Confused about what constitutes High Def?

[jacatone]

Time Warner recently went all digital with I think 1080p. Is this considered high definition because it certainly looks plenty sharp to me? I recently saw 4K at Best Buy and it has too much detail. More detail than our eyes would normally see. Now Apple has come out with a 5K iMac and there's talk of 8K. What's the point of all this?

[davexnet]

See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television

[Baldrick]

Too much detail???

8K would be good for the cinema.

[usually_quiet]

Time Warner recently went all digital with I think 1080p. Is this considered high definition because it certainly looks plenty sharp to me? I recently saw 4K at Best Buy and it has too much detail. More detail than our eyes would normally see. Now Apple has come out with a 5K iMac and there's talk of 8K. What's the point of all this?

1080p may be available with on-demand movie rentals, but I doubt that it is used for regular cable stations. Digital cable systems use a mix of resolutions for their regular channels, some 1080i channels, some 720p (another HD resolution) and some 480i (standard-definition). 480p (enhanced-definition) is also possible, but Comcast, my provider doesn't seem to be using it.

Some people always want more, in this case additional detail and bigger screens, so UHD TV's version of 4K (3840 x 2160 at 16:9 aspect ratio) is the next iteration for TV panels. This provides a level of detail similar to that of 4k movies (4096×2160 at 19:10 aspect ratio) presently shown in digital cinemas.

[lingyi]

Time Warner recently went all digital with I think 1080p. Is this considered high definition because it certainly looks plenty sharp to me? I recently saw 4K at Best Buy and it has too much detail. More detail than our eyes would normally see. Now Apple has come out with a 5K iMac and there's talk of 8K. What's the point of all this?

I have TWC and my HD DVRs offer 1080i as the highest default setting available. Unless something is shot and transmitted in 1080i, it's either up or downscaled by the DVR.

I suspect the 4K display (ULTRA HD) you saw at Best Buy was in Vivid mode and overly sharpened to make the picture 'pop'. I can tweak my HDTV so I can see each individual hair and pore on an actress's head and face, but that's not the intent of the director or realistic (in real life we're able to focus or defocus conscious, subconscious, or unconsciously).

In the upcoming 4K standards and future 8 and 16K resolutions the focus (no pun intended) is on expanded and more accurate color range. Resolution is only one part of the future of "High Definition"

[jagabo]

What's the point of all this?

To extract money from your wallet.

[davexnet]

In my mind, the main advantage of the higher res is that you can have a bigger TV.

I saw a 4k demo in Costco, it was of a meadow on a summers day with some bright flowers
in the foreground. It was pretty impressive, not sure if it was 1080p upscaled or whether it
native 4k source.

[johns0]

The only reason IMHO i see for 4k and higher is 70" and higher hdtv.

[jman98]

I've yet to hear of an American TV provider providing 1080p video, at least not for TV show. Maybe they stream movies at 1080p and mislead customers into thinking the TV shows are also 1080p. The ATSC spec doesn't allow this so the spec will either have to be changed or replaced before TV show can come this way.

The real reason for 4K is basically it's the most recent example of the electronics industry throwing spaghetti at a wall and seeing if it sticks. This got started in Japan originally and then other manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon, gambling that people might want it with no real proof of demand. I'm predicting that consumers are going to be resistant to rebuying movies at 4K and there's still no official format support for it yet like BluRay is for 1080p. I'm not against the technology per se as it has some features I like, but I do seriously question the true desire for it until prices fall more than they are at now. Vizio is putting some price pressure on the other manufacturers so maybe in another year or two it might be more affordable.

[jacatone]

Leo Laport on TWIT.TV says there are only about 5 manufacturers of LCD and LED screens and the TV makers in general are "hemorrhaging" money trying to come up with products consumers want and still make a profit. He also says there isn't any 4k streaming content and won't be for several years. I guess 3-D and BlueRay didn't really take off and motivate people to go out and buy those compatible TVs, so they're trying anything.

It's all kind of reminiscent of what the motion picture studios tried in the 1950's when TV came along and people started staying home to get their entertainment for free. The studio's tried 3-D, Cinerama, 70-mm, Panavision, VistaVision, Smellovision and none of it made a difference.

[lingyi]

Netflix has 4K/UHD streaming (I agree that 4K is a misnomer) , though with very limited options (House of Cards and a few movies). Like 1080p, reports of quality aren't positive due to the compression necessary for streaming.

There's some interesting discussions going on at AVSforum about how UHD makes sense only if new standards are developed and adhered to. Note that this means that today's UHD are already obsolete since they generally can't be upgraded to the upcoming standard.

