The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How good does my TV have to be before I can't tell it's a TV?  (Read 2250 times)

Offline bizerl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
When I watch a blu-ray, I can tell that it's "high definition" and it looks heaps better than the DVDs that blew me away with their clarity ten years ago. But I can still tell it's a TV image.

I'm wondering what resolution is required before the image I see on TV is indistinguishable from real life? Obviously without 3D effects there is always a difference, but when does the graininess disappear completely?


 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
You are going to have to wait till at least 2020 for something like commercially available Ultra High Definition TV displaying 8K resolution  for your home (that's 16 x the resolution of current HDTV's).....check this out  HERE and also HERE
« Last Edit: 21/09/2012 02:13:33 by neilep »
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
145" 7860x4320 TV?
Well,
George Orwell missed it by a couple of decades.
Should I be worried about the sound and video cameras built into most of the new laptops?
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8126
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Should I be worried about the sound and video cameras built into most of the new laptops?

laptop camera and microphone can be covertly monitored ...

Quote
Prey is a freemium Web service that allows remote tracking and monitoring of laptops, smartphones, and other electronic devices ... Version 0.5.3 provides Wi-Fi autoconnect, data securing, screenshot grabbing, webcam image capturing, hardware scanning, screen locking, remote messaging, and sonic-alarm triggering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prey_%28software%29
« Last Edit: 21/09/2012 04:32:32 by RD »
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
As far as the original question.
Snow is more or less a thing of the past.
I think we are at the point where grainyness is disappearing, although it is a function of the size of the video display, how close one is, and the amount of compression for data delivery. 

How long until DVDs will be obsolete?  5 years?

Could you install fake windows in your house that look like real windows?

Uhh...  Oh...  Someone already thought of that.
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/Vqu9NuINKbc
http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/10/winscape-virtual-window-makes-the-leap-to-kinect/
http://rationalcraft.com/Winscape.html

The video actually highlights on of the problems with a "fake window".  One anticipates that the view out of the window will always change when you move around.  The Endgadget clip shows the improved skeletal tracking.  But, it does mention the issue of multiple people in the room, with only a single person's position being tracked.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4101
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
The human retina has quite variable resolution across its surface: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea

Apple's "Retina" rule-of-thumb (and trademark, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display) gives the resolution of a display needed to match the resolution of the human eye. This is quite achievable for hand-held devices today.

A typical Red/Green/Blue video display has a wide range of colours, but cannot quite display the full range of colours which can be perceived by the human eye. Manufacturers are looking at display technologies with more colour sources.

The above discussion only applies for a still photo. When presenting moving images, the film industry has standardised on the lowest-possible resolution that doesn't bother most people - 24 frames per second. Content made for TV is displayed at 50 or 60 interlaced frames per second (depending on the country), which is much smoother.

"The Hobbit", planned for release in 2012, has been filmed at 48 frames per second. Ironically, some people who saw a preview reported it as a poorer "TV Quality" - because viewers associated jerky motion with the cinema, and smoother motion with Television.

Some of the newer 3D TVs claim to be able to display as many 200 frames per second. Would it make sense to double the frame rate beyond the current TV standards?
 
« Last Edit: 24/09/2012 11:57:51 by evan_au »
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4101
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Another area where TV resolution is less than the human eye is in the area of dynamic range - the ratio of the brightest and dimmest image that can be displayed. Some new TV displays claim to display a dynamic range of 20000:1 - provided you watch them in a dark room, with non-reflective surfaces.

However, the data coding standards that are usually used for video like MPEG restrict the dynamic range of the image (and its resolution and colour space) in order to reduce the transmission bandwidth of the TV signal for transmission over the "airwaves". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG#Standards

We may need newer video standards and presentation formats which are optimised for video delivery over optical fibre before we can approach a TV which is indistinguishable from human sight.   
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums