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 80

post #2371 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by avsforumsdsd View Post

the new AMD fusion gpu is 30% faster than nvidia 580 the 720 will have dual core gpu so 4 k resoluition at 60 flops should be no problem they are making these future proof to a degree.
AMD will show off the new 7000 seies at CES a month away with live demos.

GPU? Just standard Intel Ivy Bridge processor (it has integrated graphics and support for compressed video processing) can do it with ease on the processing side, and it is said next year motherboards will have 4K output support.
post #2372 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

GPU? Just standard Intel Ivy Bridge processor (it has integrated graphics and support for compressed video processing) can do it with ease on the processing side, and it is said next year motherboards will have 4K output support.

I see that confusion a lot on various forums. 4K video playback of a compressed codec like h.264 or h.265 can be handled by new Ivy Bridge with integrated graphics with no problem. It is the 4K real time game rendering the requires advanced GPUs like AMD 7000 series. That is why most people balk when they hear the PS4K will have 4K capability. They take it to mean games instead of movie playback. They might be capable of 4K real time rendering, but would struggle to get over 30fps.
post #2373 of 3670
post #2374 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Flood of 110 inchers confused.gif

The article is incorrect as it makes the assumption that Samsung is making the screen for the Westinghouse 110" demo. The Westinghouse is going to be using the 110" screen made by TCL in China. Also, the Samsung has not been confirmed it to be an LCD. Slim chance it could be a one time 110" OLED prototype because they will also have an 85" 4K LCD they will show that has a good chance of actually being made. At 110" you are starting to hit the size limits of the average home. At roughly 5 feet tall, 8 feet wide you would need minimum 14 feet viewing at the recommended 1.5PH. The 70" to 90" range will have the most sales, with the 110" -130" range replacing the small projector market and creating sales for digital signage and commercial applications.
post #2375 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post


.... At roughly 5 feet tall, 8 feet wide you would need minimum 14 feet viewing at the recommended 1.5PH. ....


?? A viewing distance of 1.5 PH for a 5 ft high screen is 7.5 ft.   Also 1.5 PH is a VERY close viewing distance; 2.0 PH is still quite close but about what I like.

post #2376 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

The article is incorrect as it makes the assumption that Samsung is making the screen for the Westinghouse 110" demo. The Westinghouse is going to be using the 110" screen made by TCL in China. Also, the Samsung has not been confirmed it to be an LCD. Slim chance it could be a one time 110" OLED prototype because they will also have an 85" 4K LCD they will show that has a good chance of actually being made. At 110" you are starting to hit the size limits of the average home. At roughly 5 feet tall, 8 feet wide you would need minimum 14 feet viewing at the recommended 1.5PH. The 70" to 90" range will have the most sales, with the 110" -130" range replacing the small projector market and creating sales for digital signage and commercial applications.
Both Samsung and Westinghouse gets this panel from TCL.
Nobody else makes that big LCD panels.
Samsung owns a 15% share in the manufacturing plant. http://itersnews.com/?p=14610
post #2377 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post


?? A viewing distance of 1.5 PH for a 5 ft high screen is 7.5 ft.   Also 1.5 PH is a VERY close viewing distance; 2.0 PH is still quite close but about what I like.

While it is questionable for those small 84 inchers, there is undeniable usefulness of 4K @ 110". 110" will also double nicely as a plane heater for the winter biggrin.gif. But viewing angle, backlight uniformity and black levels will require close investigation.
post #2378 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

I see that confusion a lot on various forums. 4K video playback of a compressed codec like h.264 or h.265 can be handled by new Ivy Bridge with integrated graphics with no problem. It is the 4K real time game rendering the requires advanced GPUs like AMD 7000 series. That is why most people balk when they hear the PS4K will have 4K capability. They take it to mean games instead of movie playback. They might be capable of 4K real time rendering, but would struggle to get over 30fps.

Indeed, 4K gaming is a heavy metal stuff. Though now it seems the 4K & gaming might be even coming to pocket devices. Remember 1080p will be a soon a norm in bigger smartphones.
post #2379 of 3670
It seems to me that 4K OLED is pie in the sky that simply isn't going to happen.

