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 61

post #1801 of 3670
How 4K x 2K LCD TVs affect display panel manufacturing, yields

http://www.electroiq.com/articles/sst/2012/07/how-4k-2k-lcd-tvs-affect-display-panel-manufacturing-yields.html

Of Note:
Quote:
With all of these opportunities and challenges, the DisplaySearch Quarterly Global TV Shipment and Forecast Report is forecasting that 4K×2K TV will account for 22% of all 50”+ FPD TVs in 2017.

Currently, the 50+" FPD segment is 16% - one out of every 6 HDTVs sold falls into this segment. So in 2017, 22% of 16% would be 3.5% . . . 5 years from now.
post #1802 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

With all new formats they have to start somewhere. That somewhere is always initially high prices. It will be the same for OLED TVs.

No comparison. The 55" OLED HDTV will be around $9000 to start. It has the total HD infrastructure for content. Just the difference between $9000 and $25,000 could means as much as 1 million+ more potential buyers.
Quote:
New formats never start as a mass-market sale.

But they need to reach mass-market quickly. Something 4K TV isn't going to do.
Quote:
If you agree that 4K (and 8K) is the future of display and content delivery, why is that future not starting now with the first 4K TV's, and 4K BD's at the end of 2013/start of 2014?

Is there a better time to start pushing out 4K products?

Yes - when they have content to go with those 4K products. It's what consumers now expect.
Quote:
Do you remember what the first flat panel TV's costed back in the 1990s and early 2000s?

Sure - a rich man's TV. I bought my first HDTV in Feb, 1997 - CRT FPTV and a line doubler for my LD collection and soon to release DVD. Had to wait something like 16 months before CBS started broadcasting in HD to see HD on my HDTV.
Quote:
I am sure that OLED will be very popular, when they have overcome the production problems, but they will not be cheaper than the 4K LCDs at the same sizes.

But they will be offered in smaller sizes. The bigger you make a TV, the smaller your potential market is.
Quote:
LGs 55" OLED has an indicated price of the equivalent of $10,000 in EU. The Toshiba 4K TV for Q2 2013 has an indicated price of $10,000 in EU, said to be for the 84", but could be a misunderstanding and be for the 55".

I read somewhere that for the USA, that 55" OLED would be around $9,000. AFAIK, Toshiba has not given any pricing info on their 84" 4K TV. Nor any kind of a shipping date other than 2013. That $10,000 price is for their 55" Autostereoscopic 4K TV.
Quote:
When we discuss the 4K TV future, the "scary $25K 4K monsterprice" TV from Sony is always used to back up the negative argument, but they are not the only one offering 4K TVs in the coming years.
LG, Panasonic 20", Sony, Samsung 70",Toshiba 55"&84", Vitek (Turkey), Hisense, Haier 55" (China), Sharp 31.5", Grundig, all showed 4K LCD TVs at IFA.

LOL - the $20,000 LG monsterpriced 4K TV isn't much less scary. tongue.gif
post #1803 of 3670
Just to make some comparisons to give another picture of possible 4K prices other than the LG and Sony prices that are quote regularly in arguments.

In simple principle, a 84" 4K TV has the same screen size and resolution as 4x42" HD TV combined.

How much does a 42" HD cost to make? Just for fun to make an educated guess as to how much it cost LG and Sony to make these $20-25K TVs and how fast they can fall in price.

TV prices are somewhat different in Europe than in the US. And people are willing and used to to pay the high prices for premium quality.
The introduction price of the 4K LG and Sony is rather extraordinary.

I searched for some big-TV prices in Europe to compare. The prices are always included sales tax.

The Samsung UE75ES9000 75" HD TV cost £7,999 = 12,969.24 USD.

Sharp Aquos LC-80LE646E 80" HD TV is much cheaper at £4,500 = 7,297.50 USD (no surprise Sharp is in difficulties)

I also found the; 4K Toshiba 55ZL2B LED, 4x1080p, Glasses-Free 3D Smart TV, 55 Inch at £6,999 = 11,350.38 USD. (AU Optronics supplying the panel) Supposedly a crap 3D TV but OK as a 4K 2D TV.

My guess is that Toshiba scrap the Glasse-Free version as soon as they have sold their inventory and introduce a regular 4K TV with 3D (glasses). That was my impression from IFA reports.

