4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 16 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #451 of 3692 Old 01-08-2012, 07:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
@rogo I'm surprised you're using irkuck as "reference" like a certain broker I know, they have interesting datapoints but I would not bet on their conclusions.

I'm not saying 4K compressed into EXISTING BD will be better than well encoded 2K. But I think if we use the same 4K scan of a film and compressed into 2K and 4K my guess is the latter will look better, though much less the wow factor between DVD and BD, or VCD and DVD ie the law of diminishing returns.

And irkuck extrapolation of bit rates shows how little he understand compression techniques. What I cannot tolerate is assumptions that people in this forum are ignorant half imbecile.

The truth is manufacturers are going 4K, they are putting money where their mouth is. This is not a marginal 3D development. My grasp of reality through this whole thread has always been 1) 4K has to come with huge TV 2) there must be progression in 4K content. It's not happening overnight but I can see the traction in this 2. As I said before, if bandwidth is not an issue, everything would be uncompressed and progressive 60/120fps.

They exist for a reason. That doesn't stop technology from moving forward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

This is not insanity anymore guys - this is plain madness: upscaling SD to 4K is going to be better than upscaling to mere 2K

The 4K discussion shows the level of ignorance is just right for manufs to impose the 4K on ignorant public.

For those who may still be redempted from the 4K: there is NO sense of talking about merits of SD, HD and 4K when there is no mention of the compression ratio for each source. Thus, e.g. somebody claiming 4K will be squeezed into Blu-Ray. Remember that for equivalent PQ 4K requires about 4 times bit rate. The current 2K Blu-ray is has the bit rate of 25 Mb/s, so for the 4K around 100 Mb/s is needed. But then there is simple revealing question: How about if the 2K is compressed to 100 Mb/s on the very same Blue-ray? You might be sure then: the 2K PQ will be better.

specuvestor is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #452 of 3692 Old 01-08-2012, 07:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,404
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 329 Post(s)
Liked: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

@rogo I'm surprised you're using irkuck as "reference" like a certain broker I know, they have good datapoints but always have weird conclusions.

I'm not saying 4K compressed into EXISTING BD will be better than well encoded 2K. But I think if we use the same 4K scan of a film and compressed into 2K and 4K my guess is the latter will look better, though much less the wow factor between DVD and BD, or VCD and DVD ie the law of diminishing returns.

And irkuck extrapolation of bit rates shows how little he understand compression techniques. What I cannot tolerate is assumptions that people in this forum are ignorant half imbecile.

The truth is manufacturers are going 4K, they are putting money where their mouth is. This is not a marginal 3D development. My grasp of reality through this whole thread has always been 1) 4K has to come with huge TV 2) there must be progression in 4K content. It's not happening overnight but I can see the traction in this 2.

So I agree 4K is coming... I've been one of the biggest advocates at AVS for quite some time.

I do not, however, agree that if you hold bitrate constant, a 4K playback will look better than an existing BluRay. It might, but it could actually easily look worse. The raw bitrate required for a 4k x 2k movie is going to, in fact, be 4x that of a standard BluRay. Let's assume that the codec used is somehow superior to everything currently being used. Unless it's 4x more efficient -- which it won't be -- there are going to be more compression artifacts and more softness than on the BluRay.

What you are left with is fake "resolution" where the nominal resolution is 4k, but the result is no better than the BluRay, or perhaps worse. That doesn't mean I'm negative on 4k, but it's going to take a higher density storage medium, even if that's merely say a quad-layer BluRay without a lot of space wasted for extras.

To be completely honest, you want to have 4x the bitrate or else you are giving up something and the whole point of this is to give up nothing.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is online now  
post #453 of 3692 Old 01-08-2012, 07:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
U could have 2X the bit rate. It doesn't have to be linear.

The irony is that I've been saying we will EVENTUALLY need 4K native source while u think scaling is good enough

The other irony is that if u believe in 4K TV u have to believe in the future of huge TVs
specuvestor is offline  
post #454 of 3692 Old 01-08-2012, 09:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
taichi4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

U could have 2X the bit rate. It doesn't have to be linear.

The irony is that I've been saying we will EVENTUALLY need 4K native source while u think scaling is good enough

The other irony is that if u believe in 4K TV u have to believe in the future of huge TVs

I agree with the points that you've made.

