4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 42

A VR-Zone article that I linked to in my previous post discussed that chart and it was shown at IDF 2012 in Beijing. I don't think the chart has anything to do with Ivy Bridge and I think it simply shows what Intel is expecting in terms of the resolution trend for different platforms.

Also there is an interesting rumor that one of the new features of Haswell will be digital display repartition (connecting the digital video outputs directly to the CPU). As such if Ivy Bridge isn't capable of 2160p60 output over a single DisplayPort cable than based on this rumor it looks like it might be possible with Haswell.



At the moment it is a bit early to tell what the Hollywood studios will do in terms of a higher frame rate. The Hobbit movies are being filmed in 3D at 48 fps but James Cameron has said that he personally prefers 60 fps over 48 fps. As such in my opinion the first thing that the studios need to do is decide which frame rate should be used for higher frame rate movies (I would prefer 60 fps but for cost reasons I wouldn't be surprised if the studios picked 48 fps).

Projectors have nothing to do with flat panel tech. Sony is major producer of projectors for cinemas and venues, Sony home projectors fit into this business and thus may survive. But Sony flat panel business is winding down.

Regarding RED laser projectors one can note that projector industry is full of niche companies which is in total contrast to the flat panel industry. Reason for this is obvious as flat panels require huge investments. In any case home projectors segment will face full extinction pressure once affordable 100"+ panels will appear. We are not far away from this as Sharp was hinting 90" panel may come this year and TCL demoed 110" 4K panel.


The chart is much relevant to the Ivy Bridge since it is clearly showing there is no 4K this year, there is even no 4K next year. 4K is for 2014.


Even if Ivy Bridge chips can deal with 4K images, current Ivy Bridge does not support Display Port 1.2 ouput which is required for 4K. Such support should obviously become available in the Haswell generation which means late second half of 2013 and practical systems becoming available in 2014. However there was chicken and egg game here: as there were no 4K monitors why support 4K in chips? Now Sharp announced production of 4K panels. When 4K monitors become available, transition to 4K chips may speed up to 2013.


The 4K, and more general high-density display tech, is natural, logical and necessary there. Same can not be said about TV.

HDMI 1.4 can support 4k @ 24fps

Why do they have decide on a set FPS, why can't they have an open frame rate that is more futureproof? Some films could be 48fps while other could be 60fps.

^^ 1) Standardisation reduces supply chain cost 2) Legacy compatibility

The new Redray 4K projector can do up to 120fps, so you should be covered with whichever standard they pick.

Who is manufacturing this 4K monitor for Canon?

http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/17/c...splay-wont-pu/

I consider 4K to include 3840x2160 (which I think is the resolution that makes sense for consumer 4K displays) and that chart shows 3840x2160 computer displays in 2013.



A standard would help keep costs down. The more frame rates that are allowed the more complex the video processing has to be and the more expensive it becomes to properly show all of them on a display (especially when you add in 3D).



The REDray projector may be capable of supporting multiple frame rates but how many refresh rates does it support? There is a slide that shows some details but I couldn't find any information on that issue.

The irony is of course, those who can afford it, probably don't need to be future proofed

But seriously the industry infrastructure eg bandwidth & storage, and processing has to catch up with whatever standard, and yet be backward compatible. There is a reason why even Retina iPad is a simple 2X 4:3 aspect 1024X768. It's not so easy to be "resolutionary"

This brings us to the peculiarity of 4K monitors, they may exist in two species: consumer and professional 'true 4K with 4096x2160 res. It seems Intel chips support for 4K will come with the next gen Ivy Bridge which is appearing late 2013.


Yes, but the talk here is about computer monitors and the 24 fps is too low. Anyway, Radeon HD7000 series cards support 4K res and, as one can see from the specs even the professional 4096x2160, most likely the Display Port there supports 60 fps. Thus it seems there is no problem with driving 4K monitors if such would appear.

Speculations are welcomed as when such monitors carrying non-cosmic prices may appear. If Sharp starts production of panels now, monitors may appear after summer???

Think this is the first images of the Sharp 32" 4K IGZO panel. Looks the they are aiming for late 2012 release. We should hear something soon about the Elite line also. Hopefully it will get that 70" 4K panel they showed at CES.




