Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
magneto

Anyone using 4K displays for 3d?

Recommended Posts

Thanks Freek, that's awesome feedback. I also see images resized in your blog when I click on them. Do you have them in original resolution? :) Would be cool to see.

 

It seems like Houdini is already 4K ready? I assume Mark has gotten his 4K display at work :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently using large.

Hi DPI is honestly a bit too big for me again, especially the shelf icons, negating the bonus of what I really want (giant spreadsheets and network view)
one thing that is interesting is that nodes seem to auto seperate more, and text stays smaller then on a 1080P display. making it so that I can't view the entire network and read all the nod names while ooking around (something I desperately want) 

ideally the large option should be slightly larger then it is now (looks like normal to me pretty much) 
and a seperate control for text size (especially in the network editor)

and I'm looking for a spot to put the images where hey are uncompressed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My assumption was Hi DPI brings the scale back to normal in 4K, but I might be wrong :) Which is why I was curious about the point of using a 4K monitor at the size of 30" or less where the fine resolution of 2560x1600 is just the right size. So I wasn't sure the purpose of squeezing more pixels into the same display area, only to get the applications to compensate for this using Hi DPI options.

 

I think you said at 4K smaller text can be read though :) So I am still not sure what the perfect size for 4K would be?

 

A quick calculation tells me 40" or 42" might be an ideal size for a 4K monitor based on my experience with 30"s :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi DPI is honestly a bit too big for me again, especially the shelf icons, negating the bonus of what I really want (giant spreadsheets and network view)

 

Yeah, High DPI was designed for laptops with QuadHD to 4K resolutions, and not larger 30" class monitors.

 

You can calculate the rough DPI of a monitor using:

DPI = (horizontal res) / (size in inches) * 1.15

(1.15 is the ratio of the horizontal screen width to the diagonal of the screen for 16:9 monitors).

 

So for a 28", 3840x2160 screen, you're looking at a DPI of around 164. That's not really in the "high DPI" category, which is why High DPI would look big.  High DPI is more for 200 DPI and up, so you can actually read text & identify icons.

 

ideally the large option should be slightly larger then it is now (looks like normal to me pretty much) 

and a seperate control for text size (especially in the network editor)

 

It's only about 10% larger, and it was meant mostly for demos and workshops on a projector screen :) But it could likely benefit from a boost now that there's a "medium DPI" segment of 24-28" QuadHD and 28-32" 4K monitors. Before they came along, desktop monitors were often in the 80-100DPI range.

 

There are some font preferences for the network editor in the Main Prefs > Network Editor, Nodes, Trees section which might help with the font scaling. I think it may be independent of the UI scale modifed by UI Size categories. These are the sorts of DPI issues we still need to address (sane defaults for DPIs > 110).

 

Edit: Incidentally, there's another 28" 4K monitor just released by ASUS for $650 (likely the same panel as in the Samsung): http://www.asus.com/Monitors_Projectors/PB287Q/overview/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit murky, but generally QHD is 2560x1440/1600. 3860x2160 is officialy Ultra HD, but while 4K used to refer to digital cinema resolutions around 4096, it is now being used as another term for Ultra HD. There's apparantly also Full Ultra HD too, 7680x4320, but I suspect it might be awhile before we see a monitor with that res (the cabling specs can't handle it yet).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8K is kind of ridiculous as it is simply more pixels then the human eye can see. (quite literally)
unless it is curved and covers your entire FOV there is no point 9unless you look at parts of it for say an X-ray examination or something)

anywyas the Asus is nice as it can swivel, there is also a phiips coming, basically both are nice.
the optimal size for a 4K I'd guess to be 32"-39" more and you'll be panning or sitting further back (which eliminates the extra res)
any smaller and it does get hard to read.

 

ps in the network editor:
a size of 9 for minimum text size
15 as normal

and 30 as max

 

seems to work out ideal for 4K 28" for me btw :)

Edited by freaq
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8K is kind of ridiculous as it is simply more pixels then the human eye can see. (quite literally)

unless it is curved and covers your entire FOV there is no point 9unless you look at parts of it for say an X-ray examination or something)

 

Development of 8k should lead to smaller more efficent display technology that can be used in other applications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if Houdini can handle that res

 

Houdini? Sure. Your graphics card? Well....

 

For discussions of visual acuity, I think a better unit of comparison would be "Dots per Degree", which takes into account the average viewing distance from the screen. For example, a 24" 16:10 1920x1200 monitor would have a DPD of 48 for me, as I'm sitting roughly 24" from it. Phones and tablets generally need high DPI due to the fact that most people seem to hold them 8-10" from their eyes. Desktop monitors haven't needed the 300+ DPI simply because they tend to be at least 18" away from the user's eye (and I'd think more like 24" on average). Most people simply don't have the visual acuity needed to make out pixels that far away, at even half the DPI. TVs are even further, between 5-15 feet away, so their resolution matters even less (but res sells TVs, so...).

 

I'd expect 8K TVs to simply be larger, on the order of 80" and up. I think they'd have the same issue as Plasma TVs at that point; they just can't manufacture the individual pixel elements any smaller, so the screen has to get bigger.

 

Personally I'd rather see the dynamic range and color reproduction (10b, 12b) get better, before we start going off into resolution la-la-land.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Houdini? Sure. Your graphics card? Well....

 

For discussions of visual acuity, I think a better unit of comparison would be "Dots per Degree", which takes into account the average viewing distance from the screen. For example, a 24" 16:10 1920x1200 monitor would have a DPD of 48 for me, as I'm sitting roughly 24" from it. Phones and tablets generally need high DPI due to the fact that most people seem to hold them 8-10" from their eyes. Desktop monitors haven't needed the 300+ DPI simply because they tend to be at least 18" away from the user's eye (and I'd think more like 24" on average). Most people simply don't have the visual acuity needed to make out pixels that far away, at even half the DPI. TVs are even further, between 5-15 feet away, so their resolution matters even less (but res sells TVs, so...).

 

I'd expect 8K TVs to simply be larger, on the order of 80" and up. I think they'd have the same issue as Plasma TVs at that point; they just can't manufacture the individual pixel elements any smaller, so the screen has to get bigger.

 

Personally I'd rather see the dynamic range and color reproduction (10b, 12b) get better, before we start going off into resolution la-la-land.

absolutely, there was a chart, and basically unless you encompass the 130 degree full FOV 8K makes no sense

(and even then there is essentially too much detail) bit it would be nice to walk up to the screen and still have amazing detail for other purposes.

10-12 bit commonplace (my TN 4K actually does support this)would be nice, however I'd much rather see true HFR 120hrz and up.

24 FPS in movies is nuts imho, panning shots get incredibly blurry, and at any resolution over full HD  24 fps is not enough every pixel needs to be motionblurred or you get incredible judder.

 

that said you might need to blend frames together to avoid the "frozen in time" look due to the shorter shuttertime.

but it adds tons of detail, much more the resolution itself.

back to desktop though I could see however options like VR UI take over entirely essentially an Oculus VR desktop:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JdjWhXrq68 (not oculus but the concept is there)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I-pGCpl2PE

 

espeically if we can sort windows in true 3D and navigate them as such I can see some major benefits.
screens in these VR displays would need to be around 4K but as it moves with you you'd never run out of space.

the one question is communication with other people, and making the headgear comfortable light and non nausia inducing for longer periods of time.

I feel though taht although this sounds completely pie in the sky this could truly change the way we do UI's

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this frame rate stuff is just crap ;), why do we need a shutter? Why not just update parts of the image that move - aka image compression - and sample the scene at 1million + times a second.

 

Other good uses of 8K+ will be in things like planes sans windows

http://www.wired.com/2014/02/supersonic-jet-video-windows/

Edited by marty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ marty you can totally do that in a path tracer, just transform the geo while tracing and voila perfect accurate motion blur with barely any performance hit. (rebuilding the datatrees maybe)
anyways not so much so for real cameras I'm afraid....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got my Dell 24" 4K monitor for high-DPI testing (184dpi). My initial thoughts, using Windows 7 (will be moving it to other platforms to iron out issues as well):