Keeping with the videophile's ideal to view "movies as they were intended", an exact copy of the original 4K (or beyond) master without any remastering would be available at home. Even then, unless the next generation of UHD requires 4096x2060 (True 4K) and not the 3840x2160 currently sold as 4K, it won't be a [true] representation of the original.

I'm looking forward to the next generation of UHD as there's still a long way to go from what we have to what should be.

[fritzi93]

The only reason IMHO i see for 4k and higher is 70" and higher hdtv.

Yes. And to extract money from your wallet, as jagabo says.

I have a 70" TV and according to the Carlton Bale chart, am getting maximum benefit from 1080p at my viewing distance of ~ 8 feet. I don't feel the need for a wider field of view, it's sufficiently immersive now. I wouldn't be able to see greater resolution at current viewing distance without going a lot bigger. No.



I think it's going to be quite a while before there's much 4k content available (4k optical disc players supposedly will be available next year, last quarter). Even then, and even assuming I have to replace this TV, I'll be reluctant to buy in. I have a helluva lot of Blu-Rays now, which I'm not going to replace (again!). I'm unconvinced upscaling confers much benefit, from what I can gather from the discussions at AVS.

It may be that in a few years most new TVs will be 4k. I say, so what? I don't see OTA or cable going 4k any time soon.

[lingyi]

I fully agree that the UHD TVs available today are a negligible improvement at less than 65-70" screen sizes. I got a chuckle at a Sony 4K display at Sears that had human foot stickers on the floor two feet away from the screen so you could see the benefit of 4K on a 65" screen. Yep, I hate it when I sit one foot from myHDTV and see a pixelated picture!

That said, as I mentioned in my previous post, the proposed standards for next generation UHD (UHD 2.0 and beyond) is exciting. My layman's understanding of REC. 2020 and beyond is that the next (or probably next, next) UHD standard will include "a bigger box of crayons" (i.e. larger colorspace) allowing more accurate (to the source) colors. THIS combined with higher resolution and other improvements to the UHD standards will bring us that much closer what was originally intended to be seen.

As I see it we're in the infancy stage of UHD, probably equivalent to EDTV vs 720p HDTV. Higher resolution alone doesn't make for a killer new standard, it will take significant improvements to justify the move to new equipment, but it will come with time and cost (which will become more affordable as time passes).

[budwzr]

What's the point of all this?

To extract money from your wallet.

Sony just went broke in their TV division trying to shove 4K onto the public.

[bendixG15]

The video world should take a history from the audio world.

The general public would not buy "ultra hi def" audio and it won't buy "ultra hi def" video. Good enough is the accepted criteria for their wallets.

[jacatone]

Shame about Sony and their TV division. I still have some of their Trinitron CRTs which are well over 20 years old and work great. They were considered the gold standard for TVs.

[Noahtuck]

They were considered the gold standard for TVs.

Maybe by $ONY fanboys.....


And talk of CRT's in a thread about HD resolution ??
LOL!!

[lingyi]

They were considered the gold standard for TVs.

Maybe by $ONY fanboys.....


And talk of CRT's in a thread about HD resolution ??
LOL!!

Hey...I used to be Sony fanboy! But that was because they made the best consumer video products (Betamax and my beloved PVM2530) on the market! The KD-34XBR960 is still considered by many to the best CRT ever produced and since 1080i is HD, it qualifies for this thread.

That said, my enthusiasm faded after the XBR8 (which was more hype than reality) and their current interest in more bells and whistles than quality and making their LCDs priced where mere mortals can't afford it.

I still have four Sony LCDs (ranging in size from 22" to 42"), but my go to HDTV for "real viewing" is my Panasonic plasma. I am and always have been a Quality Fanboy first!

Something interesting, AVSForum just posted today that Sony unveiled their 10 Bit, High Dynamic Range (HDR) that's a preview of the REAL future of UHD. It will be interesting to real world reviews of this and what the other manufacturers come out with this year and next.

[Cornucopia]

Yeah, I noticed that "BrightSide", the tech company that produced the first real HDR display, was bought out by Dolby in 2011 and was then licensed to Sony in 2013. Sounds like they're putting the tech into their products now.

Scott

[lingyi]

Yeah, I noticed that "BrightSide", the tech company that produced the first real HDR display, was bought out by Dolby in 2011 and was then licensed to Sony in 2013. Sounds like they're putting the tech into their products now.

Scott

I forgot that Dolby is pioneering HDR (they showed a demonstration earlier this year). More than half what's talked and written about REC 2020 and ITU-R BT.2020 is way above my head, but what I do understand is that no matter how much is spent on current HD equipment, it still pales compared to what's shown in a properly set up theatre .

[smitbret]

Shame about Sony and their TV division.

Yes, couldn't have happened to a nicer corporation.