or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 5

post #121 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post

4K is only going to matter for you if you are buying an extremely large size TV and sitting very close to it.

Or, buying a projector.

I've never seen a 4K HDTV. However I've read a lot of articles on them and the consensus is always the same: Viewing a 4K TV (of any size) is very similar to viewing a 3d HDTV (without the glasses). In other words, phenomenal! I don't know, just what I've read.




.
post #122 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by avJohnny View Post

RE: streaming. Just like iTunes (etc) rendered CDs obsolete, right? Oh wait. That isnt happening. Yes, streaming is and always will be more popular, but people will always want to own physical media, and eventually BRD will replace DVD (vested studio interest). BRD isnt going anywhere.

4k in the home? No point. The extra resolution holds no benefit for most and very little benefit for even those on the fringe who own projectors. That said, it will give the Jonses' neighbors something to lust after and will continue to fill manufacturers' pockets. Gotta love the human condion.

I agree 100%.

In fact, I often skip the theater, and wait to watch the movie on a Netflix download). If I love the movie and think I'd like to see it again, I do not hesitate to order or pick up the blu-ray version in a heart beat!

Regarding 4K tv . . .

I completely disagree with your outlook for 4K tv, but I could be wrong. For all I know it could be skipped over in favor of an even more advanced television technology.




.
post #123 of 3670
"I completely disagree with your outlook for 4K tv, but I could be wrong. For all I know it could be skipped over in favor of an even more advanced television technology."

Certainly not a more advanced resolution. 4k x 2k is a theater standard for digital and the next frontier in resolution will be 4k x 2k. Whether it's useful or interest is certainly debatable.
post #124 of 3670
Unless how we view movies/tv DRAMATICALLY (and I mean DRAMATICALLY) changes from the last 50 yrs in the near future, I don't think the "usefulness" of 4k is debatable at all, actually.

How is it of use in 70" and smaller screens when we cannot even resolve 1080 on a SIXTY inch screen at 8 feet?

"Useful?" Certainly not for bettering the human experience, as none of us will be able to decipher the increased rez from 1080 at anything approaching a "useful" viewing distance.

I hear people babble about full, wall-length/width screens that will be perfect for ultra-hi rez 4K.

Right. Let me know when they're popping up at Wal Mart. And again, this would be a radical departure from how we've been playing the game for nearly 6 decades now. This isn't the first time I've heard this song and dance in the last 20 years.

Of course none of this has anything to do with whether or not 4K becomes commonplace.

James
post #125 of 3670
So let me get this straight, when TV came out, there were 10" screens commonplace. In the 1970s, we'd achieved the remarkable 25" screen. We did a dance through rear projection in the 1990s (popular with about 10% of Americans), but while the screens were big, the source image was a duo or trio of 7" CRTs.

Now we have 40 and 50-inch flat screens in many, many homes. Affordable 70-inch screens are here. How affordable? The nominal-dollar price of the Sharp is lower that what I paid for a Mitsubishi RPTV 15 years ago. The real-dollar price is probably about one half.

Even though OLED remains a bit of a distant dream for TVs, it's real in cell phones today and is being geared up to compete with LCD (which allows for $2k 60-inch sets and $3k 70-inch sets today) and plasma (where if you do the math, you'd understand that an 85-inch plasma could plausibly be sold for about $5000 -- yes, the market lets them sell it for 3-4x that at the moment).

So it's impossible for you to believe that 60"+ TVs will become common enough that some people will want increased resolution? It's impossible for you to believe to that some people here who sit less than 8 feet from their 60 inch TVs today (yes, I think they are nuts, but they are happy, so my opinion on that is pretty irrelevant) wouldn't enjoy an 80-inch higher rez set they could enjoy from 10 feet?

I mean I would place myself high on the skepticism meter here for gigantic TVs. I'm actually on record multiple times as explaining why I don't believe more than 10% of the market will purchase TVs of 70" or larger regardless of cost (and because of markets like Japan and Europe, I'm almost certain to be right on magnitude). But that said, I do believe some people would buy whatever size they could get. And the bigger they go, the more that resolution will matter or -- more importantly -- appear to matter. Perception is reality. Marketing is truth. These things you seem to suggest.

But what you seem skeptical of is the market for really big TVs developing. And I'd say while it might be small in overall terms, it's going to exist in the millions of units.
post #126 of 3670
One needs increased color depth to go with the 4k resolution. This is what I am watching at my local theater and it makes my HDTV not look so good.
post #127 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
[snip]... Now we have 40 and 50-inch flat screens in many, many homes. Affordable 70-inch screens are here. How affordable? ... LCD (which allows for $2k 60-inch sets and $3k 70-inch sets today) and plasma (where if you do the math, you'd understand that an 85-inch plasma could plausibly be sold for about $5000... [snip]
That's not to mention that DLPs have been over 70" for years, with millions sold.*

An $1400 73" DLP is not at all uncommon. I've see 82 inchers going for under $2000 delivered. 92" next month. Big AND affordable is here now.

*EDIT for rogo:

That's not to mention that DLPs, with millions sold, have been over 70" for years.
post #128 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post
That's not to mention that DLPs have been over 70" for years, with millions sold.

An $1400 73" DLP is not at all uncommon. I've see 82 inchers going for under $2000 delivered. 92" next month. Big AND affordable is here now.
The sum total of >70" DLPs sold is not 1 million, let alone millions.
post #129 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
The sum total of >70" DLPs sold is not 1 million, let alone millions.
Millions of DLPs. Pay attention to sentence structure.
post #130 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post
Millions of DLPs. Pay attention to sentence structure.
I did. Your sentence implies that millions of 70" DLPs have been sold. If you wanted to say that millions of DLPs have been sold, a tiny minority of which are more than 70 inches, you could've said that. But you didn't. Instead you tried to imply (intentionally, inadvertently, I'm not ascribing motive) that it was millions of very big DLPs. It isn't. And your sentence structure means what I think it does, not what your revisionist version of it purports to claim it means.

The prepositional phrase "with millions sold" is modifying DLPs, which you'd already modified with another prepositional phrase "over 70" for years".
post #131 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
[snip]...your sentence structure means what I think it does...
I can't argue with that now, can I?

Quote:
...The prepositional phrase "with millions sold" is modifying DLPs,...
Yes! So, where's your problem with the sentence?

Quote:
which you'd already modified with another prepositional phrase "over 70" for years".
BTW, over 70" (modifies the noun, DLPs), and for years (modifies the verb, have), are two separate prepositional phrases. A prepositional phrase modifies a noun or verb, not another prepositional phrase so, with millions sold cannot modify over 70". Even though I have already confirmed what my post meant, I have edited my original post, so as not to confuse you further.

Now can we get back on topic? (I thought my post was reinforcing your post, BTW)

HDTVs over 70" are here now, and have been for years. And they can be bought for even less than you quoted. The future is now.
post #132 of 3670
You're quite frankly just wrong here. If that's an infraction, so be it. The only way to parse your statement is to conclude you believe that millions of 70-inch DLPs have been sold.

If you didn't mean that, you shouldn't have written it in a way that it can only be parsed to mean that.

I'm done debating grammar.

There are a dozen clear ways to express the two separate points that DLPs sold millions of units and also have been available in very large sizes. If you were intending to reinforce some point I was making, thank you. I'll just leave it at that.
post #133 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
... your sentence structure means what I think it does...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
You're quite frankly just wrong here. ...
Al-righty then...

I guess I stand corrected.
post #134 of 3670
You stand and sit as correct as you want to be. I'm in four threads now where people are arguing basic facts as if they are opinion questions. In one of them, someone is explaining that one inch = 1/4 inch. If we fundamentally agree on anything at this point, I'm willing to leave it at that, smile, move along, etc.
post #135 of 3670
Back on topic...

An $1400 73" DLP is not at all uncommon. I've see 82 inchers going for under $2000 delivered. 92" next month.

Big AND affordable is here now.
post #136 of 3670
It does seem like a bargain. It's mammoth (22-25" deep). It's not especially power efficient. And it's DLP, so bleech for me. But it's a bargain.
post #137 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
It does seem like a bargain. It's mammoth (22-25" deep). It's not especially power efficient. And it's DLP, so bleech for me. But it's a bargain.
The 73" is less that 18" deep, and my cable box sits in a stand that's 24" deep, so I don't see a problem with TV depth. I'm not into the whole "flat screens are cute" thing (even though from the front, it is often mistaken for a flat screen TV).

DLP is way more efficient than a 65" plasma, my 65" saves enough electricty over a plasma to pay for a new lamp every year, but I have never had to replace one anywhere near that often.

DLP may be bleech for you, and that's okay. All TVs, whether DLP, LCD/LED, or plasma have their positives and negatives.

Based on size, contrast, black levels and color, DLP offered the best choice for me in 2006, and have only gotten better. LCDs gray blacks and screen yellowing ruled out that choice for me. Some say plasmas have better black levels than DLP, but I don't believe the black levels are $2000 better. DLPs negatives have not been an issue with me and how I watch TV. The only complaint I might have is that 65" is no longer big enough!

If one does their research, getting past marketing BS and old wives tales, DLP offers a viable (and affordable) option for anyone wanting to go big.

Of course, that's just my opinion, and you're welcome to yours.
post #138 of 3670
"DLP is way more efficient than a 65" plasma"

The Energy Guide sticker says otherwise. Even accounting for calibrating up the plasma's wattage, they'd be about the same -- unless the DLP also has a fake, low number.

And yes, you couldn't give me a DLP. I hate them. I have plenty of exposure on which to form that opinion.
post #139 of 3670
According to the latest actual Energy Star data they are about the same, about 214 watts see:

http://downloads.energystar.gov/bi/q..._prod_list.pdf
post #140 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

"DLP is way more efficient than a 65" plasma"

The Energy Guide sticker says otherwise. Even accounting for calibrating up the plasma's wattage, they'd be about the same -- unless the DLP also has a fake, low number.

And yes, you couldn't give me a DLP. I hate them. I have plenty of exposure on which to form that opinion.

Here's an FTC Energy Sticker (government required) for the 64" Samsung PN64D8000FF plasma.

(click to enlarge)

Here's the one for the 92" Mitsubishi WD-92840.

(click to enlarge)

The 92" Mitsubishi has more than 175% the screen area, with less energy requirement than a 64" Samsung.

If the numbers were fake, I think the FTC would be on them.
post #141 of 3670
And here's the Panasonic 65" Energy Guide sticker

http://www.crutchfield.com.edgesuite...P65VT30-E.jpeg

which clearly shows $32.

Since all the Mitsubishis use the same engine, they all "use" the same Energy Guide energy, which is clearly freaking absurd because you'd need to turn up the brightness quite a bit on a 92" vs. the 73" or else it's going to be dim as hell.

Now I'm the first to admit that the Panasonic will need to be turned up from the ratings because they are based on some low-end eco mode. But the Mitsubishi labels are freaking laughable, using the same stats for all 3 sizes. I knew all of this several posts ago where I wrote, correctly, "it's not especially power efficient".

Oh, and the FTC is asleep at the switch here, since neither the current plasma labels nor the DLP remotely reflect real-world usage. Only LCD is running remotely close to honest numbers on Energy Guide.
post #142 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

The BBC changed its BBC HD and BBC1 HD frequency on satellite recently (6-6-2011), they went from DVB-S to DVB-S2, is this what you talk about?.

Satellite: Astra2
Frequency: 10847 MHz
Symbol rate:23000 KS/s
Polarisation: Vertical
Modulation: DVB-S2/ QPSK
FEC: 8/9

Yap. Some can argue its not true 1080p broadcast but at the end of the day, the user doesn't have to rely on 2:2 pull-down
post #143 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by tory40 View Post

I thought an increased number of pixels amounted to an extra dithering effect. Thats what a reviewer said about the Dell 30" 2560x1600 monitor once.

Number of pixels doesn't define number of colors or the ability to dither better.

That has to do with internal processing and FRC (Frame-Rate-Control).
post #144 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielo TM View Post

Number of pixels doesn't define number of colors or the ability to dither better.

That has to do with internal processing and FRC (Frame-Rate-Control).

@Nielo TM:

I got around to reading your HDTV Guide and perusing the images. That is one fantastic piece of work! Applause all the way around.

Question? Do you think Apple's announced hi-tech entry into the HDTV market in 2012 will change the game re: acceleration to Higher Resolution displays? And do you think their focus on Cloud Gaming & TV as a component of that launch will be a game changer for gaming/PC console makers or DVD/Blu-Ray vs Download/Streaming video? Or could it all be a big to do about nothing?
post #145 of 3670
Apple has announced no entry into the HDTV market. It is merely rumored at this point. I very much doubt it will have anything to do with higher resolution. The rumors initially are focused on 46" TVs. The chatter is eventual moves to larger sizes, but nothing very soon. Again, all of this is rumor.
post #146 of 3670
^ I'd love to learn what percentage of displays are currently larger than 60".

Seeing the average home size is actually DEcreasing for the first time in the last 200 years in this country, I think it's reasonable to assume that 60" screens will still be VERY large, VERY relatively close (say 12' or less) and VERY rare in a typical American living room.

An yes, I am highly skeptical that there will the production (never mind the sale) of 75+" displays that would take advantage of 4K rez anytime in the next 5 years...at least.

Time (per usual) will render its verdict.

James

Speaking of outliers (in either direction) is a non-starter in this dialogue.
post #147 of 3670
Yes outliers are non starters so let's just stick to 70"+ if you don't mind. Else the definition of large/huge size tend to drift in this forum

So you don't think 4k res will be in 70"+ within 5 years? Probably true as blu ray just mainstreamed not too long ago. But as per my previous post, if large size gain acceptance then 4k res will be viable. Without large size display 4k res is a novelty.
post #148 of 3670
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post20893794

[ shameless selfpromotion]

As predicted by me just months ago. Click the link above.

[ /shameless self promotion]
post #149 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielo TM View Post

Number of pixels doesn't define number of colors or the ability to dither better.

That has to do with internal processing and FRC (Frame-Rate-Control).

Assuming display size is fixed, dithering should definitely be less visible on a higher resolution screen compared with a lower resolution one, assuming we are talking about dithering at a processing/panel level, and not the source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

I am highly skeptical that there will the production (never mind the sale) of 75+" displays that would take advantage of 4K rez anytime in the next 5 years...at least.

Who says you need 75" or larger screens to make use of 4K? This is like the old "you need a 60" TV to make use of 1080p" argument that was clearly wrong.

Pixels are clearly visible on all the current 1080p displays in my home (40" and up) 4K would be welcomed at any size.
post #150 of 3670
Hi Chronoptimist you're back

So 4K on a 40" for you then? Or 1080p looks great on a 32"? Unless of course you are sitting 2' away.

Be wary of absolute statements like "any size"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Who says you need 75" or larger screens to make use of 4K? This is like the old "you need a 60" TV to make use of 1080p" argument that was clearly wrong.

Pixels are clearly visible on all the current 1080p displays in my home (40" and up) 4K would be welcomed at any size.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts?