Reminder: Quad HD doesn't make everything look better

Look, we wouldn't want to be paused for your wicked, Quad HD amusement either. But seeing such a vivid demo on JVC's 4K2K (4,096 x 2,400), super high definition LCD as we strolled through IFA's digital playground reminded us of something: maybe not everything looks better in Quad HD. Think about it before you hustle on over to Japan for Panasonic's 150-inch Quad HD set next year.

All juvenility aside, the image above was created using JVC's "soon to arrive" ultra high-definition player attached over dual-link DVI to the 4k2k display. The video uses MPEG-4AVC compression to convert the 6Gbps original 4K source into 50Mbps. More pics in the gallery below.

Gallery: Reminder: Quad HD doesn't make everything look better

• 
• 
• 

[Jerrell Jones @ Aug 29th 2008 1:15PM]

EW look at those pimples hahah
u dnt even need quad HD there is a lot of stuff that still doesnt even use regular HD

[Marco @ Aug 29th 2008 1:21PM]

Lol, like you look any better. You couldn't even get that woman to slap your fugly ass.

[Jeremy K. @ Aug 29th 2008 1:38PM]

lol play nice now Marco.

[Bobby @ Aug 29th 2008 1:53PM]

Engadget editor does not understand concept.
HD, Quad HD are not to make look "better"
They are to make look as it is !!!! No more lies !

[Ray @ Aug 29th 2008 2:18PM]

@bobbi

I dont want to see things as is, i will never sit close enough to someone IRL to see the details that come out in quad HD

Im already having a problem looking at all my local news channels since they switched over to HD... these people never looked uglier. Hell, ive seen most of them in person and theyve looked much better than they do on screen

[Vidikron (FU) @ Aug 29th 2008 3:07PM]

@Ray

Unless you are watching on a gigantic screen, chances are you would never sit close enough to a QuadHD screen to see the difference either. 1080p already goes to waste in many home situations.

[phanbouy @ Aug 29th 2008 3:11PM]

@Vidikron

shh!! higher number = more nerd worship

[FreeRange @ Aug 29th 2008 4:06PM]

Somebody at Fox News just read Bobby's post and thought, "Maybe we should stay SD..."

[JohnTitor @ Aug 29th 2008 4:09PM]

is that just a piece of the screen, cause if that picture represents the whole screen at a 600x448 res nevermind Quad HD, its not even SD and I can notice that stuff

[OneLove @ Aug 29th 2008 4:42PM]

So Quad HD adds red arrows to the image and points out everyone flaws. I see.

[chris @ Aug 31st 2008 12:09AM]

you think that's bad imagine how porn looks in quad hd? ewwww

[who? @ Aug 29th 2008 1:17PM]

OMG, that would be great if it came with zit cream!

[Nowire @ Aug 29th 2008 1:18PM]

Yes, pimples, and that's only a manequin. Imagine looking at a real person. :P

[JC @ Aug 29th 2008 1:25PM]

Yes, because they make mannequins with pimples. Maybe if you left your dark basement once in a blue moon, you'd be able to tell the difference.

[phanbouy @ Aug 29th 2008 1:27PM]

@JC WHOOSH!

[Jacob @ Aug 29th 2008 1:20PM]

I would still hit it, Quad HD, that is

[waiownsyou @ Aug 29th 2008 1:25PM]

Damn, imagine the power we'll need from our computers to run these videos, not to mention HDD space! Here's to Moore's Law on steroids!!

[Information Central @ Aug 29th 2008 1:30PM]

50 Mbps? That's about six megabytes per second. Absolute garbage. Count on seeing lots of demo images with vast, open swaths of plain color (like the sky in the grab above) or blurred backgrounds, and little or no motion.

There's just no end to the fraud of "HD", "digital quality", and everything else that's being squandered with ridiculous levels of compression.

[sr @ Aug 29th 2008 1:42PM]

You do realize that DVD and its MPEG-2 "threw away" 97% of the information from the Raw video right? But still I see your point. If Blu-Ray uses the same bitrate for 1080p, then we would need 4x times that for 4K. Still I think since the compression algorithms use technique to find similarities in pixels and frames that the same level of artifacting can be achieved with something less than 4 times the data rate. I'd say something like 100mbps would match the artifacting level of Blu-Ray.

[Loban @ Aug 29th 2008 2:28PM]

Technically the term "HD" only refers to the resolution, not the compression level. So if something is at 1920 x 1080, it's technically HD even if it looks like garbage.

[konshuss @ Aug 29th 2008 5:21PM]

when did the definition of a picture become confused with its resolution? oh right, for marketing purposes.

[sr @ Aug 29th 2008 1:38PM]

Wow, JVC is always on top of things. First to HD recorded video with D-VHS and now a 4K player.

[inteller @ Aug 29th 2008 1:39PM]

That girl is still hotter than 95% of the fat American hags we have here....and that would be without all the makeup she is wearing.

[Rudolphe @ Aug 29th 2008 2:19PM]

Exscuse me, but what is hot about this chick again? Even without the pimples the chick is trash, her face is as flat as a board.

[Ian @ Aug 29th 2008 2:50PM]

umm have you been to a decent college lately?

[phanbouy @ Aug 29th 2008 3:24PM]

@Ian

whatcha mean? good schools have hot girlies?

certainly is true at Cal.... :D

[whowhatme @ Aug 29th 2008 4:58PM]

@phanbouy: good colleges have ASIAN girls, which the nerdy white guys try to get on all the time. it's sick, really...

[Kip HT @ Aug 30th 2008 1:55AM]

In soviet russia, asian girls chase YOU

[helloUser @ Aug 29th 2008 1:50PM]

Quad HD? On a 60 inch display? Fat pixels dont make an image better quality. Pixel pitch is what really counts. My 24" LCD @ 1920x1200 produces a much sharper image.

These 'HD' claims are stupid and exaggerated.

[waiownsyou @ Aug 29th 2008 2:03PM]

But you have to admit it still will look better than 1080P on a 100" screen

[Carl M @ Aug 29th 2008 1:52PM]

OMG! People on TV looking like actual human beings!? What's the world coming to?

[innuendo @ Aug 29th 2008 1:54PM]

Just play everything in slow motion... Things Look Better in Slow Motion!

[nathan.wong @ Aug 29th 2008 1:57PM]

dang it! I can't even get 1080p in households and now we're talking about 4000p? Geez.

[Jeff @ Aug 29th 2008 3:32PM]

2400p actually

[Major4Play @ Aug 29th 2008 1:58PM]

Once more geekish men set back males everywhere with their sad dispostion to point out what real skin looks like as "flaws"
Go out into the sunlight and look at people around you, I know its bright but if your little beady pink eyes can't handle anything above a soiled macbook screen then wear sunglasses. It will make you seem approachable since woman can't see you goggling at their boobs and drooling out of the corner of your mouth.

[Ian @ Aug 29th 2008 2:52PM]

well said, well said

[LondonConsultant @ Aug 30th 2008 7:36AM]

If only those sunglasses could Photoshop reality...

[Jason @ Sep 1st 2008 1:28AM]

Well, if it's any consolation, for me it's not the pimples, just the freakish arrow-shaped birthmarks that are off-putting. DAMN YOU HD!! DAMN YOU!!

[nathan.wong @ Aug 29th 2008 1:59PM]

Dang! We can't even get 1080p into households and now we have 4k2k?

[o29 @ Aug 29th 2008 2:00PM]

This just in!:

People not perfect

[Nogami @ Aug 29th 2008 2:01PM]

You know where you see high-res pictures that look beautiful? Magazines. Know why they look that way? Photoshop.

Personally, I prefer reality. Flaws and all...

[phanbouy @ Aug 29th 2008 2:16PM]

that's why you have an anime avatar, right? ;D

[Loban @ Aug 29th 2008 2:30PM]

Agreed, I won't be fully satisfied until my eye cannot distinguish between the image and real life. HD isn't supposed to magically make everyone look better, it's supposed to make the image look better, not the people.

[Matt @ Aug 29th 2008 2:23PM]

So you show us that you can see more "flaws" in HD by posting a SD screen shot with them clearly still visible? So this really has nothing to do with Quad HD at all?

[senyl @ Aug 29th 2008 2:26PM]

somebody went photoshop "lines-with-arrowheads" happy

[Mark 2000 @ Aug 29th 2008 2:31PM]

What's disgusting about the above isn't the blemishes, its the makeup packed on so thick over them that you cant see the texture of her skin, her peach fuzz, or her pores. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm attracted to humans, not synthbots with "extra real" polymer coatings.

[Mr. Fax Sender @ Aug 29th 2008 2:38PM]

Imagine Quad HD porn. It would be disgusting.

[phanbouy @ Aug 29th 2008 3:09PM]

fo' shizzle

[Thi mam(kris120890) @ Aug 29th 2008 2:38PM]

I can't wait until tvs are so advanced we can reach throuch and slap people who say stupid things. E.G A news report a week ago saying thousands of jellyfish turning up on the uk shores. So the retards show a picture of the portuguese Man-O-War. I really wanted to slap the reporter so hard i was dissapointed i could'nt .

[Sam Zebian @ Aug 29th 2008 2:48PM]

I don't know if anybody's noticed this yet, but in the side picture it looks like the tv is pretty thick. I hope this new "quadHD" technology doesn't result in these obese lcd's and plasmas to come to the market, I still want a TV that will be thin and not too heavy so I can still hang it on a wall without too much trouble.