Why 4K TVs are stupid | Hacker News Reader

Why 4K TVs are stupid

reviews.cnet.com

19 pointstaytus57 comments

I currently have a 37" Westinghouse 1080p screen that I bought in 2008 or so. The TV industry would like to tell me what is wrong with this screen, and for some things they have it right, and some things have it wrong.

What I actually want changed:

- Significantly deeper darks and better contrast. Playing a dark game or movie is frustrating compared to my Dell u2311 monitor. I really want an OLED display (I think) to fix this once and for all. A black screen should not light the room with backlight leakage. THIS IS NUMBER 1. Everything else is secondary.

- Less TV-included blur. This TV came out before the 120/240hz ones, so perhaps that fixes it. In a fast action movie, I want the blur to come from the 24fps film, not from my TV's poor drawing of the pixels on the screen.

- I'd like slightly bigger. I bought this to pimp out my 180sq/ft studio apartment. Now my living room alone is 2x that size will a properly setup 5.1 surround system and plenty of room. I could dig 60" or so.

- More HDMI inputs. This screen has one. Yet I have about 6 HDMI devices that I'd like to use. Currently, I'm manually swapping this.

- Optical audio output. Kinda a weird one, but I've got a 5.1 receiver that doesn't handle HDMI. Otherwise, its fine. I'd like to run HDMI to the TV and have the TV output optical audio 5.1 for the receiver.

That's it. I don't need 3d. In two years, I still won't want 3d. It isn't a feature to me! I don't need built in Netflix. I don't need an internet connected TV. I don't need 4K. The main thing above that's actually not shipped AFAIK is OLED. That's it. Just finally ship OLED screens at a decent price!

FWIW, you can pick up HDMI switchers quite cheaply. If you want to spring for it, remote-operated ones run a bit more expensive ($40 maybe) - but it could be worth it...

Yea, I should just grab one of those. I had one, but it was terrible. It would cause my Xbox 360 to reset and need the HDMI plugged in and out again whenever it switched. Very odd, but I found other people who had the same problem with this cheap one.

Might I point you in the direction of a plasma?

Takes care of most of your gripes (I'd have to check on the inputs and optical out), and they're cheaper. Burn-in issues are not a problem anymore, and the newer models work pretty well in well-lit rooms.

- Contrast ratios are off the charts for deep blacks.

- 600Hz refresh rates

- Sizes over 60"

Hmm, that just might be what I'm looking for. I haven't really entertained a plasma since they initially launched and at the time weren't all that amazing.

Most TV's don't have 6 HDMI ports so your probably better off buying a 13$ buys a 5 port HDMI switch with remote now and using it on a new TV. EX: http://www.amazon.com/HDMI-Switch-Switcher-Remote-Support/dp...

PS: Going past 5 ports they start to get pricey.

It's a lot cleaner to run a single HDMI to the Tv, and do your multi device wiring and switching at your receiver. Given the comparative costs and your desired features, go for a Tv that's basically a monitor (so your money goes for image quality not buzzwords), and then a receiver with the source switching, sound processing, etc. Get last year's receiver for half off on Amazon for example, it will cost less than the difference in price for trying to get all your feature requests in the TV.

He uses the metric "if you can't see the individual pixels, then a higher resolution won't help", which is absolute and complete bunk. Improvements are noticeable well before then. Try this experiment: take an iPad 1 and put it far enough away from you so that you can no longer see the individual pixels. For me that's an outstretched arm. Now compare to a retina iPad. The difference is huge even though I can't "see" the individual pixels.

That being said, 4K isn't going to do much good with the typical 40 or 50 inch screen. Reports are that 80" is where the improvements really start to become real, though. Not surprising: at 80", the pixels on a 4K screen are about the same size as the pixels on a 40" 1080p screen. That's assuming that you don't sit further back. And you shouldn't.

There are reasons that IMAX is a much better experience than a typical theatre, and a reason why the large screen at the theatre is a better experience than the one you have at home.

- immersion, that feeling of being inside the movie yourself.

