|
||||||||
Super Hi-Vision |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: South Coast
Posts: 123
|
Super Hi-Vision
So I got my first watch of some Super Hi-Vision the other day. This has just become standardised as a new TV format I understand. The screen was 85 inches and the resolution is apparently 7,680 by 4,320 pixels.
It clearly has more detail than HD although the screen is a limiting factor and 85 inches is too small for the format so on a large screen it would surely deliver even more detail. Not wanting to sound like a luddite; I do sruggle to see what the format would be for. The extra high resolution menas quite life-like pictures but the 60 Hz frame rate means that anything moving is not life-like at all. I saw some 120 frame per second footage and that is significantly better - although the way the pictures were being processed could be a factor. The main issue was that you could see lots of detail but not across the whole picture all at once since that means there is simply too much to take in. So it left me not understanding what its role in the home would be. What intersted me most was the depth of field which I had been wanting to check out for some time. At first the DoF looked fairly large. Then I noticed an effect. One is taught that pictures have an area of complete focus beyond which are areas of out-of-focus objects getting increasingly worse as you move away from the prime focus plane of the lens. In Super Hi-Vision it looked more like this. A broad area was in focus and outside of that objects lost focus as they got further away from this broad band. So far obeying the classic model. However in the centre of the depth of field was the exact point of focus and anything on that plain was super sharp. In fact until you noticeed these objects much of the picture looked fine. It was in noticing these that the rest of the picture now looked poor. So in summary; very impressive resolution. The format is capable of better than the screen I saw the pictures on. There is more detail than appears to be realy useful in casual television watching. This level of resolution without a matching increase of frame rate is rather a waste. The very shallow depth of field which offers perfect focus is, once you notice it, rather distracting. Finally, and this is meant without sarcasm, what is the point? Maybe others can share their perceptions of this new TV standard. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,651
|
A very expensive solution in search of a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,792
|
Quote:
Maybe others can share their perceptions of this new TV standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
As far as I'm aware it's for professional purposes, not domestic.
4k is available domestically in the UK now though expensive. Sony do a 4k PJ but it retails for around £17k. There are 4k displays on the horizon, LG's 84" will be about £15k. I reckon 8k will eventually reach the domestic market in about 10-15yrs. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: South Coast
Posts: 123
|
Quote:
As far as I'm aware it's for professional purposes, not domestic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,792
|
Quote:
Aparently there is a plan to broadcast Super Hi-Vision by 2020 and it has been standardised as a broadcast format I understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: South Coast
Posts: 123
|
Quote:
And what would be the point domestically? - existing HD is already higher resolution than screen sizes and viewing distances require. If they upped the existing bandwidth there would be no advantage at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vault 101, Cheshire
Posts: 10,187
|
Quote:
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
And what would be the point domestically? - existing HD is already higher resolution than screen sizes and viewing distances require. If they upped the existing bandwidth there would be no advantage at all.
I saw 4k the other week, I saw BD upscaled to 4k and some 4k footage, this was on a 100" screen, it was jaw dropping, no way would increased bitrate for 2k compare, the sharpness and colours were remarkable. Distance was not as critical, even outside the distance/screen size formular the PQ was still awesome, it wasn't about picking out all the detail, that came through naturally, it was the clarity that stood out. 8k would be like looking outside from a window, more realistic than 2k can ever be. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,743
|
Quote:
So in summary; very impressive resolution. The format is capable of better than the screen I saw the pictures on. There is more detail than appears to be realy useful in casual television watching. This level of resolution without a matching increase of frame rate is rather a waste. The very shallow depth of field which offers perfect focus is, once you notice it, rather distracting. Finally, and this is meant without sarcasm, what is the point?
Maybe others can share their perceptions of this new TV standard. They need to ramp up the HD frame rates and use faster shutter speeds before I'd have even a 1% interest in anything beyond HD, whatever the screen size. But the depth of field issues can probably be solved as directors and camera operators gain experience. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 7,519
|
SHV UHD-2 ("8k) is the way to go but with a frame rate of probably 300 Hz as a world wide standard.
the date of 2020 for deployments in japan is probably about right - remember that 1990 was eth IBC of HD - and the BBC has covered Wimbledon with HD cameras since 1989 (except 1993) ... so SHV being in homes in 2020 is about right... From broadcasters point of view 4K is not the improvements needed - but it is good -and may be useful for acquisation (as it is now!) ...and how many people are still SD across the world? But let us plan for the next standard in TV - say for roll out in mid 2020s - and this MUST be UHD-2 resolution ... and higher frame rate. this is what FOBTV is about - for all screens! Looking at it whether IBC 2008 when it came live from London - or the recording of Olympics - it has got a reality that is mind blowing .. We all said that we would not accept 42" TVs - but this is often the smallest "living room TV" so is say 60 to 8-0 " that unrealistic .. or we have OLed wallpaper or projector or somethingw e cannot imagine. BAsically what I hope is that FOBTV will mandate UHD-2 High frame rate .. as the world standard - and may Be even DVB-T2 .(As it is so close t Shannon limit) - Or IP delivery ... and whatever comes after HEVC as the compression ... |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,123
|
the name "hi vision" suggests this is a production standard. as was the original analogue version.
makes sense for broadcasters to have equipment capable of - and build up library of recordings in - this resolution. it would completely replace film stock. so whoever manufactures compatible equipment woud make lots of money ........ |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,792
|
Quote:
For the 42" market there probably is no point, but for the screen sizes that are coming out 70-80" I can, definitely see a point for 8k for the PJ market where screens a simply huge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
Do you really want to view an 80 inch screen from 3-4 feet away? - that's the sort of distance you need to be to see any real difference.
