.co.uk/obituaries/peter-whitehead-film-counterculture-swinging-london-rolling-stones-led-zeppelin-beat-poetry-a8964856.html

I’ll always take his word over armchair amateurs (and this isn’t even a photography forum!!)

[bd139]

You're confusing photographic nostalgia with reality.

The subject is more important than the media and you just confirmed it.

[eti]

You're confusing photographic nostalgia with reality.

Prove it.

[ebastler]

My late friend, Peter Whitehead [...] was an authority on film and that’s how I see it.

OK, I took your advice to Google him. Sorry, but I doubt his being an authority on digital cameras:

In 1969, he abandoned film making and escaped to the desert in Morocco, at which time his career as a falconer began.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Whitehead_(filmmaker)

[bd139]

You're confusing photographic nostalgia with reality.

Prove it.

If you take the celebrities and the money points out of your argument it looks like:

My late friend, Bob, was cameraman for the Joe Bloggses and was friends with Dave from the pub, and did promos for the Stinky Pinks (He lived next door to them) and also The Dumbells.  He worked extensively with the Gordon Bleus, and when he told me something, I’d take his word for it over anyone alive, as he REALLY knew his stuff. He was no “ amateur photographer“, you can Google him if you like.

Film is better. He’s got cans of unseen footage, many many stacks of which I lifted with my own hands when he moved house. Each can was worth a MINIMUM of circa £2 to any number of media outlets, and he had around 200 of them.

I’ll take his word on film being best, apart from it being my own informed view too. Colour range of natural substances cannot be anywhere NEAR “emulated” by pixels.

Google him, he was cleaner for the local council estate, and friends with Bill, Mike, ex boyfriend of Shelley… yes I’m name dropping, because he’s a legend of snuff video production, he KNEW his stuff back from when he began.

Sorry and all that, but he was an authority on film and that’s how I see it. 

This is a stream of emotions with nothing factual or relevance in a temporal scale.

[eti]

My late friend, Peter Whitehead [...] was an authority on film and that’s how I see it.

OK, I took your advice to Google him. Sorry, but I doubt his being an authority on digital cameras:

In 1969, he abandoned film making and escaped to the desert in Morocco, at which time his career as a falconer began.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Whitehead_(filmmaker)

He’s owned more cameras (film and digital) than you’ve worn socks. He had an Ampex splicing/editing suite in his front room. I worked extensively with him for MANY years, and he was and is adored by film and media societies worldwide, because he was widely regarded as the pioneer of the pop video.

Your cursory research doesn’t tell you anything. Keep learning old bean.

[eti]

You're confusing photographic nostalgia with reality.

Prove it.

If you take the celebrities and the money points out of your argument it looks like:

My late friend, Bob, was cameraman for the Joe Bloggses and was friends with Dave from the pub, and did promos for the Stinky Pinks (He lived next door to them) and also The Dumbells.  He worked extensively with the Gordon Bleus, and when he told me something, I’d take his word for it over anyone alive, as he REALLY knew his stuff. He was no “ amateur photographer“, you can Google him if you like.

Film is better. He’s got cans of unseen footage, many many stacks of which I lifted with my own hands when he moved house. Each can was worth a MINIMUM of circa £2 to any number of media outlets, and he had around 200 of them.

I’ll take his word on film being best, apart from it being my own informed view too. Colour range of natural substances cannot be anywhere NEAR “emulated” by pixels.

Google him, he was cleaner for the local council estate, and friends with Bill, Mike, ex boyfriend of Shelley… yes I’m name dropping, because he’s a legend of snuff video production, he KNEW his stuff back from when he began.

Sorry and all that, but he was an authority on film and that’s how I see it. 

This is a stream of emotions with nothing factual or relevance in a temporal scale.

Facetious mockery doesn’t negate a thing. You lose any credibility automatically from that churlish response.

[eti]

I’ll leave you to your musings. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re not and the same to me. Being right is vastly overrated.

[bd139]

You're confusing photographic nostalgia with reality.

Prove it.

If you take the celebrities and the money points out of your argument it looks like:

My late friend, Bob, was cameraman for the Joe Bloggses and was friends with Dave from the pub, and did promos for the Stinky Pinks (He lived next door to them) and also The Dumbells.  He worked extensively with the Gordon Bleus, and when he told me something, I’d take his word for it over anyone alive, as he REALLY knew his stuff. He was no “ amateur photographer“, you can Google him if you like.

Film is better. He’s got cans of unseen footage, many many stacks of which I lifted with my own hands when he moved house. Each can was worth a MINIMUM of circa £2 to any number of media outlets, and he had around 200 of them.

I’ll take his word on film being best, apart from it being my own informed view too. Colour range of natural substances cannot be anywhere NEAR “emulated” by pixels.

Google him, he was cleaner for the local council estate, and friends with Bill, Mike, ex boyfriend of Shelley… yes I’m name dropping, because he’s a legend of snuff video production, he KNEW his stuff back from when he began.

Sorry and all that, but he was an authority on film and that’s how I see it. 

This is a stream of emotions with nothing factual or relevance in a temporal scale.

Facetious mockery doesn’t negate a thing. You lose any credibility automatically from that churlish response.

I think that was a fairly accurate response. I completely destroyed your argument because it was emotional namedropping only with nothing factual. If you remove the names and the money there is nothing credible left.

Look in the mirror not throw an insult back.

[eti]

You're confusing photographic nostalgia with reality.

Prove it.

If you take the celebrities and the money points out of your argument it looks like:

My late friend, Bob, was cameraman for the Joe Bloggses and was friends with Dave from the pub, and did promos for the Stinky Pinks (He lived next door to them) and also The Dumbells.  He worked extensively with the Gordon Bleus, and when he told me something, I’d take his word for it over anyone alive, as he REALLY knew his stuff. He was no “ amateur photographer“, you can Google him if you like.

Film is better. He’s got cans of unseen footage, many many stacks of which I lifted with my own hands when he moved house. Each can was worth a MINIMUM of circa £2 to any number of media outlets, and he had around 200 of them.

I’ll take his word on film being best, apart from it being my own informed view too. Colour range of natural substances cannot be anywhere NEAR “emulated” by pixels.

Google him, he was cleaner for the local council estate, and friends with Bill, Mike, ex boyfriend of Shelley… yes I’m name dropping, because he’s a legend of snuff video production, he KNEW his stuff back from when he began.

Sorry and all that, but he was an authority on film and that’s how I see it. 

This is a stream of emotions with nothing factual or relevance in a temporal scale.

Facetious mockery doesn’t negate a thing. You lose any credibility automatically from that churlish response.

I think that was a fairly accurate response. I completely destroyed your argument because it was emotional namedropping only with nothing factual. If you remove the names and the money there is nothing credible left.

Look in the mirror not throw an insult back.

Your mindset is that of a competitive child. Which intelligent adult uses such words as “destroyed”? … this isn’t an online computer game. 🤦‍♂️

Okay you win the game. Enjoy!

Ask the Who’s who of pop about Peter, that’s if you know who they are. lol. Enjoy your Sunday.

[bd139]

You're confusing photographic nostalgia with reality.

Prove it.

If you take the celebrities and the money points out of your argument it looks like:

My late friend, Bob, was cameraman for the Joe Bloggses and was friends with Dave from the pub, and did promos for the Stinky Pinks (He lived next door to them) and also The Dumbells.  He worked extensively with the Gordon Bleus, and when he told me something, I’d take his word for it over anyone alive, as he REALLY knew his stuff. He was no “ amateur photographer“, you can Google him if you like.

Film is better. He’s got cans of unseen footage, many many stacks of which I lifted with my own hands when he moved house. Each can was worth a MINIMUM of circa £2 to any number of media outlets, and he had around 200 of them.

I’ll take his word on film being best, apart from it being my own informed view too. Colour range of natural substances cannot be anywhere NEAR “emulated” by pixels.

Google him, he was cleaner for the local council estate, and friends with Bill, Mike, ex boyfriend of Shelley… yes I’m name dropping, because he’s a legend of snuff video production, he KNEW his stuff back from when he began.

Sorry and all that, but he was an authority on film and that’s how I see it. 

This is a stream of emotions with nothing factual or relevance in a temporal scale.

Facetious mockery doesn’t negate a thing. You lose any credibility automatically from that churlish response.

I think that was a fairly accurate response. I completely destroyed your argument because it was emotional namedropping only with nothing factual. If you remove the names and the money there is nothing credible left.

Look in the mirror not throw an insult back.

Your mindset is that of a competitive child. Which intelligent adult uses such words as “destroyed”? … this isn’t an online computer game. 🤦‍♂️

You're sounding a little bitter. Perhaps utterly defeated is a better synonym.

Ask yourself what the difference between an amateur and a professional photographer is?

One gets paid.

[bd139]

You are referring to my dear friend who died of dementia. If you stood here you wouldn’t be standing for long I assure you. I’d knock you clean out and throw you off a cliff.

Don't change the subject and certainly don't resort to making threats of violence.

That is totally uncalled for.

Edit: oh he deleted it. Classy.

[eti]

You're confusing photographic nostalgia with reality.

Prove it.

If you take the celebrities and the money points out of your argument it looks like:

My late friend, Bob, was cameraman for the Joe Bloggses and was friends with Dave from the pub, and did promos for the Stinky Pinks (He lived next door to them) and also The Dumbells.  He worked extensively with the Gordon Bleus, and when he told me something, I’d take his word for it over anyone alive, as he REALLY knew his stuff. He was no “ amateur photographer“, you can Google him if you like.

Film is better. He’s got cans of unseen footage, many many stacks of which I lifted with my own hands when he moved house. Each can was worth a MINIMUM of circa £2 to any number of media outlets, and he had around 200 of them.

I’ll take his word on film being best, apart from it being my own informed view too. Colour range of natural substances cannot be anywhere NEAR “emulated” by pixels.

Google him, he was cleaner for the local council estate, and friends with Bill, Mike, ex boyfriend of Shelley… yes I’m name dropping, because he’s a legend of snuff video production, he KNEW his stuff back from when he began.

Sorry and all that, but he was an authority on film and that’s how I see it. 

This is a stream of emotions with nothing factual or relevance in a temporal scale.

Facetious mockery doesn’t negate a thing. You lose any credibility automatically from that churlish response.

I think that was a fairly accurate response. I completely destroyed your argument because it was emotional namedropping only with nothing factual. If you remove the names and the money there is nothing credible left.

Look in the mirror not throw an insult back.

Your mindset is that of a competitive child. Which intelligent adult uses such words as “destroyed”? … this isn’t an online computer game. 🤦‍♂️

You're sounding a little bitter. Perhaps utterly defeated is a better synonym.

Ask yourself what the difference between an amateur and a professional photographer is?

One gets paid.

Im sure your forum peers will appreciate that denigration of their lives of hard work and certification. Silly little man.

[ebastler]

@eti -- may I suggest you re-read the current thread about your endless series of accounts, take a deep breath, and take it from there.

I don't know how Dave sees it, but personally I would be in favor of giving a previously obnoxious, banned member another chance. If they can lastingly change their style, and that's a big if.


In other news, didn't you just post some advice about deeply nested quoting?

[bd139]

Im sure your forum peers will appreciate that denigration of their lives of hard work and certification. Silly little man.

I did not denigrate the man. Just your argument. You brought him into the fight. He's your victim.

Also I didn't threaten violence like yourself.

[bd139]

@eti -- may I suggest you re-read the current thread about your endless series of accounts, take a deep breath, and take it from there.

I don't know how Dave sees it, but personally I would be in favor of giving a previously obnoxious, banned member another chance. If they can lastingly change their style, and that's a big if.


In other news, didn't you just post some advice about deeply nested quoting?

Oh another one of those forum members...

eti: I haven't been banned since I signed up. Go figure.

[eti]

You are referring to my dear friend who died of dementia. If you stood here you wouldn’t be standing for long I assure you. I’d knock you clean out and throw you off a cliff.

Don't change the subject and certainly don't resort to making threats of violence.

That is totally uncalled for.

Edit: oh he deleted it. Classy.

It was deleted because I have a conscience and thought better of it. I’m sorry I wrote that, it was childish and unkind. I’m aware I can be quoted and screenshot etc.

Okay so I’ll walk away from you and you can get on  with your day, totally unaffected by the mere ravings of an online bloke whose opinion doesn’t in one iota affect the beliefs  of someone who is secure in their education.

Cheers old thing.

[bd139]

You are referring to my dear friend who died of dementia. If you stood here you wouldn’t be standing for long I assure you. I’d knock you clean out and throw you off a cliff.

Don't change the subject and certainly don't resort to making threats of violence.

That is totally uncalled for.

Edit: oh he deleted it. Classy.

It was deleted because I have a conscience and thought better of it. I’m sorry I wrote that, it was childish and unkind. I’m aware I can be quoted and screenshot etc.

Okay so I’ll walk away from you and you can get on  with your day, totally unaffected by the mere ravings of an online bloke whose opinion doesn’t in one iota affect the beliefs  of someone who is secure in their education.

Cheers old thing.

I respect your decision and appreciate the apology. It takes a lot to do a 180 on that. Thank you.

But the trailing insult; don't be a dick...

[eti]

You are referring to my dear friend who died of dementia. If you stood here you wouldn’t be standing for long I assure you. I’d knock you clean out and throw you off a cliff.

Don't change the subject and certainly don't resort to making threats of violence.

That is totally uncalled for.

Edit: oh he deleted it. Classy.

It was deleted because I have a conscience and thought better of it. I’m sorry I wrote that, it was childish and unkind. I’m aware I can be quoted and screenshot etc.

Okay so I’ll walk away from you and you can get on  with your day, totally unaffected by the mere ravings of an online bloke whose opinion doesn’t in one iota affect the beliefs  of someone who is secure in their education.

Cheers old thing.

I respect your decision and appreciate the apology. It takes a lot to do a 180 on that. Thank you.

But the trailing insult; don't be a dick...

The last part was not an insult (why would I apologise and then insult you? That would be a bit pointless). It doesn’t take a lot for me to say sorry tbh; I don’t have a huge wall of ego, and I like to apologise when I’m wrong. I’ve been wrong a lot in my life, but saying sorry isn’t hard, it’s freeing.

[magic]

Now for the kick in the teeth. Most smartphones are better now than any 35mm body on the market. The only poor area is the lenses. In fact the most important bit of photography are the lenses and the post production workflow. Everything else is moot.

Don't forget compromised sensors and image processing aimed at consumer cattle whose discerning abilities are limited to whining about noise...

Who painted grey camo patterns on this steel?

[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.

[magic]

The "camo" effect is overdone noise reduction. It sees small, low-contrast, pseudo-random details like steel texture, distorted reflection of tree branches, clouds or whatever was there and replaces it with a patch of average color. Once you realize what it is, you will start seeing it everywhere and always recognize phone images from those taken with dedicated cameras.

JPEG artifacts are overrated. Lots of people talk about them, much fewer appear to have actually tried saving some images at shit JPEG quality level and seeing how much shit it takes to really become shit.

[bd139]

Indeed. You can actually shoot raw on my phone which is interesting. It doesn’t apply any processing at all so I can control the NR in lightroom. Very handy when I don’t fancy lugging my mirrorless around.

[themadhippy]

Ask the Who’s who of pop about Peter, that’s if you know who they are

i will next time i see my mate lee's dad

[tooki]

I’ll take his word on film being best, apart from it being my own informed view too. Colour range of natural substances cannot be anywhere NEAR “emulated” by pixels.

You are apparently unaware that essentially every movie made in the past 20-30 years or so is edited digitally, even if it was shot and distributed on film?

Digital is perfectly capable of capturing any color space we want. Whether a particular standard can do so is a different question.

So… I take issue with your claim of being “informed” because you are very obviously not. You’re apparently completely unaware of things like sampling theory, color spaces, as well as the capabilities and limitations of film. I’m not even saying you need to be an expert on those things (I’m not), but you need to know that they exist and the basics of what they say.

[thinkfat]

But it was shot in 14-bit RAW which meant the sky could be pulled back out again



Try doing that with an enlarger and some colour paper...

[...]

The real point is that you can argue about physics until the world implodes but you can take really damn good photos with a potato if you know what you are doing. And good is subjective and not related to physics at all. I've printed stuff out of my old 6MP D70 fairly large and it looked great.

Well, dodging and burning wasn't invented by Adobe for Photoshop. You can sure pull off something like that with an enlarger and masks. Negative film has an amazing amount of dynamic range. It's just more difficult to exploit when you actually print because the medium you print on has much less.

Color slide film, on the other hand, is much denser and much more range limited, more "digital", so to say. But, boy, do the colors pop!

But lets face it, the world has moved to digital, and while it's possible to digitize film, it is far from convenient. It's an endless battle with color profiles, dust, getting the film flat so that the scanner can digitize it in focus, not damaging the film while handling it, etc. And with modern sensors, dynamic range is much less of a problem. High resolution is much easier to achieve, too. Even with a half-decent flat-bed scanner (Epson V330 class), getting more than 6 Megapixels from a 35mm negative is difficult. You can probably do better, but you cannot do better for cheap. And you need to digitize, because approximately nobody cares for prints nowadays.

And that's why a blanket "film is better than digital" is nonsense. Yes, negative film has a certain appeal and certainly an advantage over digital in certain (constantly diminishing) use cases, but it takes dedication, time and expensive equipment to exploit that advantage.

[voltsandjolts]

The TV manufactures should have realized that once everyone already has a thin flat TV there is absolutely NOTHING that can be offered on a new set that will replicate that kind of sales volume.

Well, there is the prospect of tv 'goggles', 3D ones, which has yet to really take off. The room sizes of new housing in the UK is pitiful, because land owners and developers need to make themselves rich. At least with goggles, I can lie back against the wall, put my feet on the opposing wall and still get a big cinema screen experience 

[Simon]

It's less about the resolution and more about the DPI.

As TVs get bigger and bigger you need to up the resolution to keep them looking sharp.

There's zero point having a 32" TV that's 8k IMHO.

But if you have a projector making a 3 meter image then 8K is going to look much better than 1080p and probably noticeably better than 4k. (Though i cant say i have seen one yet).


It seems probably we will get to the point where an entire wall of your house is a display. And you can do conference calls that simulate your wall joined to other peoples walls. So its like you are both standing in the same room because the DPI & HDR are so high

Depends on how close you want to stand to it. I have 27" and 42" monitors both 4k, they both look just the same to me, but then I don't sit as close to a 42" screen as I would a 27" one. It's actually about angular resolution, and our eyes are not as good as we like to think. 8k is an immoral waste of resources, the same as most 4k videos that if you told most people it was 4k whilst showing them 2k they would not question it. Every time we "double" the resolution we quadrupal the data to fill a screen. It's a bit like a website I visited for a company that plants trees on behalf of other companies selling people stuff, the irony was that their entire website was animated resulting in more data to transfer and more power to put it on the screen, and of course 90% of it would go unappreciated....

Sure if you want the equivalent of a billboard that people will walk right up to have 100k, but we topped out at what the human eye can resolve in one full frame at 4k. This monitor I am typing on right now looks as good as a magazine print, I cannot see any pixels, if it is meant to be round - it is. why would I want 8k? I would not be able to tell the difference but refuse to use 2k as that is shit!

[tggzzz]

The TV manufactures should have realized that once everyone already has a thin flat TV there is absolutely NOTHING that can be offered on a new set that will replicate that kind of sales volume.

Well, there is the prospect of tv 'goggles', 3D ones, which has yet to really take off. The room sizes of new housing in the UK is pitiful, because land owners and developers need to make themselves rich. At least with goggles, I can lie back against the wall, put my feet on the opposing wall and still get a big cinema screen experience 

I started taking stereoscopic photos in 1984; clearly I like the technology.

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

[Simon]

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.

[ebastler]

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. 

• 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.

[Simon]

i went to the cinema and saw starwars in 3D, it was clear that they messed up in some shots and it just looked wrong, unsurprisingly it was the CGI shots that were bad for having some sort of wrong perspective as they had to totally make it up rather than have a real frame of reference.

I don't overly see the point of 3D, I'd watch it if it's done right but I can live without it.

[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.

[tooki]

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.

So not even a representative sampling, or even a non-representative selection, but one single frame? That’s completely useless for the purposes of drawing conclusions, especially as broad (and goofy) ones as you’re making.

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.

Nothing —nothing — there supports your claim, which, to preempt any goalpost shifting, was that 70mm film uses a coarser grain than 35mm. That’s ridiculous. First of all, you don’t have a representative sample of different film types. Second, visible film grain depends not only on the film stock, but how it was shot and processed. (If you push process it to use it as higher ISO than it is, you get more grain.) Third, did you not notice the part about the SAME films being available in 35mm (as well as 8 and 16mm)? The fact that you have a sharp low-ISO piece of (still) photographic film doesn’t tell us anything. There is also high-ISO photo film that sacrifices resolution for sensitivity. Additionally, you’re comparing slide film to motion picture film, which is negative. (So your movie film is, by definition, at least one generation older than a slide, though typically far more generations removed.)

Nothing about your comparison results in anything remotely approaching a valid conclusion.

[Simon]

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.

well you will have to find out what the human eye can actually resolve to convince me. I can't remember the equivalent PPI but we are practically at that of printed matter. OK 4k/5k maybe but 8k? nah.

[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.

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.

Yes because whatever the size, increasing resolution works the same. The screen will be sized to the distance you sit from it, or you will view at a distance to suit the screen. I am of course omitting the case in the UK where we express our net worth in the size of screen we put in our living rooms only to watch anything like it is a tennis match .

A low resolution will always look bad. At a certain increased resolution you will stop seeing the difference once it exceeds the resolving capability of your eyes.

[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.

well you will have to find out what the human eye can actually resolve to convince me. I can't remember the equivalent PPI but we are practically at that of printed matter. OK 4k/5k maybe but 8k? nah.

Well the thing is the human visual system is a little more complex than throwing a PPI at it. That's just a projection onto a 2d plane. Firstly the resolution in your eyes is much larger in a smaller area and lower in peripheral vision. On top of that the brain fills in a chunk of information as it sees fit so the perception model needs to be considered too.

The human eye needs to be able to focus on any part of the screen and you need to consider the best case vision so the worst case has to be used. Add to that the worst case distance and focal plane and you're talking about 576 megapixels worth of resolution (quoting the Roger M Clark figure).

8k is ~ 33MP so there's a long way to go to 576MP. And you need to consider the size, focal plane etc within that.

At the edges, there's absolutely bugger all resolution in your eyes and the brain fills all the shit in which is why the RGB back lit TVs work so well with a few pixels.

Add the whole film grain discussion to this, thinking how the grain is perceived, and there's a shit load of resolution required worst case and a whole load of personal perception and terribly eyesight warping it into generalisations.

But this is mostly used to display art which is a corrupting and highly subjective influence as well!

[Simon]

Don't know what you mean by focal plane, yes we see with the centre of our eyes the most, I think from memory it is something like a 1.5 degree angle that has most of the ability with the rest being peripheral vision or pieced together and yes all of the screen needs to be of a resolution that the centre of the eye cannot see the pixels but what is that resolution? (angular resolution will do as it will be agnostic to the screen size/distance)

[2N3055]

Don't know what you mean by focal plane, yes we see with the centre of our eyes the most, I think from memory it is something like a 1.5 degree angle that has most of the ability with the rest being peripheral vision or pieced together and yes all of the screen needs to be of a resolution that the centre of the eye cannot see the pixels but what is that resolution? (angular resolution will do as it will be agnostic to the screen size/distance)

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/just-because-technology-can-do-something-doent-meant-its-always-right/msg4249858/#msg4249858

That is actually measured by scientists...

[bd139]

Don't know what you mean by focal plane, yes we see with the centre of our eyes the most, I think from memory it is something like a 1.5 degree angle that has most of the ability with the rest being peripheral vision or pieced together and yes all of the screen needs to be of a resolution that the centre of the eye cannot see the pixels but what is that resolution? (angular resolution will do as it will be agnostic to the screen size/distance)

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/just-because-technology-can-do-something-doent-meant-its-always-right/msg4249858/#msg4249858

That is actually measured by scientists...

No they're wrong. Because at greater than 1m I can clearly tell the difference between the 4k and a 5k 27" screen at 157dpi and 218dpi which I sit in front of every day.

If I open the full London connections tube map to 1/4 of each screen in a PDF, I can read the station names on the 5k but not on the 4k. The information isn't even there on the 4k. On a 1440p screen I'd probably have to have it full screen.

Also there's no citation or conditions for your information. Perhaps that's an AVERAGE across the entire eye. Within the focal centre there might be 50x the resolution of 0.3mm and that's what is important.

Edit: here's a 14.2" 3024x1964 screenshot with the tube map at 254ppi which is 60-70cm away from me.

I can read the station names fine! (I have above average eyesight for ref)

[tom66]

Anyone who claims they can resolve anything better than 4K should try one of these test patterns that I just made in Python.  If displayed at 1:1 at the normal viewing distance of your monitor, you should be able to see pixels if a higher resolution would benefit you.  If you can only see grey, then further resolution will provide no advantage.  I can only *just* see the pixel pattern, but it's mostly grey to me, so at best I would estimate I *might* benefit from 5K, but beyond would be pointless. 

Interestingly enough using the checkerboard pattern on my Samsung monitor results in a green tint to the image.  I suspect this is caused by the excessive current that this pattern draws.  I can see the rows around this pattern are darker, and they get darker and the pattern gets greener the more column space it covers.  It shows one limitation of LCD technology.  A high number of transitions implies large capacitive drive current (as the column drivers will be alternating to drive each pixel, and the row drivers will have to conduct this current.  The panel is scanned vertically, so each column driver will have to swing between Vcom and Vdd or GND depending on the subframe.)  I suppose this means in theory there are some images, which if displayed for some time, could shorten the life of a panel, as the chip-on-flex drivers are usually non-replaceable. 

I recall owning a Panasonic plasma TV that would detect this specific pattern and begin to dim the panel after about 5 seconds to prevent the address drivers from overheating:  those chips had to swing from 75V to 0V and back again at a rate of several MHz, and a typical 1920-wide panel would feature 5760 channels on custom chip-on-flex drivers with minature heatsinks.  Now that's power semiconductor design   (It's one of these chips that killed Dave's old Panasonic PDP, but it must be said that failures are rare!) 

[bd139]

It's more complicated than test patterns. The representation of text and how the eye perceives it is what you are paying for.

Compare an inkjet printout to a decent laser printer printout and you'll see what I mean.

[tom66]

It's more complicated than test patterns. The representation of text and how the eye perceives it is what you are paying for.

Compare an inkjet printout to a decent laser printer printout and you'll see what I mean.

I disagree.  If you can't see the pixels then fundamentally it doesn't matter what your brain does with the information, everything beyond that is interpolation on data that is there at any resolution beyond the maximum fidelity of your optic system.

[BrianHG]

It's more complicated than test patterns. The representation of text and how the eye perceives it is what you are paying for.

Compare an inkjet printout to a decent laser printer printout and you'll see what I mean.

I disagree.  If you can't see the pixels then fundamentally it doesn't matter what your brain does with the information, everything beyond that is interpolation on data that is there at any resolution beyond the maximum fidelity of your optic system.

This is only true is the so called pixels arent fixed squares, like on monitors.
All you need is a 1.5 - 2.5 pixel thick line at off-axis angles, like 5 degree, or 85degree, (common in fonts) viewed on a 4k screen, then jumping to an 8k screen where those angled lines are now constructed with 3-5 pixels of width to easily see how much more comfortable it is on the eye, even if you cant see the individual pixels which make up the edges of that line.

This is coming down to those who have used such hi-res monitors to do actual work (video doesn't count) and those who haven't.  The text reads far superior when it is constructed from pixels at least 4x smaller that what your eye can perceive when you have a pattern of lines, 1 pixel on, 1 pixel off.

Our eye are analog.  We need an over sampled source to achieve comfort for varying thickness combined with angular drawings where sharp contrast exists.

[SiliconWizard]

Yep.

Vision (and our other senses) is more complicated than just seeing individual "pixels" or "units" of images.
In the same vein, while we can't differentiate with our audition two frequencies that are two close to one another, when presented separately, if we just mix them, we'll hear a beating, so we are able to tell  there just isn't a single frequency. Similar things happen with vision, and through a lot of "parallel processing", our nervous system is able to discriminate several simultaneous stimuli as "contrast" much finer than as single stimuli.

Now while this is a general consideration, no two people have the same eyesight, be it purely from the optics of our eyes, up to the retina, and then the cerebral structures, so I'm pretty sure while some people can definitely tell a difference from a Full HD and 4K screen the typical size of a TV set at say 3-4 meters, or even between 4K and 8K, some others may not even be able to see a difference between SD and Full HD. So never assume that your particular experience here can be generalized.

[bd139]

So never assume that your particular experience here can be generalized.

Exactly so you have to build for the best or the worst case depending on your user. Which 8k covers. Which is why it exists. I'm sure 16k will have some value on larger screens as well.

[tom66]

If that were true, it could be trivially improved by antialiasing, which is further improved by subpixel antialiasing, a function of most modern text rendering libraries.

I however remain unconvinced.  My hypothesis is:  If the test patterns above appear grey, or nearly grey with only mild high frequency content, you have effectively found the high-pass filter frequency for your optic system.   You will not be able to perceive much more than this and there is no further benefit to additional pixels.   You can improve the appearance of the pixel grid by antialiasing, to avoid the sharp cutoff effect, but that merely seeks to redistribute the energy in a bandlimited system.

I remember having a debate along these lines with a friend of mine when working on an oscilloscope project.  It was based on whether antialiasing (display) would benefit the appearance of an intensity-graded oscilloscope.  I contented that you would not want to antialias the vectors that form the waveform, as the ultimate density information comes from the histogram of display data.  In fact, antialiasing would probably worsen the image somewhat as it would spread the information out further from the ideal distribution, which is an infinitely sharp band-pass filter for each column of data.

And while the eye is not a pixel camera, the density of retinal cells in the centre FOV is remarkably consistent, measurable as an angle of arc, and while not gridlike, it has a relatively consistent arrangement.  The notable exception is for chrominance, as we know that cone cells are distributed more chaotically.  (But that's why we use chroma subsampling, and whether people can reliably tell 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 apart for photographic tests is another interesting debate...)

[bd139]

Anti-aliasing is only a perception hack for low resolution displays. Compare laser printed 1200dpi text is not anti-aliased.

Eventually the objective is to build displays where anti-aliasing is unnecessary.

Edit: technically anti-aliasing allows for more precise perceived positioning of glyphs in relation to each other and the representation of curves because it's quite jarring when they are discretised to pixel boundaries. If you throw enough pixels out there the problem goes away. Typography is a somewhat complex area to move into here as well. If you're looking at a photo, things are different!

[tom66]

Exactly, it's a hack that makes a lower resolution display appear prettier and more comfortable to view, by distributing the higher frequency information across adjacent pixels and making the sharp edges more comfortable to look at.

But once you go over the resolution limit of the optic system, its irrelevant.  It is all in the rolloff, which at least for me appears somewhat only very slightly past 4K resolution. YMMV, but I doubt anyone that has 20-20 vision will be much different.

I cannot see any need for 16K, except for 120"+ displays.  Even in a cinema, I would have thought 8K would be approaching the optics limit.  My 4K monitors fill, I would say, about 60% of my optic field.  If we assume that the limit is 5K based on my test, and we want to fill 100% of the visual field, like a cinema screen, then we would cap out around 8-9K.  Obviously, everyone has different experiences, but I can't say I can perceive the resolution at my local cinemaplex which advertises that it uses RGB DLP 4K projectors.

[bd139]

Yep.

Cinema, photography and video probably doesn't matter past 8k unless the screen is huge. For most, 4k is probably fine. I'm quite happy with it for video.

However text, line art and information presentation is another thing. One reason paper looks so good is the resolution and dynamic range is pretty damn high. Which is why we need to build better monitors. Might as well get free TVs while we're at it out of the panels.

Actually no it works the other way round. People buy pointless TVs and this drives the panel price down and eventually we get nice monitors for a reasonable price. Although reasonable price seems to have stopped at 4k which is sad.

[magic]

This thread reminds me much of audiophoolery.

It will become 10 pages of "debate" about the limits of vision and virtues of "analog smoothness", and not a single result of an actual blind test will be presented, whether carried out by you or by anyone else

[bd139]

Unlike audiofoolery this is very well defined and isn’t a niche market so I’m not sure what your point is?

[magic]

Yes, it's very well defined by "I can clearly see a difference" and "I can clearly prove that you can't"

[ebastler]

Well, the "analog vs. digital photography" part of the debate certainly has audiophoolery potential: The different "feel" of a grainy film image vs. the "cold perfection" of digital images and so on.

We were drifting into that territory for a while, with reference to old filmmakers who can't be wrong and know that "film is always better". But the discussion has moved back into the more well-defined realm of pixel counts and angular resolution of the eye afterwards.

[bd139]

Yes, it's very well defined by "I can clearly see a difference" and "I can clearly prove that you can't"

Give me a double blind test, with text and I will demonstrate by ability to discriminate between different PPI displays perfectly beyond your assumptions.

I actually have done this recently before I spent a kidney on a 5k display.

[BrianHG]

There is certainly a difference on good old Protel99SE between a 2k and 4k display.
A huge difference on net label size and fine traces.

[tom66]

Vivado (ILA especially) and schematic editing in 4K look great.

I still contend that >= 5K is going to be of little benefit for a PC monitor.

[Psi]

One thing to consider is that people are not all the same.
Some people may not see the ocular detail that others can, and if people assume everyone else must 'see' the same as they do, then you will always get pointless arguments.

[Ed.Kloonk]

One thing to consider is that people are not all the same.
Some people may not see the ocular detail that others can, and if people assume everyone else must 'see' the same as they do, then you will always get pointless arguments.

I knew a guy that had a gaming rig set up with three monitors. He had it running at 60Hz. The outer monitors caused him to see flicker in the periphery so he had to beef it up to 120Hz.

It had nothing to do with buying new hardware. Honest. 

[tom66]

One thing to consider is that people are not all the same.
Some people may not see the ocular detail that others can, and if people assume everyone else must 'see' the same as they do, then you will always get pointless arguments.

Sure.  People with better than 20-20 vision exist.  Apparently, there is a small group of people who may even have a 4th cone cell, "tetrachromacy", which means they can see beyond the typical s.RGB / Rec. 2020 limits.

But, I will keep repeating myself, if that test I uploaded shows as grey on a 4K monitor with normal vision, you will not benefit from much beyond 4K, as you have hit the high pass filter of the eye.  It is all roll off at that point.  It's a bit like audiophiles claiming to hear jitter.

[magic]

Give me a double blind test, with text and I will demonstrate by ability to discriminate between different PPI displays perfectly beyond your assumptions.

I could easily win this bet by lying about my assumptions because you have no idea what my assumptions are

Truth is, I'm quite indifferent to the whole drama. As the point of diminishing returns is approached and exceeded, the length of Internet discussions will only increase and the arguments on both sides will get increasingly absurd, despite the point of diminishing returns being approached and exceeded. Well, at least you claim to have conducted blind tests, good for you so far

[Bassman59]

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.

I have a Dell 1920 x 1200 24" display connected to my iMac's 27" 5k display. I used to think that the Dell was a fine display, but it's actually utter crap.

[bd139]

Yeah. Gets expensive realising how shit that decent monitors are 

[tom66]

The £200 (each) I spent on my 4K monitors goes up on the top of some of the best upgrades I have done to my PC.

It's a major productivity improvement.

[Cerebus]

Anyone saying “digital is better than film” Can sit for hours and type many paragraphs, and say all they like about it, but they clearly don’t understand physics and how film works.

Film is better. Period. It’s physics, not an opinion. Dynamic range is almost infinite too

OK. Physics then. Here's the density versus exposure characteristic curve for Kodak Ektachome E100G from Kodak's official datasheet:



See how the density curve flattens completely at both ends? Where is your "almost infinite" dynamic range? Not there. What we see is a dynamic range of a little over 1000:1 in density and a little under 1000:1 in exposure, with highly non-linear tails. The physical reality is the exact opposite of what you claim.

I've no objection to people having strong opinions. If you'd said that your opinion was that you just prefer film (as actually I do), fine, but to claim that film is better "because physics" when it's very clear that you don't even begin to understand that physics is beyond the pale.

[tggzzz]

You're confusing photographic nostalgia with reality.

Prove it.

If you take the celebrities and the money points out of your argument it looks like:

My late friend, Bob, was cameraman for the Joe Bloggses and was friends with Dave from the pub, and did promos for the Stinky Pinks (He lived next door to them) and also The Dumbells.  He worked extensively with the Gordon Bleus, and when he told me something, I’d take his word for it over anyone alive, as he REALLY knew his stuff. He was no “ amateur photographer“, you can Google him if you like.

Film is better. He’s got cans of unseen footage, many many stacks of which I lifted with my own hands when he moved house. Each can was worth a MINIMUM of circa £2 to any number of media outlets, and he had around 200 of them.

I’ll take his word on film being best, apart from it being my own informed view too. Colour range of natural substances cannot be anywhere NEAR “emulated” by pixels.

Google him, he was cleaner for the local council estate, and friends with Bill, Mike, ex boyfriend of Shelley… yes I’m name dropping, because he’s a legend of snuff video production, he KNEW his stuff back from when he began.

Sorry and all that, but he was an authority on film and that’s how I see it. 

This is a stream of emotions with nothing factual or relevance in a temporal scale.

Facetious mockery doesn’t negate a thing. You lose any credibility automatically from that churlish response.

Ditto ignoring the points and resorting to giving strawman responses

[TimFox]

When comparing film with digital imaging, remember that sampling in film is spatially random (with a continuous MTF), while digital image capture produces a spatially periodic discrete image.  Of course, if you then digitally scan the film (as I do), you produce a periodic discrete image, which can oversample the MTF of the film.

[Cerebus]

The MTF can be anything but random, in a way that works in your favour, with a little chemical manipulation. Thus it's possible to get really sharp looking images from a film like Tri-X that's got grain you could sand wood with by either using an acutance developer, or sporadic agitation during development, or highly diluted developer and long process times, to alter the transfer function and the grain formation along actual image edges on the film.

This stuff is all becoming a lost art. I bet in 20-30 years time the only people who will know this stuff are going to be the modern equivalent of the people who were, 30 years ago, resurrecting photographic processes and chemistry from the Fox-Talbot era of photography.

[thinkfat]

Anyone saying “digital is better than film” Can sit for hours and type many paragraphs, and say all they like about it, but they clearly don’t understand physics and how film works.

Film is better. Period. It’s physics, not an opinion. Dynamic range is almost infinite too

OK. Physics then. Here's the density versus exposure characteristic curve for Kodak Ektachome E100G from Kodak's official datasheet:



See how the density curve flattens completely at both ends? Where is your "almost infinite" dynamic range? Not there. What we see is a dynamic range of a little over 1000:1 in density and a little under 1000:1 in exposure, with highly non-linear tails. The physical reality is the exact opposite of what you claim.

I've no objection to people having strong opinions. If you'd said that your opinion was that you just prefer film (as actually I do), fine, but to claim that film is better "because physics" when it's very clear that you don't even begin to understand that physics is beyond the pale.

This is Ektachrome, it's a slide film. You should probably look at an Ektar 100 datasheet to make a fair comparison. Slide film is known to be quite finicky regarding exposure, because the usable range is quite small compared to negative film. Also, the density range is not that important, you can influence that with the developer used, time and temperature anyway, the usable exposure range is what defines dynamic range.

[ebastler]

This is Ektachrome, it's a slide film. You should probably look at an Ektar 100 datasheet to make a fair comparison. Slide film is known to be quite finicky regarding exposure, because the usable range is quite small compared to negative film.

Hmm... OK, three usable decades of exposure range there. Still less than a digital camera with a reasonably large sensor (i.e. not a phone camera), I believe. And once you create a print on paper, your dynamic range is gone anyway?

[Zero999]

One thing to consider is that people are not all the same.
Some people may not see the ocular detail that others can, and if people assume everyone else must 'see' the same as they do, then you will always get pointless arguments.

I knew a guy that had a gaming rig set up with three monitors. He had it running at 60Hz. The outer monitors caused him to see flicker in the periphery so he had to beef it up to 120Hz.

It had nothing to do with buying new hardware. Honest. 

I don't see how 60Hz would cause him to see flicker, unless they were CRTs. LCDs don't flicker, even when run at low refresh rates, unless the backlight driver is faulty, or badly designed.

[thinkfat]

This is Ektachrome, it's a slide film. You should probably look at an Ektar 100 datasheet to make a fair comparison. Slide film is known to be quite finicky regarding exposure, because the usable range is quite small compared to negative film.

Hmm... OK, three usable decades of exposure range there. Still less than a digital camera with a reasonably large sensor (i.e. not a phone camera), I believe. And once you create a print on paper, your dynamic range is gone anyway?

That's just where the datasheet spec ends, but practically, you can add another decade of exposure latitude and still get a reasonable response (i.e. density increase). Translated to camera "stops", you get around 13 to 14 "stops" of dynamic range. Each "stop" means half or double amount of light. A "reasonably sized" camera sensor would be APS-C, and there you have to look at the top-of-the-line models from Sony or Nikon to find a match.

Also, film tends to "compress" highlights, so that means even if the response is no longer linear, you still get a density increase and recoverable information, though you'd have to digitize the film with a good scanner to make use of it. A digital sensor will clip instead, hard.

And, yes, you lose that dynamic range once you print, that's why you "dodge" and "burn".

[Miyuki]

One thing to consider is that people are not all the same.
Some people may not see the ocular detail that others can, and if people assume everyone else must 'see' the same as they do, then you will always get pointless arguments.

I knew a guy that had a gaming rig set up with three monitors. He had it running at 60Hz. The outer monitors caused him to see flicker in the periphery so he had to beef it up to 120Hz.

It had nothing to do with buying new hardware. Honest. 

I don't see how 60Hz would cause him to see flicker, unless they were CRTs. LCDs don't flicker, even when run at low refresh rates, unless the backlight driver is faulty, or badly designed.

Sounds so
But some LCDs do backlight "magic" to appear sharper and do flicker
And plenty of even expensive ones do flicker when dimmed, but it is a different story 

[Bassman59]

Yeah. Gets expensive realising how shit that decent monitors are 

This is why I avoid looking at that new 5K Apple Studio Display when I'm in their store.

Seriously, though, I don't know why Apple couldn't take the existing 5K display that's in my iMac and put it in a nice case, without the camera or the nineteen speakers and whatever, and sell it for $800. They wouldn't be able to keep it in stock.

[Cerebus]

This is Ektachrome, it's a slide film. You should probably look at an Ektar 100 datasheet to make a fair comparison. Slide film is known to be quite finicky regarding exposure, because the usable range is quite small compared to negative film. Also, the density range is not that important, you can influence that with the developer used, time and temperature anyway, the usable exposure range is what defines dynamic range.

I picked Ektachrome precisely because there's no wiggle room, it always goes through E6 chemistry (unless you're one of the weirdos putting it through C-41 to get funky 'art' rather than accurate reproduction.). Otherwise some bright spark was going to argue about the minutiae of the chemistry used rather than the broad principle. The widest dynamic range you'll get out of any silver emulsion is somewhere between 1000:1 and 10000:1, limited by a D_max on the close order of 4.0 for continuous tone images (i.e. no fair citing lith film used in strictly black or white processes where Dmax is limited by how much silver you can afford).

[Bassman59]

This is Ektachrome, it's a slide film. You should probably look at an Ektar 100 datasheet to make a fair comparison. Slide film is known to be quite finicky regarding exposure, because the usable range is quite small compared to negative film.

Hmm... OK, three usable decades of exposure range there. Still less than a digital camera with a reasonably large sensor (i.e. not a phone camera), I believe. And once you create a print on paper, your dynamic range is gone anyway?

Doesn't anyone remember the Zone System? It boils total dynamic range down to f/stops, and that range is Zone 0 for pure black to Zone X (ten) for pure white. So, what, 11 f/stops of dynamic range, or as we engineers like to think, 11 bits. But "usable" dynamic range is somewhat less, so figure Zone II for deepest shadows to Zone IX. Still better than your 8-bit monitor display, right?

The point was that you visualized what the image would look like, and then choose your exposure (time and aperture) based on what you wanted to get. Or, as we used to say, expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights (for b&w negatives) so you ensure you capture your shadow detail. For transparencies (slide film), you expose for the highlights to make sure you don't blow them out.

[bd139]

Yeah. Gets expensive realising how shit that decent monitors are 

This is why I avoid looking at that new 5K Apple Studio Display when I'm in their store.

Seriously, though, I don't know why Apple couldn't take the existing 5K display that's in my iMac and put it in a nice case, without the camera or the nineteen speakers and whatever, and sell it for $800. They wouldn't be able to keep it in stock.

That is one thing that scares me. The sheer amount of those 5k iMacs I've seen shipped off to WEEE. They are still worthy of being repurposed as external displays.

As for the Studio Display, too late here. Been waiting for it for a few years. I had a pre-order in, cancelled that on retail release day and went and picked one up from the local store. The display is actually fractionally better than the last 5k iMac displays are - slightly brighter and higher contrast. Also the speakers are excellent, the camera is excellent (now they fixed the firmware) and it's a thunderbolt hub that actually charges the MBP properly unlike most of the 3rd party junkers.

It was worth the price. The pain went away after a couple of weeks 

Edit: only criticism is the box is fucking huge. It's currently just about lurking boxed under my desk as I'm in the middle of moving house 

[PlainName]

I don't see how 60Hz would cause him to see flicker, unless they were CRTs. LCDs don't flicker, even when run at low refresh rates, unless the backlight driver is faulty, or badly designed.

What if there is fast movement on the screen (as would be expected with games)? There would be discrete steps which might be perceived as flicker. I think peripheral vision is more prone to seeing flicker (certainly is for me with brake lights and roadworks) so the side monitors would be triggering.

[Simon]

Don't know what you mean by focal plane, yes we see with the centre of our eyes the most, I think from memory it is something like a 1.5 degree angle that has most of the ability with the rest being peripheral vision or pieced together and yes all of the screen needs to be of a resolution that the centre of the eye cannot see the pixels but what is that resolution? (angular resolution will do as it will be agnostic to the screen size/distance)

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/just-because-technology-can-do-something-doent-meant-its-always-right/msg4249858/#msg4249858

That is actually measured by scientists...

No they're wrong. Because at greater than 1m I can clearly tell the difference between the 4k and a 5k 27" screen at 157dpi and 218dpi which I sit in front of every day.

If I open the full London connections tube map to 1/4 of each screen in a PDF, I can read the station names on the 5k but not on the 4k. The information isn't even there on the 4k. On a 1440p screen I'd probably have to have it full screen.

Also there's no citation or conditions for your information. Perhaps that's an AVERAGE across the entire eye. Within the focal centre there might be 50x the resolution of 0.3mm and that's what is important.

Edit: here's a 14.2" 3024x1964 screenshot with the tube map at 254ppi which is 60-70cm away from me.

I can read the station names fine! (I have above average eyesight for ref)

Just look up the definition of good vision, I think it is something like you should be able to tell apart two dots that are 1mm apart from a viewing distance of 1m, I assume this is referred to the centre of the eye. So taking that down to say 333mm away which is as close most of us get to a monitor that is 0.33mm apart or 3 pixels per mm, about 75 ppi. This is what most FHD monitors end up being and you can see the pixels, so at 4k that is 6 pixels per mm, you will now struggle to tell the pixels apart although I'm sure there will be variations in constructions of different monitors at different resolutions that will be better than another close to it. Point is 8k would be totally pointless and I sit 0.5m from my monitors at least so 4k on my 600mm wide screen is just fine at 6.4 pixels per mm. at 1m away I will definitely not be able to tell dots 0.15mm apart and at 0.5m still not.

[bd139]

The whole point is there being pixels so small you can’t see the discrete steps in curves of text etc. that’s a different problem to not being able to see discrete pixels.

[Simon]

Yes and as I have just calculated for you at 6 pixels per mm we have pretty much achieved that with 4k, OK you can argue the toss that you see 5k better, it may just be a better quality panel, some of the FHD ones I have had at work had such thick lines between them that I could not help but see the pixels, but 8k, you want 13 pixels per mm on a 27" monitor?

I'll never be closer than 0.5m, and if at 0.5m I can tell two dots apart that are 0.5mm apart having pixels 0.15mm apart seems to do it don't you think? Fact is I am in front of a 4k monitor that is 27" and about 0.5m away and for all I care that could be magazine print, curves are curves as far as my eye is concerned but on a crap FHD monitor my head would be hurting. I usually use a font that is deliberately full of curves and non parallel lines, looks awful on FHD, on these 4k monitors this font that is totally not designed for screens looks just fine.

[bd139]

4k vs 5k is more display scaling than anything. 4k is 1.5:1 ratio where 5k is 2:1 which allows for integer scaling. Less blurry.

[Simon]

scaling of what? how is something 25% bigger a ratio that is 33% bigger? Yes integer scaling will be less blurry, but we are still taking about over 3 times what our eyes can pick out anyway so results will vary with the image.

[bd139]

Well that's where windows and macOS diverge. Looking at a 27" display you need UI furniture and text to be roughly the right size based on the display size. The problems are this:

4k native -> everything too small
4k 2x scaling -> everything too big
4x 1.5x scaling -> everything right size but too blurry
5k 2x scaling -> just right

I wouldn't say it's 3x what your eyes can pick out. It's very very obvious the difference if you sit in front of a 5k display versus a 4k display for all of the above cases.

Chuck in decent dynamic range, colour calibration and there's a winning combination. Apple are the only supplier shipping 5k 27" which is super super popular with anyone doing graphical work (and programming now) because it's the sweet spot.

[Simon]

Oh you are talking about the windows scaling. Well yes and no. This page is scaled by and amount by the OS but also it could be by the browser. apart from after changing the scale I have not seen issues really with using 150%, 175%, 200% or 225%, I choose the one that makes sense for my eyes in terms of haw big things are, it's never an issue. Yes the more pixels you have the more play there is but really what you are asking for is not 5k resolution because it's 5k but because the numbers make sense. I don't know how the OS generates things but I have had no issues with any magnification setting on my 4k. Yes other factors matter, I would always take a lower resolution better quality panel over a high resolution low quality. Both my monitors are IPS, I paid more for them than non IPS and made sure they were matt not gloss finish. The result is that they are like looking at printed paper.

[Cerebus]

The whole point is there being pixels so small you can’t see the discrete steps in curves of text etc. that’s a different problem to not being able to see discrete pixels.

The resolving power of the eye is usually given as 1/60 of a degree for a person with 6/6 (20/20 in bushels per fortnight land) vision. That's the ability to just see two black lines, set 1/60 of a degree apart, with white in between them, rather than perceive a single grey line. To model this as pixels, the pixels would need to subtend 1/120 of a degree (to get black/white/black with the black 1/60º apart), which at 1m would make a pixel 145 um wide, or 72.7 um at 0.5 m (or 349 pixels/inch at 0.5m).

However, we can distinguish discontinuities at a finer level. So draw a line, cut through it and offset one half from the other and we can spot that at even smaller scale. (Haven't got hard figures to hand)

Vision is complicated, and pixels/inch numbers is too simplistic to describe what can and can't be seen. Other things come into the equation, contrast, illumination level and so on. But if you have to decide on a pixel size that's close to the limits of human vision then 1/120 of a degree subtended angle would be the number to pick.

[bd139]

Oh you are talking about the windows scaling. Well yes and no. This page is scaled by and amount by the OS but also it could be by the browser. apart from after changing the scale I have not seen issues really with using 150%, 175%, 200% or 225%, I choose the one that makes sense for my eyes in terms of haw big things are, it's never an issue. Yes the more pixels you have the more play there is but really what you are asking for is not 5k resolution because it's 5k but because the numbers make sense. I don't know how the OS generates things but I have had no issues with any magnification setting on my 4k. Yes other factors matter, I would always take a lower resolution better quality panel over a high resolution low quality. Both my monitors are IPS, I paid more for them than non IPS and made sure they were matt not gloss finish. The result is that they are like looking at printed paper.

Yeah those seem really good until you sit in front of something better. It’s nearly impossible to go down a monitor grade again. I actually prefer gloss finish myself. Better colour contrast. But you need something that can pump out a lot of brightness if you have a gloss screen. I went from 27” 4k IPS 250 nits to 27” 5K 600 nits P3 and it’s crazy different.

[Cerebus]

Apple are the only supplier shipping 5k 27" which is super super popular with anyone doing graphical work (and programming now) because it's the sweet spot.

No, LG do too, and of course until Apple introduced their own it was the LG UltraFine Display that Apple themselves sold to fill the gap.

[Simon]

Basically I bought my 4k monitors and found peace I can't see the pixels, even looking very closely I can't, I can sort of perceive that I am on the cusp of seeing that they must be there as the curve is not sharp when I put my eye up to the screen (100mm) but for all intents and purposes at 4k my eyes and brain are quite happy. All we are going to do is waste resources in making new monitors no one needs and spending more power on processing detail we cannot appreciate. As for video, the only time I can just see a difference if I compare is one of daves videos at 4k and FHD, I just can't bare to waste the bandwidth on 4k, the difference is so subtle that you only see it on comparison and you can only see it at all on my 43" monitor on a video like daves because it is well lit and most of the frame is still. 4k for movies is only necessary in certain circumstances.

[bd139]

Apple are the only supplier shipping 5k 27" which is super super popular with anyone doing graphical work (and programming now) because it's the sweet spot.

No, LG do too, and of course until Apple introduced their own it was the LG UltraFine Display that Apple themselves sold to fill the gap.

Let’s not even talk about that steamer. Horribly unreliable and poorly made bit of kit with serious quality control issues. 

The main point is that the PC market is constrained mostly to 4k because, well it’s cheap and the PC market is people buying to a price not a specification. 

[Cerebus]

Yeah those seem really good until you sit in front of something better. It’s nearly impossible to go down a monitor grade again.

Yeah, that backwards step is something that once you've "been there" you don't want to take.

I've had a 5k 27" screen (one of the LG ones) for a couple years now, and whenever I sit down in front of anything else now I find myself going "Yuck, this is fuzzy. Why can I see all the pixels?".

[bd139]

That’s a long time. The ones we had in the office all blew up in under 18 months or had ghosting and connection issues.

Edit: this was a stupid thing because they put monitor arms in everywhere and they didn’t realise you could get VESA mount iMacs so they bought the UltraFine displays and i7 mac minis instead  . They were rolling out 24” M1 iMacs recently instead  (despite everyone working at home and being stuck on shit dells). Crack smokers.

[Cerebus]

Let’s not even talk about that steamer. Horribly unreliable and poorly made bit of kit with serious quality control issues. 

Mine has been faultless, no issues whatsoever. I even have the MacBook powered from the hub on it (and quite a few moderately power hungry ancillaries like a thunderbolt 10 Gb/s network adapter). Maybe I was just lucky.

[bd139]

May the gods of luck be on your side. Failing that the gods of chargeback 

[Simon]

Apple are the only supplier shipping 5k 27" which is super super popular with anyone doing graphical work (and programming now) because it's the sweet spot.

No, LG do too, and of course until Apple introduced their own it was the LG UltraFine Display that Apple themselves sold to fill the gap.

Let’s not even talk about that steamer. Horribly unreliable and poorly made bit of kit with serious quality control issues. 

The main point is that the PC market is constrained mostly to 4k because, well it’s cheap and the PC market is people buying to a price not a specification. 

not everybody buying a PC which by the way is what macs also are are buying to a price. I always look at specification first, then find a decent compromise but I will pay more for better kit that will last before an upgrade rather than sell myself short.

[bw2341]

Well that's where windows and macOS diverge. Looking at a 27" display you need UI furniture and text to be roughly the right size based on the display size. The problems are this:

4k native -> everything too small
4k 2x scaling -> everything too big
4x 1.5x scaling -> everything right size but too blurry
5k 2x scaling -> just right

I wouldn't say it's 3x what your eyes can pick out. It's very very obvious the difference if you sit in front of a 5k display versus a 4k display for all of the above cases.

Chuck in decent dynamic range, colour calibration and there's a winning combination. Apple are the only supplier shipping 5k 27" which is super super popular with anyone doing graphical work (and programming now) because it's the sweet spot.

Okay, I think I know what you are going on about.

As far as I know, Mac and Windows uses different compromises for non-integer scaling. I only use Windows and text is sharp down to the individual pixel on my 4k display using 1.25x scaling. The problem is that some older programs render incorrectly. They either do not scale at all leaving the text too small to see or they use an ugly uneven-looking non-integer scaling of bitmap images.

From what I've read on the Mac, people are reporting very different results with 4k displays. Some people have sharp text while others have unacceptably blurry text. It might even depend on the particular display and how Apple interprets the EDID.

As far as I know, the ideal behaviour on a Mac for 1.5x scaling to 27 inch 4k is to render at 3x 2560x1440 and then scale 0.5x with anti-aliasing to 4k. There should be no rendering defects, but it seems to me that the text would be blurrier than on Windows.

[Simon]

You could always try netbeans on a 4k display if you want to know what blurry text actually looks like, I'm buggered if I can figure out how they could get it that wrong.

[bd139]

That's probably windows vs JVM more than anything. The whole of windows high DPI is crazy fucked up. I've got a Dell here which is a 3840x2400 on a 15" screen and everything renders fine apart from SQL server management studio. The task bar icon for it is 1:1 pixel ratio so about 3mm across  . If you open it, it opens at 1:1 pixel ratio as well. No attempt at DPI scaling.

[bd139]

Well that's where windows and macOS diverge. Looking at a 27" display you need UI furniture and text to be roughly the right size based on the display size. The problems are this:

4k native -> everything too small
4k 2x scaling -> everything too big
4x 1.5x scaling -> everything right size but too blurry
5k 2x scaling -> just right

I wouldn't say it's 3x what your eyes can pick out. It's very very obvious the difference if you sit in front of a 5k display versus a 4k display for all of the above cases.

Chuck in decent dynamic range, colour calibration and there's a winning combination. Apple are the only supplier shipping 5k 27" which is super super popular with anyone doing graphical work (and programming now) because it's the sweet spot.

Okay, I think I know what you are going on about.

As far as I know, Mac and Windows uses different compromises for non-integer scaling. I only use Windows and text is sharp down to the individual pixel on my 4K display using 1.25x scaling. The problem is that some older programs render incorrectly. They either do not scale at all leaving the text too small to see or they use an ugly uneven-looking non-integer scaling of bitmap images.

