A chance to talk to FlatpanelsHD's reviewers.
User avatar
By Rasmus Larsen
#6835 Our Sony X9 review is now online. It is also our first review of a 4K TV. X9 is Sony's range of 4K TVs with a 55" 55X900A and a 65" 65X900A model.
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php? ... 1376977553

Also, be sure to read our article about Sony's work with 4K in its Hollywood studios.
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/focus.php?s ... 1376977424

If you have questions please use this thread.

Enjoy.
User avatar
By Rasmus Larsen
#6837
RedGrant wrote:It actually isn't a 4K TV but an UHD one.


Yes, it is. And that is what Sony has decided to market it as. The suggestion that it should instead be called 2160p has no historical or technical basis.

If you want some more information on the technical side of 4K / UHD we have an in-depth article here:
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/focus.php?s ... 1366264710
By PG1
#6843 great test!

but i just wondering:
Not even the Samsung UE55F9000 seems to have the wider rec2020 gamut..whats that all about?..cheap specs for the first versions of 4K tvs..rec2020 is standard for UHDTVs right?

i also have seen a test from the new Xperia Z Ultra tablet that has Triluminos color.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_CEqPDMtOs
from those results its only producing rec709 colors.
(maybe the problem there was the lack of Triluminos content i dont know)

what do you think?
is there a diffrence between Triluminos content such as the new Mastered in 4K discs vs regular blu rays

also it will be interesting to see how Sony solve the storage problem with 4k content and with what media we will get it.
USB discs or downloaded?

damn this tv is nice
price is not :)
By wirk
#6844 Rasmus:

You say the 55" X9 is showing that 4K is much better than HD even from a longer distance. As a proof of this you tested with 4K clips from Sony media player and identical HD clips from USB stick. However, you say that HD clips were compressed at 17.9 Mb/s but there is no information about the compression of 4K clips. I suppose the 4K clips were compressed quite lightly and much of the superioity of 4K is due to the lower compression. Proper comparison of 4K vs. HD should include material which is compressed equivalently. One could even argue that HD should be compressed at the same rate as 4K since then the bandwidth/storage will be the same. For example it the 4K is compressed to 40 Mb/s then why not HD should not compressed at the same rate?
User avatar
By Rasmus Larsen
#6845
PG1 wrote:great test!

but i just wondering:
Not even the Samsung UE55F9000 seems to have the wider rec2020 gamut..whats that all about?..cheap specs for the first versions of 4K tvs..rec2020 is standard for UHDTVs right?

i also have seen a test from the new Xperia Z Ultra tablet that has Triluminos color.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_CEqPDMtOs
from those results its only producing rec709 colors.
(maybe the problem there was the lack of Triluminos content i dont know)

what do you think?
is there a diffrence between Triluminos content such as the new Mastered in 4K discs vs regular blu rays


Thanks.

None of the current 4K TVs support Rec.2020 to my knowledge. I assume that this will change in future versions. We saw a very similar pattern with the first Full HD TVs. Many unanswered questions back then. Some of the first Full HD TVs didn't even support Full HD processing throughout the entire picture processing chain, so Full HD would be downscaled, processed, and then upscaled again. The first 4K TVs only seems to embrace the lowest requirements for 4K. Sony takes it a bit further with xcColor support, but it's still far from Rec.2020.

There is some chatter in the industry about HDMI 2.0. Some lobbying is going on, and some seem to suggest that certain interest groups (traditional TV channel providers) lobby to have the Rec.2020 color gamut excluded from HDMI 2.0, simply because they could never carry that over their limited TV pipes. That would be bad. If that happens it will probably mean that we will be stuck on Rec.709 for a few more years, despite cable standard alternatives to HDMI. TV makers don't seem very keen on adopting Thunderbolt and DisplayPort.

We also had a quick talk in the comment section so I just thought I would re-post what I wrote about xvColor and "post processing". :)

It is not a post process per se. Only if you enable xcColor on a non-xcColor encoded movie. With for example the Mastered in 4K Blu-ray movies, xcColor is encoded into the video, based on studio masters of movies in DCI color space.

xvColor uses the same color primaries (and secondary colors points), and the same 6500 K white point. In other words you can basically use the same BT.709 calibration.

The extended colors in xvColor lies outside the grey scale range (of video levels), so if a xcColor signal (such as on the Mastered in 4K Blu-rays) is sent to a non-xcColor supported panel, it just throws the extra information away. These Triluminos TVs can use the extra information.

PG1 wrote:also it will be interesting to see how Sony solve the storage problem with 4k content and with what media we will get it.
USB discs or downloaded?

damn this tv is nice
price is not :)


I think we will learn more about next-gen Blu-ray and HDMI 2.0 either at IFA 2013 this September or at IBC 2013 a bit later in September. Right now Sony only has a hard drive based solution with the FMP-X1 4K player. Sony's PlayStation 4 will also have access to the 4K movie service, but it will probably still be via download.

Hopefully price is coming down soon :)
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?su ... 1376374963
User avatar
By Rasmus Larsen
#6846
wirk wrote:However, you say that HD clips were compressed at 17.9 Mb/s but there is no information about the compression of 4K clips. I suppose the 4K clips were compressed quite lightly and much of the superioity of 4K is due to the lower compression. Proper comparison of 4K vs. HD should include material which is compressed equivalently. One could even argue that HD should be compressed at the same rate as 4K since then the bandwidth/storage will be the same. For example it the 4K is compressed to 40 Mb/s then why not HD should not compressed at the same rate?


