4 ms·

> Especially since I and many others can verify this in 10 seconds. Try it with a high resolution video you've transcoded locally (so you're not dealing with s

by Syonyk 6y ago

> Especially since I and many others can verify this in 10 seconds. Try it with a high resolution video you've transcoded locally (so you're not dealing with streaming quality differences) at various resolutions. The human visual system is a lot less precise with video than it is with still images. A paused DVD frame often looks like a blocky, terrible mess, but it's perfectly fine when displayed as video. I won't argue that if you pick your content carefully, and know exactly what to look for, you can tell the difference. But, practically speaking, most people watching a decently encoded video won't see a huge difference from 1080p to 4k at typical screen sizes and viewing distances, and will see even less difference going to 8k. I honestly can't tell you if I'm watching 720p or 1080p content on our TV without looking at the source file info. You're confusing "What can be perceived" with "What actually matters." I'd argue 4k was a bit of a stretch to sell new TVs, and 8k is going to be even more so. We've hit, as someone else said, the 44kHz/16bit point of video. Encoding quality and bitrate matter a bit, just like mastering does with audio, but we're past the point of diminishing returns at this point.

michaelmrose 6y ago
If you can't tell the difference between 34ppi and 65ppi and typical viewing distances your eyes just don't work very well and you just literally don't realize most people see better than you even if they need glasses to do so. We aren't talking about near the limits of human perception we are capable of perceiving 115ppi at a typical 8 ft viewing distance. 8K for a 65" screen is about the limit. 4k is itself about 1/4 the resolution we can perceive and 1080p is 1/16. You are saying that people can't on average distinguish between 1/4 the resolution we can perceive and 1/16th. The link I posted was the informed opinion of an electrical engineer that worked in display tech. If people really can't tell the difference between 4k and 1080p shouldn't there be scientific research by this point to show this? You can't because there isn't. You are like a color blind person exclaiming there is no difference between green and red! There is.
- majewsky 6y ago
  I agree with Syonyk here. And since you bring up quality of vision, I'll note that I do have 20/20 vision because I'm wearing prescription glasses. > You are like a color blind person exclaiming there is no difference between green and red! There is. You're arguing against a complete strawman here. The key point that Syonyk was making is this: > I won't argue that if you pick your content carefully, and know exactly what to look for, you can tell the difference. If you're watching a nature documentary or anything else that puts an emphasis on the visuals, people are going to notice the difference by themselves. But most of the stuff we watch doesn't focus on visuals, it focuses on narrative. If I'm watching a legal drama, I don't really care if I can count the hairs in the lawyer's nostril or not. Again, I'll probably be able to tell apart the 4K version from the 1080p version from the 720p version of the lawyer's face's closeup, but even if I watch just the 720p version, it won't significantly impact my enjoyment of the narrative.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    Although its not one singular person arguing I can't help but feel like the goal posts are pretty mobile here. First goalpost high dpi video is already outside the range of human perception. > I think we're hitting the point with video resolution that music CDs hit with audio, where improvements in fidelity are largely outside the range of human perception. Second goalpost ok its not but its really close > I won't argue that if you pick your content carefully, and know exactly what to look for, you can tell the difference. But, practically speaking, most people watching a decently encoded video won't see a huge difference from 1080p to 4k at typical screen sizes and viewing distances, and will see even less difference going to 8k. Third goal post ok its actually clearly discernible but I mostly care about the story anyway. > But most of the stuff we watch doesn't focus on visuals, it focuses on narrative. If I'm watching a legal drama, I don't really care if I can count the hairs in the lawyer's nostril or not. Believe it or not but some people said the same about HD vs SD towards the beginning. It was complete bullshit then too. I too enjoy the story and psychological drama but its not books on tape. Film and TV are a visual medium wherein being able to see the world more clearly adds to the experience.
    - Talanes 6y ago
- Syonyk 6y ago
  ... wait, what? 8 foot viewing distance with a 65" screen? Ok, we have very, very different definitions of "typical" here. You're using a 50% larger TV from half the distance. I just measured our living room. We have a 43" (4k) TV at about 16' viewing distance. Just about every chart I can find on TV resolution vs viewing distance (assuming 20/20 vision) indicates that I'm in the "720p is fine" region, on the border of "You really won't notice a difference from 480p." Which is consistent with my experience. I can see the difference between 720/1080/4k if I'm right on top of the TV, but once I'm back where I actually watch from, anything I notice is more a factor of bitrate than resolution - I can certainly tell the difference between a low bitrate MPEG2 source and a high bitrate h.264 source, but that has nothing to do with the resolution. I don't really have the motivation tonight to pull out my trig tables (I'm about to watch a movie instead, of what resolution I honestly don't know), but... at least for my case, yes, I'm saying I can't tell the difference. And it's entirely possible my glasses need updating (quite likely, honestly), but the "TV size vs distance" charts I've found say nothing of what you're claiming either. And they're by people trying to sell TVs!
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    Samsung says suggested diagonal size = viewing distance /2. So at 16 ft 96". To get a more precise fix you can break out a calculator or use this one based on THX recommended viewing angle. https://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html https://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculato... It suggests that your tiny tv ought to be optimally viewed from 4.8 feet away and at 16 feet away you really ought to have a tv greater than 100 inches. Of course most people don't have 100+ inch tvs but they also don't watch tv from 16 feet away unless they are watching a 45-60 FOOT theatre screen. Play with some values in the calculator if you want to see how other people use tvs. People normally sit 8-10 feet from 60-75 inch tvs and use 40 inches for smaller rooms like bedrooms where they are 6 foot away. To be clear about the whole picture you are a fellow with bad vision watching a small tv from nearly 3 times further back as the rest of planet earth. At that distance your tv literally does already exceed average visual acuity and for your usage you are absolutely correct. Meanwhile the rest of us will benefit from up to 8k in the future.

