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 57

post #1681 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

The authors of the study conclude that in terms of subjective video quality HEVC will achieve a bitrate reduction of over 50% for resolutions beyond HDTV.

Article says "The new standard targets a wide variety of applications such as mobile TV, home cinema, and ultra high denition television (UHDTV)"

Super HiVision (UHDTV) is going to go up to 60 fps or 120 fps. Surely they should have tested it at one or both of those instead of at a max of 30 fps.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 8/13/12 at 9:36pm
post #1682 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Article says "The new standard targets a wide variety of applications such as mobile TV, home cinema, and ultra high denition television (UHDTV)"
Super HiVision (UHDTV) is going to go up to 60 fps or 120 fps. Surely they should have tested it at one or both of those instead of at a max of 30 fps.
I agree that it would have been better had they included a video sequence with a frame rate higher than 30 fps but the study was funded with various research grants so cost was likely an issue. Also here is a link to the presentation from the SPIE Optics and Photonics conference for this study.
post #1683 of 3670
LG is taking pre-orders on the 84" now. Only $22K in Korea!
post #1684 of 3670
Looks like my previous prediction was correct. It really is going to happen sooner than later. I am going to start saving up for that 80" 4K OLED glare-free set right now.

PS4_K.jpg

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/22/the-playstation-4-rumored-to-support-4k-resolution
post #1685 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

Looks like my previous prediction was correct. It really is going to happen sooner than later. I am going to start saving up for that 80" 4K OLED glare-free set right now.
PS4_K.jpg
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/22/the-playstation-4-rumored-to-support-4k-resolution

The good news is you have plenty of time for save for the TV. smile.gif
post #1686 of 3670
Sony now also rumored to be offering the same 4K panel as LG is going to sell. But the rumor hear is an even-more-impressive $30K!

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57499411-221/sony-readying-super-sized-84-inch-4k-tv/
post #1687 of 3670
post #1688 of 3670
Here is a link to the official UHDTV standard (Recommendation ITU-R BT.2020 "Parameter values for ultra-high definition television systems for production and international programme exchange") that was put on the ITU website today.

UHDTV can have a resolution of either 3840x2160 or 7680x3840 and supports progressive frame rates up to 120 fps. The UHDTV signal format can be Y'C'bC'r (for compatiblity with the HDTV broadcasting environment), constant luminance Y'cC'bcC'rc (for the most accurate retention of luminance information), or R'G'B' (for the best quality). For Y'C'bC'r and Y'cC'bcC'rc chroma subsampling can be 4:2:0, 4:2:2, or 4:4:4 (R'G'B' is always 4:4:4).

Here is a link to a NHK article that compares the UHDTV color space with the HDTV color space (HDTV uses the Rec. 709 color space). The UHDTV color space covers 99.9% of real surface colors (colors likely to be seen in the natural world). The UHDTV color depth can be either 10-bits or 12-bits per component (up to 36-bits per pixel).

I have compared the UHDTV color space to other color spaces and I am impressed. It may not cover the entire CIE 1931 XYZ color space but it is far better than even the DCI P3 color space (one of the color spaces used by the major studios). The DCI specification for digital movies uses a video container that covers the entire CIE 1931 color space but what really matters is what digital movies are recorded/processed at. As such the UHDTV color space is larger than those digital movies that are recorded/processed with the DCI P3 color space. The AMIA Tech Review website has 2D representations of film print, DCI P3, and Rec. 709 color spaces.
Edited by Richard Paul - 8/23/12 at 8:10pm
post #1689 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

Looks like my previous prediction was correct. It really is going to happen sooner than later. I am going to start saving up for that 80" 4K OLED glare-free set right now.
PS4_K.jpg
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/22/the-playstation-4-rumored-to-support-4k-resolution

Wow! IGN just found out? I seen the 4k video games for the past year. Crysis 2 is one..
post #1690 of 3670
Upscaling to 4k doesn't count. :P
post #1691 of 3670
At what point does the human eye not give a "K" what resolution the set is? The human eye can only perceive so much incoming image before it no longer matters. We don't need higher resolution set we, we need better R&D with current tech and Quality Assurance. The sets we have are plagued with inconsistencies without introducing more things that can go wrong.
post #1692 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Shankenstein View Post

At what point does the human eye not give a "K" what resolution the set is? The human eye can only perceive so much incoming image before it no longer matters. We don't need higher resolution set we, we need better R&D with current tech and Quality Assurance. The sets we have are plagued with inconsistencies without introducing more things that can go wrong.
Sorry I am just feeling a little grumpy today.
post #1693 of 3670
Never in the history of TV has the situation about inconsistencies, reliability, or performance been different. Remember even in the days of CRT TVs lasting up to 20 years the average life span was between 8 and 10 years. That means only approximately one half of the TVs lasted past 10 years and of that most were still replaced before they could get to 20 years.

There have always been TV repair shops so there has always been a need to repair TVs. There were more repair shops in those days. It is just the price of TVs in relationship to the cost of repair were further apart so more people selected to repair first. Now the price of repair and price of replace are much closer so fewer people are going the repair route.

There have always been "improved performance" the next year and better performers that still had performance issues even at the high end.

No TV has ever been "perfect" and no TV ever will be "perfect". However there a lot of TVs that are high performance enough to exceed the expectations of the majority of consumers. The cost (in both dollars and effort) of improvement gets higher as you get closer to the best possible. It cost more dollars to improve 3% at the top than to improve 20% at the bottom.
post #1694 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Shankenstein View Post

At what point does the human eye not give a "K" what resolution the set is? The human eye can only perceive so much incoming image before it no longer matters. We don't need higher resolution set we, we need better R&D with current tech and Quality Assurance. The sets we have are plagued with inconsistencies without introducing more things that can go wrong.
Haven't we already talked about that? Apparent distance between pixels has to be below 0.3 arcminutes if we want to be sure display will match capabilities of healthy retina, in terms of resolution only, of course.
post #1695 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

Let's assume things are exactly as you've said: 50'' 1080p display, 12 ft viewing distance.
Apparent pixel size is 0.542 arcminutes, angular resolution is 110.7 pixels per degree [of person's field of view].
When participants of NHK "blind" tests were presented with images with 104 ppd and 312 ppd, 82-90% (depending on the image) of participants rated higher the image with 312 ppd.
When presented with 156 ppd and 312 ppd images, 59-78% (depending on the image) of participants rated higher the image with higher resolution.
This tells us a lot, but most importantly - we shouldn't continue using fixed 60 pixels per degree value as limit of human vision.

"59-78%" with 156 vs 312 ppd?!

Give me a break. Last time I checked a coin flip's 50/50. When I get the time I'll delve deeper into this "study" - almost certainly conducted by an entity with a vested interest in increased resolutions- whether admitted or not.

Till then keep telling yourself that more than 2% of humans can resolve all the detail in a 50" 1080 display at 12 feet.

As for the average seating distance of about 8', lmao more still. Yep, perhaps in the UK where the typical home is 30-40% smaller I guess.

I did my own little "experiment" 6 months ago. I measured (yes, I actually used a tape measure) and noted the viewing distance and size of the television in the "next" 20 living rooms of friends and family I visited.

What did I find? About 90% (17 actually, IIRC) had either a 42, 46, or 50" tv and the average seating distance was about 11.5 feet. A few extremely close scenarios (due to room size) really skewed the data though...most were well over 12 feet. I'm at 11.5' with a 60" screen myself.

Guess I know all the wrong people though, go figure.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 8/31/12 at 7:29am
post #1696 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Shankenstein View Post

At what point does the human eye not give a "K" what resolution the set is?
For someone with 20/20 vision 8K resolution is necessary for a 100 degree horizontal viewing angle which is what the NHK is aiming for with Super Hi-Vision. In other words 8K resolution does make sense given their stated goal though personally I think that the NHK is aiming way too high and that something like 4K at 60 fps would be possible much sooner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

When I get the time I'll delve deeper into this "study" - almost certainly conducted by an entity with a vested interest in increased resolutions- whether admitted or not.
Here is a link to the study. The NHK researchers did note that the vast majority of the perceived benefit was reached at between 80 and 100 pixels per degree.
post #1697 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

For someone with 20/20 vision 8K resolution is necessary for a 100 degree horizontal viewing angle which is what the NHK is aiming for with Super Hi-Vision. In other words 8K resolution does make sense given their stated goal though personally I think that the NHK is aiming way too high and that something like 4K at 60 fps would be possible much sooner.
Here is a link to the study. The NHK researchers did note that the vast majority of the perceived benefit was reached at between 80 and 100 pixels per degree.

Thanks for the link, busy today but I will give it its due diligence.

"vast majority of the perceived benefit was reached between 80 and 100 pixels per degree".

That single statements is- alone- so fantastically telling it's nearly humorous, especially when people like me consider THIS to be much closer to the median (really 90+% of homes) than anything else:

"Let's assume things are exactly as you've said: 50'' 1080p display, 12 ft viewing distance.

Apparent pixel size is 0.542 arcminutes, angular resolution is 110.7 pixels per degree [of person's field of view]."

Or..."worse" of course. smile.gif

70, 80, 100+" screen sizes with 8-12' viewing distances = completely different story. When will even 1-2% of the populace fit into the aforementioned? The $64,000 question no one really cares to answer, apparently.

But I will concede that Sharp's (and other's?) big push ahead with gigantic displays, coupled with descending prices could change the dynamic in the next half-decade. But we've been here before, haven't we?

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 8/30/12 at 5:58am
post #1698 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Thanks for the link, busy today but I will give it its due diligence.
"vast majority of the perceived benefit was reached between 80 and 100 pixels per degree".

The above link is a bit misleading. You can't base it on one study.

Although, I do fit in the 10% that own a 70" TV, which i owned since 2006. The overall cost of UHDTV will be hard to fit in most homes in the USA. Not really, the screen size, but the sound is going to be the most expensive
upgrade. How many people have a dedicated home theater? I doubt that many people.
Edited by Nitro67 - 8/31/12 at 5:42pm
post #1699 of 3670
post #1700 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro67 View Post

The military has done thousands of studies and papers on visual acuity and it is still 60 pixels per degree..
No, no it isn't. 60 ppd can be used a lot, but only as a "normal vision".

Here's a quote from Air Force Research Laboratory paper titled "Capability of Human Visual System":
Quote:
As could be expected from the many ways for defining “visual acuity” discussed above, the determination of a single figure-of-merit for the resolution required to match the maximum performance of the human eye is difficult. If a display were to design to match the 1.0 arc-minute value, 20/20 Snellen acuity, a monitor placed at a typical arm’s length viewing distance of 20 in. from the eyes should have individual pixels no more than 148 micrometers (0.00582 in.) across. This corresponds to a linear pixel density of 172 pixels/in. A 17-in display would thus have a resolution of 4.1 megapixels (format: 2335 x 1750).

A desired resolution of 0.5 arc-minute/pixel (matching minimum separable acuity under optimum conditions) would result in a pixel size of 74 micrometers (0.0029 in) leading to a target display resolution format of 4670 x 3500 or 345 pixels/in. This would employ over 16 million pixels for a 17-in. display.

For display quality to match the maximum vernier acuity of the eye (1.0 arc-second), the same display would require a pixel size of 2.5 micrometers (0.000097 in.) or 10,300 pixels/in. for a total of 14.7 billion pixels for the entire display.

Matching minimum perceptible acuity (0.5 arc-second) would correspond to a pixel diameter of 1.2 micrometers (0.000048 in) or almost 20,600 pixels/in. at a viewing distance of 20-in. To accommodate minimum perceptible acuity, the number of pixels on a 17-in. desktop display would have to be increased by a factor of more than 14,000 over that for the commonly cited “one arc-minute/pixel” value. For a display that would cover the entire 210 x 135° binocular field of view, nearly 1.5 trillion pixels would be required.

And this is from another Air Force Research Laboratory paper:


Edited by Randomoneh - 8/31/12 at 2:29am
post #1701 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro67 View Post

The above link is a bit misleading. You can't base it on one study. The military has done thousands of studies and papers on visual acuity and it is still 60 pixels per degree. NHK is just trying to sell a product, but
majority people don't care about visual acuity with UHDTV.
Although, I do fit in the 10% that own a 70" TV, which i owned since 2006. The overall cost of UHDTV will be hard to fit in most homes in the USA. Not really, the screen size, but the sound is going to be the most expensive
upgrade. How many people have a dedicated home theater? I doubt that many people.

I would be willing to bet the percentage of the American public that owns a 70" or larger HDTV is actually closer to 1/20th of ONE percent, not 10%.

James
post #1702 of 3670
Yeah, but large format HDTV (60"-90") is the only segment with sales that are actually increasing. The smaller segment (19"-32") is all but disappearing and the dominant mid size segment (32"-59") are seeing their volumes decline.
post #1703 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

I would be willing to bet the percentage of the American public that owns a 70" or larger HDTV is actually closer to 1/20th of ONE percent, not 10%.
James

There is no way accurately way to estimate the percentage of 70" or larger HDTV sold. When Sony discontinued the Sony LCOS XBR 70" TV's, there was only the 60" TV to replace it.
According to my home theater store, there was a huge demand for 70" and larger. There was no 70" panels to fill this need until recently. I personally will do around 100" screen (Living room), but it most likely will be a projector for UHDTV. (Perhaps a Sharp Elite at 90")
I just watch movies than regular broadcast TV. I am thinking maybe 50" in the other rooms.
Edited by Nitro67 - 8/31/12 at 6:13pm
post #1704 of 3670
Quote:
I would be willing to bet the percentage of the American public that owns a 70" or larger HDTV is actually closer to 1/20th of ONE percent, not 10%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro67 View Post

There is no way accurately way to estimate the percentage of 70" or larger HDTV sold. .
You could create a poll on this site. That would give a rough figure for people on this site, you could use that to guess the amount for the population (ie. likely to be less)
post #1705 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

You could create a poll on this site. That would give a rough figure for people on this site, you could use that to guess the amount for the population (ie. likely to be less)

I could care less on the percentage of the population that has 70" and up TV. The manufacturers are producing larger sets based on the demand and more profit.
post #1706 of 3670
Is 4K the only substantial advancement for LCD tech? It's 2012 and impossible to get a transmissive display to behavior as a emissive one.
post #1707 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by homogenic View Post

Is 4K the only substantial advancement for LCD tech? It's 2012 and impossible to get a transmissive display to behavior as a emissive one.

No of course not. There are many including Sony's Crystal LED tech, but the most important is probably Sharp's IGZO tech using smaller transistors making the display thinner, requiring less LEDs for back lighting and thus less energy. It is the screen that will be used in the Iphone 5, even though Sharp has had a few delays getting the production line going.
post #1708 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

No of course not. There are many including Sony's Crystal LED tech, but the most important is probably Sharp's IGZO tech using smaller transistors making the display thinner, requiring less LEDs for back lighting and thus less energy. It is the screen that will be used in the Iphone 5, even though Sharp has had a few delays getting the production line going.
Will IGZO displays produce inkier blacks from less back-light usage?
post #1709 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by homogenic View Post

Will IGZO displays produce inkier blacks from less back-light usage?

It is hard to tell from the demos if it will. I think the main interest from Apple was slightly thinner display and improved battery life because it required less back-light power. Also, maybe it can be brighter to avoid being washed out in sunlight. If TV sizes displays behave the same way, I guess it could led to slightly better black levels because the back-light will not have to be as bright to shine through the thinner material.
post #1710 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

It is hard to tell from the demos if it will. I think the main interest from Apple was slightly thinner display and improved battery life because it required less back-light power. Also, maybe it can be brighter to avoid being washed out in sunlight. If TV sizes displays behave the same way, I guess it could led to slightly better black levels because the back-light will not have to be as bright to shine through the thinner material.

Seems like a good read of how the tech will play out. I do think better contrast is going to be a side benefit of IGZO, but how much of that will come across early on, we'll see soon enough.
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?