Guys I was told by two people this week that 4k by 2k would probably make its first real appearance in the 2012 or 2013 model cycle with quite a steep price tag on it.
I've heard off and on about 4k2k or quad HD for a while. I do google searches for the terms every 4 or 5 months looking to see if anything new has arisen and generally speaking I get nothing. But after this week when two people mentioned it to me I thought I had better do some looking. There are a few articles, engagenet and a couple others that have published 4k2k articles since October. But there is still not much out there, additionally, I don't recall reading anything about it at CES 2011.
Anyone have any thoughts or have any information on this?
I'm possibly upgrading from my Pioneer 5080HD this year to a Samsung D7000 or D8000. I could just save the coin if we're only a few years out from affordable quad HD sets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck /t/1309492/4k-by-2k-or-quad-hd-lots-of-rumors-thoughts/3060#post_23354707
...Taking the 110" size and 2.5 PH viewing distance for comfortable soaking of 4K pixels one concludes that this is within reasonable living room watching.
Don't mean to get into the infinite discussion about viewing distance, etc., but I think 2.5 PH is rather far to appreciate the benefits of 4K. E.g., with my 6 ft H screen this would be 15 ft, and I don't think I would see much difference from 1080p at that distance. I sit at just under 12 ft , ~ 2.0 PH, and do very much appreciate the Sony1000ES. Of course this is only 4K upconverted from 1080p, which is clearly an improvement over 108p, but one awaits true 4K sources to get the complete 'picture'.
PS Sony actually touts 4K projection as allowing one to sit at the 'ideal' distance of 1.6 PH. For me this would be under 10 ft; I tried it that close but at present find this too close for me.
Can a 110-inch fit through a seven foot door? I figure that maybe whatever could fit through a seven foot door might be the limit for size when it comes to 4K.
Anyone know what the biggest screen you could fit through a seven foot door is?
A lot of people might think these gargantuan sizes are too big but I think it's what you need for real home theater.
If they do become popular I think that Hollywood will nail down the charge out the wazoo streaming business the same way as they made sure that no one could copy Blu-ray business.
I think they will make a super Blu-ray that can handle 4K. It will be the last disc they make before ONLY streaming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill /t/1309492/4k-by-2k-or-quad-hd-lots-of-rumors-thoughts/3060#post_23355022
Don't mean to get into the infinite discussion about viewing distance, etc., but I think 2.5 PH is rather far to appreciate the benefits of 4K. E.g., with my 6 ft H screen this would be 15 ft, and I don't think I would see much difference from 1080p at that distance. I sit at just under 12 ft , ~ 2.0 PH, and do very much appreciate the Sony1000ES. Of course this is only 4K upconverted from 1080p, which is clearly an improvement over 108p, but one awaits true 4K sources to get the complete 'picture'.
PS Sony actually touts 4K projection as allowing one to sit at the 'ideal' distance of 1.6 PH. For me this would be under 10 ft; I tried it that close but at present find this too close for me.
Sure if one sits closer benefits of 4K will be more apparent /provided content is of VQ (virgin quality)/. Sitting close is OK for the cinema/HT viewing scenario which is rather time limited. But for the living
room TV-viewing type of scenario one has to take into account practical limitations. Typical viewing arrangement in the living room sets the close and unobtrusive viewing distance in the range of 10 feet which,
assuming the 2.5 PH, produces the display size in the range of 110",already quite large. One can of course reduce the 2.5 PH, which would mean that at fixed 10 feet distance the display has to be even bigger. BTW, the 2.5 PH is not taken from blue sky but from detailed investigation of this problem by Sony . The 110" display size is also
not a fantasy, such displays were shown and are rather likely to be available in a near future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck /t/1309492/4k-by-2k-or-quad-hd-lots-of-rumors-thoughts/3060#post_23355557
Sure if one sits closer benefits of 4K will be more apparent /provided content is of VQ (virgin quality)/. Sitting close is OK for the cinema/HT viewing scenario which is rather time limited. But for the living
room TV-viewing type of scenario one has to take into account practical limitations. Typical viewing arrangement in the living room sets the close and unobtrusive viewing distance in the range of 10 feet which,
assuming the 2.5 PH, produces the display size in the range of 110",already quite large. One can of course reduce the 2.5 PH, which would mean that at fixed 10 feet distance the display has to be even bigger. BTW, the 2.5 PH is not taken from blue sky but from detailed investigation of this problem by Sony . The 110" display size is also
not a fantasy, such displays were shown and are rather likely to be available in a near future.