- peripheral vision. Movies properly framed for IMAX are zoomed further out than a typical movie. Your eyes are focused on the center of the screen, and the edges are only visible with your peripheral vision.

So yes, to really get the benefit of 4K you need to view Imax or similar content on it, sitting up close to a big screen. There isn't much of it, but perhaps there will be more in the future.

The difference is huge even though I can't "see" the individual pixels.

Take a lesson from the audio compression people: If you're not doing a blinded comparison, then you will fool yourself when doing this kind of comparison.

It really depends on your definition of "seeing the pixels". There is definitely a difference between the iPad screens however I wouldn't necessarily say that I can "see the pixels" on the original one. It's more that text and images aren't as clear due to a lower pixel density.

I agree. I never had a problem with my 3S screen until I had my 4S and turned on the 3S a few months later... looks terrible.

Once again, the 3S screen is lower resolution than your visual acuity at normal viewing distance, so the 4S is a clear upgrade. The linked article is talking about the pointlessness of upgrading to a higher resolution when the screen in question is already higher resolution than your eyeball is capable of resolving.

I was thinking something similar. My 13" MacBook Air has a decent screen for my purposes,.but I noticed the retina display on the new 15" MacBook Pro is much sharper. I can definitely tell a difference, which may or Kay not be the pixel count.

The resolution on a MacBook Air is low enough that you can resolve the individual pixels at your normal viewing distance.

The difference here is that a 720P TV already has pixels smaller than the resolving power of your eyeball at normal living room viewing distances; 1080P even more so. Going to 4K is completely pointless unless you're viewing the screen from sufficiently close up that it makes a difference.

People doing film editing want these kind of displays because they are going to be putting the data in front of viewers who will be close enough to resolve features at that kind of resolution. But that's because they're going to be putting the data in front of the viewing audience at their local multiplex, not in their living rooms.

Remember to occasionally give your older screen a good cleaning. New displays always look clearer due to a lack of dust and skin oils diffracting and fuzzing the light.

If you cannot differentiate the smallest visible unit of the screen, the pixels, then what do you actually differentiate? Surely nothing related to screen resolution/density.

I think there needs to be some clarification as to what "seeing the pixels" means. If you lean in close enough you can actually see the individual RGB components. Further back and you can see the separation between pixels still. Even further back and you can make out the difference between something that's aliased and anti-aliased.

When someone says you can "see the pixels" I think of the second level there, where you can see gaps between the individual pixels. However upping the resolution can help decrease the jagginess in things like non-anti-aliased text.

This is not about being able to see the gaps between the pixels. Anti-aliased vs not anti-aliased I'll grant you, because the whole point of anti-aliasing is to approximate what the eye would see if it really was averaging a real image over the solid angle taken up by each individual pixel.

On my iPhone4, even though it's a 'retina' display, I can still notice the stair-stepping in movement. Still photos look great, but from a video perspective, 'retina' isn't necessarily an accurate descriptor. This is less true of full-motion video than it is of scrolling in an application. As thrilled as I am about pixel density on modern portable devices, it will benefit them to go higher still. The returns are diminishing, but they are there.

Does the iPhone still drop the texture resolution when it's scrolling? (I haven't looked closely at anything recent.)

This article seems to assume that in order for resolution to have an effect on perceived picture quality, you need to be able to discern individual pixels in the image and I haven't been convinced this is the case. Couldn't the image just "look sharper" without the viewer being able to pinpoint the extra pixels? Anecdotally, I can instantly tell the difference between broadcast 720p and a 1080p Bluray on my 50" from 13 feet away, but that might also be due to compression/encoding/etc.

Also, I'm not convinced that in the future we won't commonly have 60"+ screens in our homes. If you could afford it, why not have a true home theater? The bigger issue with 4K for the moment is getting actual 4K content.

"Couldn't the image just 'look sharper' without the viewer being able to pinpoint the extra pixels?"

Yes. The movie Baraka was shot in 8K. When they released the remastered DVD it looks much better for having been shot in 8K first, even though the end product was only at DVD resolution. It's not just a matter of how many pixels you can see, the very fact that there are more pixels in the raw footage means the colors will be more vibrant and accurate is the final product. If nothing else the existence of 4K TVs will cause directors to shoot in 4K, which will make the end product better regardless of how many pixels you can actually see.

Also, if you haven't seen Baraka I'd highly recommend it. It's widely considered the best DVD of all time in terms of picture quality, and it's also the one movie that Roger Ebert says we should show aliens to explain the human race.

"So if your eye can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on nearly all modern televisions, what's the need for 4K?"

sums it up. and, I sort of agree too, although I generally believe it's because of the capture camera and the compression software. When I look at videos recorded by 4K cameras but at 1080p, it does look better than 720p. When I look at 1080p videos recorded by 1080p cameras, I rarely see a difference with the 720p version.

Now for the screen size, it depends on the room size, but, when I go to my friend with a 100 inches projector (as in its the final picture size on the wall), that's definitely appreciable :p

Also, 1080p stream already makes me hit stupid ISP data caps, 4K, well, uhm, not sure I've got the bandwidth anyway :)

So if your eye can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on nearly all modern televisions, what's the need for 4K?

that's the quote that made me stop reading the rest of the article: I can clearly spot the difference between 720p and 1080p content on my 50" "modern television", sitting on my couch 1.5m away.

You're sitting close enough to a large screen that you can benefit from 1080p. Indeed, at that distance, I think you might just be able to get some benefit from 4k.

Most people do not sit 1.5m from a 50" screen however.

(I'm assuming that the calculations in this blog post: http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/ are correct.)

note that there is also pretty bad 720p content sometimes, but in general i can't make the diff between good 720p and good 1080p content, even at 1.5m from the tv (ive a recent 60 inches tv) (or even at 5cm away for that matter, since anyway i start seeing the physical pixels on 60 inches at around 1 meter)

By good 720p content, i generally mean 1080p content reencoded by x264 in high profile mode or the like (so, it could still be better, but its pretty good)

Generally i watch at 4m

I very much disagree with the article. I've seen several 4K TVs, and the picture is amazing. From a typical viewing distance, you can easily see the added resolution, compared to 1080p.

I would go ever further, and say that 4K is still not yet good enough. It looks great, but still not like reality. My guess is that this would need somewhere between 8K and 16K. Contrast and framerates could also be higher.

Sources: my own experience with 4K TVs at IBC 2007 and a recent trip to Japan.

> I would go ever further, and say that 4K is still not yet good enough. It looks great, but still not like reality.

Are you sure it doesn't look like reality because of a lack of resolution? The "different from reality" that most people are more likely to notice is the lower contrast, lower dynamic range, restricted color gamut, lack of color accuracy and possibly the lower frame rate.

Oh both are needed to improve. But I can discern the issues, and the resolution is not yet good enough, imho.

You know, you can get increased contrast in several ways. Switching to plasma (or some other high contrast tech) is one, adding more pixels is another one.

I guess the plasma switch is easier in the short run, but in the long run you still need the additional resolution.

Cynic people might say that the reason 4K gets promoted now is that the studios want to sell their movies all over again :-)

This article could have been summed up with a chart that has been around for quite some time:

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

As many people have mentioned, total resolve of pixels is not tantamount to proving value of the new medium. It grants flexibility for viewing distances and newer TVs will continue to have better contrast levels, viewing angles, etc.

When I read these I wonder what gripe the author has with the industry. If 4K is 'stupid' as he claims not enough people will buy it and folks will stop making them. But of course public sentiment is rarely well nuanced, by this logic plasma screens are 'stupid' too. My own personal experience is that the 1080p 'blu-ray' experience is better than the 720p DVD experience [1]. Now there are a bunch of changed variables there from decoding of content to display to television implementations to screen technology. So really its not like I could pin it on just the change in pixels.