Sharp also reaffirms large format 4K by end of year in Japan.

http://en.akihabaranews.com/111322/h...-year#comments

Their TV is only 60 fps when SHV is intended to be 120 fps. Maybe when it's finally broadcast to consumer's TVs (around 2020 in Japan?) they'll have a 120 fps version of the TV.

This Engadget article has a few pictures of the display.



I looked around for information on UHDTV and found some information on it that is not currently on the UHDTV Wikipedia page. For instance there are two standards called UHDTV1 (3840x2160) and UHDTV2 (7680x4320) and that up until last year the maximum allowed frame rate was 60 fps. Information on UHDTV1 and UHDTV2 can be seen in this Broadcast Engineering article and on page 8 of the March 2011 EBU Technical journal. Sometime last year there was a proposal to add 120 fps to UHDTV as seen page 13 of the September 2011 EBU Technical journal and it was announced that it had been approved as one of the allowed frame rates on page 14 of the December 2011 EBU Technical journal.

When it comes time for the NHK to start spending money to buy equipment to record, store, and transmit video I doubt that they will use 4320p120. I think that the NHK will use something more reasonable such as 2160p60. Note that my opinion is based on the 2009 statement made by Dr. Keiichi Kubota (the NHK R&D Chief) that UHDTV broadcasts would begin in 10 years.

Another entry into the commercial 4K monitor field.

http://www.twice.com/article/483551-...CD_Monitor.php

Now all we need is Apple, Sony and Sharp to bring them to the consumer at reasonable prices.

NHK have already built/bought a lot of equipment for this. They have several 8K CMOS cameras (some hints they where built with help from JVC). 8K TV/monitors by Sharp and large outdoor 8K screens.

Several of the games in the London Olympics this summer will be filmed and broadcasted (NHK in cooperation with BBC, their main partner in the new TV format) to several locations (outdoor screens in towns) in the UK, to Washington DC and several outdoor locations in Japan.
The live streams are intended to be sent over fiber to those locations.

http://www.worldtvpc.com/blog/bbc-an...s-london-2012/
http://www.postmagazine.com/Post-Blo...echnology.aspx
http://www.3dfocus.co.uk/3d-news-2/s...-ibc-2011/5433
PDF; http://webmedia.company.ja.net/conte...xperiments.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiRs6K2rhtw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFeYp0du1sE


Regular test broadcasts are planned to start in Japan in 2020.

^
^
^
Notice guys the 8K is beyond the 4K thread. "The exclusive 8K anticipation thread" is begging to be created .

Returning to the 4K, gamers may take notice that running advanced games smoothly at 4K require superheavy iron. This can be seen when looking at the performance of the highest caliber graphics card in the universe which ton of money can buy right now. Data show that it manages to run even the most demanding games with speed approaching 60 fps at the 2560x1600 res. Quick calc shows two such cards in tandem (cost two tons of money and sucking 600 W) should do smooth 60 fps at 4K


56" is not a monitor in normal meaning of the world. Sharp panel has 32" which is just right for a huge (desktop) monitor.

I was thinking in terms of all of the broadcast/production equipment used by the NHK.



The ITU preliminary draft recommendation for UHDTV seems to indicate that 4K UHDTV is being considered for "delivery of television to the home" while 8K UHDTV is being considered for "delivery of LSDI programming to theatres, halls, and other venues such as theme parks". Granted those statements were made in the ITU draft so they might not reflect the opinion of the NHK. Also an amusing fact mentioned in that article is that when the NHK gave a demonstration of 4320p60 video to the ITU the display used 16 HDMI cables.

Clearly, more evidence that no one is interested in this technology.

Getting a small handfull of overkill resolution content and using it as a halo for 95% of "upscaled" content, that they will overchage the public for? Sure, any business is interested in that.

Not heard anybody on the street complain about 1080p yet though. Not surprising as the vast majority of TVs are 50" and below and people viewing them are doing so at distances where they cant even benefit from the 1080p.

4K is fine and good, but someones going to have to figure out how to get giant screens in everyone's living room first - for cheap - before one could credibly see any huge consumer outcry for it.

Glasses free 3D and Passive Full 1080p 3D is what will get it into the homes. Should start to see 4K for computer monitors 32" and under size late this year or early next year and 4K in 60-110" home theater size soon after. Eventually as cost come down to a few hundred, you will see them in standard 33"-59" sets. Whether you believe it is need or not, marketing will make it happen. In 6-8 years you will not be able to buy a TV set without 4K resolution.

Yeah right, people are just now getting into 1080p. Most people probably couldn't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on their sets.

Let's face it, 4k and above is for the cinema, its simply overkill in the home.

All curretn users will benefit from 1080p when watching 1080i since when 1080i is watched on a 720p set 1/2 of the pixels are deleted so the detail they contain is not visible. However, even if past the so called optimum vewing distance no detail it is just blended in with the adjoining pixels since you can not view complete pixels. This is exactly what Apple does with it's new Ipad highly regarded retina display. It has a 3K 9.7 inch display so that no pixels edges can be seen since the eye blends the each pixel's content with the adjoining pixels content.

That same kind of argument was once used against HDTV. There were people skeptical of HDTV who said that there was no proof that consumers wanted HDTV. The fundamental weakness of that kind of argument is just because people aren't actively complaining about something doesn't mean that they aren't interested in something better.



In 8 years I think there will be 2160p TVs as small as 40" being sold due to autostereoscopic/passive 3D and I also think that there will be TVs sold at 1080p resolution at up to 60" as well. The reason I think that is because the cost difference between 1080p and 2160p will be even larger than the cost difference between 720p and 1080p. As such 8 years from now I think there will be a size range overlap where TVs will be available at both 1080p and 2160p.

As per Richard's note on 1080p above, just to digress a bit on a 1 year old post... The context was 4k needs more powerful VP... would be instructive to remember what we post about 4k a year from now

AFAIK gaming market also declining. Markets are dynamic.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post20238629

Financial background about Intel released today by financial analyst firm Five Star Equities confirms in that sentiment and indicates that the financial community has, for the first in more than 5 years, high expectations in Intel's opportunity in the chip market. Five Star Equities states that Ivy Bridge essentially kills the discrete graphics card because the integrated graphics of the CPU would be good enough for 95 percent of computer users.

"There is a very small market of people who seek out high-performance graphics cards, mostly comprised of hardcore gamers," the report reads. "The improved graphics provided by the Ivy Bridge chips will likely satisfy the needs of the average consumer."

The report also quotes industry analyst Jack Gold, who said that "extreme gamers who want very powerful graphics cards are in a niche market already, and it's shrinking." Gold continued and noted that Nvidia may be in trouble, "because their graphics chip market is falling off faster than their mobile chip market."

^^Though with the increasing resolution the need for graphics cards will be still there for some time. Ivy Bridge graphics is eliminating the need for low-end graphics cards are resolutions up to 2K. Beyond that, one still needs a card. At the 4K even the next generation Intel graphics will not be enough.

The thing is that 1080p was possibly tangibly "better" for a decent number of people, given the size of living rooms and TVs.

Tanglible benefit for 4k however, requires dirt cheap huge LCDs or a shift to giant projectors which implies dedicated viewing habit in a semidarkened room AND a physical space for screen.


View that in a context where content consumption is increasingly multitasked AND average consumer worldwide will have less free spending money. 1080p at least benefited from the era of cheap credit and growing income.

Hmmm. No, sorry. Too much headwind. IMO anyway. Not saying there's nothing here of value for the "phile", but you need soil to grow even the best seeds.

Right. Because if dozens of CEM's and media distributors are "interested" (read: what can we implement to sell more product and service) in something that means it's "better" or even needed at all.

LMAO. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

James

The last thing you want to do in this thread is introduce common sense and reality.

trust me.

James

The differences between 480 and 720/1080 on typical television screen sizes (40-65") and typical viewing distances is apparent.

1080 vs 4k within the same parameters is not.

But since we have a throng who will counter evidence with "better" evidence (even if largely unsubstantiated) the entire dialogue is a non-starter.


I just pop in here for a laugh every once and awhile. Make no mistake, ULTRAHD is coming....so is a 1000 hp Corvette.

James