Yes, my remarks were relevant to projectors and not flat panel tvs. But I do note that I use mine like a 'tv', ie., all sorts of programming, in addition to BD movies.
Most people playing console games have been happy with eight years of playing (sub) 720p games on a 1080p display. Rendering those games at 4K will offer very little benefit for them.
Increased fidelity - things like realistic grass covering the ground everywhere (rather than the patchy 2D grass we see in current games) large-scale battles with 50 people on-screen instead of 5, more realistic looking characters, fancy particle effects (realistic dust, smoke, explosions etc.) and larger worlds are the sorts of things that people will notice.
If you simply rendered games with the current level of fidelity at 4K, few people would notice a difference, and most certainly wouldn't consider buying a new console for it.
I think we are already starting to approach the point where a meagre 10x increase is not a big enough leap to offer the kind of improved fidelity that people expect from a new generation of games.
And you are out of your mind if you think a 100" 4K display will ever be mass-market enough that the consoles will be targeting it. The people with those displays won't be playing on consoles. This generation of consoles is about 1080p, not 4K.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck /t/1309492/4k-by-2k-or-quad-hd-lots-of-rumors-thoughts/3000_100#post_23354707
Man 5ys is too long time for reasonable predictions. But 110"@4K LCD displays are in production by Chinese manufacturers and TVs were shown. The question now is only when they hit the streets and what is the price. Taking the 110" size and 2.5 PH viewing distance for comfortable soaking of 4K pixels one concludes that this is within reasonable living room watching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood /t/1309492/4k-by-2k-or-quad-hd-lots-of-rumors-thoughts/3000_100#post_23355519
Can a 110-inch fit through a seven foot door? I figure that maybe whatever could fit through a seven foot door might be the limit for size when it comes to 4K.
Anyone know what the biggest screen you could fit through a seven foot door is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist /t/1309492/4k-by-2k-or-quad-hd-lots-of-rumors-thoughts/3000_100#post_23356028
Most people playing console games have been happy with eight years of playing (sub) 720p games on a 1080p display. Rendering those games at 4K will offer very little benefit for them.
Increased fidelity - things like realistic grass covering the ground everywhere (rather than the patchy 2D grass we see in current games) large-scale battles with 50 people on-screen instead of 5, more realistic looking characters, fancy particle effects (realistic dust, smoke, explosions etc.) and larger worlds are the sorts of things that people will notice.
If you simply rendered games with the current level of fidelity at 4K, few people would notice a difference, and most certainly wouldn't consider buying a new console for it.
I think we are already starting to approach the point where a meagre 10x increase is not a big enough leap to offer the kind of improved fidelity that people expect from a new generation of games.
And you are out of your mind if you think a 100" 4K display will ever be mass-market enough that the consoles will be targeting it. The people with those displays won't be playing on consoles. This generation of consoles is about 1080p, not 4K.
Just because something may exist, does not mean that it will be affordable, or even desirable, and certainly not mainstream.
You make some interesting points. People forget the 360 was INITIALLY about gaming, and music/tv/movies were an afterthought. This new Xbox has reversed the order. Most gamers(like myself, 82" display) aren't even talking about/aware of 4K. The 4K thing is largely irrelevant, regardless of whether or not it makes a substantive visual difference.
I really miss having a 120" projection setup for watching films and gaming on, and the next time I move, I will be going as big as the room allows.
However, I question whether I would even want one of those 55" OLED displays. My current television is smaller than that, and even it seems too big sometimes.