By the way, when I pointed to Sony's 4K to BluRay I wasn't speaking of it as being an ideal medium. It is a transitional medium, just as upscaling 2K to 4K on the display itself is transitional. All of this was in response to those that believe 4K is coming later than sooner.

Obviously less compression is better.

4K is coming.
taichi4 is offline  
post #455 of 3692 Old 01-09-2012, 12:00 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,404
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 329 Post(s)
Liked: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

U could have 2X the bit rate. It doesn't have to be linear.

Yes, I made it clear you could have 2x the bitrate (hence my reference to quad-layer BluRay). But if you think you can have 2x the bitrate, 4x the resolution, and zero compromises, you're not correct here. We're told this extra resolution is going to be difficult to perceive to begin with; if you bit starve it even in the slightest, it's very unlikely it will be perceivable at at all .
Quote:


The irony is that I've been saying we will EVENTUALLY need 4K native source while u think scaling is good enough

No, I think scaling of existing BluRays will be detectably better. This is a well-understood phenomenon, actually. You can apply better edge smoothing by simply taking existing single pixels, turning them into 4-pixel blocks, and applying well understood scaling algorithms to them.

Does that mean existing BluRay is enough to really show off all there is to 4k? Of course not. Upscaling of DVDs is nice on BluRay players, but it's not BluRay quality!

It's a fun AVS sport to try to catch me in some sort of contradiction, but I think you'd fail here. I've espoused upscaling exist content because I believe it will look better. That doesn't mean I've said that's "all we ever need". And if you want 4K content, you will need a very, very high bitrate source because anything you do to cut the bitrate below 4x that of BluRay will not be free. And the price? The very resolution you think you are showing off may disappear in softness, artifacts, etc.
Quote:


The other irony is that if u believe in 4K TV u have to believe in the future of huge TVs

I believe, as I've said, that approximately 10% of the market will adopt huge TVs this decade. I believe, as I've said, that there isn't any chance in hell that half the market will do so this decade.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is online now  
post #456 of 3692 Old 01-09-2012, 03:30 AM
Member
 
Ryan711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Not sure why people are arguing over the media type. It's a non-issue imo. With quad layer blu-rays (100-128GB) as well as the new HEVC (h.265) which will halve the bitrate while maintaining the image quality, and is set to make an appearance in 2013, full quality 4k shouldn't be a problem. Will we need to buy new equipment to support the new discs and decoding methods? Yes. But honestly, by the time the average joe steps up to 4k, he'll have had enough time on his blu-ray player to not feel screwed when he has to buy a new one. For the early adopters, well that's the price we pay.
Ryan711 is offline  
post #457 of 3692 Old 01-09-2012, 06:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B View Post

There's no history of a product that stops improving.To think 4k will never happen is just ignorant. CE companies have to have a reason to get people to upgrade, they will push 4k just like they pushed 1080.

Yeah, there is no doubt there will be push to 4K, 8K and to infinity-K. The point is one can not justify it on technical reasons for TV viewing scenario. In this context, saying this is equal to the push from SD to 1080 is plain absurd. The push to 1080 was absolutely justified because the goal was to deliver ultimate system matched to the resolution of the human visual system in the standard TV viewing scenario (distance of 3-4 picture height, 30 deg visual field coverage). Going beyond 1080 has thus no sense since one can not perceive the difference.

The problem of resolution is exacerbated by compression. Compression tends to eliminate detail. Heavily compressed 4K is unlikely to have the detail resolution better than less compressed 2K. There are many claimed wonder compression schemes but after one sees them they eliminate subtle details to match to the resolution of human visual system. So in the end, what some wonder 4K compression will do is matching to the 2K since no more is needed.
If somebody is claiming having 4K compression scheme at lowlow bit rate you can always add sacrastic and surely it is better looking than 2K at the same bit rate?. If somebody is telling about squeezing 4K onto Blue-ray at 100 Mb/s one can always ask about comparison with 2K compressed at 100 Mb/s. For those uninformed 2K @100Mb/s is so-called contribution quality close to lossless and thus it is immaculate content.

