Future of TVs

marcaaron22

Active Member
how soon is the likes of super HD (4k) or whatever it is or auto-stereo-scopic or whatever improved 3D and HD technology, are we talking weeks/months/years or decades? If I'm buying a 50" TV in December/January, I need to know if I am wasting me time or if it's a good move for now cos I don't want to be having to buy another TV a month or so later
 

andy1249

Distinguished Member
Back in the day there was some argument about whether or not you actually needed 1080p over 720p with a TV , and many figures were rolled out showing how big a screen size you would need to see the benefit of 1080p.

This had merit. 1080p screen sizes can and do go to well over 100 inches in projector setups with absolutely fantastic picture quality, but really , you need a 50 inch or bigger to see the benefit over 720p.

Keeping that in mind , how big a screen do you think you would need to see the benefit of 4K ? 4K is actually the format used in some Imax theaters , unless your landed Gentry , your not going to have the room for that kind of screen.

For that reason I think 4K screens are going to be a very hard sell indeed , and it will be years before 4K screens sell in any quantity , and you need to sell in quantity before prices become affordable to most.

Also , the supply chain for movies would have to change considerably , meaning content providers will have to change the whole process.

1080p will be the standard from home cinema for a very long time yet.

OLED screens are due this year , they are going to cost anything from 6K to 10K for a while.

Again, manufacturers have shot themselves in the foot here by lying to the public. For a number of years now they have been selling what they claim are LED TV's are they are nothing of the sort. They are an LCD screen with an LED backlight.

Real LED Screens like OLED have the potential to be an order of magnitude better than anything weve seen so far , but due to the history of lies from these manufacturers who is going to believe it ?

Again they are going to be a very hard sell.

So , go ahead an buy now , you will get probably 5 to 7 years out of the set before any of the above make any headway , if they do at all.

( I certainly hope they do , OLED will be my next new screen if it takes off)
 

logiciel

Moderator
Do you mean "future of TVs"?
 

Scooby2000

Distinguished Member
As I posted in your other thread, your taking a decade or more for enough content. TV wise there is talk of a 4K glasses free TV but the 4K side is to help the 3D. The BBC tried a live braughdcast ti Japan in 4K as a test and it took several high speed internet connections to send it, they also used one of only two or three 4K cameras in the world. 1080p is enough for home use, PQ isn't just about having higher res, Important also hoping OLED will be mainstream in a few years. I also like Sony's CLED though its only a prototype.
 

marcaaron22

Active Member
logiciel said:
Do you mean "future of TVs"?

Yes, pressed the r instead of the f, lol
 

P-P-S-S

Well-known Member
I bought my LCD TV around 7 years ago and it is still going strong and produces a perfectly good picture quality. And my guess is that it will continue to do so for many years to come. The OLED technology will catch up with the mass market in a good 5-7 years I guess judging by trends in TV technologies in the past. Therefore if you get a good LED backlit TV now you will be able to enjoy it for a good 5-7 years easily. The 3D technology is useless and just a marketing ploy in my opinion. I doubt many people will sit in front of their TV with a pair of those uncomfortable looking 3D glasses on. It's just impractical. I am buying a new TV by Christmas but the reason for that is because I want to move from 37" to 46" screen due to my new lounge being considerably larger. If it wasn't for that I would stick with my existing tv for a few more years. ;)
 

Qublai

Active Member
''I doubt many people will sit in front of their TV with a pair of those uncomfortable looking 3D glasses on.''

I haven't had an opportunity to try them yet. Can you explain why they are uncomfirtable?
 

Randomoneh

Standard Member
Most of normal people have visual acuity better than 1-arcminute [per pixel] making all those "4k / 8k is stupid and you don't need it" claims wrong.

If you want to be certain, you use 0.3 arcminute per pixel figure. Cotangent of 0.3 arcminutes is 11459.
To find the a PPI value where you can be certain display is matching your vision, use 11495/distance in inches. To find the distance, use 11459/PPI value of the display.
 

Scooby2000

Distinguished Member
Most of normal people have visual acuity better than 1-arcminute [per pixel] making all those "4k / 8k is stupid and you don't need it" claims wrong.

If you want to be certain, you use 0.3 arcminute per pixel figure. Cotangent of 0.3 arcminutes is 11459.
To find the a PPI value where you can be certain display is matching your vision, use 11495/distance in inches. To find the distance, use 11459/PPI value of the display.

Um...in English?:confused: Having gone through the whole 1080p/720p thing I agree with Andy. You simply can't see any extra detail depending on size and distance, certainly not with real world content.
 

Randomoneh

Standard Member
Um...in English?:confused: Having gone through the whole 1080p/720p thing I agree with Andy. You simply can't see any extra detail depending on size and distance, certainly not with real world content.

That could be like trying to tell the difference between 32 kbps and 48 kbps audio and trying to tell the difference between 48 kbps and 96 / 192 kbps audio.

Check out some studies on this made by Japanese NHK. 100+ people participated in these studies on visual acuity related to [angular] resolution.
 

Scooby2000

Distinguished Member
That could be like trying to tell the difference between 32 kbps and 48 kbps audio and trying to tell the difference between 48 kbps and 96 / 192 kbps audio.

Check out some studies on this made by Japanese NHK. 100+ people participated in these studies on visual acuity related to [angular] resolution.

I'm more a visual person myself so not a good comparison for me.:) There was a lot of blind testing on people regarding 720 and 1080(blind may be an inappropriate word lol). You just can't see the difference between the two on the same size screen unless you get closer than people will generally sit to view comfortably.

Going from a 768 42" PX80 to a 1080 42" V20 the big difference was in the sets contrast and colour reproduction. Maths and science are all well and good in theory but can be meaningless in a real world environment. I can't see how a 4k 50" set will benefit over a 50" 1080 set at say 2.5-3m away. Steve said in an article that he was amazed at the clarity of a 4K set he looked at displaying 4K material but Image guessing he was standing quite close to the set.
I'm more than willing to be proven wrong but from my own experience of comparing resolutions for my own needs I don't see there being a huge difference, i guess 1080 to 4K is a far bigger leap than 720 to 1080 but surely your eyes can only see a certain amount of detail at any given distance so that shouldn't matter.


Its all a bit pointless anyway as 4K content to any substantial degree is a long way off, especially braughdcast wise.
 
Last edited:

Randomoneh

Standard Member
Image more a visual person myself so not a good comparison for me...
Image more than willing to be proven wrong...
What are you doing? :rolleyes: Should that make me feel bad about my English?
Anyway, I told you, those were real-life experiments with live participants, not just theoretical values. I'll post more on this some time later.
 

Curly99

Distinguished Member
What are you doing? :rolleyes: Should that make me feel bad about my English?
Anyway, I told you, those were real-life experiments with live participants, not just theoretical values. I'll post more on this some time later.
The point here is your post is just a bunch of numbers which to the average person..ie the majority of the forum they mean nothing on there own, the in English comment is more of a post it in a way we can all understand...you may be right in what you post but at the moment nobody can tell if you are.

Curly
 

Scooby2000

Distinguished Member
Yes sorry for the misunderstanding, I did indeed mean your posting information most readers won't understand. Your English is fine it was just an expression. Id never criticise a members English on here as many members are from other countries.

Also with my phone I tend to post some poor English myself.:facepalm:

Please post away with more information by the way Id be interested in reading it.:)
 
Last edited:

fluxo

Distinguished Member
Most of normal people have visual acuity better than 1-arcminute [per pixel] making all those "4k / 8k is stupid and you don't need it" claims wrong.

If you want to be certain, you use 0.3 arcminute per pixel figure. Cotangent of 0.3 arcminutes is 11459.
To find the a PPI value where you can be certain display is matching your vision, use 11495/distance in inches. To find the distance, use 11459/PPI value of the display.

Here's how I would explain it. Please refer to the following diagram:

1XQDag4NM5EDBGCddjVdSKuyJVvKdD.png




p1 and p2 are two pixels that can just be discriminated. That is, the are seen
as separate observable things. If they were any closer together, they would be
perceived as a single thing - your eyes would not have the resolving power to
tell them apart.

