Will 4k Displays Affect Copyright Security?

[NorthernFocus]

During my recent search for a new laptop I was really surprised to see how ubiquitous 4k screens are becoming. Just three years ago it was difficult to find a 15in laptop with a full HD screen. And in the same timeframe I paid several hundred dollars for a "high rez" 27in monitor. Now it's common to see 13in laptops and tablets with the same resolution as that three year old 27in screen. Presumably with the supporting hardware now becoming common, web content will soon begin to utilize the capability.

To-date, my attitude towards copyright protection on images posted on the web has been simple. By posting low rez images they simply aren't high enough quality to be marketable. But when web designers begin to utilize the 4k video that may change. I can't imagine how band width usage is going to increase

[xpatUSA]

Good point, Dan.

And, elsewhere, a gentlemen is already talking as if 8K exists everywhere and we should now buy at least 100MB cameras to keep up with the crowd. He is blissfully unaware of the square law relationship between linear resolution (pixel pitch) and image size (MP).

Meanwhile, my myopic old eyes continue to be unable to resolve anything smaller than about 0.3mm apart on my monitor (dot pitch), even with my nose about a foot and a half from the screen.

One question comes to mind: as more and more folks "go 4K", are we now obliged to post matching larger images? Or, do we still "post for the web" at reasonable sizes like 1600px on the long side? If we do, then 4K or 8K owners will just have to zoom in and the image will look just as good/bad as it did on a 2K or previous monitor.

[Manfred M]

Dan - I think the answer is definitely "maybe". Right now I display images that are roughly a maximum of 1600 pixels a side, so anyone stealing them is looking at best a 1.5MP image and while it looks fine on a display, its going to not look great as a print. If you start displaying images at full resolution of around 8MP (format around 4M wide by 2M high (probably a touch less in reality), you will be sharing images that are 7MB to 8MB in size, which can be used to make a pretty decent A4 / 8-1/2" x 11" print, although larger ones are still going to give inferior results.

I have not used a 4K display yet, but wonder if sticking to the existing small formats on websites (and letting the upsampling on the screens take care of things (and living with the minor quality hit, after all we have no issues with this level of upsampling when we print) will be worth it.

The other issue is that while 4K is becoming more popular, how large is the market penetration? I probably would not get too excited until we hit that magic 5% - 10% penetration. Until then, I would consider 4k displays a niche product that does not need to be supported in the photo business. Afterwards, I suspect we will have come to grips on how to best protect our IP.

[Tronhard]

I think there are two aspects to this development of UHiDef screens and the posting of images:

With regards posting... the sheer capacity required to accept uploads that will do UHiDef justice would be astronomical and I think that, while storage on the web is getting cheaper, it will be a while a least before many sites accept anything much past 1920x1080. That said, it is still important for you as the copyright owner to read the conditions of use, and make sure that your rights will remain and be enforced by any site on which you post images. The question is what happens if the website is sold to someone else? This question is not unique to photos. In NZ a large electronics firm went into receivership and the receiver has decided to sell the company database to the highest bidder - apparently not contravening any local law.

On the technical side: this is, for me, a great development as I prefer not to print, but have often faced the criticism that the printed image is of higher quality than that of an electronic display. This move to higher screen resolution will hopefully put some of that to rest, as screens not only offer more pixels, but better tonal quality as well. I much prefer the snap of back-lit images, as I have seen on the screens of the National Geographic Wildlife Photographer of the Year show, currently running in Victoria. These images are amazing... Good on those who want to print and may they long continue to do so, but I am confident that screens will continue to offer a great alternative.

[Manfred M]

On the technical side: this is, for me, a great development as I prefer not to print, but have often faced the criticism that the printed image is of higher quality than that of an electronic display. This move to higher screen resolution will hopefully put some of that to rest, as screens not only offer more pixels, but better tonal quality as well. I much prefer the snap of back-lit images, as I have seen on the screens of the National Geographic Wildlife Photographer of the Year show, currently running in Victoria. These images are amazing... Good on those who want to print and may they long continue to do so, but I am confident that screens will continue to offer a great alternative.

Trev - I think most of us likely view the majority of our images on a computer screen, so the print / not print is really a slightly different topic as the audiences are not the same. Outside of family portraits around the house (weddings, graduations, etc. the "fine art" prints (mostly ones done by family members) compete for wall space with paintings, textiles and other forms of "two-dimensional art" in my house.

Fine are prints are more likely at risk from displaying higher resolution images on the internet as this certainly offers an attractive path to people that might want to rip off someones work (after all, printing and framing cost money, so one can save a bit by bypassing the photographer). If you look at Dan's website, he offers some stunning images for sale and his reason for concern are quite legitimate.

The issue of transmitted light, additive RGB (computer screens and in the film days, transparencies / slides) versus the reflected light, subtractive CMYK images has been discussed for a long time. Both have their place. At this time, large size, high end computer screens are getting closer in quality (gamut and resolution) to prints. They still handily outperform prints by several EV of dynamic range. On the other hand they don't have an interesting surface texture nor are their frames particularly attractive (in my view). I think I will continue to hang pictures on the wall. Come to think of it, that's where the TV is too.

[Tronhard]

Hi Manfred:

Having just come back from show I am intrigued by the screens they are using at the Royal BC Museum to show the images. They look exactly like wall-mounted frames, yet of course they glow. I am making inquiries as to the technology (literally) behind these screens. I wasn't seeking to start a debate or discussion the print/no print thing (far from it!), but what I was trying to get at was that there is an on-going upping of performance in screens that bodes well for those who like the screen on the wall concept. If the screen technology is sitting at 4k at present I think most recent cameras will do those screens justice.

