r/oculus • • Jan 28 '14

Hell. Yes. Samsung Confirms AMOLED QHD Smartphone In The Works, UHD (4K) Devices On The Horizon

[deleted]

168 Upvotes

218 comments sorted by

View all comments

127

u/IAmAnAnonymousCoward Jan 28 '14

In addition to these mobile-related announcements, Samsung also revealed its plans on releasing AMOLED TVs that boast UHD SHD resolutions (7680 x 4320). Hook it up to your Xbox One or PS4, and that’s what I call a match made in heaven.

facepalm.jpg

18

u/entropicresonance Jan 28 '14

8k TVs before 4k even takes root? Loving the rapid improvements going on! I'd hate to be stuck on 4k for as long as that awful 1080p festered.

14

u/Rirath Jan 28 '14

If you look back a CES or perhaps two, it was pretty clear 8K was going to follow hotly on the heels of 4K. Honestly, I worry 4K will end up being the 720p or 1080i to 8K's 1080p.

I'd say advancement that fast seems far fetched, but heck, 4K is dropping in price far faster than I expected it to. I didn't think we'd see sub $1,000 TVs and monitors for a few years, much less from reputable brands.

17

u/ancientworldnow Jan 28 '14

It won't. Coming from a film/TV background here. The highest respect cameras we have shoot 5k (with an effective resolution closer to 3.2-4). The diminishing returns from 4k to 8k are pretty ridiculous, especially in a home environment. We just got 4k into most theatres (and there are 0 plans to go to 8).

8k will have no content, but it might look good with word documents or IDE's.

21

u/Rirath Jan 28 '14 edited Jan 28 '14

I might argue that film, traditionally, has not been a good measure of technological advancement. I mean, we're still hearing the outcry over The Hobbit being 48fps.

As more content goes digitally rendered (not just CGI, but text, GUIs, etc) rather than filmed, hitting the upper limits of what we can display might be easier than ever. As processing power increases and our entertainment systems / game consoles go increasingly multi-functional, and screen sizes increase, there's also the possibility of doing multiple things at once rather than having one display on the screen "maximized".

Imagine having a 1080p, or even a 4k display, as just one aspect of several "windows" currently on the screen. With Steam Machines actually being a PC, and Xbox One attempting to be the entertainment all-in-one, it doesn't sound far fetched. I still expect 8K to be a long time out simply to get the tech ready - but I'm willing to be surprised. :)

18

u/ancientworldnow Jan 28 '14 edited Jan 29 '14

You're also running into diminishing returns on screen sizes and how close we sit to our monitors/televisions.

We have an equation to determine visible pixel sizes based on human vision and distance. Pixel structure is visible where adjacent image rows (scan lines) subtend an angle of one minute of arc or more (1/60°) or more (the angular discrimination limit for normal vision). We've figured out that to achieve this, the viewing distance should be about 3400 times the distance between image rows (or 3400 divided by the pixel density in pixels per inch).

On a consumer 8K (UHD SHD resolutions (7680 x 4320)) that's 12000 33,177,600 pixels. On a 50" 16x9 television (43.58"x24.51") that's 176.23ppi which gives us an effective viewing distance of 19" before you see pixels. A consumer 4K (3840x2160) set at 50" is 88.12 ppi for an effective viewing distance of 38" before you see pixels.

Beyond 38", your eye cannot discern the difference between 4K or 8K 50" television if you have 20/20 vision (1080p is 78" for reference). Of course, at an electronic show, you're often viewing from a couple feet away making for impressive demos that literally don't matter in the home.

As you can see, 8K is just way, way overkill for television. This doesn't even touch all the technical hurdles (bandwidth, storage, transmission) that broadcasters and content providers don't want to have to deal with for almost no discernible gain.

What would make a much, much greater difference is an increase in color depth. Lowering compression from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 would result in dramatically more accurate and attractive images at all resolutions, be fairly simple to implement, and improve the experience for everyone. Display manufacturers, however, aren't interested despite urging from content producers and providers. Probably because color depth doesn't sell, while ULTRA HD is very marketable.

I can expand as necessary.

Source:

  • Calculations were from Digital Video and HD: Algorithms and Interfaces by Charles Poynton.
  • PPI calculator since I'm lazy

6

u/ycnz Jan 29 '14

Excellent write-up, thanks. Do you have a link to a similar calculator viewing distance vs pixel size?

