6 ms·

This might be useful in illustrating your point: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

by rorski 12y ago

ars 12y ago
Am I the only one who watches stuff on his computer, and sits about 2-3 feet from it?
- michaelgrafl 12y ago
  What screen size are you on? 27 inches? Can you make out individual pixels with film material (which usually has no sharp edges in it)?
  - richforrester 12y ago
    Not arguing against what you are saying, but there's a significant difference between "making out individual pixels" and "noticing a difference".
    - michaelgrafl 12y ago
      That's true.
- kapitalx 12y ago
  I watch most things on my 13" mbp w/retina. and my eyes are typically 1-2 feet away from the screen. Very immersive experience IMHO.
michaelgrafl 12y ago
This illustrates the point of dimishing returns with regards to ever higher amount of total pixels on a screen. Doesn't mentions compression artifacts, though. Thus - at the same bitrate - higher resolution images might look worse than lower resolution ones. Which is what I think the OP meant to highlight.
- pvidler 12y ago
  > Thus - at the same bitrate - higher resolution images might look worse than lower resolution ones. But the 4K stream is HEVC (H.265) vs H.264 for the other HD streams, so it may not be that simple.
  - garblegarble 12y ago
    Well, HEVC compresses the same quality to about half the size of H.264, so since 4K is about 4x 1080p and the bitrate is a little over 2x their 1080p Super HD streams I'd expect the quality to be a little better. What I'd really be interested to see is the House of Cards intro at this bitrate - the 1080p Super HD stream had a lot of really off-putting banding in the clouds.
    - kristofferR 12y ago
      > HEVC compresses the same quality to about half the size of H.264 Eh, it's supposed to, but it's not there yet. The best H.264 encoder (x264) is actually still more efficient than the best H.265 encoders (and MUCH faster). Development of the H265 encoders is progressing fast though, x265 will likely surpass x264 within the year. Here's some recent samples (12th June) that compares a very recent build of x265 with x264: http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1683608&postcount=907 http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1683608&postcount=907
lloeki 12y ago
Alternatively, http://isthisretina.com http://isthisretina.com offers a simple way to input whatever value you need. Not that the computation is complex, but it's quite handy.
VeejayRampay 12y ago
That imperial system.
Retric 12y ago
That's total BS, you can notice alising patterns easily at much higher resolutions than your suggesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing PS: I noticed issues standing ~10 feet from a 50' 4k screen.

This might be useful in illustrating your point: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

by rorski 12y ago

This might be useful in illustrating your point: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

ars 12y ago

Am I the only one who watches stuff on his computer, and sits about 2-3 feet from it?

michaelgrafl 12y ago
What screen size are you on? 27 inches? Can you make out individual pixels with film material (which usually has no sharp edges in it)?
- richforrester 12y ago
  Not arguing against what you are saying, but there's a significant difference between "making out individual pixels" and "noticing a difference".
  - michaelgrafl 12y ago
    That's true.
kapitalx 12y ago
I watch most things on my 13" mbp w/retina. and my eyes are typically 1-2 feet away from the screen. Very immersive experience IMHO.

michaelgrafl 12y ago

This illustrates the point of dimishing returns with regards to ever higher amount of total pixels on a screen. Doesn't mentions compression artifacts, though. Thus - at the same bitrate - higher resolution images might look worse than lower resolution ones. Which is what I think the OP meant to highlight.

pvidler 12y ago
> Thus - at the same bitrate - higher resolution images might look worse than lower resolution ones. But the 4K stream is HEVC (H.265) vs H.264 for the other HD streams, so it may not be that simple.
- garblegarble 12y ago
  Well, HEVC compresses the same quality to about half the size of H.264, so since 4K is about 4x 1080p and the bitrate is a little over 2x their 1080p Super HD streams I'd expect the quality to be a little better. What I'd really be interested to see is the House of Cards intro at this bitrate - the 1080p Super HD stream had a lot of really off-putting banding in the clouds.
  - kristofferR 12y ago
    > HEVC compresses the same quality to about half the size of H.264 Eh, it's supposed to, but it's not there yet. The best H.264 encoder (x264) is actually still more efficient than the best H.265 encoders (and MUCH faster). Development of the H265 encoders is progressing fast though, x265 will likely surpass x264 within the year. Here's some recent samples (12th June) that compares a very recent build of x265 with x264: http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1683608&postcount=907 http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1683608&postcount=907

lloeki 12y ago

Alternatively, http://isthisretina.com http://isthisretina.com offers a simple way to input whatever value you need. Not that the computation is complex, but it's quite handy.

VeejayRampay 12y ago

That imperial system.

Retric 12y ago

That's total BS, you can notice alising patterns easily at much higher resolutions than your suggesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing PS: I noticed issues standing ~10 feet from a 50' 4k screen.