The State of 4K: Early 2013

[Russian]

I know that some of you are pretty well versed in 4K, and some of you aren't.

I wrote a little (2000 word) article about the state of 4K and included benchmarks where possible. http://bit.ly/StateOf4K

I'm hoping to follow up this article with better benchmarks with a DP 1.2 display instead of a dual-DVI one that seems to have a lot of problems in games.

As always, any feedback is appreciated as I value (most of) your opinions

[WangChung]

The current problem is that absolutely everything supporting 4K is in its infancy. As you described and is evident in your tests, even the people that make the hardware don't have mature enough drivers to support their product at those resolutions. To try and be fair though, as you also stated the Ezio monitor isn't built for 3D/Gaming applications so therein lies its own problems.

Some of the issues:
- There's not a firm convergence of technology for 4K between home theater and PC.
- Even the PC industry, which is always supposed to be years ahead of the tech game doesn't have everything worked out as far as 4K hardware support let alone content delivery
- The population (especially American) insistence on frame rates circa 1920's. 24Hz is too low of a frame rate for such a beautiful picture, which also leads to problems with...
- 3D. The reason why people hate 3D technology is because of the buzzsaw migraine inducing picture they're forced to endure for the insistence on the "cinematic" look of movies. Peter Jackson had it right, and 30Hz should be the new standard for all movies with at least 48Hz the minimum for 3D flicks.

Lastly, 4K is just another stopover technology, and a lot of people that know better are going to hold off for years to get a set or are going to wait for the pinnacle: 8K. NHK is already seriously considering skipping 4K content and hardware all together and going straight to 8K (HERE). It's the physical limit of what the human eye can discern, and more importantly the economical side just makes sense.

IMO the recent recession taught a lot of people they don't have to have the absolute latest and greatest all the time, especially when what they have works just fine and there's something twice as better on the horizon. Why would I buy a 4K monitor and/or a 4K TV set, and my 4K Playstation and 4K Blu Ray movies and all the necessary cable upgrades to support all those, when 1080p delivers picture to my face pretty awesomely now and 8K is coming within (my guess) 5 years? To put it another way, the iPhone 3 is "only" 5 years old and there's still a massive market share of those.

Unless I get a screaming deal or win free hardware on 4K tech, I'm waiting for 8K with my wallet.

[STEvil]

Gotta love nV's horrible multi-monitor implementation with SLI..

[Russian]

The current problem is that absolutely everything supporting 4K is in its infancy. As you described and is evident in your tests, even the people that make the hardware don't have mature enough drivers to support their product at those resolutions. To try and be fair though, as you also stated the Ezio monitor isn't built for 3D/Gaming applications so therein lies its own problems.

Some of the issues:
- There's not a firm convergence of technology for 4K between home theater and PC.
- Even the PC industry, which is always supposed to be years ahead of the tech game doesn't have everything worked out as far as 4K hardware support let alone content delivery
- The population (especially American) insistence on frame rates circa 1920's. 24Hz is too low of a frame rate for such a beautiful picture, which also leads to problems with...
- 3D. The reason why people hate 3D technology is because of the buzzsaw migraine inducing picture they're forced to endure for the insistence on the "cinematic" look of movies. Peter Jackson had it right, and 30Hz should be the new standard for all movies with at least 48Hz the minimum for 3D flicks.

Lastly, 4K is just another stopover technology, and a lot of people that know better are going to hold off for years to get a set or are going to wait for the pinnacle: 8K. NHK is already seriously considering skipping 4K content and hardware all together and going straight to 8K (HERE). It's the physical limit of what the human eye can discern, and more importantly the economical side just makes sense.

IMO the recent recession taught a lot of people they don't have to have the absolute latest and greatest all the time, especially when what they have works just fine and there's something twice as better on the horizon. Why would I buy a 4K monitor and/or a 4K TV set, and my 4K Playstation and 4K Blu Ray movies and all the necessary cable upgrades to support all those, when 1080p delivers picture to my face pretty awesomely now and 8K is coming within (my guess) 5 years? To put it another way, the iPhone 3 is "only" 5 years old and there's still a massive market share of those.

Unless I get a screaming deal or win free hardware on 4K tech, I'm waiting for 8K with my wallet.

I think you could be right about 4K in that sense because 720P was a temporary holdover until 1080P. However, NHK are the only ones with an 8K camera, with 4K there's already tons and tons of content already made for 4K TVs.

Afterall, we have to consider the content as being the core of the entire resolution argument. Right now, there are a lot of 4K cameras and plenty of 4K content awaiting a standard (HEVC) to abide by in order to be released to consumers.

