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 119

post #3541 of 3670
^ wow so many assumptions and half assumptions I don't know where to begin, lol.

1. I've tried BOTH a single chip and my own LCD PJ on the screen, and while yes, the DLP is sharper, either yield about the same results re SDE and detail at about 20 feet for me. Moot.

2. Never said it was.

3. Oh my. 32 degrees is "way smaller" than the viewing angle at which you view your tv? Without getting into the definition of "way", dare I ask your screen size and viewing distance? Because for a 50" television just SEVEN feet supplies you with a "lesser" viewing angle (under 30 with my quick math but I could be wrong). Don't even answer, I'm sure you're one of those watching your 50 or 60" television from 5 feet away...you know, like less than the length of a twin bed? Good for you. But do realize that you're in a tiny minority. TINY. Did I mention tiny?

Onward, I don't care about "most" claims". Please- at the very least- offer some modicum of precision if you're going to even begin to criticize how or whereto I am referencing my claim(s). That's just good sense and courtesy. How one would even begin to judge "most claims" on this massive site is a bit hilarious to begin with. What you likely mean is: "versus the ones I and others BELIEVE to be true" lol.

BTW: the "research" and "claims" you presented were- wait for it- COMPILED BY A COMPANY WITH A VESTED INTEREST IN MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING 4K PRODUCT AND DISTRIBUTION. Which- oh by the way- also indicates that for a 50" screen 1080 is NEVER "ENOUGH", lmao. Not at 10, 20, 30, or even FORTY FEET! Who knew?! Seems like a pretty reliable "source" though so thanks for the laughs, I mean inclusion. At least it's good to know we're "safe" with 4k at 25 feet on a 50 incher...whew!!! Until it's time to sell 8K anyway, right?

Go figure.

Yeah, about 99% of those on this site, ok, closer to 100, but no biggie, realize the 160" image offered up by a PJ is inferior to that of a well-performing 50-60" flat panel. Moving along...

Great to hear about your entire audience being perfectly comfortable less than a screen width away...I guess we- inexplicably so- happen to know (and invite) polar opposite population bases. Although you can never be certain a percentage will EVER "complain" about anything, even provoked. wink.gif

My impressions still stand I look forward to experiencing the inevitable (and hopefully, somewhat equitable) side-by-side comparisons that will evolve in the coming months.

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 10/17/13 at 6:00am
post #3542 of 3670

A 3D *and* 4K issue.

 

There's an interesting wrinkle that's recently developed over in the XBR X900A thread.  (4K models----55" and 65")

 

I believe that the 55" version has had its 3D resolution dropped because of the difficulty in making a smaller TV with an FPR so tight that the vertical FOV is excessively strict.  This can only be because the distance from the LCD array to the FPR is the same regardless of screen size.

 

Someone in the thread was able to contact Sony about this, and that was their explanation.  I don't know if they dropped it all the way to 540 (as with 2K 3D), because 720 is technically possible (2160 / 3)

 

This is troubling, because if it becomes a trend, it might bring back active in the minds of many.  :-/

 

It also raises a question that I still don't know the answer to.  Where is the FPR applied?  Is it on top of the LCD array but still underneath the facing glass?  I know the first implementations of passive were with PR (presumably by using the same filters already present in the LCD) but that was expensive.  An on-top film has vertical viewing angles issues.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brownriggd View Post

got back a reply from Sony engineering regarding the highly visible scan lines on the 55 inch models.

"These TVs are packing 4x the pixel density of a Full HD TV of the same size. This decreases the pitch (spacing) between each pixel creating a challenge when the retarder is placed on the LCD. The smaller the set gets the smaller the pitch becomes making this challenge even more difficult. As such, trade offs had to be made to optimize the picture quality of the 55” for 3D and those faint lines are a result of some of these trade offs. Without those faint lines we would be giving up a lot in terms of vertical viewing angle in 3D and crosstalk between the left and right eyes."

They describe the lines as faint but for me they were very visible and even more horrendous in 3D to the point it was like looking through a venetian blind with jagged edges and all. To be fair I'm hearing that some people are more sensitive to the lines than others, but definitely check out the set before buying.

I've traded up to the 65 incher and the picture is pristine and the 3D phenomenal...
post #3543 of 3670
BBC STARTS SHOOTING IN 4K

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1383735362

"UK’s BBC has started shooting in 4K resolution with a new six-part wildlife series. BBC says that “any high-end project will be shot in 4K from now on” using Red Epic cameras that can also shoot at high frame rates."
post #3544 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

BBC STARTS SHOOTING IN 4K

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1383735362

"UK’s BBC has started shooting in 4K resolution with a new six-part wildlife series. BBC says that “any high-end project will be shot in 4K from now on” using Red Epic cameras that can also shoot at high frame rates."

So this is 'true' 4K (2160x4080), as opposed to UHD (2160x3840)?
post #3545 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

So this is 'true' 4K (2160x4080), as opposed to UHD (2160x3840)?

3840 is 16:9, so that will be the finished output after edit, which is also the TV standard.

The 4K cinema standard of 4080 is just 240 horizontal pixels difference from 3840, something you wouldn't notice. Same picture widht in HD would be 120 pixel, which would be the proximate difference between 1.77:1 - 1.87:1 (and everything in-between) which are the various aspect ratios used in many movies.

Vertical picture count (2160) is the same for both format, so I don't see that all this stressing that 3840 "isn't 4K" that so many are complaining about is anything of importance.

The RED Epic-X cameras resolution when you use max sensor area is 5K (5120 x 2700). That is probably what they shoot at when they shoot regular framerate, because that enables them to reposition the framing in post.
Shooting higher framerates than 120fps for slow-mo crop the sensor
12 and 16-bit RAW: Compression choices of 18:1 to 3:1
1-120 fps 5K, 4.5K
1-150 fps 4K
1-200 fps 3K
1-300 fps 2K

The new RED Epic Dragon sensor is 6K 2:1 (6144 x 3160), which they probably use as soon as they get them.
12 and 16-bit RAW : Compression choices of 18:1 to 3:1
1-100 fps 6K
1-120 fps 5K, 4.5K 

1-150 fps 4K
1-200 fps 3K 

1-300 fps 2K

The writer of the article probably doesn't know much what she writes about when she writes;
"The Red Epic cameras can also shoot between 60 and 150 frames per second, which could result in an even bigger improvement in picture quality than going from Full HD to 4K pixel resolution."
Which we see isn't a fact, but they will not shoot at that framerate except for slow motion. The project framerate will be 25fps.

She also claims BBC told her;
"BBC says that the Red cameras can satisfy many of their needs for different speeds, locations, and activities, except for special effects shots."
What she means to relay is that when special cameras are needed for some effects shooting faster than 300fps, like shooting 1000fps or other special built cameras they will like they always have done use cameras specially built for that.

I bet the original statement from BBC was; "except for some special effects shots".

BBC have been shooting on 4K cameras for many years already both for dram and natural history, but they might not have used the 4K/5K files for edit.
Edited by coolscan - 11/6/13 at 9:16am
post #3546 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

So this is 'true' 4K (2160x4080), as opposed to UHD (2160x3840)?


3840 is 16:9, so that will be the finished output after edit, which is also the TV standard.
 

The 4K cinema standard of 4080 is just 240 horizontal pixels difference from 3840, something you wouldn't notice.

 

No, The DCI (Digital Cinema Initiatives) Consortium spec cinema standard was 4096, not 4080.

 

(PDF) DCI Spec v1.2

 

Quote:
4.3. Decoder Specification
4.3.1. Definitions
• A 2K distribution – the resolution of the DCDM*3 container is 2048x1080.
• A 4K distribution – the resolution of the DCDM*7 container is 4096x2160.
• A 2K decoder outputs up to 2048x1080 resolution data.
• A 4K decoder outputs up to 4096x2160 resolution data from a 4K compressed file and
outputs up to 2048x1080 resolution data from a 2K compressed file.
• All decoders shall decode both 2K and 4K distributions. It is the responsibility of the 4K
projector to upres the 2K file. In the case of a 2K decoder and a 4K distribution, the 2K
decoder need read only that data necessary to decode a 2K output from the 4K distribution.
The decoder (be it a 2K decoder or a 4K decoder) need not up-sample a 2K image to a 4K
projector or down-sample a 4K image to a 2K projector.
post #3547 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

3840 is 16:9, so that will be the finished output after edit, which is also the TV standard.

The 4K cinema standard of 4080 is just 240 horizontal pixels difference from 3840, something you wouldn't notice. Same picture widht in HD would be 120 pixel, which would be the proximate difference between 1.77:1 - 1.87:1 (and everything in-between) which are the various aspect ratios used in many movies.

Vertical picture count (2160) is the same for both format, so I don't see that all this stressing that 3840 "isn't 4K" that so many are complaining about is anything of importance.

The RED Epic-X cameras resolution when you use max sensor area is 5K (5120 x 2700). That is probably what they shoot at when they shoot regular framerate, because that enables them to reposition the framing in post.
Shooting higher framerates than 120fps for slow-mo crop the sensor
12 and 16-bit RAW: Compression choices of 18:1 to 3:1
1-120 fps 5K, 4.5K
1-150 fps 4K
1-200 fps 3K
1-300 fps 2K

The new RED Epic Dragon sensor is 6K 2:1 (6144 x 3160), which they probably use as soon as they get them.
12 and 16-bit RAW : Compression choices of 18:1 to 3:1
1-100 fps 6K
1-120 fps 5K, 4.5K 

1-150 fps 4K
1-200 fps 3K 

1-300 fps 2K

The writer of the article probably doesn't know much what she writes about when she writes;
"The Red Epic cameras can also shoot between 60 and 150 frames per second, which could result in an even bigger improvement in picture quality than going from Full HD to 4K pixel resolution."
Which we see isn't a fact, but they will not shoot at that framerate except for slow motion. The project framerate will be 25fps.

She also claims BBC told her;
"BBC says that the Red cameras can satisfy many of their needs for different speeds, locations, and activities, except for special effects shots."
What she means to relay is that when special cameras are needed for some effects shooting faster than 300fps, like shooting 1000fps or other special built cameras they will like they always have done use cameras specially built for that.

I bet the original statement from BBC was; "except for some special effects shots".

BBC have been shooting on 4K cameras for many years already both for dram and natural history, but they might not have used the 4K/5K files for edit.

So you're saying that the BBC's broadcast is 3840x2106; is that correct? I realize that this 16x9 pic is not much narrower than a 17x9 one (of the same height), but with my Sony 1000 and a pic height of 72", the 16x9 pic is 128"W while the 17x9 one is 136"W, and I prefer the latter.
post #3548 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

So you're saying that the BBC's broadcast is 3840x2106; is that correct? .
UHDTV1 TVs are 3840x2160 so if/when the BBC broadcast UHDTV1 that could be the resolution they use.
Unless, like they have done in the past, they picked a lower res standard smile.gif.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 11/6/13 at 11:22am
post #3549 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

No, The DCI (Digital Cinema Initiatives) Consortium spec cinema standard was 4096, not 4080.

(PDF) DCI Spec v1.2
Yeah, I was fooled a little there. I thought when I wrote the post that I should check that 4080 was correct, but promptly forgot about it. Memory laps, because I of course know that it is 4096. Embarrassment. redface.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

So you're saying that the BBC's broadcast is 3840x2106; is that correct? I realize that this 16x9 pic is not much narrower than a 17x9 one (of the same height), but with my Sony 1000 and a pic height of 72", the 16x9 pic is 128"W while the 17x9 one is 136"W, and I prefer the latter.

4096 x 2160 is the aspect ratio of 1.89:1.
3840 x 2160 is the aspect ratio of 1.77:1.

A movie presented in what is the "norm" aspect ratio of 1.85:1 (used by IMDb) will be 3996 on a 4K projector.
I have found (at least with DVD) that most "16:9" movies are 1.87:1 which will be 4039.

4K movies will like with 2K movies in the cinema always have variations in aspect ratios. Same goes for HT projectors and TVs. Often they over-scan or under-scan, leaving small black bars or cropping the image.
A 4K or 2K movie will not always use the whole with of the projector image chip.

And then in addition we have the most popular movies that have most viewers and they are by the "norm" 2.35:1 but are often made to 2.39:1 or 2.40:1.

My experience with projectors and DVD/BD is that aspect ratios fluctuate between all kind of films and programs.
With the launch of 4K, suddenly the difference between 4096 and 3840 becomes an issue when nobody has had issues with aspect ratio differences through the history of movies or SD and HD TV.............Strange.. confused.gif

.
Edited by coolscan - 11/6/13 at 1:49pm
post #3550 of 3670
Came to think about it, even if it slightly OT for this thread, that there are so many "nerdy brainiacks" here that can't get enough of technology and such, that many of you would find a description of the data management of a big feature movie. smile.gif

Michael Cioni of post house Lightiron recently made a video describing the latest in digital data management and workflow of the movie "Ender's Game", even if the movie didn't end up as a 4K movie even if it was shot in 5K.

