4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 44

Originally Posted by coolscan

^^ That link doesn't say anything about 4K. Just the blogger that adds; "(to be called Retina Display for sure)." to High Definition, like HD now suddenly becomes "Retina Display".

I don't understand these Apple fanboys we see on the net continuously fantasizing about an "Apple TV" like if that should be something more special than other TV's.

The latest we heard from Sharp was that they where ramping up their IGZO panels production to meet increasing demands, and in there was also 32" 4K panels.
As we have not seen any 32" 4K panels in the shops yet, this might very well mean that some brand name other than Sharp have ordered these for some kind of branded 4K display release later in the year.
And that might be Apple that is going to release them as 4K monitors for their Mac's, or Sony for their High End Cine division serving Post Production and Broadcast marked.
Sharp and Sony Amend Agreement Regarding Joint Venture to Produce and Sell Large-Sized LCD Panels and Modules

Originally Posted by sytech

It is obvious he is talking about 4K.

Apple Inc's iTV
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/20...t_15264711.htm
Gou said Foxconn is making preparations for iTV, Apple Inc's rumored upcoming high-definition television, although development or manufacturing has yet to begin.

iTV reportedly features an aluminum construction, Siri, and FaceTime video calling

Foxconn's recent 50-50 joint venture factory with Sharp in Japan is one of the preparations made for the new device, Gou added.

http://www.bgr.com/2012/05/11/apple-...irmed-foxconn/
Foxconn Technology Group founder and chief executive Terry Gou has reportedly gone on record in stating that his company will soon begin manufacturing a television for Apple. Production has not yet begun, China Daily reports, and the electronics manufacturing giant is currently preparing its facilities for Apple’s HDTV. The site claims Gou made the comments during a press conference in Shanghai on Friday. Apple’s long rumored HDTV, or “iTV” as it is often called, will reportedly look much like the company’s current LED Cinema Display. It is said to feature an aluminum casing, iOS, voice-powered remote control features courtesy of Siri, and an iSight camera for FaceTime video chats. Earlier reports claim that the device will debut later this year, though another recent report suggests that it might not launch until 2014.

Originally Posted by indio22

I think a divide is between the typical AVS person who focuses in on the highest quality specs, and the persons who don't, of which I think the latter group is larger in number. For example, I built myself an HTPC and also one for my parents - neither with Blu-ray players. Heck, much of my video library is less than DVD res. While I might install a Blu-ray player at some point when prices drop further, 4K is simply not on the table in the foreseeable future for me and many others.

But for sure, marketers will push 4k, just as they pushed higher refresh rates, 3D and every other "must have" item. Marketers get paid the big bucks to create a market and are in the job of convincing - I have no doubt they will have success convincing some folks they can't live without 4k. The problem with 4K though is diminishing returns, as suggested - the res jump might not be as perceptible as some of the historical lower resolutions jumps. That might slow adoption although not stop it completely.

Originally Posted by matteos

Agree, I just got updated with a 2560x1440 screen at work, the size is nice but I have it next to my old monitor which is 1680x1050, the only discernable difference even up close is that text and icons are smaller because apple won't let you adjust the size of them... Image quality? video quality? no difference. For a TV where you are sitting at least 6 feet back I think 4k is likely a waste of time, still it will drive down the price of existing sets

Originally Posted by matteos

Agree, I just got updated with a 2560x1440 screen at work, the size is nice but I have it next to my old monitor which is 1680x1050, the only discernable difference even up close is that text and icons are smaller because apple won't let you adjust the size of them... Image quality? video quality? no difference. For a TV where you are sitting at least 6 feet back I think 4k is likely a waste of time, still it will drive down the price of existing sets

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

The reason you are not seeing a difference, is because most monitors are roughly the same pixel density, with 27" 2560x1440 displays being around 110 PPI. Your 1680x1050 display may be an exception though, if things now appear smaller. I'm guessing it was a 20" (100 PPI) or 22" (90 PPI) screen rather than an 18" one. (110 PPI)

Because computer monitors have traditionally increased resolution more-or-less linearly with screen size, this roughly 100 PPI density has remained relatively constant over the years, and so all that happens when you get a new "high resolution" display is that it's bigger and you have more workspace, or things get smaller on-screen if it's higher density, as you have seen.

When you quadruple the screen resolution (double the pixel density) however, you are then able to take advantage of Apple's "HiDPI" mode, which keeps all UI elements and text the same size, but renders objects with 4x the detail.

Rather than everything getting tiny when going from 1920x1080 on a 22" display (100 PPI) to 4K on a 22" display (3840x2160, 200 PPI) your workspace will remain the same, but text and images will be significantly clearer/sharper and more detailed, similar to what Apple has just done with the new iPad.

You can see this for yourself if you have an iPad 3 and AirDisplay, as they have added support for Apple's HiDPI mode, so you can have a 1024x768 sized workspace to keep text and icons at a good size (though actually the screen is so sharp, I find 2048x1536 perfectly usable) but with a considerably sharper and more detailed image than natively running at 1024x768. (which looks terrible in comparison)

For example, here is a side-by-side comparison between Safari and Google Chrome on the iPad via AirDisplay. You have the equivalent workspace of a 1024x768 screen, but Safari supports HiDPI mode, rendering the page at 2048x1536, whereas Chrome does not, and renders the page at 1024x768.



Pixel density has far more of an impact on things than resolution does. I am now mainly using a 46" display, which only has a density of 48 PPI, and looks quite bad when you use it as a monitor. Going to 4K would only bump this up to 96 PPIstill lower density than current computer displays, and this year we are likely to finally start seeing computer displays move towards 200 PPI.

Originally Posted by coolscan

Seems like I have to repeate myself; The only obvious is that the blogger has added "(to be called Retina Display for sure)" to High Definition. Two things that are not compatible.

There is also nothing in the original linked source that collaborate the bloggers claim of anything related to 4K or "retina display";

The blogger is obviously an Apple fanboy that fantasize and dream up a whole lot of specs that has no basis in the reported speech by the Foxconn guy (who is probably now looking for a new job by announcing this, or would have if Jobs had been alive)

I think that within 5 years there will be enough 4K TVs sold to support 4K video content from the studios.

Originally Posted by Auditor55

Not happening. 4k TV's and 4k content is superflous. Considering that optical disc in general (DVD, CD, Blu-Ray etc.) is on the way out in favor of streaming video, I don't see studios releasing 4k content even for a niche market, not going to happen.

Originally Posted by sytech

*cough*SONY*cough*
They already have the VW1000 4K projector and the new HX955 LCD is rumored to be 4K as well. The also have the movie studio to make 4K blu-ray happen. Once they do it the others will eventually follow. By the time 4K really takes off in 2016, H.265 and the availability of faster connections will make streaming possible.

http://www.hifi-forum.de/viewthread-144-6930.html

According to most reports, the PS4 will be the first native 4K blu-ray player for Christmas 2013. Sony can not compete with the Chinese and Koreans on price with the current tech, so they need to change the game.

Originally Posted by Auditor55

What content provider will be releasing 4k movies. Its not going to happen. You can make all the hardware you want, if there is no content (i.e. 4k movies) its not going to fly.

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

There is already 4K content on YouTube, and I believe Vimeo as well now.

Gaming and Computer use already supports 4K. Most cameras these days take at least 8MP photographs, and consumer-grade 4K video cameras have already been announced.

Blu-ray can be upscaled to the display (more and more titles seem to be showing aliasing these days) and all content will benefit from the reduction in the "pixel grid" by using a higher density panel.

Here's a comparison between the iPad 2 and iPad 3 display:

(Source images were downsized and adjusted for clarity)

More than just the improved text clarity, look at the whitespace in between the text. The iPad 2 display has a very visible grid over the entire image, whereas it's almost invisible on the iPad 3 display. (especially when viewed in person)

Even if you view 1024x768 content on the iPad 3, it looks better than it does on the iPad 2 as a result of this.

That's the exact same thing you should expect to happen with 4K native displays. 4K should drastically reduce, or eliminate the "pixel grid" depending on the viewer and their distance from the screen. (8K should eliminate it in almost all scenarios)

Originally Posted by brody76

Devices like Ipad or tablets will take advantage of this for sure, but for TV sets its useless. At a certain viewing distance you don't see that grid anymore, and either it's there or not isn't going to bother you or change your experience.

You would have to sit in front of it.

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

The "pixel grid" is very visible on my 46" 1080p display, especially when using a computer hooked up to it. It fills a far larger portion of my vision than the iPad does, and has a far lower pixel density.

Whether it's consciously noticed or not, it definitely has an impact on image quality, and moving to 4K will be an improvement in clarity, even with 1080p native sources.

Originally Posted by Auditor55

What content provider will be releasing 4k movies. Its not going to happen. You can make all the hardware you want, if there is no content (i.e. 4k movies) its not going to fly.

Originally Posted by sytech

Maybe the coughs confused you. SONY.

"Sony reps claim the company is in talks with the Blu-ray Disc Association to iron out a standard compression scheme for squeezing 4K movies onto discs, and has already promised a 4K release of the next Spider-Man movie"

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-th...0es-projector/

There is already 4K content on YouTube, and I believe Vimeo as well now.

Gaming and Computer use already supports 4K. Most cameras these days take at least 8MP photographs, and consumer-grade 4K video cameras have already been announced.

Blu-ray can be upscaled to the display (more and more titles seem to be showing aliasing these days) and all content will benefit from the reduction in the "pixel grid" by using a higher density panel.

Originally Posted by brody76

Lets wait and see.

This is more of a "natural" evolution towards better panels, but to make a real difference on the market, I don't think so.

Sony is well known for trying to innovate, but they failed more than once.

And I honestly don't see how this would help the LCD or any other display technology to appear more competitive on the market. At the recommended viewing distance, you won't see ****.
Average Joe won't pay that much money for such a small difference.

Originally Posted by brody76

Lets wait and see.

This is more of a "natural" evolution towards better panels, but to make a real difference on the market, I don't think so.

Sony is well known for trying to innovate, but they failed more than once.

And I honestly don't see how this would help the LCD or any other display technology to appear more competitive on the market. At the recommended viewing distance, you won't see ****.
Average Joe won't pay that much money for such a small difference.

Originally Posted by mattkillahd


4k will be useful for the big tvs. the distance between where you sit now with your tv will be shortened when 4k comes out. meaning if someone has a 80lcd now they have to sit what 12 feet away? when 4k 80" comes out this will allow that person to sit much closer and have the same clarity as sitting 12ft out.

Originally Posted by CruelInventions

People don't sit further back because their current image quality is too fuzzy or otherwise unappealing. They sit further back because those distances work much better from a furniture spacing point of view; better aesthetically and functionally. People rarely moved their viewing distances up closer when going from 480p or less to 1080p, so what on earth makes you think they will for 4k?

Originally Posted by brody76

There is never going to be OLED vs 4K.
Like its been stated by everyone, there is no content, and there will never be.
The benefit isn't sufficient enough, you would have to sit very close to a 55-60" TV, which is pretty much useless (to start with, majority of households have 32-42" screens, this technology would be totally useless).
Waste of time and money.
Those 4k screen could be useful for some small devices or computers, but not for TV sets.
And even if it was on its way, by the time OLED would be competitive and affordable already, totally annihilating LCD's, either 2k or 4k.
This is a non-issue.