4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 17

The extremetech article I posted showed, in their small sample, 2 1/2 greater brightness for passive, and far less crosstalk. Simpler is better, particularly when the results are better. And as many of us have said, 4K will bring out its potential.

4K invites sitting closer, with greater immersion, and presence as the NHK researchers put it. The rationale for Sony's article, and the NHK article it cited, is the benefit of 4K both for theatrical and home viewing. Thank you for pointing out the hollowness of the argument that real 4K immersion is not the goal of the casual viewer. The people on this forum who are interested in this technology...and videophiles everywhere...are not interested in watching on 40 inch screens.

And, as you've cited, people who have actually seen 4K displays can see the difference, which should be given greater weight than hairsplitting, theoretical argumentation. But I know you, and some others on this thread, know this.

Would be good to know about the sources and test conditions Sharp used. Meaning that e.g. they upconverted 2K to 4K but what they did to simulate the 2K on 4K, replicated pixels, blurred it??? The real test would be side-by-side 2K and 4K otherwise identical displays

You don't have to sit closer. Your room size will constraint this if you believe huge TV is essential for 4K. And aesthetically people tend to sit around 10' from their TV.

The major psychologicall obstacle is people getting used to the idea of huge TV on one wall. I suspect that's not an issue by the end of this decade, and probably not even an issue to consider in a chinese household

You demand extreme impossible for now. Squeezing 4K into monitor which is smaller than 2K monitors people currently use (23-27") looks nonsensical since one would have to change to smaller real estate and that would be absolutely detrimental visually. And if you take the current size of 2K, say 23", the equivalent pizel density 4K would be 46". What I am saying is to get for 4K a monitor which is slightly bigger than the current biggest 30"@2560x1440, let's say 34". This is reasonable compromise between the increase in pixel density, 4K and size. Surely something like the 5120x3200 would be even better but for now even the 4K is the ultimate.


So how far this absurdity extends? For example: Why bother with the 1080, just remain at 480 plus upconversion since PQ will be better?


Current displays have considerable headroom in light output soe there is no problem in compensating the drop. Besides, watching 3D when there are visual cues from the environment is sure recipe for problems since there are two conflicting 3D info flows. This is one reason why people report: I do not have headaches/eyestrain when watching 3D in the cinema but home 3D is terrible for me. It should be thus clearly discouraged, there is no other way of healthy watching 3D than by switching off environmental cues as much as possible which means in practice dark rooms.


Problems with the display rate are minimal when you can have 240+ Hz sets.
The price of passive is interlacing which creates artefacts. People report seeing them clearly in 2K, it remains to be seen how serious they are at 4K. Progress in active is so quick I expect this or next year its problems will be non-issue.


What I mean is that 4K is promoted like a Second Coming with nowhere being told that it applies to very specific viewing conditions.


Discussion of retina displays is not relevant to TV. Such displays are used in viewing conditions resembling reading (glossy) magazines. For your information, print in glossy magazines has up to 2400 PPI since only then it looks perfect when the eye is focusing on it from closest distance possible in a static, long-time inspection, viewing condition. The retina display has thus much sense in such viewing condition trying to simulate print but still being far from glossy magazines. But this has nothing to do with the TV viewing scenario.


Full agreement here. If one imagines wall-paper like displays covering whole wall (and doubling as a heating system ) than 4K is even not enough. This is why the Japanese are developing 8K which looks better matched to such conditions. But if you start from the typical 10´ distance and use the 3-4PH condition you can see that up to around 100" display size the 2K is enough. Especially if compression effects are included.

4K on a 30" monitor would give you 50% less workspace than current 30" displays. It's not going to happen.

Apple requires pixel doubling (200%) with high DPI displays.
Windows 8 requires 140% and 180% support for Metro apps.
Desktop apps scale horribly and 200% is the only real option for them.



No-one is saying upscaled 1080p content is as good as native 4K content. They're saying it's better than displaying 1080p content natively on a 1080p display.

So even without 4K native content (which is coming) you still have better image quality than a 1080p display.


I have a 480Hz active shutter 3DTV, this is not true at all.

And I've yet to see an active-shutter display that doesn't drop the bit-depth and drop image quality significantly when running in 3Dyet another issue passive 3D avoids.


Aliasing is a massive problem on 1080p displays because you are only displaying half half the resolution of the source. On a 4K display, you get the full 1080p resolution.

It will not eliminate the interlacing, but will eliminate the drop to 540 lines of resolution per eye, which is by far the biggest problem.

Well not all active 3D is 1080P anyway...

http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-tele...eed-a1467.html

The world is not binary. It's not either this or that. On the other hand I grew up in an analogue world so maybe that's why you don't get it:

480< 480 upscale < 1080 < 1080 upscale < 4K

And you're still talking about print after our discussion that print and video are different. Like our discussion why motherglass size is not the key to price down.

You just don't change your view but keep reiterating like some photocopy machine. That's why sometimes I don't respond anymore. I'm a kuro owner and in all honesty I believe plasma is the better tech structurally for motion pictures. But when Panny closes its P5 I know the war for plasma is lost no matter that plasma sales were up in 2011. My view change when facts change.

You mix requirements for tablets and phones with monitors. Notice they are different.


Who did proper tests for this? Proper= side-by-side 2K and 4K displays otherwise identical with PQ-optimized 1080p content @3-4PH viewing?


That sounds odd, it would have to investigated. Flickering with 480 Hz is impossible. Bit-depth dropping and PQ down sound imaginative.


Right, it remains to be seen what is the impact of this 3D interlacing in 4K. Getting 4K passive for 3D is overdone if the same is obtained with 2K and active.


Some people were rightly caught cutting corners on their cheaper sets, all better sets are 1080p so no problem. Buying cheapio set for 3D sounds odd anyway: logic tells that one should get best possible 2D be4 moving to 3D.
3D will make so-so 2D PQ worse not better.

I'm not mixing anything. Mac OS X Lion does pixel doubling with high DPI displays, so does iOS.

Metro on Windows 8 is not just for tablets, and the requirements there are 140/180%. (I find it very odd that Microsoft went with 140/180 rather than 150/200, or just 200) However, anything on the desktop will look crap unless you pixel double (200%) because almost nothing is currently written to properly support 140/180% or arbitrary scaling.

So with a 30" 4K display, you only have the workspace of a 1080p monitor, far less than a current 30" monitor offers.

If you're not going to use DPI scaling, then the screen needs to be 37-42" in size, to reduce the pixel density down into the 120-105 PPI range more in line with current monitors. This will give you a lot of extra workspace, but no improvement to text or image quality over current displays.


It's clearly not impossible if I'm seeing it on my display. All forms of active shutter 3D flicker.


This is clearly visible on any active shutter display that I have seen, including my own set.



Interlacing or not, passive 3D on a 4K display is going to be far better than active shutter 3D on any display.

That is good to hear. I have not found much info about the ICC-4K Sharp panel that I thought would get much more press. Just a short blurb about it being marketed to the professional segment. I believe the ICC reality engine recreates the picture of 1080p redefining the focal length giving a 2d video a greater sense of depth. I still think we will see 4K hit the masses quicker than OLED can reduce cost to competitive levels. It would be great if you have any extra info on pricing or pics.

Did anyone attending CES see the Sharp 8K Super Hi-Vision LCD?





This is what Engadget had to say about it;


Just want to note; this is a prototype TV and the images are filmed with a prototype 8K CMOS camera.
To get full quality for an 8K moving image the capture ought to be done on a much higher resolution sensor like 9K or 10K, the same way high quality 4K material is captured on 15-20MP (5-6K) sensors and down-sampled.

If they build it, we will buy it, (or at least i will!)



.

Strange, I've been crawling forums for quite awhile now and i've never heard that, once. I on the other hand can game for almost 12 hours in a day in 3D, active 3D, without any discomfort what....so......ever. Perhaps you could provide a link to ONE of these obviously numerous references?


The reviews will trounce them if thats the case right?

Rogo, was that sharp demo at CES? How much better do you think 4K is compared to 1080p BD for home viewing? Night and day?

While i know 4K will make some type of difference, i don't think its going to be clear cut like DVD to bluray.

Man people at ces are lucky they get to see these 4K and 8K displays. I would love to see one.

Yeah for real. I'd love to see an 8K display considering we're probably 10-15 years away from having a commercial-ready product and content (the bandwidth required for 8K TV will essentially require replacing the entire broadband infrastructure of the US, unless you have fiber).