Yeah, I see your point, and agree to some extent, but not entirely. Blu-rays are actually compressed quite lightly for 1920x1080 content. But H.264 is not optimized for 4K. Compressing 4K with H.264 at the same bitrate as Full HD content is a bit unfair, as H.264 never has and never will be optimized fully for 4K. A fairer test would be to run both in H.265, but that is impossible right now.

I actually tried to get information on bitrate for the 4K clips, but Sony’s internal 4K player is pretty well locked-up in a metal cabinet. It has a hard drive inside and a USB port, but it can only read, not write, so there is no way to get the content out.

We need to accept that 4K requires higher bandwidth. I don't think the goal should be to sell 4K on discs or online with the same bitrate as current Full HD Blu-ray. It is true that Full HD can improve based on higher bit rates, but the same is true for 4K, and 4K just needs more bitrate to reach its potential. Full HD would reach its potential at a lower bitrate than 4K would require to reach its potential, so I wouldn't try to force conclusions on 4K based on the Full HD paradigm. We also moved to higher bitrate when HD took over from SD.
By PG1
#6849
Rasmus Larsen wrote:I would re-post what I wrote about xvColor and "post processing". :)


thanks for the info
yes i saw that

but still it would be interseting to see how far the extended colors goes when xvICC is enabled.
they talk about 1.8 times bigger than the SRGB gamut.
the problem is that you cant check it right?

i have an old reference Calibrated LG Infinia LED TV from 2010 that supports xvColor.
also i have orderd the new Sony BDPS5100B blu ray player that supports Triluminos color.
i supose thats the same as xvcolor.
third i have order three of the "Mastered in 4K" blu rays that has this xvColor.

i hope to see some difference :)
User avatar
By Rasmus Larsen
#6850
PG1 wrote:but still it would be interseting to see how far the extended colors goes when xvICC is enabled.
they talk about 1.8 times bigger than the SRGB gamut.
the problem is that you cant check it right?


Here's a graphic showing the xvColor gamut compared to the one used in Rec.709.
http://www.extron.com/img/home/hdsdihdmi_ts3.gif

I actually didn't measure that on X9, should probably have done that. However, I'm more interested in moving directly to Rec.2020. Especially because I think this "Mastered in 4K" thing will be short-lived.

Give us your thoughts on it when you receive the new things :-) I didn't try, but the PS3 should also support xvColor. I don't know if you have one, but many people do, so they don't need to buy a new player.
User avatar
By Rasmus Larsen
#6853
PG1 wrote:washed out colors when xvColor was used

thats great ;)

everyone with a non 4k sony tv gets washed out colors so it cant be a true xvcolor signal


No, non-XvColor TV will see completely normal Rec.709 colors. xvColor is encoded as for example "Red +/- saturation". Mastered in 4K Blu-rays will playback as normal Blu-rays on TVs without xvColor support. These TVs just ignore the added information.

It is a true xvColor signal and encoding.
By PG1
#6856 you need a new Triluminos TV from SONY to get the extra colors
it doesnt matter if your OLD TV supports xvcolor
it gets fucked up when you enable xvcolor
By rnbarg
#6862 Pre-orders for Oct 4th on their site. I got an RMA to send back the Sony w900 today with the intent of getting the 65xbr850. At IFA, CNET continues to trash talk the hell out of all 4Ks. Every article has a link and reiterates 4K is Stupid. Yet consumers are buying the sets. This often cited article, chart and calculator suggests its optically impossible to appreciate 4K, even on a 65" at normal viewing distance 9'. http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

Yet, consumers seem to be buying the 4K Sony in droves notwithstanding the price cuts. 4K is actually pushing Sony TV into the black for the first time. So why is that all the leading professionals except you maintain there is no benefit. And you can take that as something of a rhetorical question.

Or put another way, a play on words of an American expression as regards the X8/9, What's RIGHT w/this picture?
User avatar
By Rasmus Larsen
#6865 I know the Carlton Bale chart and we have also cited it here on Flatpanels. However, it is theory, and that is important to remember. It assumes that a TV is perfect. Perfect clarity, perfect details, perfect colors (and full color gamut), no artefacts etc. But no TVs are like that, not even close. All TVs have color issues, all TVs have pixel issues (such as screen doors), blurring during motion, etc. All these things affect the perception of detail. The human eye is complex, but for example color plays a major role in detail perception, and with Rec.709 colors it is simply not possible to reach the limits of our human eye. The human eye is dynamic, and it's complex.

The Carlton Bale chart is a good indicator, but it shouldn't be regarded as nothing more than that. Also, remember that all TVs have motion blurring issues to some extent. So why do people consider 4K TVs irrelevant, when they actually reduce for example blurring effect? As wella s other issues. Or put in another way, they hide some of the shortcomings of display technologies due to the increase in resolution. That’s just one example. My point is that TVs are much more than resolution. It is easy to comprehend the concept of pixels, it’s just numbers, and many people - including CNET - fall in that trap. It is far more difficult to relate it to other factors such as colors, or even how the human eye works.

Let's hear your thoughts on the X8 when you receive it, Richard! :-)