So, ideal for a big gathering in a park etc, but in reality pointless in the average person's home.
Not necessarily you just need a bigger screen than the 42" Hd most of us have now ... and it really does look better than 3D- and it requires different direction - but your eye just look around the scene.
Quite a few "3D aficionados" thought that BBC "Africa" was in 3D....because of the Picture quality and shots ... (it was not!)
Not necessarily you just need a bigger screen than the 42" Hd most of us have now ... and it really does look better than 3D- and it requires different direction - but your eye just look around the scene.
Quite a few "3D aficionados" thought that BBC "Africa" was in 3D....because of the Picture quality and shots ... (it was not!)
I would say 50"+ screen, I cant tell the difference between 720P and 1080I on a 40" screen, so I doubt you would see the difference between 1080I and 4K on a 50"
I would say 50"+ screen, I cant tell the difference between 720P and 1080I on a 40" screen, so I doubt you would see the difference between 1080I and 4K on a 50"
As always - screen size doesn't matter - it's screen size relative to viewing distance that makes the difference.
HD on a 40 inch is just as good as on a 100 inch, you just need to view from the correct distance.
But to see the difference between 720 and 1080 you have to be even closer than you would imagine.
Indeed but you dont buy a 50" TV for a 12ft lounge
Why not?
To get the full benefit from a 50" full HD TV you would need to be sat no more than 8' away. The deciding factor is whether the user would want a TV of that size to dominate their room.
We have a 100" screen and seating is 11' away - granted it is in a dedicated cinema room, but we had a 50"/PJ in our old house and we were sat closer than we are now.
Nothing wrong witha big screen in your lounge if that's what you want. If you want to fill your field of vision like at the cinema then you'll need a big tv. Probably a projector and screen. Or best of both worlds and have a wall mounted 42"-50" and a 120" pulldown screen over the tv for a projector.
Most people were brought up thinking that a 22" crt screen is the norm and are so used to it that they see huge screens in lounges as somehow not right. Time to change!
Still, with all these giant size TV's im normal sized houses, houses that seem to be getting smaller and smaller when they build them, Specsavers will doing a good trade in a few years, when everyone's eyesight has gone to pot !
Still, with all these giant size TV's im normal sized houses, houses that seem to be getting smaller and smaller when they build them, Specsavers will doing a good trade in a few years, when everyone's eyesight has gone to pot !
Still, with all these giant size TV's im normal sized houses, houses that seem to be getting smaller and smaller when they build them, Specsavers will doing a good trade in a few years, when everyone's eyesight has gone to pot !
The whole point of HD/Ultra HD is to get a natuaral picture without noise and artifacts and the related eyestrain trying to focus.
Would you get a headache looking at a large picture in an art gallery from a few feet? No.
Would you get a headache trying to focus on a large SD (with all the related noise and movement) picture close up? Yes.
It is ? we have a 42", that is big enough, it's only a TV! next door has a 55" (nice picture) but it dominates the room, and when wtaching you have to move your eyes over the screen to catch it all, bit like the cinemas I suppose,
As for an Art Gallery, I would look at a painting for about 5 mins, 7 or 8 at the most, that is a tad different from watching TV for hours on end, wondwer if the H&S VDU rules apply when you are home
Don't expect ultra-high-resolution 4K video to be broadcast onto your living room wall anytime soon. According to the people responsible to building the equipment that can capture, edit, and encode 4K, there are a number of hurdles to overcome – not the least being storage requirements on the production side.
As much as done would love to believe 3D should not be written out yet. Try getting a mid to high quality tv without 3D capabilities. Yon can get ones in the lower end too. More and more films are being made in 3D and the BBC are still making 3D despite not having a channel to show it on. Sky are changing their 3D channel policy and opening up certain aspects to many more viewers than now. I believe that has been the biggest barrier to low figures. Even if Sky 3D has to turn into Sky Movies 3D because there is nothing else to show it will carry on.
.....Quite a few "3D aficionados" thought that BBC "Africa" was in 3D....because of the Picture quality and shots ... (it was not!)
How on earth can you think something is in 3D when it's not? I've never watched a 3D source without knowing knowing it's 3D. I have to change a setting and put on glasses!
We are all over 4k, we have been testing out cameras from both Sony and Cannon at the Emirates stadium recently. At the end of the day though it is still to early to roadmap it's release because it also means it would require a massive number of our customers to move from our pvr3 box over to the HD boxes.
We could pull the plug on the PVR3, at a cost of around 300 million, and with HD boxes in every house we could then turn off all the SD transponders allowing us to free up loads of space to use for 4k
We have used both the Sony F65 and Cannon C500, but its all about frame rates for us. 4k looks nice but we wanted to capture the pictures at a better frame rate of around 120fps. We also need our partners that support our outside broadcast services to upgrade. NEP Vision, which supports our premiership has said it sees them gearing up for 4k over the next 3 years.
The 8k test by the BBC and NHK was amazing to see. My own view is around 2015 would be our target date.
We are all over 4k, we have been testing out cameras from both Sony and Cannon at the Emirates stadium recently. At the end of the day though it is still to early to roadmap it's release because it also means it would require a massive number of our customers to move from our pvr3 box over to the HD boxes.
We could pull the plug on the PVR3, at a cost of around 300 million, and with HD boxes in every house we could then turn off all the SD transponders allowing us to free up loads of space to use for 4k
We have used both the Sony F65 and Cannon C500, but its all about frame rates for us. 4k looks nice but we wanted to capture the pictures at a better frame rate of around 120fps. We also need our partners that support our outside broadcast services to upgrade. NEP Vision, which supports our premiership has said it sees them gearing up for 4k over the next 3 years.
The 8k test by the BBC and NHK was amazing to see. My own view is around 2015 would be our target date.
This is the way forward!, hope sky do this, would make the most sense, SD needs to become a thing of the past, Sky HD boxes can downscale for users with standard TV's.
It's whether sky will fork out the 300 million to do this.
120 fps is a weird choice - that would mean any 4K channels can't show upscaled SD or HD content at 25/50 fps. Maybe you should go for 300 fps, or dynamic frame rate.
How on earth can you think something is in 3D when it's not? I've never watched a 3D source without knowing knowing it's 3D. I have to change a setting and put on glasses!
There seems to be many watching in 2D-3D mode on their TV's.
This was borne out my social media response with Mr Stink which was simulcasted in 3D on BBC HD. There were lots with 3D TVs watching on BBC One HD and complaining that the 3D wasn't very good!!
There seems to be many watching in 2D-3D mode on their TV's.
This was borne out my social media response with Mr Stink which was simulcasted in 3D on BBC HD. There were lots with 3D TVs watching on BBC One HD and complaining that the 3D wasn't very good!!
And also saying that "Africa" was brilliant 3D.....!!!!!
See https://www.smpte.org/sections/united-kingdom/report-open-mic-evening-2013
Shows how little we use stereopsis and how good HD has "depth".. @DragonQ 120 is a silly number - but at the time only one organisation pressed for 100/150/300 type number .... a major failings by Europeans.... Actually HD needs 100Hz frame rate!!
120 fps is a weird choice - that would mean any 4K channels can't show upscaled SD or HD content at 25/50 fps. Maybe you should go for 300 fps, or dynamic frame rate.
We could capture video at the high rate of 300 fps, which we could then cut readily down to both 120 fps.
Some trials have been looking at a higher frame rate of 120 fps for 4K, which immediately introduces a conversion problem if content shot at one rate then has to be displayed on TVs that support another.
The fact remains pictures captured for ultra HD at 3920 x 2160, at 300 fps would generate streams at 52Gb/s.
Comments
Not necessarily you just need a bigger screen than the 42" Hd most of us have now ... and it really does look better than 3D- and it requires different direction - but your eye just look around the scene.
Quite a few "3D aficionados" thought that BBC "Africa" was in 3D....because of the Picture quality and shots ... (it was not!)
