4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 14

What is the viewing distance at which you see 'clearer' pics? Then there is a bag of issues concerning display resolution and preparation and compression of source material.

Might it be because 4k videos use original bitrate while 1080p is limited to 3500mbps? 3500mbps isn't too much to spread around a 1080p resolution.

2011 was the 1st year in history when the number of TV sales decrease from the previous year.

The trend is increasing PCs, and decreasing traditional TV use. It stands to reason that CG content is also increasing

Personnally, 99% of my 2560x1600 monitor use is for gaming at the native res....I rarely watch movies on it.

I would love to replace it with a 4K display

Yeah, I discussed this on another forum, but YouTube conflates "resolution" settings with bitrate, encode quality, etc. It's impossible to use YouTube's nominal resolution setting to determine what you are seeing unfortunately.

Just wait till prices will fall from the ionosphere

Though to play games natively in 4K a very serious iron would be needed....

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.

There already has been much larger and cheaper 4K displays than that. Even the Sony 4K projector can be had for 20-25K street. The Toshiba ZL2 55" is streeting for around 9K in Japan, but is not even full array. Once mass produced it should not add a huge amount to the final cost. I expect 60" 4K set to debut around 4-5,000 by early 2013.

1080p on youtube is limited to 3500 megabits a second?
Considering 1080p24 on Blu-ray is limited to around 40-60 megabits a second, I don't think that youtube limitation is too much of a limitation. Or do you mean 3500 Kbps?

Hardy har har, har har. Yes, I meant kbps.

Youtube also allows 1080p 6000 Kbps videos - it doesn't seem limited to 3500 kbps.

You missed this particular talk was about computer monitors. Size is then limited to ~35", Eizo monitor has 36".

I still maintain 4K TV makes no sense. It is just a gimmick to force poor consumers into inferiority complex of having "just" 2K and drive the replacement to 4K. Starts from Japan of course.

In turn the 4K computer monitors make big sense, they are kind of necessity in the era of high-res digital photography and screens packed with details. The Eizo 4K monitor is the first good step into 4K but its $30K price is only for those who may strike oil billions by looking at sharper pics or binladens searching agencies. I wonder how the $30K is possible at all. Looks like Eizo had to order several hundred pieces of custom build 4K panels. That however is still unexplicable in the light of 3K 10" tablet panels entering now production .
Anyway, from here the only direction of prices is big south .

It must've been a recent change, like within the last couple of months or so, because for the longest time the most quality I could squeeze out of youtube was at 3500kbps, and other sites agreed with those numbers as well. I used to spend countless hours uploading different videos at different bitrates to see at what settings youtube gave me the maximum quality.

I just did a small test right now and it does seem like 6000 gives me better quality than 3500. Good to know for future uploads. Now I just need to test out 720p when I get the chance.

You are wrong. You can plug your computer into the $9,000 55" Toshiba ZL2 4K and make it your "computer monitor". Chemei has a 46" available for OEM applications and Sharp and Sony will be showing 60" 4K direct view sets at CES.

Today I saw this youtube Help page http://support.google.com/youtube/bi...&page=guide.cs and it says:

OT but their bit about encoding at 854x480 looks wrong for 16:9 ratio, since 480*(16/9)=853.333 - closer to 853 than 854.

On this page it says it supports even higher:
http://support.google.com/youtube/bi...&page=guide.cs

One can take 4K projector and make 200" computer monitor. By computer monitor one understands something which fits on a (reasonable size )desktop and it gives intimacy of single person use. The viewing distance is about 1H and the height of the display such that one does need to raise the head up. It looks 40" is maximum for this. The only currently available device satisfying this is Eizo 36"@4K.

LOL... no. It's maybe 30% AS FAST as a GTX 580.

Can you explain to my wife why this is absolutely essential?

Apple is now rumored to be moving the Macbook Pros to "retina display" resolution next year. The source is DigiTimes -- which is generally wrong -- but the rumor is plausible enough.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...n_q2_2012.html

On one hand, it's very exciting if this is true, on the other hand it will be very disappointing if they're moving to 2880x1800 screens rather than 3360x2100.

The screen will be gorgeous, but 1440x900 does not offer enough real-estate for a 15" laptop. (OSX's HiDPI mode simply doubles the size of everything, so a 2880x1800 screen would be equivalent to that)

The point is not about plugging-in. It is ´bout the viewing scenario. For computer monitor it is the device located on a kind of desktop and viewed from a distance of ~1H. This puts limitations on size if you think about it.


That was in response that any display connected to PC becomes computer monitor. Indeed, it becomes wrt to to the content shown but we are talking about the computer monitor viewing scenario.

I have found that explaining it in terms of expensive jewelry helps. Seems that gold and diamonds seem to help my wife understand better

I just factor it into the cost of the item. Worked great with my new XPA-5 Emotiva Amp !

Just remember, "happy wife, happy life"

Lee

"Dear, it's an excellent way to reduce eye strain. Think of the money we can save on visits to the eye doctor and new glasses". At this time your current monitor starts to develop problems due to the the errors you make in recalibrating it. Of course, you don't mention the recal to wife.

Irkuck, see the responses below yours... They understood my poor attempt at humor.

Yeah, convincing wifis that 4K TV is absolutely necessary will be easier if the tech will be not be named '4K' but 'GoldDiamondTV' .

More evidence Apple is going to make UltraHD a priority. It might not be quite 4K resolution, but they are getting closer all the time.

http://gizmodo.com/5870268/ultra+hig...coming-to-macs

2880 x 1800 resolution on a 15" screen. That is going to look insanely sharp.

I don't get it, dont you all factor the gold and jewelry into the cost, kind of like a shipping charge? My new Emotiva XPA-5 had a final cost of $1369 which is $769 for the amp and the balance for the gold/diamond processing "fee"l

Looks like LG, according to this Korean website, is going to be the first manufacturer to mass-produce 84" TV's, and they will be 4K resolution.

Price-point somewhere between $8-10K, for release in may 2012.

Expect to see this at CES in January, together with 4K displays from Toshiba and Sharp.

Maybe someone can verify the Korean info better than Google Translate, via; http://translate.google.com/translat...3D%26sID%3D300

Original Korean link; http://news.mk.co.kr/v3/view.php?sc=...dcode=&sID=300

I think that is just very limited production or more vaporware from LG. I expect to see the same vaporware from Samsung. The only ones I would take seriously would be Sharp, who have proven they can cheaply mass produce large panels. I think it will be late 2013 until all the others can catch up.

Exactly. LG and "mass manufacture" of some unprecedented size has about as much likelihood of coming to fruition as the gravity-defying porcine.