Worth a look.

Light Iron takes you step by step through the progressive data management and color pipeline of Ender’s Game: http://vimeo.com/78581143

Blog; http://michaelcioni.tumblr.com
post #3551 of 3670
Dell already have the UltraSharp 32" 4K monitor with IGZO panels, which are the same Sharp panel as that also Asus has, but is expensive at $3499.

Dell today announces the new 4K UltraSharp 24 which has an IPS LED screen with Dell's PremierColor tech priced at $1399.

Dell also said that they will have a 4K Ultrasharp 28" early next year that will be even cheaper than the 24", and guesses are that it will cost $1000.
post #3552 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Dell already have the UltraSharp 32" 4K monitor with IGZO panels, which are the same Sharp panel as that also Asus has, but is expensive at $3499.

Dell today announces the new 4K UltraSharp 24 which has an IPS LED screen with Dell's PremierColor tech priced at $1399.

Dell also said that they will have a 4K Ultrasharp 28" early next year that will be even cheaper than the 24", and guesses are that it will cost $1000.

How great is this news for those of us that care? I mean this completely sincerely.

The $1000, 28" 4K monitor is a dream come true. I cannot wait.

(Incidentally, the $1400 24" is almost reasonably priced; it's just a bit too small. The 28" is a Goldilocks product in both size and cost.)
post #3553 of 3670
Forgot to mention that AUO has started manufacturing 27inch and 32inch 4K displays with wide color gamut, which got Mac owners to be all excited that they might be for Apple.

AUO is also company partner with Acer and BenQ, so I guess we will see those panels there too, in addition to all the tablets and phones that will have 4K screens next year, like from Samsung, Sony and Apple.
Would love to have had some of those 500ppi tablet/phone screens in larger sizes, like 30"? tongue.gif

All the Dell 4K monitors are matte, no glaring glass.
post #3554 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Forgot to mention that AUO has started manufacturing 27inch and 32inch 4K displays with wide color gamut, which got Mac owners to be all excited that they might be for Apple.

AUO is also company partner with Acer and BenQ, so I guess we will see those panels there too, in addition to all the tablets and phones that will have 4K screens next year, like from Samsung, Sony and Apple.
Would love to have had some of those 500ppi tablet/phone screens in larger sizes, like 30"? tongue.gif

All the Dell 4K monitors are matte, no glaring glass.

In fact the news was about 4K manufacturing by AUO starting in Q1 or Q2 of 2014. That in the worse case may mean availability of monitors in the fall 2014.

Having 32"@4K is more than enough which I judge from starring in my 27"@2560x1440. One wonders why the guys who are trying to impose 39" UHD TVs on people do not try to make computer monitors with those panels.

Having LCD desktop monitor with 500 ppi is absurdal. It is true that glossy magazine pages have much higher ppi but this is intimately related to their extreme contrast, color reproduction and reflective nature.
post #3555 of 3670
^ If you look at the buyer reviews of the 39 " 4k sets on Amazon, you will find that the vast majority are using them as PC monitors.
post #3556 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Forgot to mention that AUO has started manufacturing 27inch and 32inch 4K displays with wide color gamut, which got Mac owners to be all excited that they might be for Apple.

AUO is also company partner with Acer and BenQ, so I guess we will see those panels there too, in addition to all the tablets and phones that will have 4K screens next year, like from Samsung, Sony and Apple.
Would love to have had some of those 500ppi tablet/phone screens in larger sizes, like 30"? tongue.gif

All the Dell 4K monitors are matte, no glaring glass.

In fact the news was about 4K manufacturing by AUO starting in Q1 or Q2 of 2014. That in the worse case may mean availability of monitors in the fall 2014.

Having 32"@4K is more than enough which I judge from starring in my 27"@2560x1440. One wonders why the guys who are trying to impose 39" UHD TVs on people do not try to make computer monitors with those panels.


Having LCD desktop monitor with 500 ppi is absurdal. It is true that glossy magazine pages have much higher ppi but this is intimately related to their extreme contrast, color reproduction and reflective nature.