The angle subtended by the arc (not drawn) between p1 and p2 is A. Let's
say that in this case A = 0.3 arcminutes (an arcminute is 1/60th of a degree).

For a given display, we need to calculate the distance from the eye to the
display such that an arc between the pixels subtends an angle equal to A. In the
diagram this distance is the length of line a-b. The length ratio of line a-b to
line b-p1 is the cotangent of A/2. Using the value we already have for A, that
ratio is then Cot[(0.3/(2 * 60)) (Pi/180)]:1 = 22918:1. Pi/180 is a conversion
factor to radians.

If we know the PPI value for the display, the number of pixels per inch, then the
distance between b and p1 is 0.5/ppi. Hence the length of the line a-b is 22918 *
0.5/ppi = 11459/ppi.

Does that help or does it make things much much worse? :--)
 
Last edited:

Randomoneh

Standard Member
p1 and p2 are two pixels that can just be discriminated. That is, the are seen
as separate observable things. If they were any closer together, they would be
perceived as a single thing

Great explanation. Very nice.

However, there is a gray area between "two pixels are perceived as separate things" and "two pixels are perceived as a single thing".

For example, one may not be able to clearly tell if two black lines (1 pixel wide, separated by white 1-pixel wide space, black lines separated by 0.3 minute arc) are actually separated but may nevertheless be able to tell the difference between two images (depicting real-life scenes) of which one has pixel spacing of 0.3 arcmin and other 0.2 arcmin.

That's why Japanese NHK, when they were doing those tests, gave participants opportunity to rate images with different angular resolutions (without their knowledge).

When correct probability is ~50%, you know participants really can't tell the difference but are purely guessing:

angularresolutioncorrec.png
 

fluxo

Distinguished Member
Great explanation. Very nice.

However, there is a gray area between "two pixels are perceived as separate
things" and "two pixels are perceived as a single thing".

For example, one may not be able to clearly tell if two black lines (1 pixel
wide, separated by white 1-pixel wide space, black lines separated by 0.3
minute arc) are actually separated but may nevertheless be able to tell the
difference between two images (depicting real-life scenes) of which one has
pixel spacing of 0.3 arcmin and other 0.2 arcmin.

That's why Japanese NHK, when they were doing those tests, gave participants
opportunity to rate images with different angular resolutions (without their
knowledge).

When correct probability is ~50%, you know participants really can't tell the
difference but are purely guessing:

That's an interesting point and one I will mull over. What I had at the back of
my mind when writing that was the Landolt ring test for visual acuity (but a
couple of pixels is not such a broken ring). I wonder: do you have link for the
NHK test details (if written in English)?

I would also like to say that I was slightly curious about your use of the
cotangent of 0.3 arcminutes, which suggests the use of a different triangle in
your calculation. As it happens, for small values of x, Cot[x] and Cot[x/2]/2
seem to converge, so perhaps it's immaterial:

1DXbkxFz9zU05M8lJBjhgW8A5MA8Ba0.png




Finally, I'm not sure what happens when the pixels are not aligned with the
centre of the field of view. That is something to think about.
 

martinthorn1

Active Member
I would also like to say that I was slightly curious about your use of the
cotangent of 0.3 arcminutes

Seems a bit low a value given the pupil is given as limited to 0.4 arcminutes at best - diffraction limit at optimum pupil dilation (although this is based upon wikipedia which is good but not always 100%).

With black and white alternate lines (each a pixel wide*), a simple spreadsheet I've knocked up tells me that someone that can resolve 1 arcminute (20/20 vision) can't see the lines on a 42" Full HD tv at distances greater than approx. 2meters. At about 3.8 meters the same person can't see the lines on a HD Ready set. In other words at more than 2 meters away then this person, with 20/20 vision, could not see all the detail on a (theoretical**)Full HD tv.

The distances change to 4m(Full HD) and 7.5m (HD Ready) for someone with eyes that can resolve 0.5arcminutes: in other words this person would benefit more from the full HD resolution than the person with 20/20 vision.

The distances change to 2.4m (Full HD) and 4.5m(HD ready) for someone with a 50" screen and 20/20 vision. In other words at more than 2.4m away this person could not see all of the detail on the Full HD tv.

