4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 8

So which monitor maker are you looking at? Dell? Sammy? LG?? As an IGP it will still need content to decode as it cannot render 4k.

Here's an interesting thread and remark:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post20973382


Agree... that's my main issue. The studios are still busy with 2k scans and just starting on 4k. Content for 4k will not be so optimistically fast.

In short, though I have no doubt 4k will be the future with mere ~100ppi on large screens and 63ppi on huge 70"; IMHO the infrastructure, bottlenecks, 1080p investment returns, devices are not ready yet in the next 3-5 years. We need patience folks for tech to run its course, like it has done in past 30 years.

Toshiba's new high PPI LCD:


http://www.tmdisplay.com/english/new.../2011_1020.htm

I can't wait until we get 4K or 8K screens. A 50" LCD isn't even a tenth the resolution of this display.
Furthermore, I can't wait until we start seeing this class of display used in tablets.

shouldnt it be 3840x2160 not 4000x2000 that's always bothered me

CMI Shows Off 46-inch 4k2k LCD Panel

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...111027/199920/

My next computer monitor!

Mine too if it supports 3D via Dual link DVI.

Very cool!

If they were mass produced I wonder how much they would cost.

If they were mass produced? Very little more than regular displays. Manufacturing cost difference is probably in the low three digits. That would be multiplied at retail initially of course by a significant amount. Long term, it's not more expensive to make by an appreciable amount.

4K2K is definitely coming in the next 2-3 years. The main push is going to be glasses free 3D. While purist may not like 3D, it is going to be pushed hard by studios and manufactures. Studios love it because it eliminates camcorder piracy in the theaters and manufactures love it because they can sell you a new display. The movie studios would eventually generate more profits as consumers yet again replace their blu-ray or dvd movies they already own, to the new 4K format. Plus, it will be the new high end standard for PC gaming. They had 1080p sets before there was even any HD channels. You can already get the 55" Toshiba ZL2 4K set for under 10K street price and those prices will drop fast as mass production picks up. With Vizio, Samsung, and LG crushing the Japaneses on price, they have to differentiate their products. Sharp has done it by going to more profitable large 70-90" displays, at affordable prices. JVC, Toshiba and Mitsubishi may have to do it by going 4K2K.

Things may change but I don't recall Chi Mei or Innolux being a technology leader

The notion that making a 4k x 2k 46" monitor requires some sort of sophisticated technology is laughable. I have a 3-year-old laptop with a 1920 x 1080 17" screen. The pixel density of the 46" would be far less. Not exactly hard to do.

So I'm curious, does this mean that in the near future blu-ray will be replaced by 4k2k discs? I'm sorry if my question is off topic.

Agree. Just skeptical it will be CMI to lead the charge

As discussed above, I also think PC monitors will start the adoption trend with rendered resolutions.

Not in the near future.

http://hometheater.about.com/od/home...xplanation.htm

I think Sharp and Toshiba will be the one pushing 4K sets next year with all the rest to follow in 2013. Toshiba risks the chance of exiting the consumer display market like Mitsubishi, if they do not take the chance. They can not compete with the Chinese and Koreans on price.
Sharp is the company most likely to make it main stream. It will clearly show the advantages of 4K resolution in the large format sizes it is now pushing hard. While there may be little native 4K content for many years, the up-converting of current 1080p with their ICC proccesor will really make then sets stand out. If I had told you just 6 months ago you could get a 70" LED full-array back-lit set for less than $2000 you would have called me crazy. Now you can go to Costco and get their entry level 70LE632U for that. You will see the selling 4K 70" by late 2012/early 2013 for around 3K.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/economy...J2011100413206

I doubt there will ever be a 4k x 2k disc standard. Hollywood is idiotic. On the one hand, they really want to sell discs. On the other hand, they want to do everything they can to stop you from having clear ownership of a physical format.

Maybe there'll be a Really Really Blu Ray around decade's end, but I'm not holding my breath. It'll likely be delivered over the net.

I'm not sure if 4k streaming will be viable in the near future as even HD streaming is heavily compressed currently. I do believe physical format still has its place in the near future but what do I know if the rumour of cessation of CD sale next year turn out to be true :P

@sintech I think it is over for Toshiba but it is not a big part of their business anyway. But for Sharp it makes a lot if sense for them to push it as they are the leader of huge TVs, as we've discussed earlier in the thread.

4K is bogus thing which unfortunately will be opressed on ignorant consumers like megapixels in digital cameras . The way of reason would be to reduce compression in the current 2K instead of pushing 4K. Let's say 100-200 Mb/s Blue Rays and 20-40 Mb/s HDTV. But this is not as 'hip' as the 4K. So we will see hugely compressed 4K with superprocessors improving PQ.

