If you aren't sure about what 4k is - 4k is the name given to the resolution (really set of resolutions, but who's counting) that is double 1080p resolution. So 1080p resolution is 1920 pixels by 1080 pixels... With a little Math Skills, 4K resolution doubles that, so it is 3840 pixels by 2160 pixels...
That's impressive... To think that we went from commercially viable 480i standard definition to this 4K resolution in 15 years or so... What happened in the previous 15 years of broadcast... Well not too much of note about resolution, that's for sure...
But really I don't get it.
I just got back from a large conference called Infocomm where all the buzz was about 4k resolution, and how everything had to be 4k resolution.
Truth be told, NOTHING was full 4k resolution...
The simple fact is that there is no real transport available yet to allow you to connect one thing to another and view things in 4K resolution. So it begs the question, what's the deal?
If we look at Apple's version of what they call "Retina Display", we can notice some stuff... For those of you not familiar with what a "retina display" is, it is defined as
"a brand name used by Apple for screens that have a pixel density high enough that the human eye is unable to discern individual pixels at a typical viewing distance." - Wikipedia
So I start to wonder. My assumption is that since we as a society are buying this "retina display" technology based on how many ipads etc are being sold, that we must accept at some level the research behind the "retina display". But what are the resolutions and distances associated with these displays...
Here's a convenient chart courtesy of Wikipedia...
| Model[7][8][9][10] | PPI (pixels perinch) | PPCM (pixels percm) | PPD (pixels per degree) | Resolution | Total Pixels | Typical viewing distance (in/cm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| iPhone 4/4S and iPod Touch (4th generation) | 326 | 128 | 57 | 960×640 | 614,400 | 10 inches (25 cm) |
| iPhone 5/5C/5S and iPod Touch (5th generation) | 1136×640 | 727,040 | ||||
| iPad (3rd/4th generation/iPad Air) | 264 | 105 | 69 | 2048×1536 | 3,145,728 | 15 inches (38 cm) |
| iPad Mini (2nd generation) | 326 | 128 | 85 | 2048×1536 | 3,145,728 | 15 inches (38 cm) |
| MacBook Pro (3rd generation) 15" | 220 | 87 | 77 | 2880×1800 | 5,184,000 | 20 inches (51 cm) |
| MacBook Pro (3rd generation) 13" | 227 | 89 | 79 | 2560×1600 | 4,096,000 | 20 inches (51 cm) |
well that's great... So what gives... most of these resolutions are greater than 1080p... But if you will notice most of these distances are pretty small. I sit here on my mac book pro and I realize I am about 20" away. I cannot discern pixels...
But what the heck does it matter once you get further away?
If I cannot discern it at 20" how am I even going to begin to try to discern it at 60" or 10' for that matter...
I bring this up to point out how pointless this whole resolution thing is... at a 4k resolution how big does the display have to be, and how far away do you have to sit in order to start to discern pixels...
Well quick math would show us again that we have to be greater than 220 or so pixels per square inch at approximately 2.5x the height of the display will be the distance.
take a 50" display... This is 24.5" tall, so at about 61.25" we need there to be more than 220 pixels per square inch to exceed the retina display standard... What I can tell you is that if you have a 50" display, and you are viewing it at 5 feet away, you have a very small apartment, or you are sitting too close to your display...
There are about 1070 square inches in the 50" display... There are 8,294,400 pixels in a 4K display... the pixel density FAR exceeds apples retina display...
The math almost doesn't matter because reality sets in.. You would put your nifty 4k display on teh wall, and sit 10 feet away, so there's no WAY you could discern pixels at that distance... if you want me to do the math out to see that end of the spectrum, let me know, and I will show it... But the end result is that this 4k thing is being hyped for the sake of being hyped right now...
So based on Apple's Math, we have gone far past the limit of our eye's ability to notice pixels...
Moreover, what sources are out there?
Really the only truly viable sources could be a streaming service, such as Netflix with ethernet connected directly to the display(which is a compressed format), a Red ray player (who actually has one of those yet), and MAYBE a Macbook pro (that's not actually 4k yet), or other such advanced computer where the resolution would exceed 1080p by a good amount but not be at 4k yet... In short there really isn't any sources yet either...
So let me get this straight.
We Hype 4k for our living room, to hang it on the wall 10 feet away where the pixel pitch far exceeds our ability to see pixels, to have no sources, that even if we did have sources, we couldn't actually see them because we have no way of plugging these things in yet...
So I just simply don't get it...
What I will say is that the 4K revolution is in the wrong place...
There is a place for proper 4K, and when the HDMI 2.0 spec comes out and there is a viable transport (current HDMI cables cannot handle 4K bandwidth, but HDMI 2.0 will be able to (in theory)). There will be a great home for 4k technology...
For instance in the field of medicine, such as surgical field displays... Having those in 4K could save a life... Or in oncology, having a 4K resolution Xray or other diagnostic scan might pick out something a 1080p might not, again, potentially saving people's lives
LARGE FORMAT DISPLAYS... Those will be able to benefit from 4K resolution... For instance take all those numbers I just blabbed at you, and make it a 100" display. THEN it makes sense to have 4K resolution...
The net result is that I can see 4K coming
But for now... I'm pretty sure it's just a bunch of hoo-ha that's supposed to make you buy a new TV
To quote Public enemy for a moment...
Don't Believe the Hype...
Let me know what you think about 4k, and the viability of the 4K resolution today...
So next black Friday we can watch 500 people jam through the front doors of Walmart so get to the 1, $199 off brand 32" 4k TV that probably won't give you as nice a picture as a $400 Sony or LG
ReplyDeleteI certainly hope not but sadly, yes. You are probably correct.
DeleteIn addition to medical use cases and large format use cases there are two more potential situations where I think 4k makes sense. 1) A 27" 4k desktop monitor for CAD monkeys like me that like to see all the subtle detail close up. 2) Sports instant replay and slow motion. Not for broadcasting 4k, but for recording locally in the remote studio or remote broadcast truck. Having a recording or a 4k image allows broadcasters to zoom-in 200% while still maintaining 1080p resolution upon slow motion replay. I hear your point though, 4k doesn't make much sense in the living room at the moment, other than bragging rights.
ReplyDeleteHey Nate. Again your addition here further drives home the point that 4k in your home is useless. 4k is the workplace still is under the restriction of the hdmi spec not being able to handle it until hdmi 2.0. But some specialty scenarios could be interesting to see where an advanced graphics card with 4 hdmi 1.4 outs might work with a display that could composite them back together.
DeleteAs for broadcast. That's another unique and interesting application. I think they did the Super Bowl that way this last year