by Syonyk 6y ago

michaelmrose 6y ago

If you can't tell the difference between 34ppi and 65ppi and typical viewing distances your eyes just don't work very well and you just literally don't realize most people see better than you even if they need glasses to do so. We aren't talking about near the limits of human perception we are capable of perceiving 115ppi at a typical 8 ft viewing distance. 8K for a 65" screen is about the limit. 4k is itself about 1/4 the resolution we can perceive and 1080p is 1/16. You are saying that people can't on average distinguish between 1/4 the resolution we can perceive and 1/16th. The link I posted was the informed opinion of an electrical engineer that worked in display tech. If people really can't tell the difference between 4k and 1080p shouldn't there be scientific research by this point to show this? You can't because there isn't. You are like a color blind person exclaiming there is no difference between green and red! There is.

majewsky 6y ago
I agree with Syonyk here. And since you bring up quality of vision, I'll note that I do have 20/20 vision because I'm wearing prescription glasses. > You are like a color blind person exclaiming there is no difference between green and red! There is. You're arguing against a complete strawman here. The key point that Syonyk was making is this: > I won't argue that if you pick your content carefully, and know exactly what to look for, you can tell the difference. If you're watching a nature documentary or anything else that puts an emphasis on the visuals, people are going to notice the difference by themselves. But most of the stuff we watch doesn't focus on visuals, it focuses on narrative. If I'm watching a legal drama, I don't really care if I can count the hairs in the lawyer's nostril or not. Again, I'll probably be able to tell apart the 4K version from the 1080p version from the 720p version of the lawyer's face's closeup, but even if I watch just the 720p version, it won't significantly impact my enjoyment of the narrative.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Although its not one singular person arguing I can't help but feel like the goal posts are pretty mobile here. First goalpost high dpi video is already outside the range of human perception. > I think we're hitting the point with video resolution that music CDs hit with audio, where improvements in fidelity are largely outside the range of human perception. Second goalpost ok its not but its really close > I won't argue that if you pick your content carefully, and know exactly what to look for, you can tell the difference. But, practically speaking, most people watching a decently encoded video won't see a huge difference from 1080p to 4k at typical screen sizes and viewing distances, and will see even less difference going to 8k. Third goal post ok its actually clearly discernible but I mostly care about the story anyway. > But most of the stuff we watch doesn't focus on visuals, it focuses on narrative. If I'm watching a legal drama, I don't really care if I can count the hairs in the lawyer's nostril or not. Believe it or not but some people said the same about HD vs SD towards the beginning. It was complete bullshit then too. I too enjoy the story and psychological drama but its not books on tape. Film and TV are a visual medium wherein being able to see the world more clearly adds to the experience.
  - Talanes 6y ago
Syonyk 6y ago
... wait, what? 8 foot viewing distance with a 65" screen? Ok, we have very, very different definitions of "typical" here. You're using a 50% larger TV from half the distance. I just measured our living room. We have a 43" (4k) TV at about 16' viewing distance. Just about every chart I can find on TV resolution vs viewing distance (assuming 20/20 vision) indicates that I'm in the "720p is fine" region, on the border of "You really won't notice a difference from 480p." Which is consistent with my experience. I can see the difference between 720/1080/4k if I'm right on top of the TV, but once I'm back where I actually watch from, anything I notice is more a factor of bitrate than resolution - I can certainly tell the difference between a low bitrate MPEG2 source and a high bitrate h.264 source, but that has nothing to do with the resolution. I don't really have the motivation tonight to pull out my trig tables (I'm about to watch a movie instead, of what resolution I honestly don't know), but... at least for my case, yes, I'm saying I can't tell the difference. And it's entirely possible my glasses need updating (quite likely, honestly), but the "TV size vs distance" charts I've found say nothing of what you're claiming either. And they're by people trying to sell TVs!
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Samsung says suggested diagonal size = viewing distance /2. So at 16 ft 96". To get a more precise fix you can break out a calculator or use this one based on THX recommended viewing angle. https://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html https://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculato... It suggests that your tiny tv ought to be optimally viewed from 4.8 feet away and at 16 feet away you really ought to have a tv greater than 100 inches. Of course most people don't have 100+ inch tvs but they also don't watch tv from 16 feet away unless they are watching a 45-60 FOOT theatre screen. Play with some values in the calculator if you want to see how other people use tvs. People normally sit 8-10 feet from 60-75 inch tvs and use 40 inches for smaller rooms like bedrooms where they are 6 foot away. To be clear about the whole picture you are a fellow with bad vision watching a small tv from nearly 3 times further back as the rest of planet earth. At that distance your tv literally does already exceed average visual acuity and for your usage you are absolutely correct. Meanwhile the rest of us will benefit from up to 8k in the future.