  • It's crisp. Beyond crisp. Looking back at my old 24" 1920x1200 monitor, it looks out of focus and it never bothered me before. If you do dual-monitor work, you're going to have to buy two high-DPI monitors. It'll just kill your eyes otherwise.
  • It's really hard to explain the difference without seeing it. Imagine a high DPI tablet or laptop (retina, for example) and just make it a lot bigger :) It looks like regular typeface, I guess is the best way of describing it (or maybe the same monitor using DVI instead of a VGA cable :) )
  • The monitor came with DP 1.2 disabled, limiting the refresh to 30Hz (for best compatibiltiy, I assume). You need to enable it in the On-Screen Display (OSD) in the Display Settings to get 60Hz (and use a DP cable, and DP1.2 capable card)
  • Color reproduction is really nice. I settled on 5700K as my preferred color temp. 6500K looked a bit cool; I think I'll need to slowly convert over to pure sRGB, a few K at a time.
  • Houdini looks really nice in High DPI UI mode (I'm tweaking it a bit). Wire-over-shaded and wireframe look awesome. I've spent perhaps a bit too much time ogling today.
  • Large mode is a little too small for this dpi setting. I found myself leaning in a lot, and things were hard to hit. I'm tweaking that a bit based on my experience and Freaq's suggestions.
  • Viewport performance didn't take as big a hit as I was expecting, even with 4x AA. (FirePro W8000)
  • Windows 7 font scaling is a little hit or miss. Some apps roll with it quite well, others don't at all. Houdini at 125% fonts or less will render at native res. At 150%, Houdini is rendered at 2560x1440 and scaled up (think - a little fuzzy). You can adjust this via the Compatibility tab in the exe properties dialog, (Windows RMB > Properties on the Houdini exe). Turn on "Disable display scaling on high DPI settings". I settled on 150% fonts, which is even a bit on the small side for a lot of the Windows system apps.

I'll post another update once I've tested OSX & Linux.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome Mark!

I must say 24" sounds too small without windows scaling for sure...
28 is causing me to pinch sometimes already, I think 32 is probably the sweet spot to work with.
 

in High DPI Houdini looks glorious, but I must say I don;t really care, I want space not huge icons,
looking forward to seeing the new large settings :) (or whatever you will call them maybe save the old large just to be sure?)
 

I can attest the problem with multiple resolutions (your mouse slows down it's weird)
windows 8.1 scaling is supposedly slightly better. but still sub optimal, OSX definitely did a nicer job with this so far..
hopefully win 9 will truly solve this issue.

looking forward to the OSX Linus evaluations :D
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got my Dell 24" 4K monitor for high-DPI testing (184dpi). My initial thoughts, using Windows 7 (will be moving it to other platforms to iron out issues as well):

 

Only 24"? Come on now :)

 

How does Houdini look different apart from scaling though? Is it to do with subpixel drawing? Can you please post some screenshots at native res? It would be really nice to see it :)

 

Also do you have to use Windows settings to adjust Houdini in addition to Houdini's own hi-DPI setting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in High DPI Houdini looks glorious, but I must say I don;t really care, I want space not huge icons

 

Yes, agreed. In High DPI mode on a 24" 4K monitor, the shelf icons are roughly the size of the icons in Compact mode on a 1920x1200 monitor. They do look very detailed, though.

 

I also tried Small, Compact and Normal just for kicks. Normal is pretty much unusable unless you have superb vision and a very steady hand. The others just look plain wrong.

 

The new Large and High DPI adjustments are in today's cut (13.0.406). For the most part I just attempted to normalize the sizes so that everything looked about the same scale. High DPI especially looked like a mish-mash of Normal and Small mode on a normal monitor.

 

Only 24"?

 

I needed a monitor with a high pixel density for testing. The 28" and 32" monitors just didn't have that, even though I'm sure they're quite nice.

 

How does Houdini look different apart from scaling though? Is it to do with subpixel drawing? Can you please post some screenshots at native res? It would be really nice to see it

 

Well, just looking the Build Desktop, I've moved the parameter/network split so that it's only 1/5 of the main window, and the rest of the area is the viewport. Both are still completely readable and usuable, as everything is very sharp and crisp (icons, fonts, lines). It's almost like having dual-monitors in a single monitor.

 

The viewport itself, the contruction grid is very fine, as are wireframes. You almost don't need AA, but with 4x AA, edges are sharp with no visible jaggies (unless you really lean in and peer at it from less than 10" away).

 

Also do you have to use Windows settings to adjust Houdini in addition to Houdini's own hi-DPI setting?

 

For H13, yes (techinical issues). You won't need to do this for the next version, it'll just work, auto-detect and select a UI Size for you. You can then change this if you like, but at least it won't start up in micro-print (Normal @ 180dpi).

 

 

The screenshot below is a portion of the Houdini interface, approximately the size of a photo on my monitor (4"x6"). If you view it on a high-DPI tablet or phone, you might get a better idea of how it looks.

post-641-0-72065600-1399482776_thumb.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×