Searching \ for '[OT]:: 4K Video' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/displays.htm?key=video
Search entire site for: ': 4K Video'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]:: 4K Video'
2014\05\16@193313 by RussellMc

face picon face
Sought: Comments & recommendations on acceptable performance low-cost
entry-level 4K capable video cards for "desktop" applications.

_________

My son has just acquired a "4K" LCD screen, mainly for gaming.
Video cards with adequate gaming performance cost the better part of what
he paid for the monitor.

Gaming performance I need not.
The ability to display photos at higher resolution would be 'nice'.
Odds are I'm not going to rush out and buy a 4K monitor any time soon, but
I'll keep an eye on what's available.

BUT

What experience and/or recommendations do people have for cheapest possible
while not utterly terrible video cards for 'PC' that provide 4K output.

Any card I've glanced at that does 4K is so far above anything I've used at
lower resolutions that any should be able to drop back to mere HD or 2K or
whatever with ease when eg video is to be displayed - not a major
application for me, but sometimes happens.

Low cost suggestion that people say work well for them in a desktop rather
than gaming environment include Radeon 7970 and Asus GT640.
Both of those would probably make a current leading edge gamer sneer.

So, any comments & recommendations on acceptable performance low-cost
entry-level 4K capable video cards for "desktop" applications?


          Russell
-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\16@202508 by Marcel Duchamp

picon face
Russell, Russell, Russell...

Come on - you've been in this circus long enough to see through this hype.

When they announce the 16K (or maybe the 64K) - then and only then should you be looking for bargains in the 4K realm.  Do you *really* think that 4K monitors are going to improve your photo viewing experience?  Hi-res printers? Yeah, monitors - not so much.


On 5/16/2014 4:32 PM, RussellMc wrote:
> Sought: Comments & recommendations on acceptable performance low-cost
> entry-level 4K capable video cards for "desktop" applications.

-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\16@212754 by RussellMc

face picon face
On 17 May 2014 12:25, Marcel Duchamp <spam_OUTmarcel.duchampTakeThisOuTspamsbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Russell, Russell, Russell...
> Come on - you've been in this circus long enough to see through this hype..
>
>
Alas, I've been in the business of looking at photos on screen long enough
to know that a "higher res" monitor will in fact so a better job of doing
what I want to do.

Most people have some photos that they have taken.
Some people have many ...
A few people ...

I have no easy way to be sure of how many of my own photos I have (I'm
working on it) but on my ~= 30 TB of E F G I J K L M O P R S T drives I
have 6.6 million JPGS, mainly my own photos. These are duplicated at least
once each (hopefully) and sometimes 3 or 4 times and there are downsized
derivatives and subsets and ... .
I estimate photos taken to be in the 500,000 to 1,000,000 range.
SO I've looked at a fair few photos and know what I'd like in a monitor.

My main monitor is a Dell 2709W 27"  native at 1920 x 1200 (slightly above
1080P).

My main camera produces 6000 x 4000 pixel images.
So when viewed pixel per pixel I get 111920/6000 = 32% of the image
horizontally and 1200/3000 = 40% of the image vertically - so about 13% of
the total image overall.
If I scale the image 50% linearly to 3000 x 2000 I''d get about 50% on
screen areally (<- Google spell checker knows this) AND on a 4K screen it
would more than fit.
On a 4k screen my 6000 x 4000 images still do not fit pixel per pixel.

8k (said to be liable to be mainstream by 2032) will display 6000 x 4000
natively.

Does it matter?.
More or less no, but "it's nice".
My Dell (essentially full HD) allows viewing of most relevant detail for
most purposes when editing.
It is seldom that I feel the need to expand and image to get better
resolution perception when adjusting colour balances or tonal curves or
similar.
Exceptions MIGHT be things like nuances of colour or shading on things like
a bride's veil.

For various reasons I try to avoid editing of subjects-proper (backgrounds
may be fair game on occasion to remove distractions etc) so high resolution
for editing is largely not an issue and is well enough served by either
pixel per pixel display or some intermediate zoom state.

4K        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

8K        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8K_resolution



> When they announce the 16K (or maybe the 64K) - then and only then
> should you be looking for bargains in the 4K realm.  Do you *really*
> think that 4K monitors are going to improve your photo viewing
> experience?


As above.
8k will do for 24 Mp sensors.

> Hi-res printers?