If that is indeed the case--if plasma goes extinct like Rear Projection DLP has--and all that's left is LCD--is LARGE LCD capable of pulling off LCD?

What is likely to cost less--a 100-inch 4K LCD or a 4K 100-inch front projection set up?

Forgive my ignorance but if most houses have 9-foot ceilings--what is the largest diagonal screen you could have if it was mounted on the wall--extended all the way to the ceiling--and extended to 2 feet above the floor?

I guess what I'm really asking is what is the biggest practical size display you can have in a room with 9-foot ceilings?

i guess for people who really wanted HOME THEATER--they could build a houser with a room in it with a higher ceiling to allow for a really big display?
post #2380 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

While it is questionable for those small 84 inchers, there is undeniable usefulness of 4K @ 110". 110" will also double nicely as a plane heater for the winter biggrin.gif. But viewing angle, backlight uniformity and black levels will require close investigation.


I wonder if you can get a suntan from the heat and radiation put out by an all white screen. biggrin.gif
post #2381 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

It seems to me that 4K OLED is pie in the sky that simply isn't going to happen.
If that is indeed the case--if plasma goes extinct like Rear Projection DLP has--and all that's left is LCD--is LARGE LCD capable of pulling off LCD?
What is likely to cost less--a 100-inch 4K LCD or a 4K 100-inch front projection set up?
Forgive my ignorance but if most houses have 9-foot ceilings--what is the largest diagonal screen you could have if it was mounted on the wall--extended all the way to the ceiling--and extended to 2 feet above the floor?
I guess what I'm really asking is what is the biggest practical size display you can have in a room with 9-foot ceilings?
i guess for people who really wanted HOME THEATER--they could build a houser with a room in it with a higher ceiling to allow for a really big display?


If you have 9 ft ceiling I would guess 140" is about the biggest you could go if you want it 2 feet off the ground. A 140" model with a 1.5" bezel would be about 6 feet tall and 10.5 feet wide. You could place it 2 feet off the floor and have a foot of clearance before it hit the ceiling. I think most would drop down to a more reasonable max of 110-120" though.
post #2382 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

I wonder if you can get a suntan from the heat and radiation put out by an all white screen. biggrin.gif

No, but there will be special 4K videos of the Sun broadcasted by Hawaian observatory, with suntun guaranteed by original photons blasting from all 8 mln pixels biggrin.gif.
post #2383 of 3670
Netflix to start streaming 4K movies:
Quote:
PALO ALTO, CA – December 20, 2012 – Eye IO, LLC (eyeIO) today unveiled its second-generation technology raising the bar for Internet video quality. Improving production speed and efficiency, the expanded product suite includes Studio HD, Full-HD 3D as well as UltraHD (4K video). eyeIO utilizes a revolutionary, artificial intelligence approach to consistently deliver market standard based high-quality video.

Compared to its first generation, eyeIO's next generation of H.264 software encodes 45% faster and reduces bitrates by an additional 26% while integrating Studio-level profiles that improve video data on several fronts by more than 50%. eyeIO HDRes now provides super-fast playback and even clearer, crisper images. eyeIO's 3D suite is available with MVC, frame-sequential or frame-packing options for seamless deployment worldwide on connected Smart 3D TVs and 3D-enabled players and consoles.

• eyeIO StudioRes. Built to Hollywood's 4K requirements, eyeIO StudioRes delivers UltraHD, studio-grade H.264 videos (10 bit, 4:2:2 video, xvYCC). eyeIO StudioRes is available for both package media and Internet streaming delivery to bring no-compromise pictures to the next generation of 85" and larger UltraHD/4K screens.

• eyeIO.265. Brings eyeIO technology to the coming H.265 HEVC ITU standard and long-term industry efforts.