The texture thing you mention is interesting: I assume you mean matt vs. gloss?

[Mike Buckley]

Once the 4K displays become more mainstream, perhaps pre-manufactured frames will be made that can be added to them. Regardless, they can be custom-made.

As for textured prints, the material can be textured metal, canvas and the like.

[Tronhard]

Of course! How silly of me, and I have had non-paper prints made, so I should have twigged on that... silly lad.

As for textured prints, the material can be textured metal, canvas and the like.

[Manfred M]

Trev - I was definitely thinking along the lines of what Mike has said; yes, there are matte and glossy and all kinds of weaves and shades in paper, and of course at the extreme ends, you get the canvas at one end and the metal at the other.

I also agree that screen technology is advancing. It would be interesting to understand what the Royal BC Museum is using as there are some fairly high-priced exotic solutions out there that might be in a museum's budget, but not necessarily something for the mainstream. The problem with all electronic displays are their limitations:

1. What is the angle of view? Horizontally and vertically? Most flat screen displays do have a relatively narrow view and one has to be looking at them fairly close to perpendicular.

2. What portion of the human visual spectrum can they display? As I recall sRGB is can cover around 1/3 of the colours we can see and AdobeRGB is up to around half. The dull colours are easy, but vibrant ones, not so much. Even blacks are hard to do. The vast majority of display screens are at best sRGB and a few high end ones are quite close to all AdobeRGB colours (I have not seen any that claim to be 100% AdobeRGB compliant). I have seen nothing better out there yet.

3. How accurately do they display the colours? While all the numbers look interesting, ideally the native display should be able to ACCURATELY reproduce colours. Base on my experience in profiling screens, no two screens look quite the same after profiling, which suggests to me that there has to be an colour reproduction issue.

The reason I mention native display is that a lot of screens use a "cheat". They can display a small subset of the colours naturally and rely on dithering (cycling the display rapidly) to emulate the colour range. I have not seen any papers on the subject that have analyzed how well this technique works and how consistently we see these colours. I am a bit wary of screens (buried in the depths of the specs) say things line 6+2 or 8+2 bit display.

The other issue is how well this performance holds up across the entire brightness range. Nominally computer screens used for image editing should be set at a brightness of 120 candelas / square meter. When people see my editing screen, the first thing they notice that it is not nearly as bright as the one they are using (and it is set to 120 cd/m2 of brightness).

4. Resolution - this is a bit of a tricky issue as screen size and viewing distance are key parameters. A small 4K laptop screen is going to be somewhat useless as our eyes are going to be the limiting factor with resolution. As I recall Apple with their Retina screens are at that level where increasing resolution is not going to buy you anythings as the resolution is so fine that our eyes are the limiting factor.

So 4K, 5K and 8K are going to be meaningful for large screens that are close to where we are viewing them from. Smaller screens and sitting further back from large screens are going to negate these higher resolutions.

5. Glare and reflections - screens tend to have fairly shiny screens. That means they look softer when light reflects off them. In museum display spaces, where light tends to be muted, some of this can be controlled. Get those screens into open spaces and people are likely to be less impressed.

[NorthernFocus]

Manfred, going into my recent research of what's on the market I had mostly the same opinions that you voiced here. But time and tech are marching on.

I've been perfectly happy with a 1080p, sRGB display on a 15 in. laptop. I do my serious editing on a 2560x1440 27in monitor that claims 70% Adobe RGB and it has worked well for me. What I recently found is that even on 13 in laptops the higher end machines have full 4k resolution. I think Microsoft has their own odd resolution count. And I have to say that where I didn't see any value in such high resolutions on small screens, they are astonishing for photo/video viewing. They look positively 3D. And there are many desktop monitors and several laptops now claiming 100 percent Adobe RGB coverage. Ironically their target consumer market seems to be gamers. No doubt pro graphics designers use them to but like most graphics improvements it is the gaming industry that will sell the volume and make them affordable so most of us.

Ironically, due to the push for touch screen GUI, nearly all of the high rez monitors I've seen have glossy surfaces. I don't know about others but I hate reflective screens. I ended up with one on my new laptop as a compromise but it's not the machine I use for PP.

As I said in the OP, overall I was astonished at how fast the 4k monitors are coming on. They'll be common place within a couple of years at this rate.

[Mike Buckley]

nearly all of the high rez monitors I've seen have glossy surfaces. I don't know about others but I hate reflective screens.

I don't understand why you hate them. They're fabulous for being able to see everything behind you without turning and looking to your rear.

[Manfred M]

Dan - at some point the cost of 4K will certainly become mainstream and after that point we will all have to pay close attention to how that affects how we work. I strongly suspect that 4K will initially be targeted at gamers (as will larger screens, where 4K truly makes sense). Adobe finally supported 4K properly with Photoshop with the release of CC 2015.

As a photo (and video) editor, I am more concerned about colour accuracy and range than the resolution (that's a nice to have). The last time I looked at the Eizo screens, they have one 4K screen (aimed at the market where colour accuracy is paramount).

http://www.eizoglobal.com/products/c...-4k/index.html Not in my price range as it is pushing $US6000.

It is the one place I tend to watch as they are generally viewed as the industry leader in this field. As this technology becomes more mainstream, they tend to be there and the other commodity computer screen makers should have something that I will find "good enough". I just hope my current (getting long in the tooth) screen holds out until that point.

[NorthernFocus]

I don't understand why you hate them. They're fabulous for being able to see everything behind you without turning and looking to your rear.

Exactly where do you live in VA? Langley?

[Mike Buckley]

Exactly where do you live in VA? Langley?

You know that if I lived there, I could never confirm or deny it.