SD, HD1080p, 4k and 8k resolution comparisons. (2 Viewers)

This thread is a reply to:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...23#post2851123

but took on a life of its own =). the topic of discussion is will consumers (avg. joe) know the PQ between the various resolutions? the answer to this will determine the sales/results of th war between HD-DVD&BR&SD-DVD. it's not only 2-sided. it's 3-sided.

i took the 1080p (816p actual) mi3 trailers from quicktime.com and made a screen cap. here's the original:
http://www.domosmyrrou.com/temp/mi816p.jpg

assuming that this is a ratio of 7680x4320, i used photoshop to downres from the 816p file and produced the following:
http://www.domosmyrrou.com/temp/mi408p.jpg
http://www.domosmyrrou.com/temp/mi204p.jpg
http://www.domosmyrrou.com/temp/mi82p.jpg

assume that these 4 different resolution sizes are the SD, 2k HD, 4k HD and 8k UD masters. these 4 files are the "baseline" for comparisons.

but nils already did that in the above thread. what i wanted to find out is how the resolutions look in relation to one another when you view it on the same sized display/screen. therefore, i upscaled the lower resolutions (equivalent of their various mediums) to highest definition and compared it all. let's assume that this is being projected on a 108' diagonal IMAX screen (where this is the most difference):
http://www.domosmyrrou.com/temp/mi408pup.jpg
http://www.domosmyrrou.com/temp/mi204pup.jpg
http://www.domosmyrrou.com/temp/mi82pup.jpg

now, let's scale that baby down to 10' diagonal (home resolution). the original 816p's diagonal pixel is 2086 (approximately). so 2086/10=208.6. a home projector would be about 10x less than an IMAX projection. i took each of the 4 different "masters" and downresed it to the home projector equivalent:
http://www.domosmyrrou.com/temp/mi816pdown.jpg
http://www.domosmyrrou.com/temp/mi408pdown.jpg
http://www.domosmyrrou.com/temp/mi204pdown.jpg

before you jump on how you can't see anything (this is all to a consistent scale), let's compare it to a regular cinemas' size (so you can see the diff). a cinema's screen size is about half the diagonal size of IMAX. i took the 4 "masters" and scaled it to that size, so here it is:
http://www.domosmyrrou.com/temp/mi816pmid.jpg
http://www.domosmyrrou.com/temp/mi204pmid.jpg
http://www.domosmyrrou.com/temp/mi82pmid.jpg

Is it 1997 again and no one told me? "Feh... DVD? LD is plenty good enough. That crap will never succeed".

If you're happy with the status quo, by all means stick with it. No need to try to convince those who embrace the latest technology. To my eyes, HD is a quantum leap over DVD. Perhaps I've grown too critical thanks to reading forums such as this, but these days I can hardly watch a DVD all the way through without spotting every instance of EE, mosquito noise, dot crawl, and color banding. I want the improvements HD offers. If you want to call it "marginal", knock yourself out.

Last week, I had the option of seeing 1080p and 4k content on the same screen. 1080p was shot with Sony HD equipment; the 4k material was scanned from 65mm elements from the film Baraka. Both were projected with Sony's 10,000 lumen Cinealta 4k projector.

On that screen (about 18 x 10 feet) there was a rather prominant difference between 1080p and 4k. Part of it, I grant, may have been in the signal processing and computer generated graphics that were applied to the 1080p programming (most notably, some edge enhancement! Yech!)

The comparison between the 4k and the 8k (see my thread on the UHDTV in HD HARDWARE) was less prominant, but much harder to judge accurately: the two theater spaces were in seperate buildings, at opposite ends of said buildings from eachother (For those familiar with the Las Vegas Convention Center, the UHDTV was at the east end of the Central Hall; the Sony pavilion was at the west end of the South hall, upper level.) Also, the screen sizes were considerably different, and the UHDTV people let you get much closer to the screen than did Sony.

At the other end of the spectrum, Panasonic had some of their new 65" 1080p plasmas right next to their 103" 1080p plasma. Unfortunately, they weren't running the same program material. But while the 103" had a tremendous "immersive" potential, I thought the picture of the 65" was vastly superior - it was almost as if each panel had the same size pixel - but the 103" had the pixels further apart. Fill factor.

Now, I will also grant that your demo files (all rescaled to the same destination size again,) are interesting. But while the difference between MI408 and MI204 isn't as "big" as the difference between MI204 and MI82, it isn't subtle, either - and that's just on my 20" CRT (pc) monitor.

I would speculate that, yes, for the average Joe 6-Pack with a 30" display, there isn't a tremendous advantage for going beyond 1080p. Depending upon the display, there may be no real advantage for going beyond SD. But there are some of us who know that in a few years, the idea of a 4k projector in the home isn't completely outlandish, and frankly, if it's available, I'd rather have more resolution in my display chain than I can see (starting with the source material going all the way through the signal chain.)

Side note: if I've wandered all around and it's not clear where I'm going, please understand that I'm moderately drugged for an unpleasant sinus infection, and while I may have thought I had a point, I may have imagined that, too.

Leo Kerr

Amen, brother.

YiFeng, check out this site, which offers comparisons between the HDTV and DVD versions of The Fellowship of the Ring. You can see comparisons at DVD resolution and at HD res. Frankly, I think the differences are clear, even at DVD resolution. The HD image is not only more detailed, but free of artifacts, as well.

It's not just about the resolution differences. The lack of the typical MPEG2 artifacts count for a lot, too.

Weird, I don't read YiFeng's post as negativity towards new technology. I can't argue with this statement:
I have a Dell 2001FP LCD monitor, I opened up all three re-scaled images, and scrolled from 480 to 960 to 1920. The difference between the 480 to 960 image was "oh my goodness!!!". The difference from 960 to 1920 was indeed there, but nothing like the first jump. The first jump was like going from 20/100 vision to 20/40. The second jump was going to 20/20.

That's not going to stop me from getting an HD/BR player in the future, but I don't think his statement is inaccurate, given how he couched that statement earlier in his post.

For me, it's that last quality increase that makes all the difference in the world. The jump from 240 to 480 is initially more striking, but the jump from 480 to 1080 is the equivalent of replacing a level-5 JPEG image with a level-10 one. That added clarity is the difference between being aware I'm watching filtered video and watching film.

it's been revised =). carlo.

Your latest additions are meaningless, as they don't take viewing distance into consideration.

Whether projected on a 30-foot multiplex screen or an 8-foot home theater screen, the amount of pixels would be the same, and the viewing angle would be, too.

There is zero advantage. He can't even resolve 1080p fully with his display.

i havent seen 1 hd dvd yet.
i do know that what i see on sd dvd latley has been very disapointing.

while there arre great pq like robots there are far too many that are less the what the medium has the ability to offer.

Those HD LOTR shots look rather nice. I just recently watched the EE and while looking pretty good, it's kind of soft. Those HD screenies look really smooth and detailed. Can't wait to one day own hi-def versions of those films.

what do you mean? there are 1080p displays 24", 30" models exist =).

I dunno,

Assuming that eventually technology reaches a point where projectors and full wall screens are at a price point that J6P can afford, I can see an arguement for > 1080p for everyone.

I can also see that happening for the most part, outside of bandwidth issues for broadcast, I think J6P would be into projector products. The bigger the screen the bigger the....

That alone does not mean full resolution. You need panels that resolve all 8 bits fully and have low enough reaction time to add no smearing. The video processing in the display needs to be top notch (it hardly ever is). In addition with small panels you need to sit very close to actually see all detail. Closer than people are used to sit. There exists a studio reference quality LCD monitor but it's not a consumer product and it costs a lot.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/P...ctlisting.aspx

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/P...ctlisting.aspx

^reference grade, good response time (good enough even for gaming), is a consumer product and doesn't cost waaay too much.

8-bit is irrelevent for so small a size. the video processing is left to the source feeding the signal.

then there's the westinghouse 1080p displays.

That 8 bit is irrelevant should tell you how 'full res' this is.

Yes, but by definition J6P doesn't own them.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messagev...&enterthread=y
^2405 is 6-bit, but 2407 should be 8-bit. 3007 is definitely 8-bit. and FYI, the 3007 is MORE than 'full' res. it's close to 4k (2536x1600).

This is a pretty good example of the dramatic difference between SD and HD. Here are two screencaps from the H.264-encoded trailer for The Chronicles of Narnia, one from the 480p version and one from the 1080p one. The 480p cap was scaled up to 1920x817 via Lanczos:


Upconverted 480p


Native 1080p

The extra clarity and smoothness is jaw-dropping, to my eyes.

Looks great!