• eyeOS. The eyeIO video operating system. A superior, true UNIX™ Operating System featuring advanced kernel enhancements achieving ultra-stability, bare-metal virtualization performance, automatic load-balancing transcoding, closed-environment security, elastic scalability, and advanced 4K video processing including native support for the forthcoming Interoperable Master Format (IMF). eyeOS will be available in beta form for larger enterprises in the spring of 2013.
post #2384 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Netflix to start streaming 4K movies:

Don't bother clicking, the article doesn't say anything of the sort.
post #2385 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke M View Post

Don't bother clicking, the article doesn't say anything of the sort.
confused.gif
post #2386 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Netflix to start streaming 4K movies:


"HAVE YOU NOTICED A DROP IN NETFLIX PICTURE QUALITY?"

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1355136322

"Over the last two weeks users have started talking about a drop in Netflix’s picture quality. PlayStation 3 owners have noticed how the X-High HD level has disappeared. Netflix has published an official response saying that they have implemented a more efficient compression technology. Have you experienced a drop in picture quality?

NETFLIX PICTURE QUALITY – WHERE IS MY X-HIGH?

Full HD takes up a lot of data so it has to be compressed before it reaches your TV. Netflix uses the so-called adaptive streaming technology that adjusts picture quality to your internet speed and if your connection is fast enough you automatically get best possible picture quality.

But a few weeks ago people started noticing that the X-High level – the highest picture quality level – went missing. PS3 owners, for example, are able to see which stream they are receiving by pressing the Select button.

FlatpanelsHD became aware of this at the end of November and has since investigated the situation. We tried to get an official response which we received today (see below). The change appears to affect all of Netflix’s markets, including Europe. Some users have reported a visible drop in picture quality but also 20 % lower bandwidth requirements........."

Use link to read the rest of the article and comments from Netflix users.
post #2387 of 3670
Changes in compression always equals the picture SUX!!!

Seems like Netflix is imitating satellite.

The only way you can get decent picture quality is buy a Blu-ray disc and play it on an OPPO.

Does anyone know if a 65-inch 4K LCD would be worth buying?
post #2388 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

The only way you can get decent picture quality is buy a Blu-ray disc and play it on an OPPO.
Surely all standalone Blu-ray players would decode a 1080p Blu-ray about equally. If the Oppo is doing something different it's changing the picture quality - ie. not true to how the video encoding really is on the disc.
post #2389 of 3670
Time to cancel my netflix subscription. These companies sure are cheap and dumb.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Surely all standalone Blu-ray players would decode a 1080p Blu-ray about equally. If the Oppo is doing something different it's changing the picture quality - ie. not true to how the video encoding really is on the disc.

Yep.

In that respect the PS3 is probably the best BD player since it does absolutely nothing to the picture. It leaves it as is. There was a report about this from some site. All other players add extra stuff to spice up the picture. Just use your TV settings.
post #2390 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

Time to cancel my netflix subscription. These companies sure are cheap and dumb.
Yep.
In that respect the PS3 is probably the best BD player since it does absolutely nothing to the picture. It leaves it as is. There was a report about this from some site. All other players add extra stuff to spice up the picture. Just use your TV settings.
I would have thought that a dedicated player would be best, besides using less power, having a normal remote as standard, but surely because they should in theory because that's mostly all they're designed to do. Surely things like timings are more likely to be accurate on a standalone player? Though this is kind of offf-topic for this thread. Do you have any links to the report which showed all others altered the picture (when all 'enhancements' in the player were turned off) whereas the PS3 didn't?
post #2391 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

Time to cancel my netflix subscription. These companies sure are cheap and dumb.
Not sure I see the logic there. I thought the appeal of streaming services was the on-demand aspect. Image quality has always been poor.
post #2392 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Not sure I see the logic there. I thought the appeal of streaming services was the on-demand aspect. Image quality has always been poor.

The image-quality on iTunes HD and on Vudu HDX is fantastic. They are convenient and gorgeous.