I viewed the 4k footage well outside the recommended distance you apply to 2k displays, there was still plenty of detail, the higher resolution just helps with the depth of the images, sharpness and colour information. I have a 100" screen and would have no need to sit any closer if a 4k image was being shown, it's hard to explain what 4k looks like, but it's not all about sitting closer to get more detail. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,792
|
Quote:
I have a 100" screen and would have no need to sit any closer if a 4k image was being shown, it's hard to explain what 4k looks like, but it's not all about sitting closer to get more detail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
It is if you want to get the full benefit - all you're getting at further away is effectively a lower resolution with a higher bandwidth - which you could do by using more bandwidth on the 1080 transmissions anyway.
Just because the resolution has doubled doesn't mean you have to sit twice as close to benefit from the higher resolution, the majority of cinemas have gone 4k, the seating and screens sizes haven't changed - as I have already said, what stood out for me was the extra clarity/sharpness, depth of field and much better colour. If you have the chance go and demo the product, you will have a better opportunity to do so as it's a Sony product (Sony VPL-VW1000ES 4K SXRD Projector), once you've seen true 4k you will understand what I'm trying to explain. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,792
|
Quote:
I very much doubt throwing more bandwidth at 1080 would give the same experience as viewing 4k at a 2k distance. 4k has double the information of 1080 and is more than evident at 1080 viewing distances. Some of the images I saw had real depth, very 3D like..
Just because the resolution has doubled doesn't mean you have to sit twice as close to benefit from the higher resolution, the majority of cinemas have gone 4k, the seating and screens sizes haven't changed - as I have already said, what stood out for me was the extra clarity/sharpness, depth of field and much better colour. If you have the chance go and demo the product, you will have a better opportunity to do so as it's a Sony product (Sony VPL-VW1000ES 4K SXRD Projector), once you've seen true 4k you will understand what I'm trying to explain. You're also not viewing crippled broadcast bandwidths on it either
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
I'm not saying it's not better, just that it's not anywhere near as much 'better' as you might suppose.
Quote:
You're also not viewing crippled broadcast bandwidths on it either
![]() If I was lucky enough to own one my main source would be Bluray/Sky HD. On a side note, I didn't realise the PS3 was/will be capable of 4k, only on stills though. The PS4 is rumoured to be 4k. Looks like Sony are embracing 4k with their new products which include, TV, PJ, Games console and Video Camera. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: North Devon
Posts: 1,568
|
They're not going to call it PS4 are they? The number 4 is unlucky in Japan. Maybe PS5?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
It is if you want to get the full benefit - all you're getting at further away is effectively a lower resolution with a higher bandwidth - which you could do by using more bandwidth on the 1080 transmissions anyway.
Sony recommend between x1.5 and x3.5 picture height for 4k material, So for my 100" screen the viewing distance could be between 6.19ft - 14.44ft. I use the formular by THX which is 40-degrees (x2.27 picture height), so that gives me a seating distance of 9.34ft, at present I view my 100" screen at a distance of 9.5ft, so that would be well in the recommended viewing distance for 4k. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
They're not going to call it PS4 are they? The number 4 is unlucky in Japan. Maybe PS5?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,792
|
Quote:
Sony recommend between x1.5 and x3.5 picture height for 4k material, So for my 100" screen the viewing distance could be between 6.19ft - 14.44ft.
![]() The largest distance is well past the minimum distance for SD viewing, so you're not going to see much HD detail from way back there. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
Even the closest of those is pretty well too far away to tell any real difference between HD Ready and Full HD, never mind 4K
![]() The largest distance is well past the minimum distance for SD viewing, so you're not going to see much HD detail from way back there. Your recommendations are x2.5 (diagonal) for SD and x2 (diagonal) for HD. So for my 100" screen my seating distance would be 16ft for HD, so how can the closest distance of 6.19ft be to far away for HD. The furthest distance is still closer than your recommendation x2 the diagonal width. SMPTE recommends 30-degrees, (x3.33 PH) which so happens to be the max distance where you are still able to resolve all the detail on 1080. So for my 100" display which has a picture height of 49.5" that equates to a seating distance of 13.74ft. Using your formular I would lose detail as it would be outside the recommended distance. My viewing distance atm is 9.5ft, so when 4k reaches my screen I can't see any technical reason why I would need to sit twice as close going by SMPTE or THX recommendations. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,792
|
Quote:
You do realise the formular was x picture height not diagonal screen size and it was for a 100" screen?
![]() Quote:
SMPTE recommends 30-degrees, (x3.33 PH) which so happens to be the max distance where you are still able to resolve all the detail on 1080. So for my 100" display which has a picture height of 49.5" that equates to a seating distance of 13.74ft. Using your formular I would lose detail as it would be outside the recommended distance. Can you read the finest detail at that distance? - can you read finer detail if you move closer?, I would suggest the majority of people can see finer detail in 1080 when closer than that far away. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
Yes I did - I ignored the height values - but I also had a senior moment ad ignored the 100" screen and substituted a 50"
![]() ![]() Quote:
13.74 is more than 1.5 times screen size - I would suggest you probably CAN'T see 1080 detail at that distance, but it would be fine for HD Ready. Can you read the finest detail at that distance? - can you read finer detail if you move closer?, I would suggest the majority of people can see finer detail in 1080 when closer than that far away. I have 20/20 vision and would say I'd have no problem resolving the detail from that distance, for those that can't would need to sit closer, but surely this is down to the individuales eyesight not the technology? |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:07.



