4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 80

Originally Posted by avsforumsdsd 

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.

Originally Posted by irkuck 

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.

Originally Posted by irkuck 

Flood of 110 inchers

Originally Posted by sytech 


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

Originally Posted by sytech 

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.

Originally Posted by millerwill 


?? 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.

Originally Posted by sytech 

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.

Originally Posted by irkuck 

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 . But viewing angle, backlight uniformity and black levels will require close investigation.

Originally Posted by Artwood 

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?

Originally Posted by sytech 

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

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.

Originally Posted by coolscan 

Netflix to start streaming 4K movies:

Originally Posted by Luke M 

Don't bother clicking, the article doesn't say anything of the sort.

Originally Posted by coolscan 

Netflix to start streaming 4K movies:

Originally Posted by Artwood 

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

Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs 

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.

Originally Posted by saprano 

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.

Originally Posted by saprano 

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

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist 

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.

Originally Posted by saprano 

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

Originally Posted by saprano 

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.

Originally Posted by sytech 

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/

Originally Posted by Nitro67 

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.

Originally Posted by mrsmith 

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.

Originally Posted by irkuck 

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.

Originally Posted by Ken Ross 

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.

Originally Posted by Ken Ross 

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' ).

Originally Posted by irkuck 

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

Originally Posted by irkuck 

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.