Conclusions: Full HD is a nice to have, but the potential of it is not always realised due to viewing distances and non-perfect eyesight for 42" displays! As for 4k, might be a good idea for very large screens & projected images but a bit over the top for 42" plasma/LCD.

**Not included in the calculation: the fact that the HD source compression algorithms may well limit resolution rather than the display, particularly for scenes with lots of motion? Anyone care to comment as I'm not an expert in this..? Plasmas also dither the information on the screen (search for posts by 'vierrafan' on the plasma forum) to improve perceived colour performance thereby potentially further reducing resolution (LCDs don't do this however). Also there's the motion handling of the display processing to consider which also reduces resolution..

* assumptions: illuminated pixel assumed in spreadsheet to take up 80% of total pixel area.
HD ready pixels assumed to be rectangles (1024x768): ie. hd ready vertical resolution not the same as horizontal.
Maths is similar to this:
theta1 (between 2 pixels) = 2x(Inverse Tan ((1.2xpixel separation/2)/distance to screen)
then compare this value theta1 with theta2, the angle that the given eye is capable of seeing.
 

LG88

Active Member
after reading through this thread, it feels like I've just been back to science class
 

martinthorn1

Active Member
Most of normal people have visual acuity better than 1-arcminute [per pixel

One interesting fact is that visual acuity is related to brightness; our resolution is much lower in the dark.. So for dark material (eg. Batman films) it may be that we can't see it in HD at all!?
 

VierraFan

Active Member
Actually no need to go too much into theory. There were various comparisons between 2K and 4K movie projectors several years ago and most people couldn't see the difference. Resolution of the video/movie material is also limited
 
Hehe, I know you guys are talking about 4k and so on, but I believe in the far far future there will be a different kind of TV available to us. I don't know if you've seen the news about this but at a Black Eyed Peas concert, two of the members couldn't be there, so instead they made them appear on the stage in a kind of holographic form. (Awsome!) they did the same for the rapper 2Pac. Anyway these sort of holograms that were seen is what WE will have in future.

Ps.sorry for breaking a conversation.
 

need_tvs

Standard Member
I was going to start a new thread out of curiosity when I saw this one!

I'm wondering about the elusive Cell Regza TV that was taking TechShows and internet boards by storm about 2 years ago, anyone have any idea on the progress of this or any sort of imminent WorldWide release?

With all the talk of 3D, super/ultra/hyper-K res TVs and OLED --etc, I was wondering this amazing feature of super-resolution would for once and finally correct the age-old problem flat-screens had with displaying 'bad sources'. Basically, it was meant to take TV processing to the next level, and I for one would love a TV that can practically do away with any silly add-on scaler/image processing boxes we all need when viewing older stuff.

I was going all trippy 2 years back, but since then, nothing of even a whisper! Yet going about the web, the model is a Japan release and on the market there. So, any new xD

I'm sorry if it's a little lame, but this was really the best I could find of late on this former headline grabber

Toshiba Busts Out Three CELL Regza 3D TVs | TechCrunch

Toshiba's 'ultrapremium' Cell TV breaks out of features prison | 2010 CES - CNET Blogs

Saw some of the graph and tech stuff above, almost needed a coffee xD
 
Last edited:

Trollslayer

Distinguished Member
I think that 48FPS Blu-rays (and TV support) is much more important and much more practical.
 

need_tvs

Standard Member
@ #22

Wow, how convincing/detailed were the holograms? Obviously the audience were not wearing those 3D goggles (or most of them at least =D

Could be very important for progress in 3D, I'm one of those that just never thought it felt 'right' to wear headgear when viewing a screen for the purpose of entertainment, or just watching a doc xD
 

The latest video from AVForums

Star Wars Andor, Woman King, more Star Trek 4K, Rings of Power & the latest TV, movies & 4K releases
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Starzplay streaming service rebrands as Lionsgate+
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
JVC adds Filmmaker Mode to latest D-ILA projector firmware
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Bowers & Wilkins launches Px8 headphone
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sky set to launch its plug-and-play Sky Stream solution
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Movies Podcast: 26th September 2022
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom