4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 45

Well that's hardly surprising. It should be fairly obvious at this point that the mass market doesn't care about audio quality in the slightest with the shift to less-than-CD-quality downloads and general acceptance/ignorance of the "loudness war".

I don't think 4K is going to convince many people to throw out a 1080p set they're happy with today, but I do think we'll see a shift where 4K becomes the new "standard" just as 1080p has pushed out "720p" panels, despite arguments that the mass market wouldn't notice the difference/care.

Actually if you dare to see the Sharp 80" its price is not a turning off. Even more, Chinese manufs have big appetite to go global and then prices may go down further. However, this was not the main point of my upload as indeed this segment is tiny. What I am saying is that with clever marketing and the price difference between the 4K and 2K sets getting small /look Ipad 3 and Ipad 2 as a hunch/ people will start buying 4K of smaller sizes and somebody /e.g. DirectTV/ will offer content for it. Then, no matter what benefits such 4K offers it will become accepted. Technology becoming accepted not due to any real merits but marketing and pricing. One funny example how easy general public can be manipulated is the infamous megapixel race in compact cameras. It is known most people believe more megs is better and they start camera selection from this. Manufs have no choice than getting into the crazy race of more megapixels. Same should be possible with the 4K, it is so much bigger number than 2K and thus 46" 4K will be seen as hugely better than 2K. The funniest effect will be people watching such TV from the distance of 8PH and swearing PQ is much better than 2K.

That's what I said 5 posts ago, it will eventually be accepted naturally over time.

But I don't see this as the "ultimate" new feature, and most importantly I don't see a 4k vs OLED.

It will slightly improve the overall quality of the image, but somehow i can't believe this will become a sales argument.

I've been selling TV's for years now, and average consumer totally overlooks this kind of thing. Many of them don't even know what a pixel is.

So try explaining them what's 4k : good luck.
At the end of the day he'll be confused and walk back home empty handed.

On the other hand, the OLED standing on the shelve will be stunning, beautiful with amazing contrast and colors.
By experience, I know where the consumer will be heading to.

We will see.



It isn't just CE companies who think 4K is coming but also broadcasters (ATSC, EBU, and France Télévisions have discussed 4K video), satellite providers (DirecTV is preparing for it), and major computer companies (AMD has released graphic cards capable of 2160p60 DisplayPort output and Intel is expecting 4K computer monitors to be sold to the mainstream market in 2015). Considering the number of people who watch video on their computer monitors I think it is relevant to mention the expected move towards 4K computer monitors.



I have no doubt that OLED will be capable of 4K but why would you say that there will never be 4K content? There are many movies on 35 mm film that can be converted to 4K (and some already have) and there are movies being digitally shot at 4K. When it comes to the movie industry 4K isn't some future event but a current reality.



An image will look soft long before you can see the pixel grid on an LCD. I would recommend reading up on information on the human eye such as the fact that a person with 20/20 vision is capable of seeing 60 pixels per degree. When taking that into consideration even a resolution of 8K (7680x4320) makes sense since it was designed with the idea of a 100 degree horizontal field of view. Of course cost is an issue so I think the next major resolution increase for computer monitors and TVs will be 4K (3840x2160).



The recommended viewing distance depends on both the resolution and the size of the display.



It doesn't matter whether the average consumer knows what a pixel is what matters is what happens when they see a 4K TV playing 4K video.

Again, I hardly see how this is a sales argument.

Your eyes and field of vision restrict you to a certain distance, otherwise you'll end up with a soar neck. And I somehow doubt the difference would be that flagrant from comfortable viewing distance, no matter how big the screen is (except if you're over 80" maybe).

Maybe I'm wrong, but a the moment I'm not a believer.

The viewing angle for 4K is far from the limit of the human field of view so I don't think that is an issue. I have gone to a good number of movies at a 4K movie theater where I sat with a viewing angle of 50 degrees or more without any problem and saw many (sometimes most) of the audience with an average viewing angle at least equal to mine. Granted that is anecdotal but I have never seen any evidence that the average person wouldn't want a 4K TV. Of course cost is an issue so I expect 4K TVs to be a niche market for a long time but that was also true for HDTV.



I can understand skepticism and even among those who think that 4K TV is coming there are many different opinions on when it will happen.

LED is hardly better than CCFL but there are auxilliary benefits.

Not only does 4k improves on pixel density, it will also improves on color gradation, jaggies etc. Main point is that it must be perceivable by J6P. Anecdotal evidence from those who had seen it says it is.

8k will likely to be over-the-top for home theatres. But nay-sayers for 4k is also likely to be jumping the gun.

2K jaggies are not a problem for the TV viewing scenario. Color gradation is same for the 2K.

Now I will defend the 8K. It does not make sense for the present TV viewing scenario, it can make sense for some future viewing scenarios not limited to flat display (e.g. direct beaming of pixels onto retina )

I disagree with you entirely.

There already is a demand for 4K.

There are many of us who do not use small panel TVs as our main displays. Many of us are using screen sizes 8-16 feet wide. 2K is quite blurry on these sizes, thus the demand for 4K is growing.

Being a video calibrator for the past 12 years, there has been a shift in image size preference. People are choosing larger TV sets every year. 10 years ago, a 42" was a big screen. 50" was very big. Anything larger was crazy big...at least the perception was.

Now today, I don't have any clients that use 42" as their main screen. I rarely have clients who use 50" as their main screen size. These sizes have been demoted to bedroom TVs. The mode average is now 65" inches. The rest being 59". Since Sharp has come out with 70" and 80" sets, I'm getting calls for these TVs continuously. As larger screen sizes become available, the demand for it will be there.

I keep thinking that it was 10 years ago when we were installing 82" front projection screens. Who does that anymore? They were between 480-720p projection displays, anything bigger looked not good. DVD was the only source.

As long as the room supports bigger screen sizes, people will go bigger, and the demand for higher resolution sources will be there. I have a 60" panel I frequently watch from 7" away. I want the immersive viewing angle, but I see pixels - what a drag. This won't be an issue with 4K displays. Sit back further? Not an option for me.

The presence of 50" TVs in clients' bedroom certainly suggests a latent demand for more inches , but I suspect that what's needed may not be the type with pixels on them. Even 4000 may not be enough there. :-)

I have one thing to say to Sony.

How did SA-CD work out!!

Oh BTW,

"Sony claims Blu-ray is end of the road for optical media"

http://www.techspot.com/news/39763-s...1tb-discs.html

quite a few people will disagree with you, starting with this guy:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1410563

You can start by telling him he's imagining things. My guess however would be projection image hide jaggies, blur the edge much better than fixed pixel displays, at the expense of still picture sharpness.

Neither is color gradation the same with the right VP. That has always been your contention with the Sharp 4K VP.

That 1TB article is almost 2 years old. Has there been any updates since?

I'd like optical disc to stay, mainly because I like holding and owning something tangible. Some of you like virtual libraries, but I prefer walking in my "film vault" and picking out the movie I want to watch

The BD format will need to change...whether it's called BD or not is up in the air! I doubt it will be UVD...might get confused with the UltraViolet program...which I was confused when I never knew what it was about! I was thinking "what? when did the next generation optical storage system come out?" Yeah, seriously. I was a bit out of touch with that one.

SACD is a high end audio format that has several issues (a competing high end audio format, extreme DRM system that doesn't allow playback on computers, and non-LPCM audio encoding). I think it would be more logical to mention Blu-ray, which is a video format, though I can understand why you didn't since Blu-ray sales were $2 billion dollars in 2011.



Here is a link to the article with the exaggerated title that you quote and here is a link to the interview with the Sony representative made back in 2008. Note that he was asked for his opinion ("Dave and I were talking last night about optical formats. Do you think BD is going to be the last one?") and here is the start of his answer ("Oh, difficult question. Theoretically, from the physical point of view, it's the final optical format. Using blue laser is the final format for the optical disc. ..."). His comments may very well turn out to be wrong but they were only his comments.

Also the article link in your post links to this article which is about the development of a high powered 405 nm laser. I would mention that Blu-ray uses a 405 nm laser so the main difference noted in that article is the amount of power used by the laser.



There is this Forbes article from last year on what would be needed for an ultraviolet optical format.

Indeed, the guy is talking about RPTV! He probably have seen rough graphics on the LCD and saw 'jaggie' he could not seen on the RPTV. Jaggies worth to speak about are couple of pixels size and can't be seen in the TV viewing scenario - especially with the common highly compressed sources. Maybe a 4:4:4 uncompressed signal could reveal something but this is not a TV signal.

Same with the 4K: we are talking about highly compressed sources. Surely contribution quality 2K will beat any consumer quality 4K. Those who claim that new compression standards will make wonders are ignorant about compression.

yup I'm sure everyone is ignorant about what they can see and what they can't

Ironically it also applies to projectors like your oft quoted Sony article.

Why would someone go to such a large screen to breakdown the video quality of a 2K source? That does not make sense.

[quote=Jim Kiler;22024391]
I've already agreed that 4k would be good for the super niche front projection market.

Streaming Media Consumption to Surpass DVD Watching for the First Time in 2012 http://www.technobuffalo.com/home-en...-time-in-2012/

I think its pretty much over for the optical disc. I'm not a big fan of streaming, but it seems to me that the manufacturers themselves are killing the optical disc in favor of streaming.

Without software support from the studios, 4k is dead. I don't think we're going to see for 4k content any time soon, to expect otherwise is wishful thinking at best.

Going Digital: How to Prepare for the End of Optical Media:

http://infospace.ischool.syr.edu/201...optical-media/

LOL, I remember the promise of the paper-less schools and offices also, once the computer age took off. Now we use more paper than ever. Optical media has at least a few generations left until internet connections can deliver most content. And then all it would take to bring physical media storage tech back, would be a format that used even larger chunks of data such as 8K.

Of course JUST like the "ipad 3 resolution" thread- the idea that this is what ANY user sees when viewing an ipad 2 and 3 at a typical user distance is beyond comedy.

This "grid" schtick is knee-slapping hilarious. It simply does not exist on either device at a standard user distance. Amazing isn't it how apple thought it fine to string their c-base along with this horrendous screen on 6, 7, and $800+ devices for 2+ years...and still maintained a death-grip on the genre while others offered superior options? Go figure.

Again, still looking for this "grid-lock" on the iapd 2 I OWN with 20/20 vision.

LMAO...can't wait for the "grid pics" of the 3 vs 4 or 5 when they emerge with a "better" screen.

James

I doubt it. As the downfall of audio shows, the mass consumer doesn't care about higher quality at all, in fact modern kids prefer the sound of compressed mp3 to lossless. If they can turn on the TV and click on the movie they want to watch, they are good, and it doesn't even matter if it's the current 2K HD or SD. Optical media will not be saved by demand for better quality that streaming can't provide.
On the other hand I agree with those that say that 4K will somehow push through just because technology keeps evolving and manufacturers will produce 4K TV sets because they will be cheap enough. That won't save optical media, though. Just like we can download "good enough" 256kbps AAC audio and watch "good enough" 5 mbps 1080p video on demand now, we'll be able to watch "good enough" 8 mbps 4K video soon.

Don't forget just as 12b bit rate music was the only option at first both iTunes and Amazon eventually went to higher bit rates later. So even if we have to use good enough video now it will get better.

In my country, the United States, people have very few choices for broadcast content due to the lack of regulation against monopolies. Comcast isn't just going to suddenly start delivering lossless HD images to their customers when they have almost no competitive pressure to do so. Instead they can much more cheaply copy what Netflix does to try and stamp them out.

Is the cable infrastructure even capable of loss-less HD?

All I'm saying to you is that you won't see content providers releasing 4K movies.

I doubt if you will see Broadcast TV, Cable or Satellite providing 4k content.

Is broadcast even relevant in 2012? Most people I know are canceling their service, and I see articles about "cutting the cord" all the time now.

Broadcast quality is barely any better than the good online services, and far less flexible than on-demand content.

When it's something where I care about the image & sound quality, I watch it on Blu-ray, and if not, I'll watch it on my own schedule when it suits me, on-demand off Netflix or alternatives.

Broadcast isn't even 1080p yet (anywhere?) so why is there an expectation that they would adopt 4K at all? I don't understand why it keeps getting brought up here.

And that said, there's very little content on broadcast TV that's even worth watching in my opinion. Most of the people I know that do still have cable/satellite service, spend half an hour just flicking through channels or looking through a guide trying to find something to watch, instead of actually watching something. Just about anything that is worth watching, is available in other formats. (often a far superior Blu-ray set)

Yes

In the UK (BBC HD) it is depending on the content - only switches on a GOP. Though only very low frame rate 1080p25, and low resolution (only 1440x1080) and lowish bitrate. There's nowhere (no normal broadcast stations I think) yet that has good frame rate 1080p (eg. 1080p50/1080p60), but at least 1080p25 is one fps higher than 1080p Blu-ray. Still it's useless for when you want realistic motion.