I picked your post as the one to reply to, but my reply will also cover irkuck's questions.

The demo uses a 2011 Sharp TV showing 1080i60 next to a 2012 prototype 4k Sharp TV fed the exact same source upscaled to 4k using the I-cubed technology. It has some slow-moving video and some still frames.

It's not like going from DVD to BluRay because honestly, the resolution difference is simply not as big and because BluRay puts out a beautiful picture. And it's worth noting, that the more motion in the picture, the less impressive this is going to be as a technology in all likelihood (at least in the near term).

But with light motion and backdrops and whatnot, the difference is stark and impressive. It's so impressive that the 1080 image starts look soft, blurry, un-detailed in comparison. It "lacks depth", it fails to deliver the richness of the patterns on clothing, the detail in buildings, the richness in art.

The demo is so impressive, you feel like it has to be "cooked" or fake somehow. I believe it was genuine; I'm not suggesting otherwise.

As I've long stated here, the technology to make 4k panels is trivial. My laptop (and probably yours) has far higher ppi than anyone's TV. Sharp apparently agrees with this to at least some extent. They expect to deliver 4k TVs this year in what will probably be 60, 70, and 80-inch sizes. There are details to be worked out around timing and exactly what features More on this later.

I don't believe anyone else will commercialize 4k technology anytime particularly soon, at least not in anything remotely affordable or for that matter even available (for example, if LG makes a 4k 84" display it will be neither affordable nor available). More on this later, too.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion about whether or not this technology is useful or necessary, but I am more convinced than ever that even absent improved sources, there is picture quality gain to be achieved. Anyone seeing the Sharp demo and disagreeing with that is probably blind or simply utterly undiscerning.

and to think that the difference is that much when not even using a true 4k source.

Just to add:

As been said many times, 4k LCD TV manufacturing is not an issue. High density PPI is. That's why making 4k on a 10" is much more difficult than on a TV. Taiwanese can't do retina iPad, but they can do 4k TV.

If the premise, as discussed here, is 4K is only feasible on huge TV, no price for guessing why Sharp is doing the 4K charge.

Now for the 4K TV is useless argument...

If higher resolution really made no impact, like some here suggest using that movie theater support. Then why do people with no history of motion sickness, suddenly reporting feeling queasy because the 8K looked so real their heads could not separate it from reality. Yet, the same material on a 1080p monitor yields no such response. Whether perceived or sub-conscious, there is definitely an improvement of detail.

I can't answer your question. It was crystal clear to me that the 4k made a difference. And, yes, the 8K demo was better still.

There are simply things that are possible with more resolution that were impossible with less.

I get that we need sources to fully realize the benefit, but a drum I was beating way back here I will continue to beat: Even without them, we can benefit.

Someone above asked about pricing and availability. Normally I like to speculate but when I talk to enough people to learn that Sharp has neither finalized which sizes and when, it's hard to begin to guess on price. There are also feature considerations to think about that have to be resolved.

I do believe they will ship 4k in 2012 and that it will ramp faster than OLED. But a big however is this: I don't believe that a lot of 4k will make it into the marketplace anytime soon (units-wise) and I'm not convinced Samsung and LG are going to spend much more time on LCD at all. That's not to say they won't do 4k LCD (I suspect they will). But I doubt they are going to go all in with it. They appear content to cede the vast vast majority of the 60" and up market almost entirely to Sharp, regardless of resolution. Their push into an OLED tech that will be size capped below 60" for a while just enhances that.

This effect is well-known and appears when (very) high res&PQ is combined with activation of peripheral vision. Meaning in practice the display covers at least 60deg of visual field. Which implies viewing distance 2PH or less. But this viewing distance has nothing to do with the standard TV viewing scenario.

Thus, to clarify once again: for standard TV viewing scenario more than 2K makes no sense especially if compression is taken into account.

In turn, more than 2K - 4K, 8K make much sense for other viewing scenarios like immersive, wall size, or computer monitor. I am first in line for buying 4K computer monitor @decent size with price below stratosphere (and Himalaya) .

And yet I've seen evidence to the contrary. It must be my imagination.

We would need to know the type and how the content used in the demo was prepared and about the viewing conditions. For example: original (almost ) no-compression 4K content was shown on one side of the display. On the other side was the the same content downconverted to 2K and shown. Now the crucial point is how the content was downconverted and displayed. Or opposite: original content was 2K. It was upconverted to 4K and shown on one side. On the other side the same content was shown simulating 2K display. What was the upconversion and 2K display simulation? Without knowing this your statement has value aprroaching zero. In practice tricks are at play to show how much better is one thing over the other. So the 2K is getting more blur and 4K is cranked up by some reality engines. This can be done both ways: showing upconverted 2K better than original 4K if somebody shows how good is his upconversion or how bad is 2K vs. 4K is somebody intends to prove this.

Irkuck

The content was 1080i60 on both displays.

Same content, with an HDMI splitter.

The 4k display upconverts it and used the I-cubed engined to do whatever magic it does (Sharp claims it makes things look like the the eye is supposed to see them).

That's the demo. No downconversion of any kind is being used. And by the way, I've already addressed these points elsewhere.

The video is low in motion -- high motion would make it harder to tell because honestly that's also been the case and will make marketing this stuff that much more challenging -- and you can clearly, plain as day, see how much better the upconverted material (all conversions performed by the TV) looks.

There is no external upconversion. No separate sources. Original 1080 material.

This basically rules out every one of your objections. Thus you now have two choices:

1) Accept that it's really better
2) Decide that only the chip is making it better and not the extra pixels

I rule out (2) because there is specific detail visible on the 4k display that has become impossible to see on the 2k side. It must be in the source and the TV can theoretically resolve the source, yet there we are, missing the detail.

After the demo, I have decided 1080 looks mushy. It's good enough mushy for my current viewing. But longer term, it will be no more adequate than DVD.

I do not care about 1080i60 upscaled on a 4K TV next to 1080i60 on a 1080p TV .


Once you own a 4K TV 4K will be the standard everything else will be a bit of a disappointment

Ah, both displays? So what were the displays used? Second, the source was 1080 but what source, compressed source? What kind of detail you could see on 4K and not on 2K? What was the viewing distance? Another possible trick: Original content is intentionally blurred with known algorithm, then the 4K is optimally deblurred and upconverted with edge enhancement to improve subjective quality. You see, those reality engines can really squeeze out much from pics.


In practice everything you watch is heavily compressed. It will be even more compressed with 4K. The DVD is from another era, don't expect similar PQ jump is possible from BR to 4K unless compression of 4K is reduced which is doubtful.

FWIW,
4K passive 3D > OLED

http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-tele...tv-n22868.html

This is why i don't like when companies do comparisons to show off their product. Theres always some BS going on.

Pioneer did it with their own display. It was the 8g kuro vs 9g. The 8g's blacks were were extremely washed out. Everyone knows thats not true. But to show off the 9g they had to exaggerate. Sharp and pioneer did this very samething again with the 9g vs the sharp elite. The had the kuro in a bright as day room knowing damn well light washes out plasmas blacks. But only a fool would believe that comparison anyway.

Sony did the samething with their XMB8 vs kuro.


Your going to be saying the samething about 4K when 8K is available. etc, etc.

Really though. I believe your thoughts on 4K, i guess im still skeptical on the PQ leap it will offer. Like i said im sure it will look better, but im not expecting a jaw dropping difference. Was this live video you saw? What about film?

Take a movie like Transformers 3. The PQ is basically one of the best BD has to offer. I don't see how 4K will make this look any better? Its movies like that make me laugh at the "bluray looks likes DVD compared to 4K" comment another individual said about viewing 4K on 50" screen.

Besides the resolution increase, did you notice better color depth? I've heard 4K is going to have an improved bit depth?

At the end of the day, rogo. Im just not ready to change out my equipment again in a few years. Which im sure is one of the main big reasons some are not falling for 4K yet.

XBR8,
actually the XBR8 came very close according to CNET so there was no need to do a thing like that
http://reviews.cnet.com/4505-6482_7-...ml#reviewPage1

"Really though. I believe your thoughts on 4K, i guess im still skeptical on the PQ leap it will offer. Like i said im sure it will look better, but im not expecting a jaw dropping difference."

Neither am I, but it will be better, it will be noticeable, it will facilitate full-resolution passive 3-D, and it's a good thing. Bring it on.