Admittedly, right now 4K is way too expensive $15,000 for TVs and $5,000 for monitors, but I think prices will be driven downward quickly if adoption occurs at a healthy pace. Display panel manufacturers like Samsung, LG and Sharp need 4K in order to return to profitability because they simply can't survive by making iPad, iPHone and Tablet displays. Not to mention, the market is shunning 1080P displays as most of them still work and the added features (like Smart TV and 3D) are not necessarily strong enough to warrant a new TV altogether.

Gotta love nV's horrible multi-monitor implementation with SLI..

It flat out sucks for 2 displays, that's for sure. For 3 displays? it's OK. But Eyefinity is still better and has a much more natural feel.

[Jamesrt2004]

8k display within 5 years? Won't happen.

4k won't be mainstream in 5 years let alone 8

[rk7p5]

It would be nice if 1440p became the new standard for for Tv's and monitors, along with real 120Hz refresh rates and OLED panels. Also hope for bigger than 30" monitors.

Imo 30 inches is just too small. i'd love a 40" 1440p oled 120Hz monitor for $499 or less

[alternativesurf]

NHK is already seriously considering skipping 4K content and hardware all together and going straight to 8K (HERE). It's the physical limit of what the human eye can discern, and more importantly the economical side just makes sense.

Couple of things wrong with this statement:
1. NHK states 8K is the physical limit of what the human eye can see, this hasn't been documented elsewhere.
2. More importantly, when you are talking about physical limits distance must be considered.

Take a 50" screen for example, and assume a person has 20/20 vision.

You cannot resolve 480P further than 14 feet away
You cannot resolve 720P further than 9.8 feet away
You cannot resolve 1080P further than 6.5 feet away
You cannot resolve a 55" 4K further than 3.5 feet away

From this I would assume you would have to sit less than 2 feet away from a 50" 8K screen to fully benefit from the increased resolution. (Perfect for PC monitors, less so for TVs unless you plan to have a 100" 8K TV and sit 5 feet away [based on the fact that you must sit around 5.5 feet from an 84" 4K tv to fully resolve it]).

Either way, 4K or 8K require huge displays or for you to sit uncomfortably close, otherwise you just cannot benefit from the increased resolutions.

[DeltZ]

Couple of things wrong with this statement:
1. NHK states 8K is the physical limit of what the human eye can see, this hasn't been documented elsewhere.
2. More importantly, when you are talking about physical limits distance must be considered.

Take a 50" screen for example, and assume a person has 20/20 vision.

You cannot resolve 480P further than 14 feet away
You cannot resolve 720P further than 9.8 feet away
You cannot resolve 1080P further than 6.5 feet away
You cannot resolve a 55" 4K further than 3.5 feet away

From this I would assume you would have to sit less than 2 feet away from a 50" 8K screen to fully benefit from the increased resolution. (Perfect for PC monitors, less so for TVs unless you plan to have a 100" 8K TV and sit 5 feet away [based on the fact that you must sit around 5.5 feet from an 84" 4K tv to fully resolve it]).

Either way, 4K or 8K require huge displays or for you to sit uncomfortably close, otherwise you just cannot benefit from the increased resolutions.

^^ qft. High resolution TV's are really not that useful except for super large TV's in which house /room size is a limiting factor. Unless you're content with an amazing TV and a absolute shambles of an audio set up. For pc monitors having a double or triple monitor set up can easily ask for 4k+ resolution just to make text nicely readable when we sit a couple of feet away from the screen. The upper limit for PC monitor is much much higher than practical limits for televisions.

[Manicdan]

Take a 50" screen for example, and assume a person has 20/20 vision.

You cannot resolve 1080P further than 6.5 feet away

i have a 55" 1080p screen and sit about 8ft from it. i can easily see the difference between pixels because even with cleartype the font is easy to read and see flaws. also my vision is a little worse than 20/20.

if i wanted perfection i would want a bigger screen, like 80" and sit it about 9-10ft away, and need a resolution of something between 4k and 8k. then if i wanted 3d i would use passive because i hate active shutter and its entire idea. then 8k resolution would be very worth it to make the image seamless.

[Sparky]

You cannot resolve 480P further than 14 feet away
You cannot resolve 720P further than 9.8 feet away
You cannot resolve 1080P further than 6.5 feet away
You cannot resolve a 55" 4K further than 3.5 feet away

I can see the difference between 1080p and 720p at 10 feet. Maybe this is just a generalization, but it doesn't hold true for everyone.

[alternativesurf]

^^ qft. High resolution TV's are really not that useful except for super large TV's in which house /room size is a limiting factor. Unless you're content with an amazing TV and a absolute shambles of an audio set up. For pc monitors having a double or triple monitor set up can easily ask for 4k+ resolution just to make text nicely readable when we sit a couple of feet away from the screen. The upper limit for PC monitor is much much higher than practical limits for televisions.

Agreed, I was making an argument against sitting far away from high resolution TVs.
PCs are perfect for UHD displays.

i have a 55" 1080p screen and sit about 8ft from it. i can easily see the difference between pixels because even with cleartype the font is easy to read and see flaws. also my vision is a little worse than 20/20.

if i wanted perfection i would want a bigger screen, like 80" and sit it about 9-10ft away, and need a resolution of something between 4k and 8k. then if i wanted 3d i would use passive because i hate active shutter and its entire idea. then 8k resolution would be very worth it to make the image seamless.

The real way to determine whether you can fully resolve the resolution of your tv would be to walk right up to it until you can see the pixels.
When you see the pixels you are "over" resolving the tv.

Step back slowly until you can no longer see individual pixels.
At this point you are at the prime distance for fully resolving the image (note, I am not saying the most comfortable viewing distance, just the furthest you can view before your eyes can no longer resolve the full image).

And you would never want to sit so far from an 80" 4K TV.
We have an 84" in the lobby at work and it really doesn't "pop" until you're about 6 feet away from it.

I can see the difference between 1080p and 720p at 10 feet. Maybe this is just a generalization, but it doesn't hold true for everyone.

You can see the difference, but you cannot fully resolve the image.
Please keep in mind I was educating on the "physical limit of our eyes".
NHK states it is 8K, but the physical limit really depends on how far away you are from a display.

NHK is already seriously considering skipping 4K content and hardware all together and going straight to 8K (HERE). It's the physical limit of what the human eye can discern, and more importantly the economical side just makes sense.

[Manicdan]

"resolve" an image dosnt make sense to me

if i have 1 black pixel on a white background, at what distance can i not see that pixel? is that important or a waste of time?
or if you have alternating lines of white and black, and you back up until its gray, is that a good test?

theres too many ways to test what one can see, but if you mean at what distance you see the screendoor effect, i think is too close for a benchmark.

im sure each site does a test in their own way and each person has different needs. i for one want more colors over almost anything else. i think the black levels are still a massive step for each increment than real life offers. i try to calibrate for that still too, but cant get anything near perfect without spending double on a good panel, and its not worth THAT much to me.

[eXa]

If you can see the screendoor you are WAY to close. Even tho you cant see the screendoor or individual pixels you can see a difference between resolutions. Remember seeing full hd demo once(when full hd was arriving), on a little 20" something tv, and then it grabbed my attention right when i entered the room, and i was far away from it.

[kromosto]

i don't cre about tvs a good 1080p is more enough imo but for monitors 1440p should replace 1080p as quickly as possible

[M.Beier]

isnt quadHD = 2560*1440??
While 4K is ultra HD

Finally.... 10Mbps (mbit/s), for 4K? Hmm, I measured quite a bit more when running through youtube 4K videos yesterday, but those were 96FPS 4K....
Besides that, 8K TV seems worth waiting for, though it might take a 'few' years.

[zalbard]

isnt quadHD = 2560*1440??

No.
2560 * 1440 = 3686400
1920 * 1080 = 2073600
3686400 / 2073600 = 1,7(7).
QuadHD is 2160p, 3840 * 2160.

[Kallenator]

While 4K is ultra HD

Finally.... 10Mbps (mbit/s), for 4K? Hmm, I measured quite a bit more when running through youtube 4K videos yesterday, but those were 96FPS 4K....
Besides that, 8K TV seems worth waiting for, though it might take a 'few' years.

All you needed to do was a short trip to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_H...ion_Television

10Mb/s sounds fine for 4k with the improved H.265 standard.

4k 96fps, like this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVzL48VgYZQ
This is recorded in 96fps, but played back in 24fps, hence the slow motion.

[M.Beier]

All you needed to do was a short trip to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_H...ion_Television

10Mb/s sounds fine for 4k with the improved H.265 standard.

4k 96fps, like this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVzL48VgYZQ
This is recorded in 96fps, but played back in 24fps, hence the slow motion.

Yep exactly like that one, that and the oen with leaves and waterfall would not load at same time, and that is not common for me.

No.
2560 * 1440 = 3686400
1920 * 1080 = 2073600
3686400 / 2073600 = 1,7(7).
QuadHD is 2160p, 3840 * 2160.

As for the Quad HD, first appearance on google:
27-inch S27B970D Quad HD 2560 x 1440 285cd/m? 5ms LED ...

And the monitor I bought a little while ago:
Achieva Shimian QH270 Lite Quad HD 2560x1440 16 9 D Sub ...

Hence why the confusion, also it makes sense to me, picture is 4 times bigger on quad HD compared to HD (1280*720)....???? 2160P would end up being Quad Full HD - as its 4 times the pixels of full HD? (or just 4K)
Just a thought!

[Kallenator]

Yep exactly like that one, that and the oen with leaves and waterfall would not load at same time, and that is not common for me.

Probably this one, it's also 24fps
Really nice imagery, enjoyed watching it

[M.Beier]

Yep exactly, saw 6 videos yesterday, one with music - and video from a GH2, horses, honeybeeeee, sundance

But normally nothing gets my 60/60mbit down... 9.1MB/s -> 72.8Mbps usually is what I download with.... Obviously it could be some youtube crap, but still, I sensed it did pull out some teeth.

[Kallenator]

I would not expect youtube to efficiently distribute 4k videos.

Downloaded it and viewed it in VLC, apparently I unable to view it properly through Youtube@Opera. Drops frames way too much.
The Sundance 4k original is 491MB(Silly for 2 min footage ), looks even better when it's played smoothly in 24p.

[WangChung]

Couple of things wrong with this statement:
1. NHK states 8K is the physical limit of what the human eye can see, this hasn't been documented elsewhere.
2. More importantly, when you are talking about physical limits distance must be considered.

Take a 50" screen for example, and assume a person has 20/20 vision.

You cannot resolve 480P further than 14 feet away
You cannot resolve 720P further than 9.8 feet away
You cannot resolve 1080P further than 6.5 feet away
You cannot resolve a 55" 4K further than 3.5 feet away

From this I would assume you would have to sit less than 2 feet away from a 50" 8K screen to fully benefit from the increased resolution. (Perfect for PC monitors, less so for TVs unless you plan to have a 100" 8K TV and sit 5 feet away [based on the fact that you must sit around 5.5 feet from an 84" 4K tv to fully resolve it]).

Either way, 4K or 8K require huge displays or for you to sit uncomfortably close, otherwise you just cannot benefit from the increased resolutions.

I would say there's a slight flaw with that logic. Let's go the other way in terms of screen size. By using your calculations the 1280x800 display on my 12" laptop should be absolutely fine for viewing, and a Retina display has no real purpose. Yet when I lean back in my chair and watch a movie on either (which is about 3.5ft away) there's a dramatic difference between the two.

Additionally, there is information out there that supports some of your argument but refutes even more.

How many pixels are needed to match the resolution of the human eye? Each pixel must appear no larger than 0.3 arc-minute. Consider a 20 x 13.3-inch print viewed at 20 inches. The Print subtends an angle of 53 x 35.3 degrees, thus requiring 53*60/.3 = 10600 x 35*60/.3 = 7000 pixels, for a total of ~74 megapixels to show detail at the limits of human visual acuity.

SOURCE

I would say the complete elimination of any screen door effect where the image presented would be indiscernible from the object in the physical realm is what's ultimately desired. By the maths supplied in my source, the fovea gives you a max viewable resolution of 530 ppi. An 8K 21" monitor would give a PPI of 419, getting darn close. Another consideration is the gamut of the display, which goes up in leaps and bounds as the resolution capability goes up.

[Manicdan]

im not sure PPI is a good measure for tvs/monitors for 4k due to needs relative to distance. although i like the math about the 74MP being the limit of the eye

300ppi really is about the upper limit of whats needed for 2-3ft away, but then if we triple that distance for a tv siting 6-9ft away then 100ppi is probably all we need. which then would mean 8k would be more than good enough for a 55" tv.

[Russian]

I'm a little bit of a freak, because I have 20/15 vision, so for me 1080P phones and 4K monitors are amazing.

Also, for the doubters, let's remember that 4K monitors do come in 31.5" models, so the argument that 4K is going to be on some gigantic 84" or 120" TV is ridiculous. Panasonic actually has a 20.1" 4K display and IBM has had a QuadHD 20.1" monitor for almost a decade...

In addition to that, the 4K content already exists and H.265 is really going to help get 4K content out to consumers with 4K TVs or displays.

[paulbagz]

No.
2560 * 1440 = 3686400
1920 * 1080 = 2073600
3686400 / 2073600 = 1,7(7).
QuadHD is 2160p, 3840 * 2160.

Think people get confused as most companies market the 2560x1440 resolution as "packing four times the pixel density of 720p".

-PB