Delving into the world of colour resolution produces some surprises.
No references here but I have some.
Colour resolution in pictures need be no higher than 200 dpi in almost all
cases and 300 dpi monochrome.
There are good reasons for this and all the usual expert arguments.
But, say 300 dpi on A3 = 16" x 10" = 4800 x 3000 (14.4 Mp)
That's slightly above 4K and well inside 8k.
A4 = 3000 x 2400 = just over 4K due to vertical being a bit small.

So, yes, I'd "like" a 4K monitor.


       Russell
-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\16@234252 by John Guillory

picon face
Just curious, but what is the dot pitch of your eyes, and are they factory standard, or have you replaced them with new improved eyes?  Just wondering, because someone said the reason Apple has such a pathetic camera is because the human eye isn't capable of perceiving anything better.
--
KF5QEO
John Guillory
.....westlakegeekKILLspamspam@spam@yahoo.com
Cell: 601-754-9233
Pinger: 337-240-7890
Google Voice: 601-265-1307


{Quote hidden}

-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\17@003149 by Brent Brown

picon face
I don't know if my eyes are any better or worse than Russells - but I was impressed when I first saw a .GIF of a parrot at 320 x 200 pixels 256 colours on a CGA CRT monitor. I remember thinking it was so realistic and I couldn't easily distinguish the pixels, surely that would be enough colours and pixels for any photo. Wait, I still have the .GIF... but it's 57kb, probably too big to post.

On 16 May 2014 at 22:42, John Guillory wrote:

> Just curious, but what is the dot pitch of your eyes, and are they
> factory standard, or have you replaced them with new improved eyes?
> Just wondering, because someone said the reason Apple has such a
> pathetic camera is because the human eye isn't capable of perceiving
> anything better.  

-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\17@010001 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
I'm pretty sure that the human eye (assuming no problems with focus) is
diffraction limited in typical indoor lighting conditions, not pixel
resolution (rod/cone density) limited. If the pupil is 4mm in diameter (mid
range), then the diffraction limit would be roughly 1.22*Lamba/diameter or
1.22*500nm/4mm=153 micro radians for 500nm light. If you are sitting at 0..5
meter from your monitor, you can resolve pixels which are 0.000153*0.5=75
microns pitch. For a monitor 0.5meter wide, this would be 6600 pixels
horizontal resolution.

Bear in mind that this calculation depends on how large the monitor is. If
the screen is not very wide then the image will look very good even with a
fairly low horizontal pixel count since the spatial resolution is still
good.

In Russell's case, if his photos are being "blown up" onto a large screen,
then it is very likely that his eyes can tell the difference between, say,
2000 pixels horizontal versus 4000.

Sean



On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:42 PM, John Guillory <EraseMEkf5qeospam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTyahoo.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\17@012417 by RussellMc

face picon face
On 17 May 2014 15:42, John Guillory <RemoveMEkf5qeoTakeThisOuTspamyahoo.com> wrote:

(2)  > ... someone said the reason Apple has such a pathetic camera is
because the human eye isn't capable of perceiving anything better ...

Would this be the Apple that produces the "Retina" displays aimed at
exceeding perceivable dot pitch at typical viewing distances so that the
eye is well served?

Apple's cameras are OK enough with lots of light. They are not as good as
those in good dedicated cameras because Apple think they can get away with
spending less than that would take. They can use tiny sensors, add lots of
megapixels and the Apple experience and most people's wants are met. 'Most
people' is usually enough. Large sensors require large optics and cost
rises rapidly.

Many of the photos that I take with a DSLR are blurred and/or exposed badly
and/or framed badly and/or ... .
If I used a phone camera most of these ones would not exist at all.
Especially when I travel, the camera is an extension to my arm and, as well
as record of travel, and purposeful quality-directed photos,  I also push
the camera beyond its abilities, and then see what I have managed to do
well enough to be worthwhile. Surprised the person who pulls a strange face
or adopts a ridiculous pose for a brief moment in front of my camera as a
challenge to the cameraman. Most are quite amused when shown the photo(s)
that quite often manage to get taken in such moments of levity. 'Good
quality' well-lit well focused photos are always 'nice to have', but SOME
of the best photos manage only some or even none of these.

A top DSLR seems to take photos almost before the shutter button is pressed
- so much so that in unsighted photos from moving vehicles you need to
trail the spot where your brain says the subject is.) A cameraphone or even
OK point & shoots are far too unresponsive for this. [I use them too, but
differently].
___________

(1)

Just curious, but what is the dot pitch of your eyes, and are they factory
> standard, or have you replaced them with new improved eyes?  Just
> wondering, because someone said the reason Apple has such a pathetic camera
> is because the human eye isn't capable of perceiving anything better.
>

My son's comments on getting a 4k monitor included - "This looks to have
more detail than reality - I'm going to stay here inside where it's warm".