We watched an HD stream on iTunes the other day and while it wasn't a high-motion movie, it was very much what I'd call "BluRay quality" through much of it.
post #2393 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

Time to cancel my netflix subscription. These companies sure are cheap and dumb.
Yep

I quit my Netflix long ago, quality was rather poor. Personally, I don't know if the cloud will ever become the best option. I haven't found a perfect option, where it gives you both picture quality and audio quality. Typically, I just buy new Bluray movies from Amazon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

In that respect the PS3 is probably the best BD player since it does absolutely nothing to the picture. It leaves it as is. There was a report about this from some site. All other players add extra stuff to spice up the picture. Just use your TV settings.

Actually, the best one that I used to date is my Pioneer, but my Sony BDP-CX7000ES has the best picture quality. I really don't want to slide my discs into the PS3, but I have that option as well.
post #2394 of 3670
Seems like this is the year for reasonably priced direct view 4K UltraHD to take off. Might I suggest to the mods a dedicated section in the Display Devices forum of a "4K UltraHD Displays" thread. With both Westinghouse and Hisense releasing sets as early as Q1 2013. We are probably looking at around $3-4,000 for the 65" with prices to fall fast is there is any reasonable demand.


The new Westinghouse Digital UHDTVs will be available in the 50, 55 and 65-inch screen sizes in Q1 of 2013. The 110-inch model will be available as a custom order in Q1 of 2013.


http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/27/westinghouse-4k-tvs-at-ces/
post #2395 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

Seems like this is the year for reasonably priced direct view 4K UltraHD to take off. Might I suggest to the mods a dedicated section in the Display Devices forum of a "4K UltraHD Displays" thread. With both Westinghouse and Hisense releasing sets as early as Q1 2013. We are probably looking at around $3-4,000 for the 65" with prices to fall fast is there is any reasonable demand.
The new Westinghouse Digital UHDTVs will be available in the 50, 55 and 65-inch screen sizes in Q1 of 2013. The 110-inch model will be available as a custom order in Q1 of 2013.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/27/westinghouse-4k-tvs-at-ces/

50"@4K is a sign of the game upside down: who will make the smallest 4K HDTV? Game of nonsense obviously but 50"@4K can make as an oversized computer monitor eek.gif.
post #2396 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro67 View Post

I quit my Netflix long ago, quality was rather poor. Personally, I don't know if the cloud will ever become the best option. I haven't found a perfect option, where it gives you both picture quality and audio quality. Typically, I just buy new Bluray movies from Amazon.

Again, not all streaming services are alike.

While we rent from Redbox regularly (it's a nice 3/4 mile walk each way from here), we also stream very high-quality stuff from Apple and Vudu.

And we tried to stream Downton Abbey from Netflix, finding it nearly unwatchable. The same stuff from Amazon, however, while not Apple/Vudu quality was quite acceptable. It would not have been worth paying for on physical medium.

(Unrequested endorsement: If you haven't seen Downton Abbey yet, you should find the time.)
post #2397 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsmith View Post

One of the great disappointments this year in HDTV-land. Today I saw LG's $17,000 84-inch 4K display, showing a high-end travelogue: Other than black level(a little better but not all that much) the resolution was about equal to the 1080p Ultra-BluRay boxed travelogue discs which have been available for a year. So what's the big deal? The resolution on an 84-inch display is about equal to what you'd get with a high-end source on a 65-incher like mine and that is a genuine benefit, but will 4K become the norm? If the cost gets down to what we now pay for 1080p, why not? But at the premium price being ask for today? Gimme a break.

Watching people's reaction to the 84" Sony 4K TV at a Sony store on Long Island, I'd agree. I stood there for about 20 minutes watching reactions and only a very very small percentage of the shoppers gave it more than a passing glance and then not for more than a few seconds. Keep in mind that the price tag was not immediately obvious nor was it very large. So the first thing that would have garnered attention, had it been so extraordinarily different than what people are used to seeing, was the picture. There obviously was little to no difference as far as the shoppers were concerned. To them I guess it was just yet another 'big screen HDTV'.