4K makes really big sense for computer monitors. Eizo starts now selling 4K professional monitors with the 36" diagonal which looks ideal for opulent desktop. But the price of 30+ kilobucks is not encouraging. Perhaps something more reasonable will come next year?

Where does this 'cessation of CD sale next year' rumour come from?

Seems unlikely to me, and I haven't heard anything about it.

I can't decide if it would be a good or bad thing. I'm still stuck buying CDs, even though I hate keeping physical media around, because no-one offers CD quality DRM-free music.

Maybe this would actually push companies to offer it though. Ideally iTunes would offer ALAC files and I'd start using it.

4K is done at an entirely different part in the value chain than BluRay is, nevermind where broadcast TV is compressed.

It will produce immediate benefits for consumers in things like maintaining full resolution of broadcasts when multiple screens are shown (thinks like PIP, "game mix" channels, combinations of a video stream and an internet feed, etc.) nevermind the benefits of upconverting on existing broadcasts.

This doesn't even begin to cover the additional real benefit of allowing for passive, full-resolution 3-D broadcasts without high cycle rates.

4K can do real, customer-friendly things today. 13 megapixel cameras don't do anything that 8 megapixels already do. In fact, they are often noisier (and the picture files are larger to no particular benefit). The comparisons between those two are fairly inaccurate.

If TVs went to 4k x 2k and then went to 8k x 4k a few years later, your complaint would have much more merit.

Could not agree more. Completely unnecessary for 60" and below TV screens with typical viewing distances. It will definitely be a marketing focus though as usual.

IMO the best way to improve picture quality is to improve signal quality.

http://www.side-line.com/news_commen...=46980_0_2_0_C

Still useful below 60" if you want to use it for full resolution 3-D. Also useful for hybrid TV/monitor-type displays.

But yes, if you are sitting 12 feet from your 46" screen, not very purposeful. I'm more interested in the possibilities of relatively inexpensive 40-50" displays for use with computers (there are already 2560 x 1440 displays at 27"). Also, a 70 or 80" with 4k x 2k has amazing potential as I outline above.

The manufacturing cost differences are going to be minimal when this hits mass production anyway.

It would be nice if we could get better signal quality, but that's such an unrelated problem. It's like complaining about the price of gas when you take your car in for an oil change. Yes, both relate to the car, but that's kind of about it.

@rogo: you can't overcome limits of visual system. Benefits of 4K are noticeable when viewing distance is below 2.5 x pic height. Means either gigantic display or sitting very close. I do not see this TV scenario realizing.

On the other hand computer monitor scenario is ideal for 4K. Eizo just starts selling 4K@36" monitors so there is hope eventually their price will go down and they will become common. Actually 2K computer monitors were very expensive once.

There was a guy on another Forum who was also talking about this rumour, that's why i asked.

There must be a minimal quality standard, musicdownloadquality is insufficent and because of that abandoning the CD is not an option. There is also the data storage problem, a (external)hard-disk/non coated CD has to replaced every 5 year because the data will disappear, a coated CD will last at least 25year. Also the music industry will make much bigger losses because its easy to steal music from the internet.

This SIDE-LINE music magazine is from Belgium, a tiny european country. The guy who wrote this article - Benard Van Isacker - quotes his chief editor Bernard Van Isacker

What you're saying is true to a point. There are benefits up to twice what you would assume the limits are for resolving a pixel with 20/20 vision.

Last I checked 80" displays are already out and gigantic.

Also, my friend has a 40" monitor on his desk. I doubt he's the only person on earth to do this. It'd be far more tempting, I think, if those were 4k resolution. I don't feel "oppressed" by this option.

But biology tells you get advantage from 4K if the sitting distance is below 2.5 pic height (if your have perfect vision). So you have to sit about 8 feet from 80" to soak those pixels.


I said many times that 'oppression' is 4K TV, 4K computer monitor is liberation . I think Eizo 36" size is the best compromise between the 4K res and the viewing. Since 4K computer monitor panels will be now available (LG making) the dream is somebody will make reasonably priced 4K monitor next year which one can buy (reasonably means several grands though).

I don't buy it. I just simply don't believe for a second that if you put me 12 feet from a 4k 80" and a 2k 80" display that I couldn't tell the difference and enjoy the difference. Yes, you'd need good sources (or multiple sources displayed simultaneously) but I just don't believe you'd need to be that close to actually perceive a difference.

Well, the high-rez 27" screens are way overpriced vs. the 27" 1920 x 1080s, but they are reachable. I'll probably spring for the Apple one next year when it supports USB 3.0. So I'm optimistic that the 36" 4k monitors will get reasonable over the next 2-3 years, even if the first ones won't be.

This is not question of beliefs but hard facts which after thorough evaluation have to be admitted even by main promoters of the 4K.


Hopefully this happens starting next year, display interface for 4K is the Display Port I think.