From what I've read on the Mac, people are reporting very different results with 4K displays. Some people have sharp text while others have unacceptably blurry text. It might even depend on the particular display and how Apple interprets the EDID.

As far as I know, the ideal behaviour on a Mac for 1.5 scaling to 27 inch 4K is to render at 3x 2560x1440 and then scale 0.5x with anti-aliasing to 4K. There should be no rendering defects, but it seems to me that the text would be blurrier than on Windows.

My 4K 27" was one of the less blurry ones and I think it scaled it as you suggested.

The worst thing of all, which was complete cancer was Linux. That just shit itself every 5 seconds.

After being pissed off with this for far too long I just bought something that worked properly and have zero regrets.

[tom66]

I have my 4K monitor set at 125% scaling which seems ideal.

Scaling, on Windows at least, doesn't affect pixel-precision graphics like Windows GDI elements or CSS borders at 1px or similar.  It only really alters the size of GUI elements and the font size.

Since all good fonts have a proper hinting setup, you shouldn't notice arbitrary scaling unless you're using crap fonts.  It's pretty smooth and continuous on Windows, even though it has a fairly pedestrian font engine.

I think OS X will use FreeType (and/or Core Text for Apple-specific apps) which is very good indeed - supporting all sorts of new advanced hinting algorithms including ones that run as mini-programs inside the font.

[PlainName]

I had a 4K monitor scaled to 125%. Or 150%. Neither were particularly good, and those apps aware of high DPI just made their windows and text bigger. What the hell is the point of paying for 4K pixels when everything scales them to an effective 2K?

So I dumped it and got a 43" 4K instead, and run eveything with no scaling at all. Result: huge amount of work space with readable text and great graphics. Which is what I bought the thing for in the first place.

Honest, having high DPI and then having to scale is like getting Bugatti Veyron and then shoving in a low-ratio gearbox.

[TomKatt]

Ironically, the more technology advances in the ability to present ever higher "resolution", the more consumers appear to value convenience over functionality...

You have to go out of your way to purchase any kind of real "hi-res" audio these days...  Streaming has made lossy compression the norm.

Likewise, there is barely any volume of 4K visual media available, let alone 8K and higher.   Not to mention phone sized gadgets are probably the predominant viewing devices.

It's kind of depressing.

[bd139]

To be fair the phone as a bigger screen than my TV at the viewing distance. Also it’s OLED HDR unlike the TV.

As for convenience over functionality, I’d rather have less functions that actually work properly.

We live in a glorious world of cool stuff. It’s not depressing

[SiliconWizard]

To be fair the phone as a bigger screen than my TV at the viewing distance. Also it’s OLED HDR unlike the TV.

As for convenience over functionality, I’d rather have less functions that actually work properly.

We live in a glorious world of cool stuff. It’s not depressing

Yeah, I agree. Uh, about the cool stuff, I mean. The world of cool stuff is cool, but the world in general *is* depressing about all kinds of things.

In this thread, I again find it "interesting" that the main example of questionable technology uses would be higher-DPI displays, which if anything, are just technically better, cool and mostly harmless, while some *really* currently questionable uses of technology have been ignored, and in threads where they are discussed, people find all kind of convoluted reasoning for defending them, yet they are quick at dismissing the harmless and just fun stuff. I guess ways of enslaving people or making the world blow up are more fun than sharp images on pretty displays. Or something.

[Simon]

Ironically, the more technology advances in the ability to present ever higher "resolution", the more consumers appear to value convenience over functionality...

You have to go out of your way to purchase any kind of real "hi-res" audio these days...  Streaming has made lossy compression the norm.

Likewise, there is barely any volume of 4K visual media available, let alone 8K and higher.   Not to mention phone sized gadgets are probably the predominant viewing devices.

It's kind of depressing.

plenty of audiophools, my sisters father in law was telling me the other weekend how he can hear the jitter in a 10MHz clock..... I don't even know what this clock is for and neither does he I bet.

[Oblivion1407]

And the display industry spent countless dollars into the microLED research for at least ten years and they still haven't been able to enter the general consumer market with any meaningful product... All of these were just for the crazy nit numbers, crazy contrast ratios, and crazy high ppi which most of us won't ever care (or get instantly blinded by the brightness) 

[tooki]

And I surely hope they keep investing in it until we’re there. Direct-view LED looks spectacular, so if we can get it down to desktop size affordable it’ll be amazing. “Crazy” brightness has very real applications (daylight-visible displays), and “crazy” contrast ratios bring with them very real image quality improvements, at least when they’re true contrast and not nonsense “dynamic” contrast — and LED can deliver real contrast. It’s all about the black and white points.

Remember also that direct-view LED has the potential to be more energy efficient than other displays. LEDs are more efficient at low currents, so running them at comfortable indoor viewing levels should be quite efficient.

[bd139]

And the display industry spent countless dollars into the microLED research for at least ten years and they still haven't been able to enter the general consumer market with any meaningful product... All of these were just for the crazy nit numbers, crazy contrast ratios, and crazy high ppi which most of us won't ever care (or get instantly blinded by the brightness) 

No one cares about these screens until you have one. Then you can't use anything else ever again 

I am rather enjoying being able to watch 4k HDR content on my laptop.

[tom66]

Once you go 4K (or above) you never go back.   

[tooki]

And the display industry spent countless dollars into the microLED research for at least ten years and they still haven't been able to enter the general consumer market with any meaningful product... All of these were just for the crazy nit numbers, crazy contrast ratios, and crazy high ppi which most of us won't ever care (or get instantly blinded by the brightness) 

No one cares about these screens until you have one. Then you can't use anything else ever again 

I am rather enjoying being able to watch 4k HDR content on my laptop.

Not with a microLED display you’re not: they haven’t gone into production yet. You’ve got either OLED or mini-LED (the latter being just LCD with very good local dimming). MicroLED is where there’s literally individual RGB LED dice for every single pixel, like a video wall, but tiny.

[bd139]

Yes aware of that. My comment targets the contrast ratios, ppi and nits. Mine's a mini-LED and next to an OLED it's indistinguishable. OLED and microLED have similar characteristics. One actually works though 

[tom66]

Biggest issue with miniLED over OLED is blooming on high contrast scenes: a good example is a starry night.

I wouldn't worry about OLED for a computer monitor though.  Too much static content, too high a risk of burn in.

[bd139]

That was an issue for sure with the iPad Pros with mini LED when they first came out. I didn't buy one due to that. The MacBook Pros don't seem to suffer from that to any significant degree however. I was ready to return mine if it was an issue but it wasn't!

[james_s]

Biggest issue with miniLED over OLED is blooming on high contrast scenes: a good example is a starry night.

I wouldn't worry about OLED for a computer monitor though.  Too much static content, too high a risk of burn in.

CRTs were prone to burn in and they worked fine on computers, that's why screensavers were invented. Yes some screens are going to burn, but they have a finite lifespan, personally I think it's worth it. Turn down the brighness and use a screensaver, that should go a long way toward preventing burn.

[bd139]

Screensavers sort of don’t exist these days because they consume power. The screen just turns off and the CPU goes to sleep 

[james_s]

Of course they still exist, the fully up to date Mint system I'm typing this on has a whole selection of them available by default although their utility has been limited at best with LCD. Blanking the screen is probably the best screensaver you can use and is one of the many options.

[tom66]

CRTs were prone to burn in and they worked fine on computers, that's why screensavers were invented. Yes some screens are going to burn, but they have a finite lifespan, personally I think it's worth it. Turn down the brighness and use a screensaver, that should go a long way toward preventing burn.

OLEDs burn in much faster than CRTs.  The half life of CRT phosphor might be 20-50k hours, but an OLED is closer to 10k hours (at least for WOLED like LG's panels.) 

This is the same reason plasma TV burn in was always a bit overrated.  Panasonic panels had 50k+ half lives so burn in was much less visible over normal 10yr or so lifespan of the set.  I've got one with 20k hours on it and I can just about see a faint trace of a channel logo when on the solid green test pattern, but that's all.  Meanwhile I see plenty of pics of LG OLEDs with burn in.  (This is just painful to look at: https://imgur.com/a/qYD4QSK)

I'm going to be super careful with our set when we get one as I still can't help but be lured in by the damn infinite contrast!

[james_s]

OLEDs burn in much faster than CRTs.  The half life of CRT phosphor might be 20-50k hours, but an OLED is closer to 10k hours (at least for WOLED like LG's panels.) 

This is the same reason plasma TV burn in was always a bit overrated.  Panasonic panels had 50k+ half lives so burn in was much less visible over normal 10yr or so lifespan of the set.  I've got one with 20k hours on it and I can just about see a faint trace of a channel logo but that's all.  Meanwhile I see plenty of pics of LG OLEDs with burn in.

I'm going to be super careful with our set when we get one as I still can't help but be lured in by the damn infinite contrast!

They do, they're more like CRT based projection displays in that sense, but they can still be used for computer monitors, especially if the cost is such that you can just figure on replacing the display every 5 years or so.

[bd139]

Of course they still exist, the fully up to date Mint system I'm typing this on has a whole selection of them available by default although their utility has been limited at best with LCD. Blanking the screen is probably the best screensaver you can use and is one of the many options.

Not configured by default on Mac or windows at least I should say.

[james_s]

Of course they still exist, the fully up to date Mint system I'm typing this on has a whole selection of them available by default although their utility has been limited at best with LCD. Blanking the screen is probably the best screensaver you can use and is one of the many options.

Not configured by default on Mac or windows at least I should say.

It makes sense that they're not configured by default, they're unnecessary for most people, but they exist and are still included by default.

https://www.howtogeek.com/764336/how-to-use-a-screen-saver-in-windows-11/

https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/use-a-screen-saver-mchl4b68853d/mac

[PlainName]

What do you do when the computer is awake and being used? Particularly with large screens, do you remove all shortcut icons from the desktop and have a plain black background? If not, don't those icons burn in (they are static and being displayed all day every day)?