For me the difference was obvious, but only as I got much closer than I would normally watch a display of this size. So at a more typical viewing distance, I honestly can't say that even I would have thought this was a 4K display. The source by the way was a well prepared, well-shot 4K travel video. It was not possible to draw any conclusions about equally important aspects (IMO) of picture performance, such as black levels due to the Sony store lighting.
post #2398 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Now, with extremely compressed sources it is always better to start with a lower res if the bit budget is the same. Why? Just because you have to shave more details @ higer res to get to the budgeted bits whicc visually makes difference. This can be observed by comparing current 720p and 1080p sources compressed to a broadcast rate of 10 Mb/s with H.264. Even when enlarged to fit the 1080 display the 720p has more details. This is because the 720p has roughly 1 mln pixels and 1080p has 2 mln pixels. This observation is not changed by the fact that 720p has 60 fps and 1080p has 30 fps since predictive coding effectively eliminates differences here.

This brings me back in time yet again. I think it's hard to miss the additional detail in a typical 1080i network broadcast over a typical 720p broadcast at what I'm sure are essentially similar bitrates. Even when the motion argument is brought up, it's largely irrelevant since something like 90+% of what we view is static or nearly static in nature. Even most sports broadcasts are largely static and hence the 'p' over 'i' argument loses much of its significance. I'll never understand how some still insist there's no detail advantage in 1080i (assuming they're not watching a 32" display at 10' wink.gif).
post #2399 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Watching people's reaction to the 84" Sony 4K TV at a Sony store on Long Island, I'd agree. I stood there for about 20 minutes watching reactions and only a very very small percentage of the shoppers gave it more than a passing glance and then not for more than a few seconds. Keep in mind that the price tag was not immediately obvious nor was it very large. So the first thing that would have garnered attention, had it been so extraordinarily different than what people are used to seeing, was the picture. There obviously was little to no difference as far as the shoppers were concerned. To them I guess it was just yet another 'big screen HDTV'.
For me the difference was obvious, but only as I got much closer than I would normally watch a display of this size. So at a more typical viewing distance, I honestly can't say that even I would have thought this was a 4K display. The source by the way was a well prepared, well-shot 4K travel video. It was not possible to draw any conclusions about equally important aspects (IMO) of picture performance, such as black levels due to the Sony store lighting.

Your impressions are in a way obvious since they are in agreement with research telling the 4K difference becomes visible at 2.5 PH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

This brings me back in time yet again. I think it's hard to miss the additional detail in a typical 1080i network broadcast over a typical 720p broadcast at what I'm sure are essentially similar bitrates. Even when the motion argument is brought up, it's largely irrelevant since something like 90+% of what we view is static or nearly static in nature. Even most sports broadcasts are largely static and hence the 'p' over 'i' argument loses much of its significance. I'll never understand how some still insist there's no detail advantage in 1080i (assuming they're not watching a 32" display at 10' wink.gif).

Have you checked the bit rates? Look, commonly used 10Mb/s for 1080 H.264 is bare minimum, this is e.g. why the Blu-ray goes much higher. But for the 720 this bit rate is fine, one can set the parameters so that upconversion to 1080 will not spoil it. Obviously situation would be different if the 1080 is compressed at 20+ Mb/s.
Edited by irkuck - 12/28/12 at 11:18am
post #2400 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Your impressions are in a way obvious since they are in agreement with research telling the 4K difference becomes visible at 2.5 PH.

The only problem is that the closer aisle (and probably the further aisle) were within 2.5 PH. Yet shoppers gave it little more than a passing glance. Gonna be a really tough sell IMO. Even as I backed off to what I'd assume to be about 2PH, it became very difficult for me to discern a significant difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Have you checked the bit rates? Look, commonly used 10Mb/s for 1080 H.264 is bare minimum, this is e.g. why the Blu-ray goes much higher. But for the 720 this bit rate is fine, one can set the parameters so that upconversion to 1080 will not spoil it. Obviously situation would be different if the 1080 is compressed at 20+ Mb/s.

I haven't checked the bitrates of an aggregate of 1080i channels vs an aggregate of 720p channels, but I doubt there is any significant difference to explain the greater detail in 1080i. I have no reason to believe that all the 720p channels are bit-starved and the 1080i are not. There's greater detail at approximately the same bitrate because there's simply greater detail in 1080i. Not a mystery here.
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?