I have very normal 'failing with age' eyes.
I wear $2 shop reading glasses BUT carefully chosen to have a diopter
rating to suit screen and viewing distance that I usually use.
Glasses that I carry or wear around tend to have short lifetimes. Very
strange :-).
I browse shops that sell cheap reading glasses, then go through the various
models until I find ones that work well optically and but a number of that
model. Results vary very markedly - some are very good. Others are almost
worse than not being used. Presently I'm using 2.75 dioptre -  both 2.5 and
3 dioptre are less-good for me.

The limits of the HD+ screen are easily noticed on SOME photos.

Below is a link to a 24 Mp, 4000 x 6000 head and shoulders "portrait" 16 MB
download.

I chose it (solely) for large file size for a JPG (so wide range of detail
changes) and the very fine hair on the man's forehead.
[FWIW this is ~= a rowing coach - I'd just been photographing his students
as they carried racing shells from a river and approached him to swap
contact details. This photo was as an 'aide memoir' for me. It works.][Note
the label on the side zip - that's a life-jacket!]

        http://bit.ly/Sample_RowingCoach

There are lots of things that show screen resolution here but his ucrly
forehead hair, his eyelashes and to a lesser extent his along-the-top
hairline have (or should have) lots of detail.

This as produced by an in-camera RAW to JPG engine so is less than optimum.
DxO rate this lens about 6 Mp? equivalent by their standards AND it's at
about max aperture so softer than at best settings. And the screen is still
a limiting factor.

Use a 15 Mp rated lens (only one that I own achieves this*), run it at
optimum aperture, point it at eg a bride with white veil, and wish you had
a 4K monitor.
*Sony nee Minolta 50mm f/1.8. prime
But about NO lens available - not even the very very best - gets over about
20 Mp DxO rating.


       Russell


>
-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\17@012901 by Peter Johansson

picon face
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Sean Breheny <spamBeGoneshb7spamBeGonespamcornell.edu> wrote:

> Bear in mind that this calculation depends on how large the monitor is. If
> the screen is not very wide then the image will look very good even with a
> fairly low horizontal pixel count since the spatial resolution is still
> good.

Indeed.  1920x1200 results in some rather fine pixels on a 17" screen,
but those same pixels are rather coarse on a 27" screen.  1920x1200
makes for a very nice 27" TV at TV viewing distances, but those pixels
are way too large for a desktop computer monitor.

-p.
-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\17@013944 by RussellMc

face picon face
Quick comment - work (manual labour) calls ...

On 17 May 2014 17:00, Sean Breheny <TakeThisOuTshb7EraseMEspamspam_OUTcornell.edu> wrote:

> I'm pretty sure that the human eye (assuming no problems with focus) is
> diffraction limited in typical indoor lighting conditions,


I'll have to look further at your suggestion. It may be useful in a number
of areas. I had not thought of it in those terms  (even though I should
have).

Photo viewing , for the excessively serious, is done with low external
light and screen brightness is set by the monitor and user settings.

Max brightness of many LCDs is usually 300-400 lux and usually used will be
lower.

not pixel
> resolution (rod/cone density) limited. If the pupil is 4mm in diameter (mid
> range), then the diffraction limit would be roughly 1.22*Lamba/diameter or
> 1.22*500nm/4mm=153 micro radians for 500nm light. If you are sitting at 0.5
> meter from your monitor, you can resolve pixels which are 0.000153*0.5=75
> microns pitch. For a monitor 0.5meter wide, this would be 6600 pixels
> horizontal resolution.
>

or 2000 pixels in 300mm or 2000 pixels on 900 mm wde screen a 1.5 metres.

This page (and similar)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-slt-a99/19

and

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

would allow investigations.

There are tools more directed at this. Will look.

More anon.

R
-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\17@024749 by John Guillory

picon face

Yeah, I had that parrot …. Used to be used for selling monitors.   But 256 colors at 320x200 is one thing, and millions of colors at 6000x6000 or so resolution is another thing.  I should generate a few test videos.  Set it to 5000x5000 resolution, and generate 4 dots comprised of 1 pixel each.  Randomly move each dot at random times.  You keep track of each time you see a dot move.  Let me know how many times each dot moves.  Now we test your color ability.  200 dots of random colors will be displayed.  Keep track of how many times each of the 200 colors moved.  Finally we fill the screen with 25000000 different colored pixels.  You have 2 minutes to let me know how many unique colored pixels you see.  One last test.  This should be much easier.  Fill the screen with random dots, but each dot will be either pure white or pure black.  All you have to do is tell me is how many white dots, how many black dots, which color had the most dots, and by what percent more.  Pretty simple, but I'll give you 5 minutes to compose your thoughts on this one...

--
KF5QEO
John Guillory
RemoveMEwestlakegeekspamTakeThisOuTyahoo.com
Cell: 601-754-9233
Pinger: 337-240-7890
Google Voice: 601-265-1307


{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2014\05\17@025752 by John Guillory

picon face
Ok, so let's figure up a couple of scenarios of reality.

1.  Assume that money is no object, and he has a 30ft by 8ft LCD screen with 16k resolution.  He's getting old, and loves the lifelike feel, so he sits 1 ft away from the screen.

2. Money's tight, but his health is sharp!  He's spent all his money on massive man cave, so he doesn't have the best monitor.  He managed to steal the head rest monitor out of the president's limo.  Don't tell anyone, it's 4"x3" 16k resolution hdmi monitor that runs off of 12v dc power.  He loves to watch it from his electronics bench that is 20 ft away.  Now for the record I probably couldn't even see the tv from that distance, but hey...  We'll put the schematic to his project on the screen with 1pt lines and 6pt text.  He should have no problem wiring up that project, right?

--
KF5QEO
John Guillory
EraseMEwestlakegeekspamyahoo.com
Cell: 601-754-9233
Pinger: 337-240-7890
Google Voice: 601-265-1307


{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\17@030033 by John Guillory

picon face
I don't use dslr, just a slr.  Quality is unbeatable ....  Something about true film that digital can't touch...

--
KF5QEO
John Guillory
westlakegeekSTOPspamspamspam_OUTyahoo.com
Cell: 601-754-9233
Pinger: 337-240-7890
Google Voice: 601-265-1307


{Quote hidden}

-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\17@030157 by John Guillory

picon face
But if you sit 3" from the screen, a 27" seems more like a wide screen theater!

--
KF5QEO
John Guillory
EraseMEwestlakegeekspamEraseMEyahoo.com
Cell: 601-754-9233
Pinger: 337-240-7890
Google Voice: 601-265-1307


{Quote hidden}

-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\17@045048 by Nicola Perotto

picon face

On 17/05/2014 05:23, RussellMc wrote:
> Many of the photos that I take with a DSLR are blurred and/or exposed badly
> and/or framed badly and/or ... .
Here some interesting thoughts:
https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/55047/kw/movement

Eg one problem I had:

   As pixel counts have increased, the size of a single pixel has decreased.     For example, if two DX-format cameras; the D40 (image size: 3008 x 2000) and
   the D3200 (image size: 6016 x 4000) are compared, the pixel size of the
   D3200 is approximately a quarter of that of the D40. When images are
   displayed on a computer monitor at 100%, D3200 images are actually displayed
   approximately 4 times larger than D40 images (area ratio). Even if images
   are captured under the same conditions and with the same level of hand or
   camera movement, blur in the D3200 images could effectively be quadrupled
   when displayed and become more noticeable. For this reason, it can be said
   that high pixel count cameras are more susceptible to slight movement.


-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\17@074146 by RussellMc

face picon face
On 17 May 2014 22:52, Nicola Perotto <.....nicolaspam_OUTspamnicolaperotto.it> wrote:

> On 17/05/2014 05:23, RussellMc wrote:
> > Many of the photos that I take with a DSLR are blurred and/or exposed
> badly
> > and/or framed badly and/or ... .
>

I did not make what I intended to say clear enough for all.
Many of my photos are more or less well focused, well exposed and passably
well framed. And some extremely well so in all 3 respects. And the
proportion varies with circumstance.

If I wished to I could go out wandering for a day in a foreign land and at
the end of the day have almost all photos reasonably good technically.
That, however, is "not me". Or not entirely. As well as the nicely framed
photos of the Taj Mahal, (near) perfect reflection in the long mirror pond,
symmetrically arranged and with as few (other) tourists in frame as I can
reasonably manage, there will also, from the same site,  be the squirrel at
moment of leaping off the pathway, the Eagle that I suddenly see just about
to enter a zone where a glorious photo MIGHT be possible, the young woman
looking at her cellphone (text presumably) - mouth like an O in a split
split second of surprise, monkey leaping away from the boy who took the
fight to the monkey before it got in first, sol dier in full regalia,
automatic at the ready steely eye.... [no, of course I wouldn't take that,
surely], ... . The Taj will be reasonably well done. The rest may be, or
noyt, depending how  fast/ready/balanced/surreptitious/ ... I was as the
fleeting moment passed. Amongst these are the blurred, badly exposed, badly
framed - and often enough the most brilliant of the days take.
Reality was: [Squirrel - some good ones, Eagles  - some good, largely too
far away, Mouth like an O - not quite sharp but classic, Monkey & boy -
blurred , alas, Sol ... who me? very nice.]
Just checked - mind faileth - Mouth like an O was in China, not at Taj. And
not texting.  -> http://bit.ly/Photo_JonathanJo  (I just noticed the
ear-ring for the first tiem :-) ).
With luck you may get chained spurs of the moment :-)
http://bit.ly/Photos_Mummymummy

Here some interesting thoughts:
>
> https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/55047/kw/movement
>
>
Some good advice.

Re >
> Even if images are captured under the same conditions and with the same
> level of hand or
>     camera movement, blur in the D3200 images could effectively be
> quadrupled
>     when displayed
> ...
>

Some merit in that. But shake or motion is liable to be linear rather than
areal in effect so a factor of more like 2 is arguably more appropriate.
My experience is that the "old rule" applies - hand held sharpness can be
achieved with care with shutter speeds aas as long as 1/focal_length_in_mm
s.
eg 50mm _. >= 1/50s. 250mm -> 1/250s.
Experience, Ninja breathing, luck ... can allow you to get 2 to 4 times
slower often. Lens or body stabilisation also can give you 2 to 3 stops of
shake reduction (but not target movement motion reduction).
Panning helps muchly - experience, skill, luck apply.

    Russell
-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\17@095154 by RussellMc

face picon face
I see Facebook is playing games with links again and directing references
to the top of an album rather than the photo intended.

I'll find a better way of doing this but for now, if you've clicked a link
from this thread and get a picture of a 3 headed alien and "Area 51. Aliens
in this land" text (as one does) then press left cursor arrow to step back
through album from end.

One back is the "chained spurs of the moment (small girl + photographer)
Two back is 'Mouth like an O" ("Jonathan Jo...")


    Russell






On 17 May 2014 23:41, RussellMc <TakeThisOuTapptechnz.....spamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\17@111619 by Robert Dvoracek

picon face
On May 17, 2014, at 5:00 AM, "Nicola Perotto" <.....nicolaspamRemoveMEnicolaperotto.it> wrote:

>
> On 17/05/2014 05:23, RussellMc wrote:
>> Many of the photos that I take with a DSLR are blurred and/or exposed badly
>> and/or framed badly and/or ... .
> Here some interesting thoughts:
> nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/55047/kw/movement
>
> Eg one problem I had:
>
>    As pixel counts have increased, the size of a single pixel has decreased.
>    For example, if two DX-format cameras; the D40 (image size: 3008 x 2000) and
>    the D3200 (image size: 6016 x 4000) are compared, the pixel size of the
>    D3200 is approximately a quarter of that of the D40. When images are
>    displayed on a computer monitor at 100%, D3200 images are actually displayed
>    approximately 4 times larger than D40 images (area ratio). Even if images
>    are captured under the same conditions and with the same level of hand or
>    camera movement, blur in the D3200 images could effectively be quadrupled
>    when displayed and become more noticeable. For this reason, it can be said
>    that high pixel count cameras are more susceptible to slight movement.

This is so true.  Photography has always been, and will probably continue to be for some time to come, a tradeoff between graininess, blur, and depth of field.  -- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\17@203232 by Richard R. Pope