I expect that the collection of things, media, player, and display, in a 4K world will seem better than a 1080p world, and of course big displays will eventually be very common (I really do think that at some point entire walls of video capable display might be the norm with a controller that can segment off parts to various displays)

[1] And I tried to watch an extended play VHS cassette the other day and found I just couldn't stand watching it. That was unexpected, I knew it would be bad but wow.

1080p 'blu-ray' experience is better than the 720p DVD experience

1080p blu-ray is much higher bitrate than DVD. At least some of that difference is in the compression ratios rather than the resolution of the output frames. Also, DVD is 576i or 480i, with frame-pullup to 576p or 480p for 24fps movies, so it's probably not too surprising that you can tell the difference given the combination of the two!

The only reason I want 4K to be adopted is to fight the backward slide of monitor/laptop resolution. Couldn't care less for TV.

Agreed. Sometimes I wonder whether it's a "no-one needs more than 640KB" statement to say that I can't imagine needing a TV bigger than the one I have now. I forget how big it is, but it's 40-something inches, and feels like a good fit for the size of my living room. Am I ever going to need one that spans an entire wall? It just seems impractical. I do notice problems with the 1080p display of my TV, but that's compression artifacts from cable TV, not the resolution.

There's a law of diminishing returns with this stuff. "Double retina" would be considerably less interesting than retina displays were when they first came out, because the difference would be so much less perceptible.

What happens when wall sized "tvs" are high res touchscreens that can be used for multitasking?

To not make it sound too far fetched, what about your non touchscreen tv be wall sized. One end, you run one show and listen in using one bluetooth headset, another end your wife/roomie tunes in to another show with their own headset.

A third part of the screen's got kids playing video games, and a fourth has weather and news scrolling by.

When it's time to party, the 'wall' lights up with psychedelic colors and wavy patterns. When it's time to chill, it just glows with some subdued colors.

Press one button and it shows you a status of all your electrical appliances in the house on one part of the screen, the heat, the washing machine status, the ice level in the fridge..

It's not that hard to imagine more interesting uses of technology.

One end, you run one show and listen in using one bluetooth headset, another end your wife/roomie tunes in to another show with their own headset.

I can't see how that's better than what people do now- watch in different rooms. I really dislike the idea of having to wear a bluetooth headset in order to passively watch TV, and everyone having headsets strapped on seems to ruin the point of everyone being in one room.

All IMO, of course.

That's just an example. With directional sound, you can have your sound zones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_sound

And that's just one use. There are tons of things that can be done with a wall sized "tv."

I think it's naive to asume we know how displays will be used in the future. Consider parallax barrier displays[0], an option for the navigation system in Range Rovers since 2010 so that the driver can see the moving map whilst the passenger can watch a movie. Two images on one display, also mentioned in the author's brief discussion of 3D television, would certainly benefit from higher resolution.

Perhaps displays of the future will allow for parallax perspective as you move around the display. Perhaps that'll be the first application of 8k television[1].

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_barrier [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-definition_televisio...

I'm not sure it works that way. Just because you can't see pixels individually doesn't mean the overall picture quality won't appear better. I'm too lazy to do the math, but I'm guessing on a 25" screen, by his math, I wouldn't be able to see an individual 480p pixel, but I'd still take the Pepsi challenge between that and 720p.

And sure, a high contrast 720p screen might look better than a mediocre 1080p, but that's not a fair comparison. It doesn't mean that given equal quality, higher resolution isn't better.

The real reason not to buy a 4k TV is that content is non-existent and probably will be for a few more years at least.

Old content is also unlikely to end up being re-encoded to a size above 1080p. Old TV-shows are already having problems getting to 720p, and shows like star trek has to re-render things to get up to 1080, and shows like babylon 5 has yet to make it to the 720p mark.

Actually while this may be right for some very old or very cheap content, movies tend to be stored on much higher resolution material - Either way if 4k is not a problem, 8k will be, so it remains an increasingly important concern.

In a world of capped data consumption, how would companies deliver 4k content over data networks?

Google Fiber?

One way would be to make a deal with the bandwidth provider to not count the content against any cap.

I'd always imagined that if Apple ever gets into the TV business, they'd follow the model they've used with the iPhone and allow the "carriers" like Comcast and Time Warner to sell their customers fat margin "smart TV" plans. At that point, you can treat any content Apple streams the same way Comcast treats their own video-on-demand: unmetered.

I don't like the idea, because it goes against net neutrality of course.

It's not, deal with X, customer don't pay for data! nope.

It's deal with X, customer pay extra, and he's:

1/ forced to pay extra for the 4K content in that case, else data cap explodes and that'd cost even more

2/ his choice is limited to partners

This is a worthless argument. It basicly implies that we should NEVER increase the pixel density of TV screens for home use since 50-60" will probably remain as the mainstream market size. Yes there will be a difference. We have all these anti aliasing technologies because we want everything to look as smooth as possible. In the same logic, however fine images look in FHD, it can always be finer. Perception of moving images are not my field of study, but I could pose a very logical reason why higher resolutions are required. Consider a simple frame within a chronological video, at any given resolution. From one frame to another, there will be a refresh rate limit because you cant not change your image by half a pixel. At a higher resolution this refresh rate limit will be raised proportionally to the resolution increase.

"When I reviewed JVC's DLA-X90R, I sure didn't see an increase in resolution. Admittedly, this is far from conclusive, as there's no native 4K content readily available"

There are several 4k downloads from people using 4k cameras (RED for example) and youtube (yes, there is a 4k macbreak weekly). They look stunning in person and the 4k screens screens already in production show an amazing difference from 1080p.

That said, the weak link is Cable TV bandwidth. They cannot even supply a good HD signal compared to broadcast. To see for yourself, watch the same sporting event on cable and over-the-air. The difference is amazing.

I wonder if you could argue some variant of the nyquist theorem justifies resolution significantly beyond our ability to discern pixels? (Just a random thought, as I know little about visual perception.)

Here is some basic test: http://i.imgur.com/TqRcx.png

View the image in 100% zoom. One line is dotted with dots one pixel apart. The other line is a straight with no gaps. If you can tell which one is which, your retina is able to pick up the maximum visual frequency displayed by your device.

but what about with color and motion? I know the TV sees pixels as discrete, but if the encoding of the content is 4:2:2, 4:1:1, or 4:2:0 higher resolution might be noticeable. Of course improving the color sampling would be a better solution.

Youtube has a small playlist of 4k videos.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=5BF9E09ECEC8F88F

The fact we (consumers) don't need them won't stop us from buying them. It's manufacturers' decision, not ours.

Similar to the trend in computer and laptop monitors to move away from 4:3, I guess.

At least such TVs might stand a chance of reversing the unfortunate trend seen in computer monitor resolutions.

My Oculus Rift 3 is going to have a 4k resolution, so I hope my TV content does as well.

The bottleneck isn't TV resolution, it's recording resolution. Ever since HD displays became the norm video capture has been lagging behind.

Yet another article written with total disregard for science.

Short article covering the usual bullshit about resolution and why apple retina is wrong, etc. http://wordmunger.com/?p=1348

For those who didn't know, the eye can see over 10k pixels in an angle of a single degree (the fovea, right where we aim with our guns or bows, of course).

That means that in order for content and displays to provide you with the precision that real life offers, one should maybe consider a 40K TV instead.

In reality, the brain does a lot to interpolate and most humans aren't trained to make good use of their view anymore (how many of you are sharpshooters or combat pilots mhh?) and thus may not notice a difference at some times, especially when tired or in bad lighting conditions.

As I detailed in another comment somewhere, color accuracy is more important (IPS,OLED,..) than resolution because the brain cannot interpolate colors (quite logical indeed, how would you code that ? say that FFFFFF is more FFFA FFFA FFFC than FFFB FFFB FFFB ? good luck with writing anything else than random interpolation) and that means that focus on 4k TV should be secondary to focus on accurate sRGB TVs.

It doesn't mean, however that 4K or 40K is useless.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com