4K hard to imagine for TV, but for a photography tool...

<p>...<br /> "It's Dell's largest monitor to date, along with having the highest pixel resolution of any previous panel (32", 3840x2160). Dell's pitching it as a multi-tasking monster with plenty of real estate for viewing applications side-by-side. Target users include graphic designers, video and game developers, CAD/CAM designers, engineers, photographers, and power users in general, Dell says"...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.maximumpc.com/dell_announces_ultrasharp_32-inch_ultra_hd_4k_monitor_3500">http://www.maximumpc.com/dell_announces_ultrasharp_32-inch_ultra_hd_4k_monitor_3500</a></p>

<p>The new Mac Pro (coming in December) will support up to three of these at the same time.</p>

<p>The 4K monitors are said to make the Retina displays look like old 72ppi displays. ;)</p>

<p>"I totally don' know what that means, but I want it." Jessica Simpson ad</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I recently googled 4k monitor reviews and read color calibration can't be done yet(?) or was at least off in the tested screens. - But yes sure they are tempting once they'll work for us.</p>

<p>Just saw 4k tv at Costco and I almost reversed my lunch. It made me gasp looking at <strong>extremely over-saturated </strong>screen. I'm hoping things change down the line....apparently there is no content to speak of....for this level of electronics. Maybe comp monitors will be different ?</p>

<p>Les</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It made me gasp looking at <strong>extremely over-saturated </strong>screen</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Someone probably adjusted the settings so that it would attract attention. </p>

<p>I never, ever, judge a video display for it's qualities at big box store. Display models are usually fired up with high brightness, contrast and color or purposely misadjusted to make a competitive unit look better. 4K, with proper software and displayed properly, is stunning. Given that, I'm sure cable companies will find a way to screw it up just as they have with the HDLite system we now have.</p>

<p>The prices of the Dell monitors are the real breakthrough. The relatively few 4K monitors already available were mostly much more expensive. (more on the monitors for computers at http://www.macrumors.com/ story of December 2.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I recently googled 4k monitor reviews and read color calibration can't be done yet(?) or was at least off in the tested screens.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You can order it with an X-Rite collorimiter and S/W.</p>

<p><a href="http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=19&sku=210-ACBL">http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=19&sku=210-ACBL</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just saw 4k tv at Costco</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I just don't see them upgrading everything to 4K (cameras, movies, players, infrastructure) any time soon after getting things to 1080 in order to make the TV's worth it. But as a close-range desktop monitor...</p>

<p>4K is making inroads in the film industry. SONY, owning a studio, is pushing it. In fact, 8K is now on the horizon. No standards have been established for over the air broadcasting. As with 720/1080, broadcasters will drag their feet and it will be hard to blame them, with the drop in viewership as a result of streaming, DVRs, etc. Within two years we'll see affordable 4K consumer cameras and home videos will match or surpass present over the air HD. The new Mac Pros, with the ability to drive three 4K monitors and hardware for heavy duty 4K video editing, suggest what is coming and pretty quickly.</p>

<p>Man, I'm still using an SD TV because it just won't die. Imagine buying a new model for every new resolution. I guess I'll be skipping HD, 4K and 8K for 16K! Seriously I like SD because the display isn't so imposing in the room, or my mind.</p>

<p>Brad, I used to think the same thing about SDTV until I recently purchased the cheapest HDTV (720p) I could find at Walmart. With some eyeball calibration and tweaking of the WB (RGB offset/gain), I'm blown away by the picture quality that I can't keep myself from taking pictures of it because I'm surprised almost every week coming across new content from different cable channels that clearly indicates they're improving the source content data over other channels either through sophisticated signal compression/enhancement algorithms or much higher quality HD cameras.</p>

<p>But I do agree with you concerning the broadcast industry adopting the means and expense of being able to pipe 4K content through both broadband and cable satellite feeds. I'm guessing this will probably take another ten years before they can get the entire media industry to upgrade to 4K technology. By then I imagine fiber optic lines will be in quite a few homes without the need for the process heavy task of digital to analog conversion of that much data over the airwaves.</p><div></div>

<p>No, no it doesn't look as good.</p>

<p>When my friend got an HD set, we watched a news channel, and it was weird having the usual talking heads in the room only huge and more realistic. I like a large screen to be immersed in a movie experience though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>" But as a close-range desktop monitor..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It probably won't work very well as a desktop monitor. <br>

<br>

32", 3840x2160 is exactly equivalant to 4 tiled 16" 1920x1080 monitors. It'll let you tile and see a bunch more open windows, or view a greater fraction of an open image, but $3,500 will buy quite a multi-monitor setup that'll be more functional for a photographer and have money to spare. </p>

<p>My current desktop LG 27" LED display is 1920x1080 as it says on the box, but from sitting about two feet from it with 1.25x mag. reading glasses I know just by looking at the fineness of the subpixel grid pattern, it appears pixel size in relation to number of pixels horizontal/vertical doesn't match up between displays meant for TV vs desktop as it always has been going back to CRT's.</p>