[bd139]

My desktop isn’t littered with trash to burn onto any screens. Learned that one years ago with an FD Trinitron  .

[rsjsouza]

Perhaps my M.O. is different thsn others, but I always have icons on the desktop and have done this for decades since the NEC Multisync 3D days and never had a problem of etching icons on the screen. Part of the reason is that I always took good care of my screens, leaving either a screen saver (flying windows or Johnny Castaway fans around?) and turned off screen and cimputer when unused (even the ones at work/labs).

[james_s]

I usually have a handful of windows open when I'm working at a computer so the desktop icons are hidden most of the time. The thing that is most likely to burn these days is probably the task bar, but you could mitigate that by setting it to a softer color. Burn will probably still happen eventually with an OLED display, I just figure it's a component with a finite lifespan, when the burn becomes bad enough to be distracting, replace the display.

[PlainName]

I just figure it's a component with a finite lifespan, when the burn becomes bad enough to be distracting, replace the display.

It some ways that's just a sensible business decision, but it's a poke in the eye for still making robust tools that will last a lifetime (or at least a generation of technology progress). Wouldn't be so bad were they not so expensive too: work out the cost per month and suddenly software subscriptions seem generous!

But my personal beef with this kind of thing is that it takes a while to set up and get used to. You have it just so, and then before you know it you have to bin it and start again with something else because, of course, that model (perhaps even size and resolution) aren't made any more.

Over time, things get less personal and you get less enjoyment out of the because of that. I can happily drive any random car and maybe even be more or less comfortable in it, but I won't enjoy it like I enjoy driving my car. In my car I can tell if the chair is moved even slightly, or the mirror knocked a bit off perhaps. But normally I just don't think about it and enjoy the drive without a thought as to the mechanics of doing it. In another car, the car will always be intruding.

[bd139]

I don't know. I think the progress is mostly positive. Also tools rarely last a lifetime if you use them lots. My grandfather was a fine example. Lots of lifetime lasting tools that were never used 

The last gen Apple Thunderbolt display which was top notch at the time. Released in 2011. I know people who are still using them 10 years later which is a pretty good lifespan. You can get a massive refinement of one with the Studio Display for about the same price including inflation. I'll be happy with mine if it lasts 5 years. 10 would be amazing.

Whereas my 27" Iiyama that cost 1/4 of the price didn't last 2 years. Grrrrr.

[PlainName]

Whereas my 27" Iiyama that cost 1/4 of the price didn't last 2 years.

Hmm. My Iiyama ProLite is getting close to that. It'd better last a lot longer!

[tom66]

Whereas my 27" Iiyama that cost 1/4 of the price didn't last 2 years.

Hmm. My Iiyama ProLite is getting close to that. It'd better last a lot longer!

I've got a dumpster-dived Iiyama 24" FHD monitor for my Raspberry Pi and other projects.  It had bad solder joints on the IEC mains connector preventing it from powering up, which was why it was in the dumpster I guess.  It's been working for almost 10 years since. 

Build quality was quite average, lots of metalwork for EMC and a decent quality AUO panel, but a control board and power supply full of inexpensive electrolytics (I seem to recall I 'recapped' the whole PSU after doing the joints, thinking I'd own it for some time). Tiny 0.5W integrated speakers -- you wonder why they bothered! 

[PlainName]

Used to be a good brand. Still got my last CRT which is Iiyama, although it's not been used for loong while now.

[bd139]

I’ve got another Iiyama in the cupboard which is my emergency PC debugging monitor. That’s a 24” VA panel and seems ok still. It’s about 3 years old now. I can’t use it as a desktop monitor any more. It’s horrible 

[SiliconWizard]

I still have a 23" Samsung that I use on a regular basis. It's from 2009. Still works as good as new. Not a single dead pixel, no issue with the backlight. Nothing.

I once had a IIyama CRT, which was good but only lasted like 2 years.

[PlainName]

but only lasted like 2 years

Why didn't anyone tell me this before I bought mine? Seems you all knew!

[thinkfat]

This is Ektachrome, it's a slide film. You should probably look at an Ektar 100 datasheet to make a fair comparison. Slide film is known to be quite finicky regarding exposure, because the usable range is quite small compared to negative film. Also, the density range is not that important, you can influence that with the developer used, time and temperature anyway, the usable exposure range is what defines dynamic range.

I picked Ektachrome precisely because there's no wiggle room, it always goes through E6 chemistry (unless you're one of the weirdos putting it through C-41 to get funky 'art' rather than accurate reproduction.). Otherwise some bright spark was going to argue about the minutiae of the chemistry used rather than the broad principle. The widest dynamic range you'll get out of any silver emulsion is somewhere between 1000:1 and 10000:1, limited by a D_max on the close order of 4.0 for continuous tone images (i.e. no fair citing lith film used in strictly black or white processes where Dmax is limited by how much silver you can afford).

Yes, but, again, Dmax is not really an important figure when it comes to dynamic range. It's conveniently crafted to match the output medium. Negative film has a wide exposure latitude, but conveniently it is less dense than e.g. slide film. It maps a wide input range to a smaller output range and that's just a better match for photographic paper. So, even if the density ratio is just 1000:1, you can still have 14 stops of dynamic range, and that's quite good even by todays "digital" standards.

[Miyuki]

I don't know. I think the progress is mostly positive. Also tools rarely last a lifetime if you use them lots. My grandfather was a fine example. Lots of lifetime lasting tools that were never used 

The last gen Apple Thunderbolt display which was top notch at the time. Released in 2011. I know people who are still using them 10 years later which is a pretty good lifespan. You can get a massive refinement of one with the Studio Display for about the same price including inflation. I'll be happy with mine if it lasts 5 years. 10 would be amazing.

Whereas my 27" Iiyama that cost 1/4 of the price didn't last 2 years. Grrrrr.

Any decent LCD has a huge lifespan (on cheap ones power supply fails)
I have my old trusty HP LP2475 from 2010 with 27k hours on the backlight counter and still running great
They are getting morally obsolete and maybe have little higher power consumption compared to modern LED backlights
But might work for another decade 

[tom66]

I turned the backlight down to 80% of nominal on my Samsung monitor.

4K LCD backlights are brighter than 1080p equivalents (because the panel has lower transmissibility) but my logic was if 100% backlight can survive the 3 year warranty with high confidence (else they'd not offer it) then 80% will last even longer.

If it's gamma corrected backlight intensity (it seemed like it) then 80% visible intensity is roughly 50% current so maybe even 4x longer.

[james_s]

The thing that ticks me off with the LED backlit and sidelit panels is that in most cases it would be trivial to design it so that he LED module is easily replaceable, yet they are virtually all constructed so that you have to completely disassemble the entire panel.

[SiliconWizard]

The thing that ticks me off with the LED backlit and sidelit panels is that in most cases it would be trivial to design it so that he LED module is easily replaceable, yet they are virtually all constructed so that you have to completely disassemble the entire panel.

It's as though they were designing the panels so that it's not economically viable to repair them.

[Miyuki]

The thing that ticks me off with the LED backlit and sidelit panels is that in most cases it would be trivial to design it so that he LED module is easily replaceable, yet they are virtually all constructed so that you have to completely disassemble the entire panel.

Did you ever meet a panel with a dead backlight? I never.
I had 2 monitors failures in my life and both were processor board issues causing artifacts.
And both lasted well over 10 years.

[PlainName]

Did you ever meet a panel with a dead backlight? I never.

Yep, twice. One a laptop and t'other desktop. But they were CCFL so perhaps not a refutation of your premise 

[Miyuki]

Did you ever meet a panel with a dead backlight? I never.

Yep, twice. One a laptop and t'other desktop. But they were CCFL so perhaps not a refutation of your premise 

And was it just to swap a CCFL power supply or were the tubes themselves damaged?
I know how they degrade over a long time, but they should last almost forever.
I'm just curious.

[PlainName]

Tubes themselves. One involved separating all the layers of the screen, and it was never the same afterwards (although it worked it had obviously been worked on). T'other was just a slide-in job one the old one was slid out. Worked great afterwards, so much so that I wouldn't be able to identify which one it was now.

[Miyuki]

Tubes themselves. One involved separating all the layers of the screen, and it was never the same afterwards (although it worked it had obviously been worked on). T'other was just a slide-in job one the old one was slid out. Worked great afterwards, so much so that I wouldn't be able to identify which one it was now.

Interesting, do you have any closer information on the age and hours they were lit?

[PlainName]

It was a long time ago, so no. At the time the tubes were reasonably easily available, which suggests repairs weren't uncommon.

[tooki]

And even today, there are online shops with gazillions of CCFL backlight tubes, as well as LED retrofit kits.

[james_s]

Did you ever meet a panel with a dead backlight? I never.
I had 2 monitors failures in my life and both were processor board issues causing artifacts.
And both lasted well over 10 years.

Yes, I've fixed two of them and scrapped four more of them, one because the 65" panel cracked while we were lifting it out of the frame. It's very common with modern LED lit LCD TVs, it's actually the most common failure mode I've encountered. Look online for LCD TV LED backlight failures and you'll see lots of examples. Typically one or two LEDs will fail and that causes the driver to shut down after a few seconds.

The TV I'm currently using was less than 2 years old when the backlight failed and it was given to me. Another that I fixed was a similar age, that one was edgelit.

That's just the LED backlights, I've seen scores of worn out CCFL backlights. Often replacing the tubes isn't worthwhile because the plastic optics turn yellow from the UV. I took apart one panel where the diffuser sheets crumbled to bits they were so brittle.

[tom66]

I have fixed a few LED TVs with bad backlights but the reliability has improved somewhat.

Part of the issue was the earlier TV backlights were pretty much set at full brightness from the factory for maximum wow.  Just reducing brightness to 80% reduces current by roughly 40% (because gamma curves) and massively extends their lifespan.

4K panels generally need brighter backlights due to their smaller pixel pitch (less active pixel area) which is one reason (the other being eye strain) that I run my Samsung monitors at 25% brightness.