I would say 50"+ screen, I cant tell the difference between 720P and 1080I on a 40" screen, so I doubt you would see the difference between 1080I and 4K on a 50"
As always - screen size doesn't matter - it's screen size relative to viewing distance that makes the difference.
HD on a 40 inch is just as good as on a 100 inch, you just need to view from the correct distance.
But to see the difference between 720 and 1080 you have to be even closer than you would imagine.
Indeed but you dont buy a 50" TV for a 12ft lounge
It depends how far away you sit to view, you could have a considerably larger in a 12 foot lounge for watching HD.
To get the full benefit from a 50" full HD TV you would need to be sat no more than 8' away. The deciding factor is whether the user would want a TV of that size to dominate their room.
We have a 100" screen and seating is 11' away - granted it is in a dedicated cinema room, but we had a 50"/PJ in our old house and we were sat closer than we are now.
Most people were brought up thinking that a 22" crt screen is the norm and are so used to it that they see huge screens in lounges as somehow not right. Time to change!
Well I had the average person in mind not the average digital spy user
Well the 'average' DS user probably views from too far away for decent HD anyway
But to get any worthwhile benefit from HD you need to be viewing from no more (and preferably less) than twice the screen size.
3d is rubbish any way..
That's another fallacy:cool:
The whole point of HD/Ultra HD is to get a natuaral picture without noise and artifacts and the related eyestrain trying to focus.
Would you get a headache looking at a large picture in an art gallery from a few feet? No.
Would you get a headache trying to focus on a large SD (with all the related noise and movement) picture close up? Yes.
It is ? we have a 42", that is big enough, it's only a TV! next door has a 55" (nice picture) but it dominates the room, and when wtaching you have to move your eyes over the screen to catch it all, bit like the cinemas I suppose,
As for an Art Gallery, I would look at a painting for about 5 mins, 7 or 8 at the most, that is a tad different from watching TV for hours on end, wondwer if the H&S VDU rules apply when you are home
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2013/03/19/astra-preps-4k-channel/
Full Story
PJ
How on earth can you think something is in 3D when it's not? I've never watched a 3D source without knowing knowing it's 3D. I have to change a setting and put on glasses!
We could pull the plug on the PVR3, at a cost of around 300 million, and with HD boxes in every house we could then turn off all the SD transponders allowing us to free up loads of space to use for 4k
We have used both the Sony F65 and Cannon C500, but its all about frame rates for us. 4k looks nice but we wanted to capture the pictures at a better frame rate of around 120fps. We also need our partners that support our outside broadcast services to upgrade. NEP Vision, which supports our premiership has said it sees them gearing up for 4k over the next 3 years.
The 8k test by the BBC and NHK was amazing to see. My own view is around 2015 would be our target date.
This is the way forward!, hope sky do this, would make the most sense, SD needs to become a thing of the past, Sky HD boxes can downscale for users with standard TV's.
It's whether sky will fork out the 300 million to do this.
There seems to be many watching in 2D-3D mode on their TV's.
This was borne out my social media response with Mr Stink which was simulcasted in 3D on BBC HD. There were lots with 3D TVs watching on BBC One HD and complaining that the 3D wasn't very good!!
And also saying that "Africa" was brilliant 3D.....!!!!!
See https://www.smpte.org/sections/united-kingdom/report-open-mic-evening-2013
Shows how little we use stereopsis and how good HD has "depth"..
@DragonQ 120 is a silly number - but at the time only one organisation pressed for 100/150/300 type number .... a major failings by Europeans.... Actually HD needs 100Hz frame rate!!
We could capture video at the high rate of 300 fps, which we could then cut readily down to both 120 fps.
Some trials have been looking at a higher frame rate of 120 fps for 4K, which immediately introduces a conversion problem if content shot at one rate then has to be displayed on TVs that support another.
The fact remains pictures captured for ultra HD at 3920 x 2160, at 300 fps would generate streams at 52Gb/s.