<p>The real resolution of the content being displayed has always been in question more so for TV broadcast/Blu-Ray vs content created on desktop imaging systems. Can Blu-Ray discs be played on computer systems and does it match up in resolution claimed by that technology with actual resolution content created in Photoshop?</p>

<p>The content resolution and appearance of sharpness and detail has to look quite different I imagine as a result from these differences between TV vs desktop displays, so I wonder if 4K (both in content and display technology) has really been fully described across the entire imaging industry that includes computer video card driven display of HD content. IOW 4K technology/content may not be as refined in the appearance of resolution as it does on computer displays. Or is resolution defined the same for both broadcast and computer/web driven display of content. I'm not seeing it.</p>

<p>The real resolution of 1920x1080 HD is typically 1400-1600 pixels wide, at best, rather than 1920. This is a result of anti-aliasing filters in the production/broadcast chain and loss of detail by compression. Typically, in a closed studio environment the data rate is quite high but by time it is reduced for satellite distribution to TV stations and then further reduced for over the air transmission, a huge amount of loss has taken place and visible motion artifacts introduced. The difference in visual quality between studio and over the air is stunning, especially with rapidly moving objects/subjects, due to compression losses alone.</p>

<p>I was quite involved with analog HDTV demonstrations in the early analog days during the time when the format was described as 1125/60. There was no compression as the early system was all-analog but the downside was the requirement of 30 megs of bandwidth, an impossible situation for commercialization. But it looked extraordinary and truly gave a sensation on a large projection screen (particularly with large tube CRT analog projectors) of looking out an open window. </p>

<p>4K promises to restore what was lost and more. The 4K demonstrations that I've seen have been amazing with a 3D-like depth that 1080 simply doesn't have. And passive 3D viewing throws away about half the vertical resolution, so 3D on a 4K system is dramatically improved over a 1080 system.</p>

<p>Regarding multi-monitor display setups, I use to work with two 24" monitors but I found a single 30" Dell to be far less fatiguing in practice. I didn't have to constantly turn my head from one monitor to another. I can fit two pages pretty nicely on one screen side by side. I would think a large, single 4K monitor would be ideal for most people and certainly eliminate the need for multi-monitor displays. Apple must think differently as the new Mac Pro will drive three 4K monitors simultaneously.</p>

<p>Some 'experts' toss out a lot of math to explain why you can't tell the difference between 720P and 1080P beyond 10 feet viewing distance with a 50" screen, and use that as an argument as to why 4K isn't necessary. In an ideal world that might be true but add compression artifacts that soften the picture and broadcasters trying to squeeze every last pixel to broadcast additional sub-channels, and the rules and perceptions change. As an example, compare the best FOX and ABC 720P productions against the best NBC, CBS, PBS, 1080i. In spite of being interlaced, they look superior and when comparing the best 1080P Bluray against 720P, the difference becomes even more evident. I'm hoping 4K allows some of the visual 'wrongs' that have been committed with our present HD system to be corrected.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some 'experts' toss out a lot of math to explain why you can't tell the difference between 720P and 1080P beyond 10 feet viewing distance with a 50" screen, and use that as an argument as to why 4K isn't necessary.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Charles, I have a 32" 720p HDTV and I can't tell the difference viewing from 7 ft. (distance of the image sample posted above) between 1080p vs 720p content and on some channels I can't see a difference with 480p.</p>

<p>When I check out large 50" 1080p HDTV I notice the actual subpixel grid starts to get slightly courser (larger pixels) viewing up close but I never can tie the appearance of content resolution with the HDtv's physical pixel grid resolve on displays larger than 40". I have to step back and let distance create the illusion of finer acutance where edge halos and saw toothed edge patterns appear less noticeable.</p>

<p>I can't picture in my mind how a 50" 4K HDTV with 4K content is going to do the same when the viewer has to step back far enough in order to see the entire screen without turning their head side to side as would happen viewing much closer to where the appreciation of sharpness will be noticed without the influence of distance blending.</p>

<p>The only 4K display I've seen is on my local movie theater's Sony digital projectors but they upscale 2K content due to their being very few movies recorded at that resolution. I still have to sit far back in the theater in order to see the entire screen in my line of sight. Viewing feet from the theater screen shows the soft saw toothed edges of digital that can't be seen from a distance.</p>

<p>Interesting observation of a couple of 50" Pioneer Elite series TVs in a McDonald's in my neighborhood - the franchise is open 24 hours a day so the TVs are never switched off.</p>

<p>They were installed during a complete rebuild of the outlet into a high end restaurant around 2006 and I noticed this week that they were finally replaced. I asked, and the server said they finally failed. That'd be over 61,000 hours of continuous operation. Pretty impressive reliability, and the failure is likely the backlight which can be quite easily fixed (usually bad capacitors in the inverter board, or the light itself). </p>