Obviously what is said here does not apply to the viewing scenarios going beyond TV: e.g. computer monitors, watching TV at or below 2.5H, expanding the viewing angle e.g. to 60 deg and immersive systems. There 4K is OK.
irkuck is offline  
post #458 of 3692 Old 01-09-2012, 09:07 AM
Member
 
Lord Humongous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 62
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Yeah, there is no doubt there will be push to 4K, 8K and to infinity-K. The point is one can not justify it on technical reasons for TV viewing scenario.

What about passive 3D displays?
Lord Humongous is offline  
post #459 of 3692 Old 01-09-2012, 10:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
taichi4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 90
4K will definitely benefit passive 3D in the home, which will be of great importance to those who like 3D, and, of course, immaterial to those who
don't appreciate 3D technology. I'm in the first category.

The following two articles are, I think relevant, to this discussion.

In the first article the author points out that as more films are now shot at 4K, downscaling the material onto 2K for home media actually introduces quality loss, that downscaling has its own penalties. He also points out that for those who like to sit closer to their screens, pixel structure does become visible, something that would be eliminated by 4K.

http://hometheaterreview.com/why-you...ts-our-future/

I have also read articles regarding eyestrain with fixed pixel displays...that some people become aware of underlying pixel structure, albeit subliminally.

The latter point may have its support in NHK scientists' observation that measurements regarding visual acuity in the context of film image display may be too conservative. (see second article) The discussion of arc minutes and pixels per degree is interesting in this regard. This might explain why those who have actually seen 4K displays do see a difference.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/static/f...K_WP_Final.pdf
taichi4 is offline  
post #460 of 3692 Old 01-09-2012, 01:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi4 View Post

4K will definitely benefit passive 3D in the home, which will be of great importance to those who like 3D, and, of course, immaterial to those who
don't appreciate 3D technology. I'm in the first category.

The real question here is if 3D really benefits from passive 4K. Passive 3D means every second line in the pic is dark. 4K obviously allows full 2K 3D display BUT the dark lines inevitably lead to artefacts visible in certain conditions.

Passive 3D was hailed due to cheap glasses and supposedly less eye strain. But due to the passive artefacts and progress in 3D active glasses tech it is by far not clear yet that 3D passive is the tech to go. I would say an improved active 3D may still win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi4 View Post

The following two articles are, I think relevant, to this discussion.

In the first article the author points out that as more films are now shot at 4K, downscaling the material onto 2K for home media actually introduces quality loss, that downscaling has its own penalties. He also points out that for those who like to sit closer to their screens, pixel structure does become visible, something that would be eliminated by 4K.

http://hometheaterreview.com/why-you...ts-our-future/

I have also read articles regarding eyestrain with fixed pixel displays...that some people become aware of underlying pixel structure, albeit subliminally.

The latter point may have its support in NHK scientists' observation that measurements regarding visual acuity in the context of film image display may be too conservative. (see second article) The discussion of arc minutes and pixels per degree is interesting in this regard. This might explain why those who have actually seen 4K displays do see a difference.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/static/f...K_WP_Final.pdf

The first article is just rambling so we do not spend time on it.

The second article is well-known and serious so it is excellent basis for discussion. If you read it carefully you will see that arguments for 4K are thin at best but realistically 4K is non-defendable for TV. On p. 8 you can see the pic showing that 4K matters when the viewing distance is below 2.3PH and possibly up to 2.5PH. On p. 9 you can see the limit of usefulness of 4K extended to 3.16H if one assumes stringent pixel resolution per degree which is not very practical taking into account not so good shape of vision of most people. Thus, realistic limit where 4K would be useful is 2.5PH. It is evident that this is not typical TV viewing scenario and thus 4K does not make sense for thing which we know as TV. Remember that even 2K was designed for the viewing distance of 3-4PH but most people are not sitting that close.
irkuck is offline  
post #461 of 3692 Old 01-09-2012, 01:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
taichi4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 90
I think people can still read the first article and get something from it...even if it rambles, as you put it. A discussion on whether 4K to 2K downscaling impacts picture quality would be an interesting one. At least the article brings that point up. I'm sure I can find better articles, but this sprang up quickly this morning in my pre-caffeinated state of mind.