 

^That's where I lost you.  Where you referring to 8K desktop screen?

post #3557 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

^That's where I lost you.  Where you referring to 8K desktop screen?

Absolutely. But this was not standard monitor scenario. It was referring to gaming where hardcore gamers commonly
use rigs with 3 or even 6 displays. This is primitive solution just because there are no single displays for it. Single display
for such scenario would easily require 8K or even 12K pixels and a curved one would be ideal.

That said, I am not excluding the need for very high density displays if there is technology invented which will be able for exact
replication of glossy magazine paper. To look perfect, printed glassy magazine page has to have over 2000 ppi. But this is not
function of pixel density only, it combines superb contrast and color resolution. LCD is not able for it, maybe OLED at its future incarnation.
post #3558 of 3670
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

^That's where I lost you.  Where you referring to 8K desktop screen?

Absolutely. But this was not standard monitor scenario. It was referring to gaming where hardcore gamers commonly
use rigs with 3 or even 6 displays. This is primitive solution just because there are no single displays for it. Single display
for such scenario would easily require 8K or even 12K pixels and a curved one would be ideal.

 

Ok, gotcha.
 

Quote:
That said, I am not excluding the need for very high density displays if there is technology invented which will be able for exact
replication of glossy magazine paper. To look perfect, printed glassy magazine page has to have over 2000 ppi. But this is not
function of pixel density only, it combines superb contrast and color resolution. LCD is not able for it, maybe OLED at its future incarnation.


Slightly different issue though.  Printing involves a layered subtractive color model.  This ends up being implemented as overlapping halftones of CMYK.  These halftone screens are at differing angles.

 

 

Even if we wanted to, we cannot cluster subpixels together in a monitor's orientation on a page properly because registration errors would produce horrible beat frequencies.

 

The overlapping angled screens result in something colloquially called "rosettes",  which are these clusters of color that form from the beat frequencies of having overlapping angled screens (a form of aliasing).  These rosettes form what looks like a dramatically lower resolution than the pitch of each of the screens individually.

 

   

 

This means that the print resolution requirement is dramatically higher to achieve what you might consider "perfect" than you would need in a display where the primaries are regimented next to each other tightly in a predictable grid.

post #3559 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Having 32"@4K is more than enough which I judge from starring in my 27"@2560x1440. One wonders why the guys who are trying to impose 39" UHD TVs on people do not try to make computer monitors with those panels.
But you're only thinking of the resolution. 2560x1440 on a 27" panel is 108 PPI and designed for computer display at "100%" size.

When you start rendering at "Retina" quality (200%) you only have the workspace of a 1280x720 monitor.
4K on a 32" display is only 138 PPI - that's equivalent to a notebook display. The 11" non-retina MacBook Air is 135 PPI.

So 4K gives you a much bigger workspace, but does not really increase your resolution over current displays. Once you start rendering retina-quality graphics on it, it only has the effective workspace of 1920x1080.
We need 8K to get both the expanded workspace, and higher quality text and graphics. With 4K you only get one or the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Having LCD desktop monitor with 500 ppi is absurdal.
500 PPI is perhaps more than we need, but it's not as excessive as you might think. Around 400 PPI seems to be the sweet spot for displays. I picked up one of those new Retina iPad Minis with 325 PPI, and it's the first display I've seen where the pixels do not immediately make themselves obvious, and there's almost enough resolution to produce crisp text at normal sizes. With smaller text you still see the limitations of its resolution though - but that may be due to the fact that iOS does not use subpixel rendering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

It is true that glossy magazine pages have much higher ppi but this is intimately related to their extreme contrast, color reproduction and reflective nature.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, are you saying that magazines have "extreme contrast"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Forgot to mention that AUO has started manufacturing 27inch and 32inch 4K displays with wide color gamut, which got Mac owners to be all excited that they might be for Apple.
Apple won't want anything wide gamut. They do all their color calibration in the video card LUT rather than inside the display, and they don't have support for full color management in applications like Safari, so they really want sRGB displays.
post #3560 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

500 PPI is perhaps more than we need, but it's not as excessive as you might think. Around 400 PPI seems to be the sweet spot for displays. I picked up one of those new Retina iPad Minis with 325 PPI, and it's the first display I've seen where the pixels do not immediately make themselves obvious, and there's almost enough resolution to produce crisp text at normal sizes. With smaller text you still see the limitations of its resolution though - but that may be due to the fact that iOS does not use subpixel rendering.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, are you saying that magazines have "extreme contrast"?

So what is your VD from which you see the limitations of resolution your iPad? I mean, I can see pixels on my 27" when I am staring from 5" but this has nothing to do with normal viewing.

Glossy magazine paper has high reflectance and almost nonexisting dispersion. This makes white-black transitions very sharp (which I meant by high contrast) and is the reason why printing must
be high density, standard print at 300-400 ppi is immediately qualified as imperfect. Your color analysis is more about inkjet printers, glossy magazines print in much more sophisticated way.
post #3561 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Forgot to mention that AUO has started manufacturing 27inch and 32inch 4K displays with wide color gamut, which got Mac owners to be all excited that they might be for Apple.

Apple's current desktop monitor offering is laughably outmoded. It still lacks USB 3.0 for heaven's sake.
Quote:
All the Dell 4K monitors are matte, no glaring glass.

Another amazing plus for Dell. I look very forward to next year. It's finally almost time to get a great desktop monitor!
post #3562 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Apple's current desktop monitor offering is laughably outmoded. It still lacks USB 3.0 for heaven's sake.
Another amazing plus for Dell. I look very forward to next year. It's finally almost time to get a great desktop monitor!

Agreed. I have almost everyone in the company switched over to Dell Ultra Sharp 24's or larger. I just ordered 4 of the 27" models on Cyber Monday as I have moved quite a few employees to dual monitor setups, and some to triples. Minor light bleed in the lower right hand corner seems to be a pervasive issue though.

I look forward to trying out a Dell 4k.
post #3563 of 3670
post #3564 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Apple's current desktop monitor offering is laughably outmoded. It still lacks USB 3.0 for heaven's sake.
One could argue that everyone else's displays are lacking compared to Apple's offerings when they only offer 5GB/s USB3 compared to 20GB/s Thunderbolt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Another amazing plus for Dell. I look very forward to next year. It's finally almost time to get a great desktop monitor!
Don't think that the 28" model is going to be a great monitor. The 24" seems to be a high-end display, the 28" looks like it's going to be a "cheap" consumer version which will likely not have the same color gamut, factory calibration, and may even be an 8-bit panel.
That's only 183 PPI - roughly equivalent to the non-retina iPad mini. It's not even twice the pixel density of a standard PC monitor - 4K monitors should be 20" in size.
post #3565 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

In fact the news was about 4K manufacturing by AUO starting in Q1 or Q2 of 2014. That in the worse case may mean availability of monitors in the fall 2014.
I believe the reason this came up again now was that somebody found 27" and 32" 4K panels from AUO in supply on Panelook....................

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Apple's current desktop monitor offering is laughably outmoded. It still lacks USB 3.0 for heaven's sake.
.............and the reason for the excitements is like Rogo says (and of course possibility of Thunderbolt 2 etc.etc.).
Yeah, that's the Dell monitors announced yeasterday................as for pixel density satisfaction.......I don't know tongue.gif ...............24"~4K is just 183 PPI.............and when one sit almost with the nose on the screen editing small details in photos...............it is not that impressive.

A 24"~8K (7680 x 4320) monitor, which we all will have in some years time................is just 367 PPI..........which helps tongue.gif but ...................... is still low on PPI compared to the 5.4" at 543ppi (2560x1440) and a 6.2" (473ppi) screens Japan Display announced development of in October...................but it looks like the Chinese has gotten "one up" on the Japanese for an actual product this time, as there are rumors Vivo Xplay 3S will be announced December 12............with a 5.5" (2560 x 1440) ~ 534 PPI screen. cool.gif

A little bit of future musings............ wink.gif

I have said it before, and I say it again.......I think panel makers should stop thinking in terms of resolution and standardize on a pixel density.
If they can do higher than 500PPI on small panels now, they can for sure do it on large panels.

This might be even more important now when it seems like OLED printing is nearer to be solved.
To have printing nozzles printing different pixel size for different sizes panels can't be practical compared to a standardized size, particularly when printing on flexible plastics that might be cut into different sizes.

Standardized PPI might give camera makers an incentive to increase sensor resolution because there are displays available to display that high resolution, and we might at last see cameras with those 120 megapixel sensors Canon showed years ago.