<p>Tim, if your 32" is a 720P display, then 1080 is being scaled down to 720P, which would explain why you can't tell the difference, assuming high quality transmissions of both formats. The give away for me is the fact that ABC, especially, on live studio such as GMA, seems to use lots of edge enhancement and the halos around high contrast transition areas are the telltale. I sit about 10' from my Panasonic 1080P plasma and I can easily tell the difference between 480, 720 and 1080 or Bluray. Unfortunately, I can only tell this difference with the best programming. I remember years ago when HD was new and not so much compression was used, you could see skin pores, wrinkles, etc., with ease on close up talking head studio shots. Now the cameras can be tuned to soften resolution on skin tones. Check out head shots and you'll probably notice that most anchors/talking heads have a pasty look with no fine skin detail. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Check out head shots and you'll probably notice that most anchors/talking heads have a pasty look with no fine skin detail.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Cable news and even CBS news anchors do have this pasty look but I believe that has a lot to do with makeup, but I won't rule out compression softening of redundant skin texture is being applied as well.</p>

<p>It also depends on the camera I believe. I notice on CBS's on location news story captures they are using far more sharper, higher definition equipment. Viewing at 100% in ACR of a shot I took of my 32" Samsung HDTV showing a closeup on a woman being interviewed wearing glasses I could see skin smoothing intelligently applied even though it still looked tack sharp viewed from 7ft on my set while the news anchor in the studio captured with a different camera looked softer with plastic looking skin and color.</p>

<p>With the sharpness I'm getting even on my 720p 32" screen I don't know what else could be made sharper going to 4K. I don't have my face two feet from the screen to see all that extra detail.</p><div></div>

<p>Technically speaking, 1080P to 720P is a down conversion.</p>

<p>As to the improvements that 4K can brings vs what we now have with the best 1080P, the edge enhancement and halos obvious in the image above can simply go away. The inherent detail in a 4K image requires little, if any, sharpening.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As to the improvements that 4K can brings vs what we now have with the best 1080P, the edge enhancement and halos obvious in the image above can simply go away. The inherent detail in a 4K image requires little, if any, sharpening.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Charles, don't know if you can see in the 100% inset view in the image above but there are tiny line pairs that resemble square shaped noise peppered about the smooth portion of skin texture. Those line pairs are what make up one pixel of the 768 vertical pixels of my 32" 720p display. My 6MP DSLR is the only eyeball that can see and capture it from 7 ft. away at a focal length of 43mm. My eyes can't even make out halos at that distance.</p>

<p>I think an extremely finer 4K pixel grid compared to my 768 vertical pixels could not possibly resolve enough detail that would be seen from a distance of ten feet if I can't make out 768 pixel grid at 7 ft. 4K would be so fine you'ld have to sit much closer than 7ft. to the screen to see the detail. On a 50-60 inch 4K display you'll most likely get neck pain from constantly panning your head side to side having to get up so close in order to see not only all the detail but the entire screen as well.</p>

<p>This subject regarding the appearance of resolution is similar to the resolution issues regarding overkill in the billboard printing industry where distance to size of format require comparatively less resolution and files sizes much more manageable similar to the throughput limits for broadband and airwave broadcasting.</p>

<p>But I have a feeling if 4K becomes the new standard for the content viewing industry, there's going to have to be some new algorithms designed to reduce the size of data throughput without harming image quality and detail.</p>

<p>All I can say is that I've seen side by side under controlled conditions of 1080P vs 4K, same program material, simultaneously fed to the displays. Standing 10 feet or so away, myself and the rest of the crowd could easily tell the difference. To provide an analogy, it's somewhat like looking at the difference between a 13x19 print done with a 12 meg camera vs a 40+ meg digital medium format camera.<br>

Also, higher bit depth should eliminate the awful 8 bit processing artifacts we see with the present digital HD system. So, it's not just higher resolution but a chance to correct the other deficiencies in the present system that make it less than what it could be.</p>

 

<p>Can you provide a photograph showing a side by side comparison between the appearance of 1080 vs 4K that's more informative than the inconsistencies I find of actual screengrabs showing resolution differences from these shots?...</p>

<p>http://awildduck.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/1080p-vs-4K.jpg</p>

<p>http://cdn.avsforum.com/f/fa/1280x1080px-LL-fa8f183a_piface.png</p>

<p>http://www.hdtvsolutions.com/images/articles/Luther-Resolution-Large.jpg</p>

<p>All of them have some ring of BS due to their various levels of inconsistencies in depicting detail in relation to resolution. Regardless of what I'm seeing a foot and half from my 1080 LG 27" display all of them will show less detail stepping back to ten feet due to distance blending.</p>

<p>I have no screen shots. Shots taken under show conditions with a digicam would be pointless and prove nothing. I only know what I saw last year with my eyes. As I said before, it's more than just fine detail, it's the total system improvement vs what we now have with ATSC specs.</p>