So this more "convenient size" 55" 4K TV, compared in price to larger HD TVs, and it doesn't come out as extreme as the LG and Sony prices.
Edited by coolscan - 9/14/12 at 3:12pm
post #1804 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Just to make some comparisons to give another picture of possible 4K prices other than the LG and Sony prices that are quote regularly in arguments.
In simple principle, a 84" 4K TV has the same screen size and resolution as 4x42" HD TV combined.
How much does a 42" HD cost to make? Just for fun to make an educated guess as to how much it cost LG and Sony to make these $20-25K TVs and how fast they can fall in price.
TV prices are somewhat different in Europe than in the US. And people are willing and used to to pay the high prices for premium quality.
The introduction price of the 4K LG and Sony is rather extraordinary.
I searched for some big-TV prices in Europe to compare. The prices are always included sales tax.
The Samsung UE75ES9000 75" HD TV cost £7,999 = 12,969.24 USD.
Sharp Aquos LC-80LE646E 80" HD TV is much cheaper at £4,500 = 7,297.50 USD (no surprise Sharp is in difficulties)
I also found the; 4K Toshiba 55ZL2B LED, 4x1080p, Glasses-Free 3D Smart TV, 55 Inch at £6,999 = 11,350.38 USD. (AU Optronics supplying the panel) Supposedly a crap 3D TV but OK as a 4K 2D TV.
My guess is that Toshiba scrap the Glasse-Free version as soon as they have sold their inventory and introduce a regular 4K TV with 3D (glasses). That was my impression from IFA reports.
So this more "convenient size" 55" 4K TV, compared in price to larger HD TVs, and it doesn't come out as extreme as the LG and Sony prices.

We have had some members who have seen the 84" 4K TVs. They said that they could easily see the improvement over an HDTV at 6 feet and also at 10 feet. Would that also be true for a 55" 4K TV? A 55" TV is substantially smaller than an 84" TV.
post #1805 of 3670
You should definitely be able to see the difference of 4K, even on a 55" set. Sure it will not be as dramatic as the 84", but you are forgetting all the other stuff a 4K set can bring. Up-conversion of 1080p, passive Full HD 3D, "Splitview" viewing, etc. It is just a matter of getting prices down which should happen quickly because there are no big technological hurdles to overcome, like with OLED.
post #1806 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

You should definitely be able to see the difference of 4K, even on a 55" set. .

From what distance? Is it safe to assume not the viewing distance ranges typical for most of the general public but for videophile, "pull your seat in closer to the screen for full immersion effect" distances?
post #1807 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

If the HT RedRay player sells for $1000, how expensive can tha SSD or HDD be?

Depends on the company's markup on the SSD. I seen a company markup product 2 to 10 times as the product cost. RED is making a product that can only be used with their projector, but it would better to make it used with other systems. Just a better way to make more profit, but perhaps RED will understand that later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

If Diane claim is valid, I hope she wins the patent claims and are awarded money from all this companies; Kodak, IMAX, Sony, NEC, Barco, Christie, Light Blue Optics, AAXA Technologies, Inc., Microvision, Texas Instrument, HDI(RED?), Evans & Sutherland, Rockwell Collins, for Laser projection products based on DLP, LCoS, LED, MEMS, GLV or any to be invented.

Diane has to prove that the patents has been infringed, so it has to be a finished product. The other companies that you listed have a patent attorneys that do the research for that particular company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

I only know from what little is published of Laser technology in real products, just like you.

Nope, I know lot about laser technology....
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

You haven't done that here, and you didn't prove you know any more than anybody else in your lengthy arguments for Holographic discs some months ago.

Hitachi published a patent recently that shows a holograph disc and they are getting 1.6Tb per square inch. The Patent was filed in 2007, but issued in December 2011. (Inphase Technologies and Hitachi was the creators of the patent) If a company files bankruptcy, then they can sell off their patents. So expect Kodak and hVault to be around for a long time.

Kodak has the most patents with laser projectors, and your are incorrect again. Kodak licensed their patents to Imax. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-16/kodak-licenses-movie-projection-patents-to-imax-as-solvency-issues-mount.html Then Imax sublicensed them to Barco http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/917239/imax-partners-with-barco-to-co-develop-next-generation-laser-projection-technology Licensed patent is still owned by Kodak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

*No polarization filter on glasses because Left and Right eye glass have different polarization.
Really? Nope! Wrong again....

Two images, left eye and right eye, are projected superimposed onto the screen through a set of polarized filters. The left and right eyes are polarized in opposite directions. The viewer wears eyeglasses which also contain a pair of polarizing filters. As each filter only passes the light which is similarly polarized and at the same time, blocks the opposite polarized light, each eye only sees one of the superimposed images and the 3D effect is achieved. Linearly polarized glasses require the viewer to keep his head level, as tilting of the viewing filters will cause the images of the left and right channels to bleed over to the opposite channel. For front projection, a Silver Screen is required so that polarization is preserved.
post #1808 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Just to make some comparisons to give another picture of possible 4K prices other than the LG and Sony prices that are quote regularly in arguments.
In simple principle, a 84" 4K TV has the same screen size and resolution as 4x42" HD TV combined.
How much does a 42" HD cost to make? Just for fun to make an educated guess as to how much it cost LG and Sony to make these $20-25K TVs and how fast they can fall in price.
TV prices are somewhat different in Europe than in the US. And people are willing and used to to pay the high prices for premium quality.
The introduction price of the 4K LG and Sony is rather extraordinary.
I searched for some big-TV prices in Europe to compare. The prices are always included sales tax.
The Samsung UE75ES9000 75" HD TV cost £7,999 = 12,969.24 USD.
Sharp Aquos LC-80LE646E 80" HD TV is much cheaper at £4,500 = 7,297.50 USD (no surprise Sharp is in difficulties)
I also found the; 4K Toshiba 55ZL2B LED, 4x1080p, Glasses-Free 3D Smart TV, 55 Inch at £6,999 = 11,350.38 USD. (AU Optronics supplying the panel) Supposedly a crap 3D TV but OK as a 4K 2D TV.
My guess is that Toshiba scrap the Glasse-Free version as soon as they have sold their inventory and introduce a regular 4K TV with 3D (glasses). That was my impression from IFA reports.
So this more "convenient size" 55" 4K TV, compared in price to larger HD TVs, and it doesn't come out as extreme as the LG and Sony prices.


You should compare the costs to the first flat panels. 1997 to 2013 models

I could just fine this Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_display
The Phillips 42" plasma in 1997 cost 14,999.00 at Sears. So, these new models are a bargain.
post #1809 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post

From what distance? Is it safe to assume not the viewing distance ranges typical for most of the general public but for videophile, "pull your seat in closer to the screen for full immersion effect" distances?

Recommend viewing distance is 1.5PH for 4K, but even at recommend 1080p viewing distance the difference will be noticeable. As long as the TV comfortably fits in your field of view, there should be no problems.
post #1810 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro67 View Post

You should compare the costs to the first flat panels. 1997 to 2013 models
I could just fine this Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_display
The Phillips 42" plasma in 1997 cost 14,999.00 at Sears. So, these new models are a bargain.

A bargin? rolleyes.gif

The 90" Sharp AQUOS HDTV costs $10,000.
post #1811 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

Recommend viewing distance is 1.5PH for 4K, but even at recommend 1080p viewing distance the difference will be noticeable. As long as the TV comfortably fits in your field of view, there should be no problems.

Joe Public knows nothing about recommended viewing distance. The couch goes on one wall, the TV opposite it. It could be 10 feet. It could be 12 feet. It could be 14 feet.

There is a whole HUGE market that exists outside of the Videophile/AVS microcosm. And without that huge market, products like 4K TV will be nothing more than a niche. The next laserdisc.
post #1812 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

A bargin? rolleyes.gif
The 90" Sharp AQUOS HDTV costs $10,000.

1997, you could got the 42" Plasma for 15K, so you pay more for less. If you look at the rate of inflation per year since 1997, then it is a bargain!
post #1813 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro67 View Post

1997, you could got the 42" Plasma for 15K, so you pay more for less. If you look at the rate of inflation per year since 1997, then it is a bargain!

LOL - who cares about 1997. This is 2012. And an 84" 4K TV at $20,000 or $25,000 is NO bargain. Not when a 90" HDTV is $10,000.
post #1814 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

LOL - who cares about 1997. This is 2012. And an 84" 4K TV at $20,000 or $25,000 is NO bargain. Not when a 90" HDTV is $10,000.

Essentially, the price is the same. A 1997 model at 15K * rate inflation for 16 years = $20K.
If you buy the 90" HDTV for 10K, then you have old technology. 4k might take off. I doubt it, but it might.

Sometimes I wonder where they get the pricing, because it is not based on the costs. 4k technology was developed by IBM http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/1180.wssin 2000, then patents were sold in 2005 to Sony. http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200501/05-0107E/index.html
Edited by Nitro67 - 9/14/12 at 11:04pm
post #1815 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro67 View Post

Essentially, the price is the same. A 1997 model at 15K * rate inflation for 16 years = $20K.

You really think anyone is going to be looking at that $20,000 or $25,000 price and thinking about inflation adjusted dollars from 1997? Hardly rolleyes.gif

I filled my car's gas tank this morning - cost me 60 2012 dollars. Guess what - I wan't thinking about the inflation adjsted price of what gas was in 1997. All I was thinking about was that it only left me with $5 cash in my wallet and I better stop at the bank to get some more cash.
Quote:
If you buy the 90" HDTV for 10K, then you have old technology. 4k might take off. I doubt it, but it might.

Old technology? rolleyes.gif

You are buying CURRENT technology. Technology that is supported by 100's of companies with content available in a miriad of options, one being free - HD OTA.

4K is an iffy future technology with no available content.. The CEMs are jumping the gun because 3DTV was a bust for them. They are desperately seeking the next big thing. Well good luck with that. And we all know what comes after 4K right? 8K. A real improvement over HD. Not some half step like 4K.

I will say that there is a BIG difference between 1997 and 2012. Generally, today's consumer is more informed than 1997 consumers.
post #1816 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

*Sony developed BD for years before BDA was founded.
:

Actually, the answer is no again. http://archive.sciencewatch.com/jan-feb2000/sw_jan-feb2000_page3.htm The blue laser diode was the key to making bluray.
post #1817 of 3670
First Meeting of Blu-ray DiscTM Patent Holders Held

Progress Made, Input Welcomed in Creation of Joint Patent License

(Denver, Colorado USA – 20 July 2006) – MPEG LA announced today that the first meeting of essential
Blu-ray DiscTM patent owners, consisting of 17 companies, was held in Los Angeles on July 6-7 for the
purpose of creating a joint license providing fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory access to essential
patents, as an alternative to negotiating separate licenses. Participating companies included:
CyberLink Corporation
Dell Inc.
Hewlett-Packard Company
Hitachi Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
LG Electronics Inc.
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (Panasonic)
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
Pioneer Corporation
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
Sharp Corporation
Sony Corporation
TDK Corporation
Victor Company of Japan, Ltd.
Warner Home Video Inc.
post #1818 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro67 View Post

Depends on the company's markup on the SSD. I seen a company markup product 2 to 10 times as the product cost. RED is making a product that can only be used with their projector, but it would better to make it used with other systems. Just a better way to make more profit, but perhaps RED will understand that later.
Just pure speculation on your part.......again! You don't know anything about the type of HDD that will be used in the RedRay player. rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Diane has to prove that the patents has been infringed, so it has to be a finished product. The other companies that you listed have a patent attorneys that do the research for that particular company.
She has not prove anything as long as she has not won a court case against the alleged Patent Infringer. Has she even taken this to court yet??
Quote:
Nope, I know lot about laser technology....
There's a difference between knowing, as in posting links and understanding the various differences between systems.
Quote:
Hitachi published a patent recently that shows a holograph disc and they are getting 1.6Tb per square inch. The Patent was filed in 2007, but issued in December 2011. (Inphase Technologies and Hitachi was the creators of the patent) If a company files bankruptcy, then they can sell off their patents. So expect Kodak and hVault to be around for a long time.
Enough about the Holographic Disc. Nothing has changed since last time you tried to argue for this. rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Kodak has the most patents with laser projectors, and your are incorrect again. Kodak licensed their patents to Imax. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-16/kodak-licenses-movie-projection-patents-to-imax-as-solvency-issues-mount.html Then Imax sublicensed them to Barco http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/917239/imax-partners-with-barco-to-co-develop-next-generation-laser-projection-technology Licensed patent is still owned by Kodak.
So what was I wrong about? This is nothing new for me.
Barco is building Laser projectors based on the Kodak/IMAX patents exclusively for IMAX for now.
Barco will not use this system in their own Series-2 projectors.
Because the lamp based Series-2 projectors sold now shall be Upgradeable to a Laser Light Engine Module in the future. Same goes for Christie Series-2 projectors.

The Kodak/IMAX Laser projector is a very system that can not be retrofitted into existing lamp based projectors.
Can we move on now? cool.gif
Quote:
Really? Nope! Wrong again....
Two images, left eye and right eye, are projected superimposed onto the screen through a set of polarized filters. The left and right eyes are polarized in opposite directions. The viewer wears eyeglasses which also contain a pair of polarizing filters. As each filter only passes the light which is similarly polarized and at the same time, blocks the opposite polarized light, each eye only sees one of the superimposed images and the 3D effect is achieved. Linearly polarized glasses require the viewer to keep his head level, as tilting of the viewing filters will cause the images of the left and right channels to bleed over to the opposite channel. For front projection, a Silver Screen is required so that polarization is preserved.
Try to differentiate between the different systems before you call anybody wrong and reveal your lack of knowledge.

Two basic systems; Passive 3D & Active 3D.

Passive 3D:
An active (separate unite) polariser unit is put in front of the projector, switching horizontal and vertical polarization in sync with the projector. (RealD & MasterImage3D). Polarized glasses with Horizontal&Vertical polarization for Left and Right eye. Requires a Silver screen.

Active 3D:
No filters on the projector. Active shutter-glasses changes the Horizontal&Vertical polarization for Left and Right eye in sync with the projector flashing the image between Left&Right eye. This system use a normal white screen. Mostly Used with DLP projectors. Most known shutter-glass brand; XPAND.

Then you have several variations of this and other less used systems.
INFITEC/Dolby 3D passive projection lens filters(dual projectors) and spinning filter inside the projector.
Dual projection (two projectors) active and passive systems with or without silver screen.
Dual lens system (Sony projectors).
Dual Head projectors (RedRay laser Lcos and projectiondesign DLP(discontinued))
Anaglyph 3D passive. (Not used in cinemas any more)
etc.etc..............
.............and a whole host of other systems. cool.gif
Edited by coolscan - 9/15/12 at 3:41am
post #1819 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan
*Sony developed BD for years before BDA was founded.
Actually, the answer is no again. http://archive.sciencewatch.com/jan-feb2000/sw_jan-feb2000_page3.htm The blue laser diode was the key to making bluray.
This is a typical example on the confusing and ongoing lack of logics in your posts. rolleyes.gif
Why am I wrong in my statement?........and What has the development of blue laser diodes to do with the fact that Sony started the development of BD long before BDA was founded??
Do you know what the BDA is and what purpose it has?

Lets repeat some history lessons..... rolleyes.gif even though this is quite uninteresting and OT for the discussions in this thread.
Quote:
The first DVR Blue prototypes were unveiled at the CEATEC exhibition in October 2000 by Sony.
Must have been under development for some years by 2000. wink.gif
Quote:
A trademark for the "Blue Disc" logo was filed February 9, 2001. On February 19, 2002, the project was officially announced as Blu-ray Disc, and Blu-ray Disc Founders was founded by the nine initial members.
Quote:
The "Blu-ray Disc founder group" was started on May 20, 2002 by MIT and nine leading electronic companies: Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Thomson, LG Electronics, Hitachi, Sharp, and Samsung.[2] In order to enable more companies to participate.
Quote:
it announced in May 2004 that it would form the Blu-ray Disc Association, which was inaugurated on October 4, 2004.
rolleyes.gif
Quote:
On October 4, 2004, the name "Blu-ray Disc Founders" was officially changed to the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA), and the 20th Century Fox joined the BDA's Board of Directors.
Quote:
The Blu-ray Disc physical specifications were completed in 2004.
The first BD-ROM players (e.g. Sony BDP-S1) were shipped in mid-June 2006, though HD DVD players beat them to market by a few months.

All from Wikipedia; Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) and Blu-ray Disc (BD).
post #1820 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

First Meeting of Blu-ray DiscTM Patent Holders Held

Progress Made, Input Welcomed in Creation of Joint Patent License

(Denver, Colorado USA – 20 July 2006) – MPEG LA announced today that the first meeting of essential
Blu-ray DiscTM patent owners, consisting of 17 companies, was held in Los Angeles on July 6-7 for the
purpose of creating a joint license providing fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory access to essential
patents, as an alternative to negotiating separate licenses. Participating companies included:
CyberLink Corporation
Dell Inc.
Hewlett-Packard Company
Hitachi Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
LG Electronics Inc.
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (Panasonic)
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
Pioneer Corporation
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
Sharp Corporation
Sony Corporation
TDK Corporation
Victor Company of Japan, Ltd.
Warner Home Video Inc.
According this 2008 article top four intellectual - $$$ - property holders are likely sony, panasonic, pioneer and warner.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9874317-1.html?tag=cnetfd.mt
post #1821 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

First Meeting of Blu-ray DiscTM Patent Holders Held
Progress Made, Input Welcomed in Creation of Joint Patent License
(Denver, Colorado USA – 20 July 2006) – MPEG LA announced today that the first meeting of essential
Blu-ray DiscTM patent owners, consisting of 17 companies, was held in Los Angeles on July 6-7 for the
purpose of creating a joint license providing fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory access to essential
patents, as an alternative to negotiating separate licenses. Participating companies included:
CyberLink Corporation
Dell Inc.
Hewlett-Packard Company
Hitachi Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
LG Electronics Inc.
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (Panasonic)
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
Pioneer Corporation
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
Sharp Corporation
Sony Corporation
TDK Corporation
Victor Company of Japan, Ltd.
Warner Home Video Inc.

You need to go farther back than 2006.

Shuji Nakamura discovered the blue laser diode in 1993. The patent wasn't filed until 2001. Oh, Shuji got $180 for his discovery, by Nichi Corporation.

" Initially Sony tried to develop a semiconductor laser using materials based on zinc selenide, and in 1996 we succeeded in maintaining continuous oscillation for 100 hours. However, Sony changed its development strategy after Nichia Corporation succeeded in developing a gallium nitride semiconductor laser with a shorter wavelength. It was a difficult decision to abandon development of the materials that we had previously been researching. However, we wanted Sony to maintain its leading role in the advancement of optical disc technology, and we saw this as the best decision in terms of ensuring that Sony would be the first to develop next-generation products based on BD technology.

Yet at this stage, we had simply selected the material that we would use. There were still many challenges to overcome before we could turn this into a semiconductor laser that could be used in commercial products. The first of these was the solution of problems surrounding Nichia Corporation's patents relating to gallium nitride. In the second half of the 1990s, there was a patent lawsuit between Nichia Corporation and Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd. concerning a blue LED made using gallium nitride. There was extensive media coverage about the blue LED that couldn't be marketed because of the patent dispute. Urgent steps were needed to resolve this problem so that Sony could introduce its blue-violet semiconductor laser. However, Nichia Corporation took the position that it would sell products but not the technology, and that it would opt for licensing if there were complementing technologies. Fortunately, Sony had laser manufacturing patents, expertise and commercialization experience dating back to the CD era. We also had manufacturing facilities with world-class technology, including Sony Shiroishi Semiconductor Inc. (Sony Shiroishi), the Sony's Group's semiconductor laser manufacturer.

We negotiated persistently with Nichia Corporation for four-and-a-half years, with strong backing from the Patent Department and other units. This hard work eventually paid off, and we reached the conclusion that the quickest way to bring commercial products to market was to link Sony's semiconductor laser manufacturing technology with Nichia Corporation's basic patents for gallium nitride. In late 2002, the two companies began to collaborate on the development of a blue-violet semiconductor laser for use in optical disc applications. In April 2004, we signed a cross-licensing agreement relating to patents for a blue-violet semiconductor laser. " Quote from Sony link below.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/interview/engineer05.html

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20020920a2.html

http://www.compoundsemi.com/documents/articles/news/3693.html
post #1822 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

According this 2008 article top four intellectual - $$$ - property holders are likely sony, panasonic, pioneer and warner.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9874317-1.html?tag=cnetfd.mt

Nope! That article is wrong too! There are 4 patent holders, on the patent. They all worked at Nichi Corporation.
post #1823 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post


She has not prove anything as long as she has not won a court case against the alleged Patent Infringer. Has she even taken this to court yet??
If you read the article on Bluray, then it could be awhile. I don't know if she has taken it to court, but it could cause RED a huge problem in marketing the projector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Enough about the Holographic Disc. Nothing has changed since last time you tried to argue for this. rolleyes.gif

Why? This is the holy grail for the next gen media. Have you been to hVault recently? hVault has released 3 products on Holographic storage. http://hvault.com/solutions-for-any-size-application/
Think about the past and how Bluray started. Bluray started with a commercial product, then 3 years later was developed into a consumer product. Actually, NHK stated at Open House in May of 2012, that it would be 3 years before you would see a product for Holographic disc. (So why even think about 4K bluray, when in 3 years you have holographic disc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Barco is building Laser projectors based on the Kodak/IMAX patents exclusively for IMAX for now.
Barco will not use this system in their own Series-2 projectors.
Because the lamp based Series-2 projectors sold now shall be Upgradeable to a Laser Light Engine Module in the future. Same goes for Christie Series-2 projectors.
The Kodak/IMAX Laser projector is a very system that can not be retrofitted into existing lamp based projectors.

Perhaps you should wait on Barco or Christie projector than spending money on RED. Kodak did have a patent on reducing Speckle. So waiting might be better solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Try to differentiate between the different systems before you call anybody wrong and reveal your lack of knowledge.
Two basic systems; Passive 3D & Active 3D.
Passive 3D:
An active (separate unite) polariser unit is put in front of the projector, switching horizontal and vertical polarization in sync with the projector. (RealD & MasterImage3D). Polarized glasses with Horizontal&Vertical polarization for Left and Right eye. Requires a Silver screen.
Active 3D:
No filters on the projector. Active shutter-glasses changes the Horizontal&Vertical polarization for Left and Right eye in sync with the projector flashing the image between Left&Right eye. This system use a normal white screen. Mostly Used with DLP projectors. Most known shutter-glass brand; XPAND.
Then you have several variations of this and other less used systems.
INFITEC/Dolby 3D passive projection lens filters(dual projectors) and spinning filter inside the projector.
Dual projection (two projectors) active and passive systems with or without silver screen.
Dual lens system (Sony projectors).
Dual Head projectors (RedRay laser Lcos and projectiondesign DLP(discontinued))
Anaglyph 3D passive. (Not used in cinemas any more)
:

What I posted was a passive system, and it was from a major manufacturer. So do you know what you are talking about at all? You seem to cut and paste from other posts. No real research on the products at all. Oh, I forgot to mention this is the flat panel thread. Not the projector thread.
The filters are a thin film. I really don't want to go in a depth discussion about thin films.
post #1824 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Why am I wrong in my statement?........and What has the development of blue laser diodes to do with the fact that Sony started the development of BD long before BDA was founded??

The development of blue laser diode is the key technology in develop of blu-ray laser. BDA wouldn't have existed without Dr. Shuji Nakamura invention that he discovered in 1993. Who cares about BDA? It wouldn't have existed without the key technology.
Please go back to school and take some classes on inventors. All key inventions start from a person, not a company. You can learn about doing research at college too.
How do I know about Blu-ray? I read it an article back in the 1998, and it was interesting to me. I am from a city that has literally changed everyone's life due to the number of inventions. The patents number in the thousands, but it all comes from one person and that is an inventor.
Edited by Nitro67 - 9/15/12 at 9:29am
post #1825 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro67 
There are 4 patent holders, on the patent. They all worked at Nichi Corporation.
tongue.gif


0. intellectual property and legal matters

1. who owns the name blu-ray disc and its logo?

2. who claims and who administers bd patent rights?

3. what licensing obligations exist when duplicating and distributing content on writable bd discs?

4. what licensing obligations exist when replicating and distributing content on prerecorded bd discs?


http://www.hughsnews.ca/faqs/authoritative-blu-ray-disc-bd-faq/16-intellectual-property-and-legal-matters
post #1826 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro67 View Post

If you read the article on Bluray, then it could be awhile. I don't know if she has taken it to court, but it could cause RED a huge problem in marketing the projector.
Why? This is the holy grail for the next gen media. Have you been to hVault recently? hVault has released 3 products on Holographic storage. http://hvault.com/solutions-for-any-size-application/
Think about the past and how Bluray started. Bluray started with a commercial product, then 3 years later was developed into a consumer product. Actually, NHK stated at Open House in May of 2012, that it would be 3 years before you would see a product for Holographic disc. (So why even think about 4K bluray, when in 3 years you have holographic disc).
Perhaps you should wait on Barco or Christie projector than spending money on RED. Kodak did have a patent on reducing Speckle. So waiting might be better solution.
What I posted was a passive system, and it was from a major manufacturer. So do you know what you are talking about at all? You seem to cut and paste from other posts. No real research on the products at all. Oh, I forgot to mention this is the flat panel thread. Not the projector thread.
The filters are a thin film. I really don't want to go in a depth discussion about thin films.

I give up. frown.gif

I am defeated by you're rambling on and on, going in circles and adding more and more personal insults.
It becomes harder and harder to make any sense of you posts, your incoherent understanding of technology and information, and what the purpose of your arguments are.

I have given you too much of my time and fair and educated responses. But I see that you are set on derailing every discussion and this thread as much as you can.
I won't give you any-more answers regardless of the FUD and nonsense you write. cool.gif

Maybe a mod should give you a time out.
Edited by coolscan - 9/15/12 at 12:15pm
post #1827 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

tongue.gif
0. intellectual property and legal matters

1. who owns the name blu-ray disc and its logo?
2. who claims and who administers bd patent rights?
3. what licensing obligations exist when duplicating and distributing content on writable bd discs?
4. what licensing obligations exist when replicating and distributing content on prerecorded bd discs?

http://www.hughsnews.ca/faqs/authoritative-blu-ray-disc-bd-faq/16-intellectual-property-and-legal-matters

To develop the semiconductor laser, then you need the blue laser diode. Then you develop the bluray player/recorder first then you can develop the bluray disc.
Actually, you need to read this article. It actually states on what has to occur first.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/interview/engineer05.html

[/QUOTE]A Key Component Device in Optical Disc Systems
During my time with Sony, I have been involved in the development of semiconductor lasers for optical discs, including CD, DVD and BD systems. For me the most exciting achievement, and one that required enormous effort, was the development of the blue-violet semiconductor laser.

A semiconductor laser is to an optical disc what a needle is to an analog record. The surface of an optical disc is covered with minute pits (concave areas) and ridges (convex areas). By bouncing laser beams off these areas and reading information contained in the reflected light, we can play back the content recorded on the disc. If we reduce the wavelength of the laser beam, the spot diameter of the laser is also reduced, allowing us to use smaller pits and ridges on the disc. By recording data using a laser with a short wavelength, we can store more information within the same disc area. The development of semiconductor lasers with progressively shorter wavelengths has driven the evolution of optical discs, from CDs to DVDs, and now to BDs. The laser used when playing a music CD has a wavelength of 780nm (nm=nanometer), while a DVD requires a 650nm red laser. Because the red laser used to write DVDs has a shorter wavelength, the capacity of DVDs is correspondingly greater. To create the BD, which has around five times more recording capacity than a DVD, we needed to develop a blue-violet laser capable of producing light with an even shorter wavelength.[/QUOTE]

Oh, the original patent is only good for 17 years, so holographic disc would need to come out before 2018. Sony was also developing holographic disc back in 2008, but another technology called the Thin Disc could come out.
post #1828 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

I give up. frown.gif
I am defeated by you're rambling on and on, going in circles and adding more and more personal insults.
It becomes harder and harder to make any sense of you posts, your incoherent understanding of technology and information, and what the purpose of your arguments are.
I have given you too much of my time and fair and educated responses. But I see that you are set on derailing every discussion and this thread as much as you can.
I won't give you any-more answers regardless of the FUD and nonsense you write. cool.gif
Maybe a mod should give you a time out.

I never insulted you once. I told you to go back to school, but actually this is to improve your skills. So how is that an insult? Do you want me to count on how many times that you insulted me? Do you see me calling for Mommy? That is childish behavior, but some members think they are better than others. Sorry, I don't do that to people.
post #1829 of 3670
Here is some interesting information from a recent The Hollywood Reporter article:
Quote:
...
European Broadcast Union technical deputy director David Wood, who chairs the ITU committee that created the recommended UHDTV spec, told The Hollywood Reporter that many broadcasters view the move from HD to 8K as too great a leap and think it is prudent to start with 4K. He added that Korea plans to begin test broadcasts of level one next year.
...
NHK intends to start test broadcasts of Super Hi-Vision in Japan by 2020. But NHK Research senior manager Masakazu Iwaki told THR, “We have confidence that we will move faster.”

He added that NHK’s plans to go directly to 8K involves economic considerations. “We don't have the budget” to transition to 4K, and then again to 8K, he said.
...
But one insider told THR: “Cinema has to step up and keep pace. Large screens and high frame rates (HFRs) is where theater is going.” Underscoring that message, there have been rumblings that several Hollywood directors are looking at supporting HFRs in future productions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Doesn't the UHDTV specs cover professional video as well as consumer video? If Hollywood wanted to upgrade their DCI specs from 4K to 8K, wouldn't they be using the specs as they are shown in that PDF?
They show 4:4:4, 4:2:2 and 4:2:0. What says that consumers will get anything higher than 4:2:0?
While the UHDTV standard was made to cover multiple applications the NHK has mentioned that they intend to use 12-bit per component RGB video. Granted that is only a single broadcaster but that is why I am hoping for more than 4:2:0 with consumer UHDTV video.
Edited by Richard Paul - 9/15/12 at 7:00pm
post #1830 of 3670
Quote:
He [Masakazu Iwaki] added that NHK’s plans to go directly to 8K involves economic considerations. “We don't have the budget” to transition to 4K, and then again to 8K, he said.
Amazing.
Quote:
The resolution will always improve...
- James Cameron
tongue.gif

When we're talking about 4K in cinema, are we talking about 3840p or 4096p for width? Thank you.
Edited by Randomoneh - 9/15/12 at 9:42pm
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?