There's a world of difference between a fixed-frame white projection screen that fills the wall (and many people are happy projecting onto the wall directly, or using a motorized screen) and this giant black slab stuck on a TV stand or on the wall though.
If we have moved to solid-state lighting at that point, rather than using UHP lamps, I may get rid of the flat panel altogether, or replace it with something considerably smaller, like a 27" monitor.
Chron&others, this thread is a subtopic of Flat Panel forum and you moan here about screens and projectors. Please move to the Projectors forum and discuss there.
4K makes no visual sense in the living room TV scenario unless there are 100" class displays. Even then there is problem with VQ content to avoid constant annoyance by artefacts. I believe we will see 110" 4K LCDs in the four digit price range since 110"=4x55" so essentially it is the 55" LCD stamping process without cutting the glass into pieces. This of course will never be massive market but it can be new high-end and eliminating large part of home projectors.
Games don't need to be made in 4k to work in 4k. They'll likely work just fine. Arma 2 (DayZ) has supported 4k rendering since its launch many years ago for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood /t/1309492/4k-by-2k-or-quad-hd-lots-of-rumors-thoughts/3060#post_23355519
Can a 110-inch fit through a seven foot door? I figure that maybe whatever could fit through a seven foot door might be the limit for size when it comes to 4K.
I guess this might be hard for you to comprehend like so many other things in this thread, but.........
A 110" TV has a vertical height of 54" (which should be 4.5 feet), so it would pass through a 4.5 feet door. Unless the movers are so stupid that they try to carry it through the door vertically, which means they need the door to be 95" = 8 feet, and then you would have a problem both with the size of the door and the movers intelligence.
You get a rigid screen of more than 160" trough a 7 foot tall door.
But if it is a even larger non rigid cinema screen........what then..............think about it...........
The latter of which hasn't generated much at all in the way of positive impressions where the upgrade is deemed as necessary or beneficial from a typical viewing distance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck /t/1309492/4k-by-2k-or-quad-hd-lots-of-rumors-thoughts/3000_100#post_23357169
Chron&others, this thread is a subtopic of Flat Panel forum and you moan here about screens and projectors. Please move to the Projectors forum and discuss there.
The conceptual connections are clear, make sense, and fit perfectly. 4K necessitates discussing size sooner or later. Size necessitates discussing viabilities, user practice, and the marketplace. And all of that connects directly to projectors, even if only as a sideways example. In a nutshell it was "4K needs size? What size is too much? People are using projectors already for huge sizes?" You seriously have an issue with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 /t/1309492/4k-by-2k-or-quad-hd-lots-of-rumors-thoughts/3090#post_23359285
Oh good grief. I hate comments like that.The conceptual connections are clear, make sense, and fit perfectly. 4K necessitates discussing size sooner or later. Size necessitates discussing viabilities, user practice, and the marketplace. And all of that connects directly to projectors, even if only as a sideways example. In a nutshell it was "4K needs size? What size is too much? People are using projectors already for huge sizes?" You seriously have an issue with that?
If you see comments like: I really miss having a 120" projection setup for watching films and gaming on, and the next time I move, I will be going as big as the room allows. However, I question whether I would even want one of those 55" OLED displays. My current television is smaller than that, and even it seems too big sometimes. There's a world of difference between a fixed-frame white projection screen that fills the wall (and many people are happy projecting onto the wall directly, or using a motorized screen) and this giant black slab stuck on a TV stand or on the wall though. If we have moved to solid-state lighting at that point, rather than using UHP lamps, I may get rid of the flat panel altogether, or replace it with something considerably smaller, like a 27" monitor.
Somebody hates flat panels it's fine but why making this public on Flat Panel forum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist /t/1309492/4k-by-2k-or-quad-hd-lots-of-rumors-thoughts/3090#post_23357323
That must be why they started at 84" and worked their way down to 55" & 65" panels then.
These are essentially vagaries of market economy feeding on consumer ignorance. One is also seeing low-end sets emerging in which backlight uniformity is bad, settings limited, etc. but they carry proud label of "4K".
