The Biggest Failures in Consumer Audio/Video Electronics History

[sterling shoote]

Apples and oranges,we're talking about display technology here. 8K would be virtually useless on a 90 inch TV in your home, totally useless, that's my point. Human beings just don't have unlimited visual acuity.

QUOTE FROM SONY FAQ:
HOW CLOSE TO THE TV MUST I SIT TO APPRECIATE 4K?
"THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT BETWEEN 5 AND 6 FT. IS THE IDEAL VIEWING DISTANCE FOR A 55” OR 65” SONY 4K ULTRA HD TV. HOWEVER, ON A 55“, YOU CAN NOW SIT AS CLOSE AS 3.6 FT AND ENJOY A VISIBLY SMOOTHER AND MORE DETAILED PICTURE (E.G YOU WON’T SEE THE INDIVIDUAL PIXELS). ON A 65“ TV, YOU CAN SIT AS CLOSE AS 4.2 FT. TO APPRECIATE 4K.
SOURCE"

It's not apples and oranges, just facts regarding perception. And fact is even though I may only be able to see a pixel from a 45 mp sensor when the image is enlarged about 400 percent. I can distinguish the image from same produced from a 24 mp sensor at full frame on a hi-rez 4 by 6 print. The perception in a word is sparkle. And, it's what is expected today in architectural photography. Using my Sony 43 inch 4k TV as a photo editing monitor from a distance of about 2 ft, I can discern my editing measures beyond what I could with my 1080 monitor. If an 8k 43 inch monitor were on the market today I'd buy it, since while the 4 k is great, I could do faster editing with even more resolution better matching my camera's output.

 

[highfigh]

Do you realize there's an actual limit to human visual acuity? A scientific, objective, fact based limit to human visual acuity. People who are knowledgeable a video display technology, like Dr. Raymond Soneira (Displaymate Technologies) and Joe Kane (Video Essentials), all have agreed. Also, Experts in the field of human eyesight such as ophthalmology, have stated that there are limits to human visual acuity.

Now with that said, as it applies to display resolutions, it is a fact, the science supports it, that 4K resolution on display 65', for example from 10 feet, the typical human cannot tell the difference between 4K and 1080P.

Now I do agree that if you get real close , say 3 feet from a 65 inch you can notice a difference, however most of us will not sit that close, what for, why would we want to sit 3 feet from 65 inch set.

https://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

I never wrote that 8k is necessary but we all know that eventually, we'll see a lot of people claiming that their TV is the best and that they saw a difference when they replaced the old one.

The first tests for HD showed that people couldn't see the difference between 720 and 1080 from 9' but I don't remember the size of the display. 720p looks pretty darn good, as long as the source resolution is a good match, from a distance. Up close, it's not as good.

"Don't sit so close- you're ruin your eyes"- ever hear that one?

 

[highfigh]

It was 15-18 years ago I was shooting motorcycle race and track day photos with a Nikon D1 (original one, not D1x) and it's a whopping 2.7mp. I sold a LOT of 20x30 inch poster prints and buyers were just fine with them. I knew what they were, and Photoshop was pretty good at smoothing things out. I can go into motorcycle shops today and see those prints on the wall, they still look great.

Even when I was doing that, I understood what was going on. I also shot 4x5 film, several medium formats, and 35mm film. I've also been to my local Worcester Art Museum to see their original print of Ansel Adams "Moonrise, Hernandez 1941" (and many others they have), so I knew what 'high res' 8x10 at 2.5x enlargement looks like from 2 feet away.

I find a lot of parallels in TV and movie screen viewing distances and resolution. I have a 4K TV and know well that I sit WAY too far from it to gain anything. It's still nice to know I can move close and see the benefit if I want.

Film vs digital is the reason I lost interest in photography- I couldn't afford the resolution I wanted and had some prints from photos I had shot on 35mm that don't look as good as the print, even in a 29MB scan. Smoothing photos of the Grand Canyon just makes me think I'm looking at it through smudged glasses. Across the room, it might not matter, but at arm's length, the 20x30 looks like the real thing, from the original distance.

 

[Calypte]

"The Atmos and DTS:X technologies are fantastic. "

Maybe. For home use, these will go the way of 3D unless the consumer electronics retailers make a serious effort to provide proper demos. For most of the nation, BB is it for a retail-channel home theater experience. BB isn't up to the task.

 

[highfigh]

"The Atmos and DTS:X technologies are fantastic. "

Maybe. For home use, these will go the way of 3D unless the consumer electronics retailers make a serious effort to provide proper demos. For most of the nation, BB is it for a retail-channel home theater experience. BB isn't up to the task.

Well, yeah, now that Radio Shack is just about gone.

They got out of audio a long time ago, and they probably should have stayed- cell phones are a PITA and they're far easier to steal, which cost RS a lot of money.

 

[Jim grigsby]

Quadraphonic early matrix decoders along with CD-4 which was infinitely worse in complexity. Nothing but confusion and horrible performance from the early SQ and QS decoders..... The great irony of all this is an Australian company came out with Surround Master which is absolutely astounding in the ability to extract amazing surround sound from the captured ambiance in stereo recordings.