Do we really need yet another high res video standard?

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Rich

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
4,270
Reaction score
146
Location
Huntsville, Alabama
Just saw this announcement about Sony 4K Cinema Media Player: http://www.slashgear.com/sony-fmp-x1-4k-media-player-coming-over-the-summer-07276787/

To quote:

Sony has just announced the pricing and release date for its 55-inch and 65-inch 4K Ultra HD LED TVs, however, to completely take advantage of the TVs’ beautiful displays, you’re going to need a media player capable of playing 4K media.

Seriously? How old is BluRay? Long in the tooth already? Why on earth would we need more resolution than that? I have a 10' diagonal projection screen and sit about 14' or so back from it, and I could not ask for any clearer a picture than I get with BluRay or even HDTV. When watching HD television, I can see the sweat trickling down the faces of the talking heads. Again . . . why on earth would you need more resolution than that for home video? I just don't get it. :confused:

Am I missing something? Or is this just yet another effort by the big media and electronics corporations to try to get us to all upgrade our equipment and all our media to the next hyped-up technology so they can resell the same old movies at vastly inflated prices? Or am I just being cynical (a trait I am not really known for, as many on this forum can attest)?
 
J Or is this just yet another effort by the big media and electronics corporations to try to get us to all upgrade our equipment and all our media

Yep.

Sales must be slowing, so out comes the technology that was developed 10 years ago and has been shelved, waiting for the appropriate time. Waiting for everyone to re-buy everything on something inferior like BluRay first, before they release this one.
 
I used to think that VHS was amazing - especially via the s/video output. Then along came DVD. A vast improvement over VHS. I was a late and reluctant convert to blu-ray. But after watching a blu-ray movie at a friend's home, I bought my first player. I have to agree that I find it hard to imagine it getting better than blu-ray. There's lot more development left in the current format, so any new format is going to have it's work cut out in the market place.
 
I hope the 1st 2 replies here are just sarcastic.

I thought most of us here are audiophiles. Seeking the very best sound reproduction possible. But not for video??? Not that you should seek it for video, but you should be able to relate.

I had someone ask me: "Why do they keep coming out with better computers every year? Why can't they just make the best one already now and just leave it at that?"

Sure, 1080 has only been out for a short period of time. CDs a little longer, Vinyl much longer... but for how many centuries has there been really nothing audio related invented since the gramaphone (and telegram/telephone). History shows that as time goes forward, advances in science speeds up at an exponential rate. I wish I could live long enough into the future to see things being replaced every day :)

I've seen the 4K Sony TV in action and it's incredible!! I wouldn't get it though. I don't watch movies on my TV so just a few years ago I got a 720p TV. Plus I sit too far away from it to notice that much of a difference with a 1080. But, I would definitely get a 4K projector to replace the one i got.
 
I thought most of us here are audiophiles. Seeking the very best sound reproduction possible. But not for video??? Not that you should seek it for video, but you should be able to relate.

Even with recorded audio, there is a point at which greater resolution adds no benefit to the sound. Why spend all the money on upgrading your TV/Projector, your source player, and all your media library for extra resolution that adds nothing tangible to the quality of what you see?

As a photographer, I know that there is little benefit to buying into a medium format system unless you are going to make monster size prints. There is no benefit to shooting a 60 megapixel image just to view on a standard computer screen or 11x14 print.

Like I say, I may be missing something. But I just don't see the value added by increasing the resolution any further than 1080p for the home system. Now, for a movie theater with a forty foot screen, maybe so. But for a 55" to 65" television? Seems ridiculous.

In support of this, I offer the following quote:

According to the Imaging Science Foundation, a group that consults for home-theater manufacturers and trains professional video calibrators, the most important aspect of picture quality is contrast ratio the second most important is color saturation, and the third is color accuracy. Resolution comes in fourth, despite being the most-cited HDTV specification.

The point is, once you get to high-definition, it's difficult to discern further improvements in the sharpness of the picture. All other things being equal--namely contrast and color--HDTV looks more or less spectacular on just about any high-definition television regardless of its size, native resolution, or the HDTV signal's resolution itself. The leap from normal TV to HDTV is so big that additional leaps in resolution--from high-definition to higher-definition, let's say--are tiny by comparison.

Source

So again . . . what am I missing?
 
Rich, I've also seen some YT videos of the 4K and 1080. Yeah, i know, how can you see the difference if YT is such low resolution. They were shown displayed at a show, but it did look better. Now resolution is not all that matters, so maybe it was the quality of other traits I may have noticed - realistic colors, contrast...

It's not just the larger prints you'll need more pixels. It helps if you want to crop just parts of your photos. Like with photos of the moon, birds... I know, cropping is poor technique...

Now when you're watching your HD and you see sweat pouring downs someones face, is it when his face taking up much of the screen? Even with SD content I was really happy with the resolution in that scenario. But when the image is tiny, like when a cowboy rides off into the far distance, the tiny image looks like Space Invaders, because there are fewer pixels to make up an image of an entire human body and horse, let alone just a face with sweat.

Is there a Sony store nearby you can visit? I was surprised that your link shows they TVs around $6K. The salesperson last month told me $25K for the set he demoed me (maybe it was a larger screen, yeah, i think it was).
 
Just saw this announcement about Sony 4K Cinema Media Player: http://www.slashgear.com/sony-fmp-x1-4k-media-player-coming-over-the-summer-07276787/

To quote:



Seriously? How old is BluRay? Long in the tooth already? Why on earth would we need more resolution than that? I have a 10' diagonal projection screen and sit about 14' or so back from it, and I could not ask for any clearer a picture than I get with BluRay or even HDTV. When watching HD television, I can see the sweat trickling down the faces of the talking heads. Again . . . why on earth would you need more resolution than that for home video? I just don't get it. :confused:

Am I missing something? Or is this just yet another effort by the big media and electronics corporations to try to get us to all upgrade our equipment and all our media to the next hyped-up technology so they can resell the same old movies at vastly inflated prices? Or am I just being cynical (a trait I am not really known for, as many on this forum can attest)?

Well this makes a lot of sense. People who argue relentlessly that cables make slightly subtle yet barely audible differences in SQ after sometimes weeks of critical listening are complaining about a clearly evident improvement in video quality especially on a 10' screen. Well I'm glad you're not the one who decides whether or not technology is allowed to move forward. I'm sure some people are perfectly happy with their black and white set too. I prefer having options. It's not like anybody has a gun to your head.
 
Last edited:
But not for video???

No, don't care about video. I really don't!

Regardless though - technology does move forward, BUT it is also very naive to think that all "progress" is actually based on scientific progress and not "planned obsolescence".

Noone wants their hobbies to simply line the pockets of others.
 
As far as I know Blu-Ray has been a commercial disappointment maybe not offering enough advantage to great public (common ppl). There might be a greater interest for new technology and new format(s) if it can somehow convince the market. I don't think there is an end to new formats or new media as technical progress makes it possible for manufacturers to offer and create "need" for higher and higher resolution and more features. Especially companies who own or are otherwise able to manufacture material, media and equipment (such as Sony etc.). Finally it's up to market if it's possible to sell new technology and at what rate of introducing it (months/years..).
 
I used to think that VHS was amazing -

Yuck........IMO there was nothing 'amazing' about VHS, considering Beta preceeded it ( a superior format in all ways except playtime), truth be told had Sony been as leanient with patents, etc (so I'm told) as I believe JVC was with VHS, Beta would have dominated the consumer market in the same way it did dominate the media sector.
 
Rich, I've also seen some YT videos of the 4K and 1080. Yeah, i know, how can you see the difference if YT is such low resolution. They were shown displayed at a show, but it did look better. Now resolution is not all that matters, so maybe it was the quality of other traits I may have noticed - realistic colors, contrast...

I have a hard time buying this, but it is possible with some upsampling, and you may be able to do some smoothing and color and contrast adjustments to make the picture look a little better. But this isn't the real test of the technology. Comparing it to a well-mastered bluray and seeing if there is more than a marginal difference in quality will be the real test.

It's not just the larger prints you'll need more pixels. It helps if you want to crop just parts of your photos. Like with photos of the moon, birds... I know, cropping is poor technique...

Absolutely. And that has absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand, which is why I didn't bother to mention it. They don't crop movies when mastering them. A 4k movie isn't going to be cropped as compared to the BluRay version or standard DVD.

Now when you're watching your HD and you see sweat pouring downs someones face, is it when his face taking up much of the screen?

No, I am talking about when their face is a small part of the screen. And I can practically see the pores on their skin. I can see any and all details I would care to see. And this is just a high def cable signal. Not even BluRay quality. When I play a BluRay, the detail is simply amazing, and I can't imagine wanting to spend the dollars to upgrade my equipment to get what I expect would be a slight improvement.

Well this makes a lot of sense. People who argue relentlessly that cables make slightly subtle yet barely audible differences in SQ after sometimes weeks of critical listening

There is more to sound quality than resolution. There is more to video quality than resolution. The promoters of this tech are simply touting its high resolution. I have yet to hear of any improvements in the other areas that make up video quality. But then, I haven't researched it too deeply, either. If you would like to add something to the thread, instead of just trolling, feel free to research that and get back with us.

are complaining about a clearly evident improvement in video quality especially on a 10' screen.

But that's just it: according to the Imaging Science Foundation (you know, the scientific experts on imaging quality) adding more resolution results in no clearly evident improvement in video quality. You are simply falling for Sony's hype. The same Sony who brought you the memory stick, BluRay, and Betamax, because they couldn't be bothered to follow anyone else's standard and wanted to maximize profits for themselves at the expense of consumers.

Well I'm glad you're not the one who decides whether or not technology is allowed to move forward. I'm sure some people are perfectly happy with their black and white set too. I prefer having options. It's not like anybody has a gun to your head.

Don't get me wrong. I love technological progress. And I am happy to see it move forward. But it is becoming increasingly clear that corporations often have their pocketbooks in mind more than the interests of the consumer. If you want to upgrade your entire media collection every five to ten years, have at it. For the vast majority of consumers, paying thirty to fifty dollars for a movie is highway robbery, not to mention the price of the equipment. Most consumers are still happy with standard def DVD, and the high end consumers are mostly happy with the BluRay standard. Have you priced new BluRays these days compared to Standard Def DVDs? Price gouging, just because they can. You don't think the new standard will have a whole 'nother level of profiteering added on top of that? Like I said, if you want to be a sheep, have at it. Drain your pocketbook. Then you can report back to us how awesome this resolution is. You can even do some DBT to convince yourself that you can tell a difference. I'll be happy to stick with what I've got, as will the majority of consumers. I predict a big fail for this technology. You heard it here first.
 
resolution_chart.png
 
Thank you, Hocky, for providing a little data to analyze the benefits of this technology. As I read the chart, I would have to sit as close as 7 feet from my 120" screen to get the full benefit of this new technology. I can't imagine sitting that close to the screen. My eyes would hurt. At the distance I sit (which I just went down and measured -- it is actually about 15.5'), I get the full benefit of 1080p and would see no benefit from 4k, as I expected. Moreover, those purchasing the hyped 55" to 65" televisions from Sony would have to sit 3 to 4 feet away from them to get the full benefit of the technology. Sitting a mere 7 to 9 feet away, and they would see no benefit from the technology. As I said earlier, this technology seems like a bunch of hype from Sony to sell costly equipment and media, with little to no benefit to the consumer.
 
I have yet to hear of any improvements in the other areas that make up video quality. But then, I haven't researched it too deeply, either.

Yet you clearly appear to have made your decision, so why bother with research?

If you would like to add something to the thread, instead of just trolling, feel free to research that and get back with us.

A troll post for a troll thread. No research, just bickering about new technology. Nobody has a gun to your head and forcing you to upgrade to a new technology. Keep your DVDs and VHS, nobody cares.

But that's just it: according to the Imaging Science Foundation adding more resolution results in no clearly evident improvement in video quality.

Source of this paper test?


corporations often have their pocketbooks in mind more than the interests of the consumer.

What if the consumer was "interested" in 4k? Capitalism? One could hit the character limit before fiishing a response to this silly statement

If you want to upgrade your entire media collection every five to ten years, have at it. For the vast majority of consumers, paying thirty to fifty dollars for a movie is highway robbery, not to mention the price of the equipment. Most consumers are still happy with standard def DVD, and the high end consumers are mostly happy with the BluRay standard. Have you priced new BluRays these days compared to Standard Def DVDs? Price gouging, just because they can. You don't think the new standard will have a whole 'nother level of profiteering added on top of that? Like I said, if you want to be a sheep, have at it. Drain your pocketbook. Then you can report back to us how awesome this resolution is. You can even do some DBT to convince yourself that you can tell a difference. I'll be happy to stick with what I've got, as will the majority of consumers. I predict a big fail for this technology. You heard it here first.

I never said I wanted to upgrade every few years so I'm not sure where you ASSumed that

You don't have to pay $50 dollars. Did you just make that up?

You can download movies from amazon online for like a few bucks to $15 or so.

Grumpy old men said the same thing about HD over SD back in the day. I'd imagine your personal feelings over big coorporation will pass

I predict you will own 4k technology. You heard it here first
 
Last edited:
You can even do some DBT to convince yourself that you can tell a difference.

Oh, wait, this has already been done. Sony, in their marketing material for the 4K cinema experience, shows us a A/B study between 2k and 4k on a 20' screen. 60% of respondents (barely more than half) thought 4k was better. 30% saw no quality difference. And 10% actually thought 2k looked better! Did I mention this was on a 20' wide screen? And you think you will see a big enough difference on a 55" screen to want to upgrade your TV, your Source player, and pay (a lot) more for every movie you buy? Have fun with that.
 
Yet you clearly appear to have made your decision, so why bother with research?

My post questioned the validity of and need for the technology and asked for opinions. And looked at it from a critical perspective, knowing Sony's history. Having just read about it today for the first time, I have hardly had time to do full research on it. But from the article I read, and the research I have done since on Sony's site, I have seen nothing from Sony that the technology involves anything more than higher resolution, which has been proven (you know, scientifically proven) to matter nought at certain viewing distances and certain size screens. As shown by the table above provided by Hocky. Which pretty well proves the point I made in the first post, that I would see no benefit whatsoever from this new technology. But you just keep right on trolling.

A troll post for a troll thread. No research, just bickering about new technology. Nobody has a gun to your head and forcing you to upgrade to a new technology. Keep your DVDs and VHS, nobody cares.

Well, at least you admit you're a troll. Most deny it. BTW, I don't use VHS. Use DVDs for the small screen, BluRay for the projector. You don't care? Then don't comment on the thread. But don't presume to speak for other people. Those that do care will have a nice conversation about it without your useless inflammatory input. Funny, no one is holding a gun to my head to make me listen to music, but I get to comment on that, don't I? This is the off-topic a/v forum. The whole point of it is to have discussions like this. You don't want to participate? Guess what? No one is holding a gun to your head.

Source of this paper test?

Provided it in the post, where I also quoted the article. You want to know more, look it up at the ISF website.

What if the consumer was "interested" in 4k? Capitalism? One could hit the character limit before fiishing a response to this silly statement

Oh, yes, just like the consumer was "interested" in 3dtv. Not.

“Ultra-HD” is the new 3D TV, and sales of new higher-definition television sets are expected to flop. The 2013 Consumer Electronics Show is upon us and TV vendors will look to 4K resolution at this year’s show in an effort to wow consumers. According to analysts, however, ultra-HD TV sales won’t amount to much in 2013 — or even four years from now.

High prices, scarce availability and a general lack of interest will result in very limited ultra-HD TV sales over the coming years; according to a report from the Associated Press, U.S. sales will total just 1.4 million units in 2016.

Source

There are multiple other stories saying basically the same thing. Which pretty well supports my point. Any other "silly statements" you wish to make?

You don't have to pay $50 dollars. Did you just make that up?

I took the markup on new movies bought at retail from DVD to BluRay and extrapolated. If you don't think they will be selling new releases on this technology in the price range I specified, you are fooling yourself.

Grumpy old men said the same thing about HD over SD back in the day. I'd imagine your personal feelings over big coorporation will pass

Blah, blah, blah. I notice you provided nothing of substance to refute the proven science that this technology will be of no benefit to most home consumers, while costing them plenty to upgrade.
 
Oh, wait, this has already been done. Sony, in their marketing material for the 4K cinema experience, shows us a A/B study between 2k and 4k on a 20' screen. 60% of respondents (barely more than half) thought 4k was better. 30% saw no quality difference. And 10% actually thought 2k looked better! Did I mention this was on a 20' wide screen? And you think you will see a big enough difference on a 55" screen to want to upgrade your TV, your Source player, and pay (a lot) more for every movie you buy? Have fun with that.

Funny how you now refer to scientific testing for video but refer to faith based testing for audio. And the link you provided proves that 4k is better. Fail!
 
Last edited:
Funny how you now refer to scientific testing for video but refer to faith based testing for audio.

Actually, if you had read my previous posts, you would have seen that I have advocated A/B/X testing as a good and valid method of testing for audio differences. Just not the end-all be-all that some make it out to be. I also believe longer-term listening tests are a valid method for testing audio. Sorry if that chafes you. As for the video test above, I really have no idea how scientific it was, as it is provided in Sony's marketing hype. I just find it funny that they provide these test results to convince everyone there is a difference, when just over fifty percent seeing a difference isn't even statistically significant. Again, it just makes my point for me. Whereas, you have really provided nothing that supports any of the points you have made in this thread, have you?

And the link proves that 4k is better. Fail!

Ummm, huh? WTH are you talking about? How about supporting your point with actual, you know, analysis? Basic conclusions of "Fail" from someone trolling the thread don't really amount to much.

Blah blah? So many words, so little said

Yes, and you have added so much substance to the thread.
 
Yes, and you have added so much substance to the thread.

Substance? You're the one who admited to doing no research before blasting anti capatalist views on the subject

Your question was clear, do we need this technology. My answer is yes we do.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top