4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 83

The PS2 had DVD.
The PS3 had Bluray.
It makes sense that the PS4 would have Ultra HD Bluray.
This is speculation, but the logic is obvious. The web is not strong enough in all locations to omit hard media. They need Ultra HD Bluray, they just haven’t said so yet.

The problem is that PS4 hardware is done, but Ultra HD Bluray doesn't exist. Can changes be made in software to support it? I dunno.

110"@4K LCD TVs were shown at the CES 2013 by HiSense, Samsung, Westinghouse and TCL. One could easily suspect all use the same panel but according to some rumors this is not the case. TCL uses panel made by its subsidiary CSOT, others use panel made by the company BOE.

I wonder if this might be true, two independent chinese companies making 110" panels . If true, it indicates prices may go down ultrafast due to the competition.

I doubt that is true.
Westinghouse is TCL/CSOT's own brand. Samsung owns a stake in TCL/CSOT.
BOE are mainly making small size screens. That's why TCL/CSOT was reported last year to be the first large TV panel maker in mainland China. Only TCL/CSOT has shown a 110" prototype last year.
On BOE's own web site they only have one TV, a 26". Bet they would have mentioned it if they had anything larger, particularly a 110" TV.

EDIT; I have to revise. It looks like BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. also has managed to manufacture large panel TVs late last year, like 65" UHD oxide TFT display and a 110". And that the BOE 110" is the source that Samsung will use. http://www.colorsunny.com/blog/?p=682





http://tech.hexun.com/2012-11-19/148091515.html
http://www.ty360.com/2012/11/2012_1_54448.htm

Some more explanation of ADSDS which is supposedly unique to BOE;
Edited by coolscan - 1/11/13 at 9:18am

I have a quad-layer Blu-ray drive in my PC, and the PS4 hardware should be more than capable of decoding 4K. I see no reason why it couldn't support it.

Didn't Sony also announce 4K digital distribution plans, and Netflix were also showing off 4K streaming.

Thank you for bringing this information, the scale of the chinese offensive is phenomenal with 110" 4K panels from two manufacturers. I found BOE started recently their 8.5 gen LCD plant, their define their goal to be in top 3 globally in 2015. TCL has the same 8.5 gen plant. From brief look into the glass size it seems 110" is maximum panel size one can obtain from the 8.5 gen, with two panels on a single sheet of glass.

Sharp could make even bigger panels, possibly up to 135" in its 10 gen plant. Will they try to beat the 110"? On on hand one can doubt it knowing how bad Sharp is financially but on the other hand being dethroned by the chinese newcomers must be really demoralising for them. A 120" Sharp panel may be thus expected to keep face up even it only will be an exhibition model .

Dethroned by the Chinese was also my reaction when I understood both TCL/CSOT and BOE had made 110" TVs independent of each other.
I am also wondering the indication from the Chinese web sites that the BOE 65" UHDTV is a AMOLED manufactured with Ink-Jet printing and fusion oxide TFT backplane.

If that is the case, both the Japanese and the Koreans "must feel the pain". And this development in China has happened fast, like within less than two years.

^ Machine translation: It is understood that the new type of the BOE 65 inches HD display oxide TFT backplane technology used is also AMOLED display industry development essential technology. Late last month, the BOE also released the world's first fusion oxide TFT backplane technology and ink-jet printing technology of large-size AMOLED display.

I think this means they have all technology components for making large OLED displays, this news is from the end of Nov. 2012. Meaning they may start showing 65" OLED soon and hammering Koreans on the OLED front. Chinese seem to be fantastic strategists. With the LCD they had to be planning 4K to give them advantage over the established makers and they came with full force at the right moment. With OLED they know 55" size is too small to be impressive for high-end so they go directly to 65". Chinese 65"@4K OLED is not fantasy anymore, Samsung and LG might be moving into the corner.

BOE already have presented a 65" with oxide TFT. That's why I wondered whether that is what they refer to when they say they have oxide TFT and Ink-Jet printing technology for large-size AMOLED display.