I don't hate flat panels. Flat panels put out a much better picture than most projectors, and don't require you to sit in the dark.
I object to putting a 100" black slab on the wall though, and I suspect that few people will want one in their homes. Panasonic has been selling 100-150" Plasmas for years, but few people own them - or would want to, even if they had the means to own one.
They look great when they're on, and absolutely ridiculous when they're off. If you design a projection setup around 4K though, you can conceal most of it when you aren't watching anything.
You're crazy if you think 100" flat panels are ever going to be mainstream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck /t/1309492/4k-by-2k-or-quad-hd-lots-of-rumors-thoughts/3000_100#post_23359892
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 /t/1309492/4k-by-2k-or-quad-hd-lots-of-rumors-thoughts/3090#post_23359285
Oh good grief. I hate comments like that.The conceptual connections are clear, make sense, and fit perfectly. 4K necessitates discussing size sooner or later. Size necessitates discussing viabilities, user practice, and the marketplace. And all of that connects directly to projectors, even if only as a sideways example. In a nutshell it was "4K needs size? What size is too much? People are using projectors already for huge sizes?" You seriously have an issue with that?
Address the conversational connection I drew out. It's valid, and you don't see it as such.
There is no point in the insistence that such tightly connected sub-conversations get moved into their own forum. Such complaints in this case are soley pedantic in nature. It's not as though someone in this case was complaining about the phone bill for many posts (which has happened, but this is not an example), and we were talking along this topic progression: 4K -> size -> displays at that size making sense, *all* of which are appropriate here.
I'm holding that particular thought (that I have as well) at bay for the moment. But only because 5 years ago I would never have guessed that people would think that 70" screens in their homes looked anything but silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 /t/1309492/4k-by-2k-or-quad-hd-lots-of-rumors-thoughts/3100_100#post_23360507
I'm holding that particular thought (that I have as well) at bay for the moment. But only because 5 years ago I would never have guessed that people would think that 70" screens in their homes looked anything but silly.
It's a vanishingly small number of sets being sold though, and practically non-existent outside of America. People must be buying Panasonic's 100-150" panels, or else they wouldn't be making them, but it's hardly common, and will never be accepted as normal.
Perhaps once they can figure out how to make the panels completely transparent, have the screen painted on the walls, replace your windows with a TV, or have a rollable display which disappears like a motorized projection screen, extremely large sizes will take off.
But flat panels as we know them today will never be mainstream at 100" sizes.
Keep in mind that those large panels are rare even here, where the people posting are far removed from the majority of people buying TVs.
Obviously 100" will never be mainstream but: a) count their market segment including replacement of projectors, b) asymptotically they can be very cheap ~4x55" or even less in the limit, c) 65" was once seen gargantuan and now it is just sizable, d) 4K is reasonably justified only at this size. Taking all this together one can see 100" class as a new videophile high-end. Panasonic 150" plasma can not be used for comparison since a) it is too massive and power hungry with lost of heat, b) cost is in the hundreds of 000's, c) it is special order hand made, I think it was said they made 8 of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck /t/1309492/4k-by-2k-or-quad-hd-lots-of-rumors-thoughts/3100_100#post_23361341
Obviously 100" will never be mainstream but: a) count their market segment including replacement of projectors, b) asymptotically they can be very cheap ~4x55" or even less in the limit, c) 65" was once seen gargantuan and now it is just sizable, d) 4K is reasonably justified only at this size. Taking all this together one can see 100" class as a new videophile high-end. Panasonic 150" plasma can not be used for comparison since a) it is too massive and power hungry with lost of heat, b) cost is in the hundreds of 000's, c) it is special order hand made, I think it was said they made 8 of them.
That would almost certainly get me motion sick enough to puke on the remote.
I'm having trouble with this already: I *still* cannot believe how much bigger a mere 60" screen looks over a 55" when right next to it. Every time I look at them next to each other I'm convinced there's something wrong with my eyes.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
AVS Forum
34M posts
1.5M members
Since 1999
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!