picon face
Hello all,
    Video resolution is like the resolution of sound in many ways. The average human can perceive sound frequencies between about 20Hz and 18KHz. There are people that can hear as low as 5 Hz and others that can hear as high as 22KHz. These are usually women. Ever wonder way most horizontal circuits run at 25 KHz. It is because almost no one can hear a frequency that high. The standard frequency 75 years ago used to be only 20 KHz. The designers couldn't hear this noise because they were all men at the time. But they started receiving complaints from customers that their wives were developing headaches when the first TVs were operating. It was traced to the horizontal osc but it took a women to figure it out.
    There is reason for me going into this amount of detail because it begs the question, if most people can only hear from 20 Hz to 18 KHz why are high end stereos designed to recreate sound from as low as 1 or 2 Hz up to 25 KHz. It is because of perception. If those frequencies are missing the sound just doesn't feel as good. It lacks content. Worst is a system that is able to recreate these frequencies but in the process it distorts the lower and higher frequencies. This will drive even the average listener nuts.
    Well it is the same with video. The average person can only discern about 200,000 colors and a resolution of about 480x480. Any more than that would seem to be a waste of money. But wait, remember I said video is similar to sound. The extra colors and higher resolution allows the viewer to perceive a fuller and more dynamic picture even though if you ran the proper tests you would find that the viewer can't perceive the extra colors. I am blessed in that I can perceive about 300K colors. It is kind of cool to see hues of colors that others don't see any difference in.
    So I can understand someone being able to tell the difference between and HD display and a 4096x4096 EHD display. But most people can't but it does look better. This is especially true as the display gets larger and larger. If you double the display size you either have to quadruple the number of pixels or you have to quadruple the size of the pixels which makes the display grainier, especially up close.
Thanks,
rich!

On 5/17/2014 5:52 AM, Nicola Perotto wrote:
{Quote hidden}

-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\17@205423 by John Gardner

picon face
.... blessed in that I can perceive about 300K colors...


Blessed, or cursed - Depending...  :)



--

Eppur, si muove...
-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\18@092022 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Hi Rich,

I thought that the horizontal sweep frequency for NTSC analog TV was
15.7kHz, not 25kHz. I just checked PAL and SECAM and they are very close to
15.7kHz as well.

Sean



On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Richard R. Pope <RemoveMEmechanic_2spamspamBeGonecharter.net>wrote:

{Quote hidden}

-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\21@042425 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face
>> entry-level 4K capable video cards

BTW, I'm extremely curious as to how well 4K monitors render the max resolutions available from older video cards (say 2560x1440)

Thanks
Bill W


-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\23@164539 by cdb

flavicon
face
Lenovo have just released a nice looking 4K 28" LCD monitor. Has a KVM included - AU$799 inc GST.
--
cdb, spamBeGonecolin@spam@spamspam_OUTbtech-online.co.uk on 24/05/2014
Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk   Hosted by:  http://www.justhost.com.au
 This email is to be considered private if addressed to a named  individual or Personnel Department, and public if addressed to a blog,  forum or news article.
 
-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\23@210119 by veegee

flavicon
face
AMD R9 280 is very good. It'll last you at least 4 or 5 years. At least. My
AMD 6950 lasted me 4 years and still running strong.

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:32 PM, RussellMc <TakeThisOuTapptechnzspamspamgmail.com> wrote:

> Sought: Comments & recommendations on acceptable performance low-cost
> entry-level 4K capable video cards for "desktop" applications.
>
-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.


'[OT]:: 4K Video'
2017\11\24@060445 by RussellMc
face picon face

3.5 years on I'd like to ask much the same question.
There are "rather more solutions" available now.
Starting at "cheap" and working up a little if needs be, what's wrong or
right with various offerings.

*I want a "PC" / WIN10 video card to run a 4K video screen *(or several)(2
screens of various resolutions OK, more nice)

- Major aim is to be able to view photos full screen on a 4k monitor.
- Next lower aim is general use as a 'desktop able to support  the
equivalent of (2x2) 4 x 1080p HD screens.
- Video capability requirements are modest.
- Gaming will have to wait for another lifetime.

Ability to display 4k full screen photo based images at whatever rate an
editing / viewing program can present them is desirable.

My prior comments on this thread still largely apply
Searching for posts with subject = [OT]:: 4K Video should provide all prior
posts (if you've saved them :-) ).


​Russell​


​eg at a quick skim "Gigabyte Radeon RX 560 OC 2G Radeon RX 560 2GB GDDR5"
for $NZ223 sounds "adequate". Is it?
Support for 3 monitors would be nice but not essential.


www.trademe.co.nz/computers/components/video-cards/agp/auction-1473653382.htm
​

...  Smooth and Crisp Visual Equipped with one Dual-link DVI-D, one DP, and
one HDMI ports, the card *can support 3 displays *and deliver smooth 4K
video playback. AORUS Graphics Engine The cutting edge intuitive interface
allows you to tune the clock speeds, voltage, fan performance, and power
target in real-time according to your own gaming requirement.

*​________________________  OLDER  ____________________________*​



On 17 May 2014 at 11:32, RussellMc <apptechnzEraseMEspamgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2017 , 2018 only
- Today
- New search...