Regarding viewing distance, the latter article gives quite a range of what a revised perspective on visual acuity might be. The anecdotal reports of those who have actually seen 4K displays suggest that people apparently do see a difference in the real world.

As far as active versus passive, I have enjoyed passive much more in theater settings as it appears brighter to my eyes. Because brightness is a key factor in the quality of 3D experience, I have chosen theaters, whenever possible, that use double 4K projectors. I think active 3D glasses, with their cost and complexity, will eventually yield to passive, until they all yield, eventually, to glasses-less displays.
taichi4 is offline  
post #462 of 3692 Old 01-09-2012, 01:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 258
For people arguing against 4K due to the space Blu-ray has, most titles don't even fill a single layer disc. The actual film itself, and HD audio is usually 20GB or less.

Most of the discs that do come close to filling up a dual layer disc are wasting space by including PCM audio and one or even both HD audio formats, when really you only need either DTS-HD or Dolby True HD. (all three decode to give you the exact same audio)

Many of the higher bitrate titles are actually some of the worst quality encodes, and that's the reason they're so large. (full of edge-enhanced noise etc.) Other titles waste half their disc space on extras that most people aren't going to watch and don't need to be on the disc. (they can go on a separate single-layer disc for those that do)

Even on a 50GB disc, 4K content will look a lot better than 1080p content does today.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #463 of 3692 Old 01-09-2012, 01:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
taichi4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

For people arguing against 4K due to the space Blu-ray has, most titles don't even fill a single layer disc. The actual film itself, and HD audio is usually 20GB or less...

...Even on a 50GB disc, 4K content will look a lot better than 1080p content does today.

Great points!
taichi4 is offline  
post #464 of 3692 Old 01-09-2012, 01:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,404
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 329 Post(s)
Liked: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

For people arguing against 4K due to the space Blu-ray has, most titles don't even fill a single layer disc. The actual film itself, and HD audio is usually 20GB or less.
Even on a 50GB disc, 4K content will look a lot better than 1080p content does today.

I am not arguing against 4k, God. Read the freaking posts.

I am arguing that at 50GB, a 4k disc will be indiscernably better than a 2k disc. I am almost certainly right. Is it possible some movies could be jammed in, extra-free on a 50GB disc and look noticeably better? Yes. Is is likely to be common? No. Is that how you want to launch a format few people will even believe they have any need for? No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan711 View Post

Not sure why people are arguing over the media type. It's a non-issue imo. With quad layer blu-rays (100-128GB) as well as the new HEVC (h.265) which will halve the bitrate while maintaining the image quality, and is set to make an appearance in 2013, full quality 4k shouldn't be a problem. Will we need to buy new equipment to support the new discs and decoding methods? Yes. But honestly, by the time the average joe steps up to 4k, he'll have had enough time on his blu-ray player to not feel screwed when he has to buy a new one. For the early adopters, well that's the price we pay.

Ryan, I agree with this.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is online now  
post #465 of 3692 Old 01-09-2012, 06:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,814
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Prototype, IPS Alpha panels LCD, 20.4", 3840 x 2160 - 216PPI from Panasonic;

Quote:


The 4K2K IPS Alpha LCD panel employs two new technologies, "Pixel structure with ultra-high aperture ration structure" and "New liquid-crystal molecular orientation process technology".



Would rather have a 42" 8K which would be about the same PPI.

Press release; http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/09/p...-2k-ips-lcd-m/
coolscan is offline  
post #466 of 3692 Old 01-09-2012, 11:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi4 View Post

Regarding viewing distance, the latter article gives quite a range of what a revised perspective on visual acuity might be. The anecdotal reports of those who have actually seen 4K displays suggest that people apparently do see a difference in the real world.

The article states that under most stringent (in fact unrealistic) conditions benefit of the 4K might be seenbelow 3.16PH. Now please kindly tell what is your personal viewing distance?

Regarding the reports of those who have seen 4K remember that there are many tricks at play: people approach those displays close, companies show uncompressed videos and so on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi4 View Post

As far as active versus passive, I have enjoyed passive much more in theater settings as it appears brighter to my eyes. Because brightness is a key factor in the quality of 3D experience, I have chosen theaters, whenever possible, that use double 4K projectors. I think active 3D glasses, with their cost and complexity, will eventually yield to passive, until they all yield, eventually, to glasses-less displays.

The cost & weight of active glasses is non-issue with the tech development.
Regarding the brightness this applies to cinemas but TVs can have so much reserve light output that this too is nonissue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Even on a 50GB disc, 4K content will look a lot better than 1080p content does today.

You mean "a lot better" from the normal TV viewing distance?? And you mean it will look better than the same 1080p lightly compressed to fill the 50GB disc???

I think part of the ignorance here is due to the plain-mind analogy between the DVD and BD. This analogy is nonsense: there is no jump in PQ between the 4K and 2K like between the DVD and BD. 2K is designed based on limits of human visual resolution for video-type content for the TV viewing scenario.
irkuck is offline  
post #467 of 3692 Old 01-10-2012, 12:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
taichi4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

...

The cost & weight of active glasses is non-issue with the tech development.
Regarding the brightness this applies to cinemas but TVs can have so much reserve light output that this too is nonissue.

I'll take a look again at the Sony article, but I repeat that people who have actually seen 4K displays, according to accounts I've read, do see a difference.

With regard to your sweeping and quite general statement that the above issues are non issues I suggest you read the following article, which compared active to passive displays...and measure light output as soon through both types of glasses.

http://www.extremetech.com/electroni...-passive-3d-tv
taichi4 is offline  
post #468 of 3692 Old 01-10-2012, 04:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi4 View Post

I'll take a look again at the Sony article, but I repeat that people who have actually seen 4K displays, according to accounts I've read, do see a difference.

Definitely look carefully at this article. As of the reports people have seen the difference they are meaningless without info what were the viewing conditions and content seen. Often it turns out the viewing distance was e.g. 1PH. There are no reports about comparisons in controlled conditions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi4 View Post

With regard to your sweeping and quite general statement that the above issues are non issues I suggest you read the following article, which compared active to passive displays...and measure light output as soon through both types of glasses.
http://www.extremetech.com/electroni...-passive-3d-tv

What I am saying is that indeed passive glasses have some advantages now but this may be eliminated in the near future. For example weight of the glasses: Sony just announced Titanium Glasses are looking way lighter than previous models. Regarding the PQ seems there is much headroom left for improvement too. Now, to get full HD with passive one needs 4K displays, this looks way overdone comparing to 2K+active.
irkuck is offline  
post #469 of 3692 Old 01-10-2012, 04:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 70
There is one positive, though still hair-raising, development step in the 4K display area: Panasonic Corporation, a leader in high-definition display technology, has developed a 20-inch 4K2K (3,840 x 2,160 resolution, approx. 8.29million pixels) IPS Alpha LCD panel, the smallest as a 4K2K-resolution display. The new panel has the world’s highest pixel density of 216 pixels per inch (ppi) and the thickness of only 3.5 mm, the thinnest in the world.

The hair-raising part of the story is why these guys had ambitions to squeeze the 4K into the 20" of real estate . Why they could not make a decent size 4K of just 30"+??? It is just to push the price up?

Anyway, this brings hope real&useful 4K will come in the near future and for the place where it belongs to, i.e. computer monitor.
irkuck is offline  
post #470 of 3692 Old 01-10-2012, 06:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

The hair-raising part of the story is why these guys had ambitions to squeeze the 4K into the 20" of real estate . Why they could not make a decent size 4K of just 30"+??? It is just to push the price up?

Anyway, this brings hope real&useful 4K will come in the near future and for the place where it belongs to, i.e. computer monitor.

4K on a 30" screen is below 150 PPI. The future for computer displays is 200+ PPI.

Pixel density is what's important, not resolution.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #471 of 3692 Old 01-10-2012, 07:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sytech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 283 Post(s)
Liked: 225
Here is a blu-ray that upconverts to 4K. So it should be able to play 4K on blu-ray when they become available. I am sure a new variable bit codec will be needed, but the playuer should buffer so the the current maximum transfer rate of 50-60MB/s should suffice. They should also have no problem fitting a 4K transfer on a 50GB disc with the right compression algorithm and the elimination of all the other crap you don't need.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/09/s...s-one-with-4k/
sytech is offline  
post #472 of 3692 Old 01-10-2012, 09:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
taichi4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post


What I am saying is that indeed passive glasses have some advantages now but this may be eliminated in the near future. For example weight of the glasses: Sony just announced Titanium Glasses are looking way lighter than previous models. Regarding the PQ seems there is much headroom left for improvement too. Now, to get full HD with passive one needs 4K displays, this looks way overdone comparing to 2K+active.

The point for me is the brightness of the image through both methods, and the article shows much greater light output to the eye through passive, and with RealD's circular polarization, much more tolerance to head tilt. This matches my own experience, not only in theaters but with displays, although my experience with the latter is more limited.

I've been interested in 3D for quite a long time, have followed developments, and originally was a proponent of active shutter. Now my opinion has changed, and if 4K is necessary to fully realize the potential of passive 3D, then so be it. 4K will also be useful for upscaling, and 4K media will come.

The Sony article is quite dense, as you know, but the way I read it 4K will allow viewers to sit closer for immersion, and the increased angle of view, according to the article, enhances the sense of "presence". It also, interestingly, for some can induce elements of motion sickness.

Anyway, we live in interesting times, which are also volatile times. I had a fascinating discussion with a scientist friend concerning the possible alternatives to lenticular screen designs and holography for glasses-less 3D.
taichi4 is offline  
post #473 of 3692 Old 01-10-2012, 09:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
taichi4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

There is one positive, though still hair-raising, development step in the 4K display area: Panasonic Corporation, a leader in high-definition display technology, has developed a 20-inch 4K2K (3,840 x 2,160 resolution, approx. 8.29million pixels) IPS Alpha LCD panel, the smallest as a 4K2K-resolution display. The new panel has the world’s highest pixel density of 216 pixels per inch (ppi) and the thickness of only 3.5 mm, the thinnest in the world.

The hair-raising part of the story is why these guys had ambitions to squeeze the 4K into the 20" of real estate . Why they could not make a decent size 4K of just 30"+??? It is just to push the price up?

Anyway, this brings hope real&useful 4K will come in the near future and for the place where it belongs to, i.e. computer monitor.

The IPS Alpha design is a really interesting one. Panasonic bought that technology from a company in the Czech Republic, and it, like quantum dot, make the search for a better display a real horse race.

Funny how many good technologies are created in the West, but wind up being co-opted and produced in Korea, Japan and China. Hats off to the companies that take these designs to the next level, but sad that there is so little manufacturing and production here. Sad how Kodak apparently created the primary elements of digital photography, then wound up being destroyed by it. Kodak's selling of its OLED patents to LG is another example.
taichi4 is offline  
post #474 of 3692 Old 01-10-2012, 11:25 AM
Newbie
 
mentalnova's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
what a waste, no one will notice the difference besides movie snobs
MAKE THE ASPECT RATIO WIDER ffs
mentalnova is offline  
post #475 of 3692 Old 01-10-2012, 12:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

4K on a 30" screen is below 150 PPI. The future for computer displays is 200+ PPI.
Pixel density is what's important, not resolution.

Let's face it, higher pixel density is nice but the 20" computer monitor is small - too small for the current standards of usage. What comes first is the real estate and density next.
Thus the right and easier step would be 30"+ 4K and then one could think about increasing the density.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

Here is a blu-ray that upconverts to 4K. So it should be able to play 4K on blu-ray when they become available. I am sure a new variable bit codec will be needed, but the playuer should buffer so the the current maximum transfer rate of 50-60MB/s should suffice. They should also have no problem fitting a 4K transfer on a 50GB disc with the right compression algorithm and the elimination of all the other crap you don't need.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/09/s...s-one-with-4k/

There is nothing said about the 4K BD playback. There is no standard for this. Upconversion of BD to 4K makes no sense other than promoting ignorance by claiming that upconverted to 4K is better than the original 2K. But Sony is showing 4K projector for just $25K so there has to be some content to feed it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi4 View Post

The point for me is the brightness of the image through both methods, and the article shows much greater light output to the eye through passive, and with RealD's circular polarization, much more tolerance to head tilt. This matches my own experience, not only in theaters but with displays, although my experience with the latter is more limited.

I've been interested in 3D for quite a long time, have followed developments, and originally was a proponent of active shutter. Now my opinion has changed, and if 4K is necessary to fully realize the potential of passive 3D, then so be it. 4K will also be useful for upscaling, and 4K media will come.

The Sony article is quite dense, as you know, but the way I read it 4K will allow viewers to sit closer for immersion, and the increased angle of view, according to the article, enhances the sense of "presence". It also, interestingly, for some can induce elements of motion sickness.

Anyway, we live in interesting times, which are also volatile times. I had a fascinating discussion with a scientist friend concerning the possible alternatives to lenticular screen designs and holography for glasses-less 3D.

Brightness is no problem since there is so much light output reserve in the LCD displays. My experience with the Sony 65" 3D tells that since 3D is for occasional viewing, things like head tilt are of minor importance and the PQ is just OK. Most improvement is needed in the glasses weight and shape, this is coming.

Regarding the 4K: the immersive viewing. extended angle of view and so on are right topics but this is beyond the TV viewing concept. People tend to talk about 4K TV in the sense they will replace their current 2K TV and will see wonders when watching from their sofas at the distance of 6PH. In fact, for the immersive viewing 8K might be much better as the ultimate goal than the 4K, this is why the Japanese are developing 8K.
irkuck is offline  
post #476 of 3692 Old 01-10-2012, 03:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,814
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 105
You could always make your own content for your 4K display with the JVC 4K camcorder when it arrives in March for $5000.-.
coolscan is offline  
post #477 of 3692 Old 01-10-2012, 04:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Let's face it, higher pixel density is nice but the 20" computer monitor is small - too small for the current standards of usage. What comes first is the real estate and density next.
Thus the right and easier step would be 30"+ 4K and then one could think about increasing the density.

There is nothing said about the 4K BD playback. There is no standard for this. Upconversion of BD to 4K makes no sense other than promoting ignorance by claiming that upconverted to 4K is better than the original 2K. But Sony is showing 4K projector for just $25K so there has to be some content to feed it.

Regarding the 4K: the immersive viewing. extended angle of view and so on are right topics but this is beyond the TV viewing concept. People tend to talk about 4K TV in the sense they will replace their current 2K TV and will see wonders when watching from their sofas at the distance of 6PH. In fact, for the immersive viewing 8K might be much better as the ultimate goal than the 4K, this is why the Japanese are developing 8K.

So it is aesthetically acceptable to view 30" monitor at 3' but not 80/90" TV at 9'?

And upscaling makes no sense? For the record I believe 4K content is ultimately essentially but I would never say upscaling is useless.

Again you have proven why your conclusions are weird in my books.

PS retina display is 326ppi and the new ipad3 will be close to that. Making 20" at 216ppi is difficult (as Taiwanese can't do it though they can at TV sizes ie 4K LCD TV has no production issue) but not revolutionary.
specuvestor is offline  
post #478 of 3692 Old 01-10-2012, 05:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sytech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 283 Post(s)
Liked: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post




There is nothing said about the 4K BD playback. There is no standard for this. Upconversion of BD to 4K makes no sense other than promoting ignorance by claiming that upconverted to 4K is better than the original 2K. But Sony is showing 4K projector for just $25K so there has to be some content to feed it.


Apparently, there is a current standard.

"Using MPEG-4 technology and a variable bit rate H.264 codec operating at up to 144 Mbps, the GY-HMQ10 records up to two hours of 4K video to economical SDHC or SDXC memory cards."
sytech is offline  
post #479 of 3692 Old 01-10-2012, 11:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,404
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 329 Post(s)
Liked: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

S
And upscaling makes no sense? For the record I believe 4K content is ultimately essentially but I would never say upscaling is useless.

I went to the Sharp demo today of their 4K. It was shown using 1080i sources.

If upscaling is useless, Sharp is doing an amazing job of concocting a completely fake demo to prove the contrary.

Oh, and Sharp wants to commercialize 4k this year, at quite possibly 60" and 70".

Oh, did I mention the demo was amazing and that on every single sample, the upscaled result on the 4K display was dramatically superior even though according to "studies" we were not sitting close enough to even "see the difference"? Perhaps I should've led with that?

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is online now  
post #480 of 3692 Old 01-11-2012, 12:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Let's face it, higher pixel density is nice but the 20" computer monitor is small - too small for the current standards of usage. What comes first is the real estate and density next.
Thus the right and easier step would be 30"+ 4K and then one could think about increasing the density.

No, a 30" monitor should be at least 5120x3200. If you were to make it 4K, you would have less screen area to work with than current 30" monitors. (4K only gives you the same workspace as a 1080p display)

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

There is nothing said about the 4K BD playback. There is no standard for this. Upconversion of BD to 4K makes no sense other than promoting ignorance by claiming that upconverted to 4K is better than the original 2K. But Sony is showing 4K projector for just $25K so there has to be some content to feed it.

It's a start, and from many accounts, upscaled content is an improvement over watching it natively.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Brightness is no problem since there is so much light output reserve in the LCD displays. My experience with the Sony 65" 3D tells that since 3D is for occasional viewing, things like head tilt are of minor importance and the PQ is just OK. Most improvement is needed in the glasses weight and shape, this is coming.

There is a significant drop in brightness with active shutter 3D. For people like us used to watching films in a dark room at reference levels (80/100 nits depending on who you side with) then it's fine, but most people I know that aren't into display calibration have their screens turned up considerably brighter than that, and usually don't watch in a dark room.

It's the flicker and the fact that only one eye sees an image at a time that's the biggest problem with active shutter 3D. Passive is a better solution, but it needs 4K screens before it starts to become acceptable. Even then, there will still be interlacing, but at least you will have the full 1080p resolution for each eye.


Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Regarding the 4K: the immersive viewing. extended angle of view and so on are right topics but this is beyond the TV viewing concept. People tend to talk about 4K TV in the sense they will replace their current 2K TV and will see wonders when watching from their sofas at the distance of 6PH. In fact, for the immersive viewing 8K might be much better as the ultimate goal than the 4K, this is why the Japanese are developing 8K.

The people that sit six picture heights away from their screen are not the kind of people that would upgrade to a 4K display, they're the kind of people that bought a flatscreen when the price was low enough they could justify throwing out their CRT, and will be buying a new HDTV when their current one dies. I don't see their relevance to 4K displays at all. Those people aren't buying high-end displays, 4K or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

PS retina display is 326ppi and the new ipad3 will be close to that.

Actually, 326 PPI is not nearly enough resolution to be a "true" retina display, but it is the best we have for now.

The iPad 3 display is rumoured to be 2048x1536, which would make sense, but that's only 264 PPI. You would need a 2560x1920 display (330 PPI) to match the iPhone screen.

Due to how things work when rendering graphics on a computer display, the next size up from 2048x1536 for the iPad is 3072x2304396PPI. (1024x3, 768x3) However, if we do get a 2048x1536 iPad 3, you would have to go to 4096x3072 (528 PPI) because you need to at least double the resolution in both directions to avoid scaling problems with apps that have not been updated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.displaymate.com/iPhone_4_ShootOut.htm View Post

Retina Display Acuity:
Retina Display is a great marketing name, and it's the sharpest smartphone display available, 23 percent sharper than the nearest competitor, but objectively it does not meet the quantitative criteria for being a true Retina Display - it's about a factor of two lower than the acuity of the human Retina. Rather, the iPhone 4 has a 20/20 Vision Display because when it is held more than 10.5 inches away, a person with 20/20 Vision will not be able to resolve the iPhone 4 screen pixels, which are at 326 ppi (1 arc-minute resolution). But 20/20 Vision is the legal definition of Normal Vision, which is at the lower end of true normal vision. There are in fact lots of people with much better than 20/20 Vision, and for most people visual acuity is limited by blurring from the lens in the eye. The best human vision is about 20/10 Vision, twice as good as 20/20 Vision, and that is what corresponds to the acuity of the Retina. So to be a True Retina Display a screen needs about 652 ppi at 10.5 inches, or 572 ppi at 12 inches. Unfortunately, a 20/20 Vision Display doesn't sound anywhere near as enticing as a Retina Display so marketing and science don't see eye-to-eye on this

Chronoptimist is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Tags
Samsung Bd D7000 3d Blu Ray Disc Player Silver , Samsung Pn51d8000 51 Inch 1080p 3d Ready Plasma Hdtv 2011 Model , Displays , Pioneer Pdp 5080 Hd
Gear in this thread

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off