I don't know where the point of diminishing returns in image quality is in relation to PPI, but I rather want it to go over the top than be just shy of maximum.
So I settle for 500-600 PPI for now, until somebody prove otherwise.

A 32" screen with 550PPI would yield 15360 x 8640 pixel resolution (same 4x step up as from 2K to 4K to 8K and then to 15K), and then they could use pixel doubling, pixel binning or some future development in up-conversion, depending on what they intended use are for the various displays.

Maybe the OLED printing method should forget they type of pattern they intend to use today and just print a Bayer Pattern, because most cameras that will provide the images that will be displayed use Bayer Pattern sensor anyway.
If Bayer Pattern is good in a capture camera, why should it not be good for displays?
post #3566 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Maybe the OLED printing method should forget they type of pattern they intend to use today and just print a Bayer Pattern, because most cameras that will provide the images that will be displayed use Bayer Pattern sensor anyway.
If Bayer Pattern is good in a capture camera, why should it not be good for displays?
No because it won't be full quality. And not all sources will be in a bayer pattern/the same one, and those that do could be shooting in a higher resolution than the TV resolution (eg. shooting at 5K, some could be/use CGI). Also it would be a problem if the display is used as a monitor where text wouldn't be as readable. Displays should be able to display in the maximum quality/resolution regardless of the type of camera used for particular productions.
post #3567 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post


If they can do higher than 500PPI on small panels now, they can for sure do it on large panels.

Yes, they can but it does not make sense. This of course does not mean it won't be done, rather it will. It is a blind race for the race sake with anouncements of 4K smartphone displays for 2015. At the same time lots people would be interested in wide field curved computer monitors substituting desktops cluttered with multiple displays. This is not done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post


Maybe the OLED printing method should forget they type of pattern they intend to use today and just print a Bayer Pattern, because most cameras that will provide the images that will be displayed use Bayer Pattern sensor anyway. If Bayer Pattern is good in a capture camera, why should it not be good for displays?

Bayer is good compromise for sensor but it would be counterproductive if not detrimental for displays. You should look how the image is produced using Bayer /hint: each Bayer subpixel is used twice to create image pixels/image pixels.
post #3568 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Your color analysis is more about inkjet printers, glossy magazines print in much more sophisticated way.

 

You responded to Chron with this, but he wasn't doing color analysis per se.  Were you partly addressing my post about screening resolution being lower than the device resolution?  Because I can assure you that magazines of any caliber are using halftone screening for images.

post #3569 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

No because it won't be full quality. And not all sources will be in a bayer pattern/the same one, and those that do could be shooting in a higher resolution than the TV resolution (eg. shooting at 5K, some could be/use CGI). Also it would be a problem if the display is used as a monitor where text wouldn't be as readable. Displays should be able to display in the maximum quality/resolution regardless of the type of camera used for particular productions.
It was more of a musing on the background that they have to use some kind of pattern for OLED, and up till now they have been experimenting with all kind of patterns for OLED, so to categorically say that Bayer Pattern (or one of the variations of Bayer, which are not really called Bayer where color filter array (CFA) would be more correct terminology) would be negativ isn't something I immediately will accept.

Here are some OLED patterns I stole from the OLED thread, just to show some variations vs. standard Bayer and Fujifilms "random Bayer".
Some demosaicing algorithms/interpretation algorithm have to be used in any way.
My idea was mostly based in that standard Bayer pattern is still the most popular by camera manufacturers.




Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Bayer is good compromise for sensor but it would be counterproductive if not detrimental for displays. You should look how the image is produced using Bayer /hint: each Bayer subpixel is used twice to create image pixels/image pixels.
Not completely accurate, but let's not start a discussion about how Bayer pattern functions. wink.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

At the same time lots people would be interested in wide field curved computer monitors substituting desktops cluttered with multiple displays. This is not done.

Like one wide OLED screen rolled out and attached to a curved frame that would be a substitute this arrangement;




Remote flight control serving several small airports via video cameras.
Edited by coolscan - 12/4/13 at 8:41am
post #3570 of 3670
^No such exotic examples needed, just stock traders with couple of monitors at their desks.
Reproducing Bayer sensor pattern in a display with aim of showing 'better' pictures is wrong
idea unless one would have direct access to subpixels from Bayer which is not available (raw
format is already converted). Or maybe it is available in some superprofessional devices.
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?