Some more observations:

I was back at the local high end AV store watching the Sony 4K display again, yesterday. There are many brands of flat panels playing content all around the store, often in dedicated rooms - Panasonic plasmas, Sharp and sony LCDs, etc, playing HD feeds or Avatar or the like. (FWIW, I have both an old Panny ED plasma at home that I don't really watch much anymore, and a last year's model Samsung 55" 1080p LCD, which is quite good). While last time the Sony 4K was playing the Avatar Blu-Ray, this time it was playing the Sony 4K native demo material of a hard drive - the same content I saw playing at the Sony store last month. Images of museums, spanish beaches and beachfront homes, cities, sports, etc. Once again it looked great, but wasn't an immediately obvious difference from 1080p. As I moved closer, it held detail better of course, and looked pretty spectacular. But it didn't have an "absolute" life-like clarity - not sure if it's the panel settings or whether it really takes 8K to get that. But still, it was impressively clear and very finely detailed. I sat for quite a while watching this display. And here was for me the interesting thing...

...once I got used to watching the 4K content, I went back to the 1080p displays and they seemed more like SD displays! I'd become accustomed to seeing detail resolve so finely, no matter where on the screen I looked or how far into the distance, that 1080p looked less focused, obviously less resolved, like moving from 1080p to SD! I guess that makes some sense after all. Engaget reported the same effect on it's reporters after taking in so many 4K images at CES, that 1080p now looked more like SD. And I remember when HD first came out that it was somewhat similar. There wasn't always an obvious "wow" difference between HD and really good SD, but after becoming accustomed to HD images on a display, going back to SD looked obviously more blurry.

Also, I think I became a bit more aware of pixelation on the 1080p displays. Though I STILL don't think the big selling point of 4K is (or ought to be) "reducing pixelation." That's nice to have, but as a selling point, most people don't notice pixelation to begin with. "Buy this expensive 4K display and no longer will you have to put up with visible pixels in your image!" Average buyer "Huh? What pixels in my image? I'm not bothered by pixels in my image." But more realistic image detail? If 4K can deliver that, with the big image size, that's more compelling.

One last observation: for some reason still the Sony 4K has yet to truly blow me away as in "Wow THIS is INCREDIBLE I've got to have this next generation display technology!" At home afterward I set up my JVC RS55 projector to project about a 95" 16:9 image size, and put on the Avatar Blu-Ray and others. It still blew my mind, the sense of detail, clarity, seeing-into-a-world clarity. Just in terms of subjective, perceptual impact, it felt in ways more amazing than what I saw on the Sony 4K display. What I take from this is that I still haven't seen the full potential of 4K content. My projector has been professionally calibrated, and also subtly tweaked with some processing from devices like the Darbee Darblet, so I presume I'm comparing optimized 1080p with whatever is not optimized in that Sony 4K set I saw. I therefore presume that when 4K sources become available for true 4K displays (my JVC does 4K pixels, but doesn't take 4K sources, so I'd need a "true" 4K projector), that, once optimized, things will look pretty glorious!

I think this is the relevant point, Rich:   for 4K to show its advantages (to most people) requires viewing from ~ 1.0 SW or closer, and this usually means a very large screen.   On a screen of the size you note here I doubt you are sitting close enough for good 1080p not to be as good as it can be.    How does your pic look viewed from ~ 7 ft (1 SW for a 95" diag 16x9)?

Sony announced a crude 4K plan, yes. Netflix made some nice words. Netflix quality is abysmal however. I've tried to explain this here for 2 years already. but low bit-rate 4K will be clearly worse than good 2K and all Netflix will ever offer is likely to be low bit-rate stuff.

Um, Samsung and LG can make 110" screens on their 8G plants now. It's obviously not especially important for them to do so given the infinitesimal demand for such a product.

I shared the Engadget folks' impression. It's hard to watch 1080p after the same way it's hard to use non-Retina iPad after. By the way, the Engadget 4K piece was must read for all AVS enthusiasts. It was one of the best things I've ever read on Engadget.

I viewed both from my normal seating distance and I also moved closer than normal - sat on the edge of my sofa - which put me 8 feet from my screen, FWIW. I viewed the Sony from a variety of distances as well.
Basically I'm talking about the overall experience: having viewed the next-gen display technology in the Sony both from an average seating distance to quite close, the overall experience taken together didn't necessarily blow me away more than the images I viewed at home. But as I say, I'm sure the 4K experience I'll eventually get at home will be even better, especially on the largest screen sizes.

Do you have a link to that Engadget article rogo?

Interesting view, R Harkness. I have to take a second look at the 4K sony TV again. First impression was it wasn't that different from 1080p.

Agreed. Here it is:

http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/11/ultra-hd-tvs-stole-the-show-at-ces-2013/

I should add that 4K is going to be on every set of 60" and up within 5 years, most likely less, except perhaps some entry-level junk.

It will add no cost* to manufacturing once you scale it (and that's even truer once you stop making 2K sets to simplify your SKU mix).


* Yes, I mean no cost, not even a little at scale. Even the processor electronics will cost less than they do today as they will be on a next-generation process from today's.

Obviously they could but they don't, instead concentrating on OLED which has equally minute demand. The question is why? I believe this due to two factors: Chinese try to grab 4K as strategic asset allowing to jump over the 2K tech while their cost structure for building 4K panels can not be beaten by Koreans. Behind this are of course enormous capital resources in China and extreme drive to move to the top. What I see is Samsung and LG are trying to defend themselves mainly by moving into OLED in which they think they are way more advanced than Chinese, their 4K palette is anemic comparing to Chinese.

I boldfaced the statement above since the key question here is what was the viewing distance when the difference from 1080p became obvious? Was it below 3PH, i.e. 2.5 PH and less?

Update: These fullscreens are worth reading OLEDs, 4K HD, and Smart TV: What’s the best near-term bet for better television??

There is diagram there which shows:

Display market has the growth phase behind it

LED LCD will be strongly dominating tech in the future

Even in 2016 OLED will be in low single precentage digits

Market which is saturated and dominated by single established technology becomes so commoditized it is boring, think about microwaves .
Edited by irkuck - 1/13/13 at 9:39am

Yeah that's a very goog article.

So i took another look at the sony 4K TV today and my previous thoughts still stand. I also don't agree with your, and rogo's, sentiments on it making HD look like SD. Now with my type of opinion people like to write it off as being a liar and just saying things like that because of not wanting to change technology so soon or whatever else excuse people like to come up with. Bottom line, i know what i saw. I'm a 100% home theater enthusiast, just like every other member on this site, why the heck wouldn't i/we want to buy technology that's better? I'm just stating my honest views on what i think about it.

The one thing that's not obvious with 4K until you're sitting there for a long while is the crisp clarity and better resolved picture it offers. Now to me this is not night and day over 1080p, but it is better. There's a sense of realness to the picture. A "you are there" look. I also finally got to see a moving playing. It was was the skyfall trailer. As soon as it started playing i immediately knew it was better than 1080p cause, again, it has a crisp and detailed look to it. Faces had better detail and everything was just......clean. But again i have to say it's not really night and day. I saw the advantages. I knew what to look for. But i wasn't really wowed. I would love to see a side by side demo of a 4K movie playing next to the 1080p version.

Another thing i would like to add, that many others also mention with all this 4K talk, is manufacturers have to improve contrast ratio and color or your 4K set is not going to look that impressive over 1080p. Yes, the sony 4K set black level was average. Producing a gray picture and gray bars on very dark scenes. That's not good. My kuro (sorry, i have to say it) has way more depth than the sony TV did. And it's many times darker.

So yeah. 4K is good. It's better than 1080p if you look hard enough and know what to look for. Even then, imo, the difference is not too large based off what i've seen.

Hey saprano, just curious, how much time did you spend watching the 4k TV? Also, I see you you are in the Bronx, Which location did you see the set at, was it in the city or on LI ?

This is my second time seeing it. The first time was maby a half hour, today i watched it for like 90 minutes. It was the sony store at madison ave in NYC.

Right, that's what I have been saying. The difference has been fairly subtle and hasn't blown me away, though it's there when I look for it. Which is why it was a bit surprising to me that I
noticed the difference between 4K and 1080p more readily when I switched from watching 4K to 1080p than the other way around. I probably sat watching the 4K material for about 40 minutes, and then
went directly to the regular 1080p screens, at which point they stood out more to me as lower res than what I had just gotten used to watching.

Sorry people but without stating what was the viewing distance at which you experienced the 4K enlightement your blasting about realness is just noise.
It is mostly likely you impressions originate from getting closer than 2.5 PH. That is fine, but it is a nonstandard TV viewing scenario which may not get accepted generally. I think such scenario is valid only for the biggest screen sizes around 100".

There are also problems related to compressed sources. The level of compression is critical, this is why there is broadcast 1080 compression at around 10 Mb/s and Blu-ray compression at 25-30 Mb/s or more, both using the H.264 standard. What you see with the 4K demos are highly selected content with lighter compression. One has to remember that proper comparison of compressed sources should be done at the same bit rate, e.g. 4K compressed to 40 Mb/s should be compared to 2K compressed to the same 40 Mb/s, Logic being that single content is send with the same budget in both cases.

The case for 4K is for screen sizes in the range of 100" which peple will be viewing at the distance of <3PH. Smaller 4K displays might be useful in microhouses common in Asia.

The more I read about all these 4k sets, the more I'm waking up to the fact that I will be sitting on the sidelines. Prices are just insane!

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1358159205

When you use the absolute most expensive UHDTV (apart from the 110") as an example then of course prices seems totally insane. And you pay a lot for the "easel stand" full of speakers. High End equipment will always be priced outside the normal range. Just look at the prices of High End projectors compared to the "normal priced" versions which is almost as good.

But even the LG 84" with a $19999 MSRP can be had for $12829.- already.
Smaller sizes from Chines brands are much cheaper like Westinghouse sets; $2,499 for the 50-inch set, $3,000 for the 55-inch set and $3,995 for the 65-inch set.
This gives a more correct picture of where the prices for 4K sets will be heading.

I know there will be less expensive, and smaller sets. But, I'm looking to go on the larger side. I have seen the LG price at 12000, but I didn't see any reviews on the site that was offering it at that price. While it's encouraging I'm not sure if it's legit. I'm in no rush, the wife is not over me buying the 70 and 80 inch Sharps last year.

Viewing distance is key to the difference noticeability.

You can't really say the HD screens looked SD without using the same source as the 4k display for comparison. How do you know those HD screens are using a good source to begin with? The Sony demo is made to look perfect. Bitrates we will never see and probably uncompressed.

The distance was about 6 feet. I'm not "enlightened" by 4K. I just noticed the small improvements. But like i said, I would love to see a side by side comparison to a 1080p version of the same source. We all know those demos are enhanced.

I certainly was not claiming any rigorous method of comparison; only noting an interesting subjective impression that occurred after watching the Sony 4K. That's all. And FWIW, the impression I'm talking about is valid insofar as it concerns a change of perception concerning the SAME image on the same 1080p displays.

Before watching the Sony I had watched the Avatar Blu-Ray playing on a Panasonic plasma and on an LCD (I think samsung) in another room. The image, one like many here I'm very familiar with on 1080p displays, looked spectacular as usual. But then I spent time in the Sony 4K room getting used to 4K resolution. Afterward when I went back to the same Panasonic and Sumsung flat panels playing Avatar, it was only THEN that they suddenly seemed less clear and low-res to my eyes.

As I also said, once I was home the 1080p image on my projector blew me away. But I'd bet if I viewed Avatar at 1080p on my screen, and then could switch to 4K resolution (native source), get used to 4K and then switch back to 1080p, that I'd perceive the 1080p as more obviously lower res than before seeing the 4K. That's very much how it went as I compared DVD to HD DVDs and Blu-Rays when those formats first arrived. DVDs looked quite good if I put them on at first. I'd put the Blu-Ray version on of the same disc and yes it looked sharper, but it wasn't necessarily a big impact. Rather, it was getting used to watching the higher res version and then switching BACK to the lower res DVD that seemed to make the difference stand out more, where subjectively the DVD now appeared blurry like I couldn't focus my eyes on the details I could with the Blu-Ray. I just found it interesting a similar effect seemed to occur with watching Avatar 1080p, then getting used to 4K, then switching back to watching Avatar 1080p.

If you do not take my subjective report as being worth anything, that's fine by me. You'll surely have plenty of opportunities ahead to see if you find the same thing.

Your impressions confirm the physics: being at 6 feet from the 84" you perceived some benefits of 4K. To appreciate them fully your viewing distance should be even closer at 5 feet: Viewing distance is key to the difference noticeability. . 5 feet is rather close and is not a normal living room viewing conditions. The only way to have full benefits 4K in the living room conditions is to have a wall-size display.