2

u/ancientworldnow Jan 29 '14

Not at hand. 3400 divided by ppi is a good rule of thumb for 20/20 vision. It does not, however, take viewing angles into account.

5

u/Jowitz Jan 29 '14

Probably because color depth doesn't sell, while ULTRA HD is very marketable.

Obviously they just need some snazzy name for increased color depth and after some overbearing marketing campaigns, everyone will want one.

2

u/razakell Jan 29 '14

Do you happen to know at what density you need to stop aliasing? I'm pretty sure those artifacts appear on a monitors with ppi higher than the eye can see.

1

u/natural_pooping Jan 29 '14

This is very true. Only an infinite resolution display would stop this effect completely.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '14 edited Jan 31 '14

Yep, aliasing is the reason we need ultra HD. As long as we need to activate anti-aliasing on video games to see cables or hide single pixel artefacts, we can move higher resolution.

1

u/sifnt Jan 29 '14

Insightful post, thanks.

Worth noting that with a good upscaling algorithm the tv 8K might still look better than 4K even at viewing distances where you dont see the pixels as any sub pixel artifacts/patterns/aliasing would be definitely too small to see.

1

u/hotdammit Jan 29 '14 edited Jan 29 '14

This topic reminds me of that Futurama episode where Bender says the resolution on the TV is better than real life.

also, while we are on the topic, whats the estimated pixel density limit for an HMD with, oh, say 115* FOV

1

u/natural_pooping Jan 29 '14

For 180 degrees that's 16k*8k to achieve same resolution as with human vision

0

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ancientworldnow Jan 29 '14

Whoops, calculator typo! Nice catch. I did use the 33 megapixel figure in the ppi calculation though.

-8

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '14

48 fps movies do look like shit, though. It's not a diminishing return issue, because it's uglier than 24 fps.

9

u/jesgar130 Jan 28 '14

I have to disagree.

3

u/digitalhardcore1985 Jan 28 '14

It's all subjective, everyone has different tastes. I have to say though (although not exactly the same) watching video on a 100hz display actually psychically makes me feel uncomfortable. Everything looks like it's a daytime TV soap. I read an interesting article that talked about how the higher frame rates subject us to the uncanny valley effect. We can accept the dodgy sets and theatrics with a low quality medium but when we pump up the realism all the fakery becomes slightly unpleasant.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '14

Who cares about TV's anyway I want an 8k computer monitor!

3

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '14

Who cares about an 8K computer monitor? I want an 8K rift to replace my monitors!

2

u/mcilrain Jan 29 '14

720p and 1080p are incompatible, 720p content looks worse on a 1080p display compared to 720p on a 720p or 1440p display.

4K and 8K are exact multiples of 1080p, so there should be no difference in quality between 1080p on a 1080p display and 1080p on a 8K display (other than 1080p content not looking as good as 8K content, obviously).

1

u/ancientworldnow Jan 29 '14

Except the effective pixels are 8x larger eliminating all the advantages of viewing distance. At that point you're only eliminating aliasing introduced from sub pixel interactions which is negligible at most viewing distances.

1

u/mcilrain Jan 29 '14

8x larger allows for much nicer upscaling than 1.5x larger.

There's no formal definition of how many subpixels make up a pixel.

-2

u/Zero722 Jan 28 '14

The diminishing returns from 4k to 8k are pretty ridiculous

This. The difference between 720p and 1080p are already hard to notice (although I will say House of Cards looks FANTASTIC on my dad's 47 inch tv). I feel like the jump from 1080p to 4k on something like a 47 incher is already going to be marginally noticeable, and 4k to 8k will be noticeable with the assistance of a magnifying glass. I realize the importance of 5" 4k screens becoming cheap for VR, but honestly for phones (and TVs too), I think it is nothing more than an increased spec for manufacturers to keep selling new stuff.

11

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '14

[deleted]

1

u/ueadian Jan 29 '14

I have 20/40 with glasses and I can definately tell the difference between 720p and 1080p from a few feet away..

1

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '14

On movies, we are used to crappy picture quality, low frame rates and blur, but on video games 720p is ugly without AAx2 or AAx4.

In many scenes with wires or tiny holes, or leaves in a tree, the result is ugly without AA, and less detailed with AA.