AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › 4K… I have Seen The Light
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

4K… I have Seen The Light - Page 13

post #361 of 557
11/4/12 at 10:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

If it's still an LCD display at the end, .....I just can't seem to get worked up about it. 2K/HD for me until the *real* LED variants drop.
What is *real* LED variants? confused.gif

Hook the RedRay player up to the Sony vw1000 and you have a 4K delivery option for that projector.
If current prices in China for 4K LCD TV's are any indicator, they sell for $4000 for a 65". Would be strange if non of those appeared in the west, or one could buy them from China. wink.gif

http://s.taobao.com/search?q=Hisense%2F%BA%A3%D0%C5+LED65XT880G3D+65&searcy_type=item&s_from=newHeader&source=&ssid=s5-e&search=y&initiative_id=itemz_20121031
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #362 of 557
11/4/12 at 1:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

What is *real* LED variants? confused.gif
He's probably talking about things like OLED or Sony's "Crystal LED" - ie. screens that don't use an LCD screen with a LED back-lights.
Reply
Reply
post #363 of 557
11/4/12 at 6:10pm
Sorry for repost, but it's been two weeks and I'd really like to hear your opinion on this:

Here's a quote:
Quote:
Doubling the resolution of an image isn't as simple as just having twice as many pixels. In fact doubling the resolution of an image requires four times as many pixels (...) This is the square law in action.
(...)
To double the resolution of a one-megapixel camera, we have to go to four-megapixels -- not two-megapixels. To double the resolution of a three-megapixel camera we have to go to twelve megapixels. To double the resolution of a four-megapixel camera, we'd have to go to no less than sixteen-megapixels.
(...)
This means that, to havec DOUBLE the resolution, you have to FOUR TIMES the number of pixels.
- John Henshall, epi-centre.com

Yes, same image with twice as many pixels will contain twice as much information but in terms of actual clarity - because image is two dimensional, can't we say that new iPad has double clarity compared to previous iPad? Same goes with 1080p and 2160p.
Two dimensional object requires four times as much information, three dimensional object requires eight times as much information.

Pure pixel count is not the same as clarity.
Quote:
Small differences in pixel count, between say 5 MP and 8MP, are unimportant because pixel counts are a square function. It's exactly like calculating area or square footage. It only takes a 40% increase in linear dimensions to double the pixel count! Doubling pixel count only increases the real, linear resolution by 40%, which is pretty much invisible.
(...)
One needs at least a doubling of linear [in two directions] resolution or film size to make an obvious improvement. This is the same as quadrupling the megapixels.
- Ken Rockwell, kenrockwell.com
Quote:
Theory predicts there is little resolution difference between a 6 and 8 megapixel camera. To double resolution all other things being equal requires that the pixel count be increased four times as both vertical and horizontal dimensions need to be doubled.
- Ken Newcombe, kennewcombe.com
Quote:
...broadcast television resolution properly refers to the pixel density, the number of pixels per unit distance or area, not total number of pixels. In digital measurement, the display resolution would be given in pixels per inch.
- Wikipedia "Display resolution" article, editor unknown
Quote:
Report says iPad 3 display has double linear resolution (headline)
(...) The iPad 2 display is already impressive and so just imagine what we might see with double the clarity!
- Mark Chubb, phonesreview.co.uk
Quote:
[New iPad] will have a screen that's twice as sharp as the current iPad, according to some icons hidden in the iBooks application. MacRumors found the icons, and says the resolution on the next iPad will likely be 2048x1546, which is a doubling of the current iPad's resolution.
- Jay Yarow, businessinsider.com
Quote:
...the lil’ MacBook boasts a stunning 2560 x 1600-pixel display that’s twice as sharp as its non-retina brethren [1280x800].
- Editorial of thedaily.com
Quote:
...necessary to double the resolution and therefore quadruple the number of pixels?
- Raymond Soneira, displaymate.com
Quote:
With an eye-grabbing 2048- by-1536 pixel resolution at 264 pixels per inch, the new iPad's screen has twice the resolution and four times the number of pixels as its predecessor.
- Jeff Bertolucci, informationweek.com
Quote:
(talking about 3rd generation iPad) ...Twice the resolution and four times the pixels...
- Andrew Eisner, retrevo.com

Edited by Randomoneh - 11/25/12 at 5:07pm
Reply
Reply
post #364 of 557
11/4/12 at 6:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

What is *real* LED variants? confused.gif

Displays using the LED's themselves to draw the picture, like OLED and Sony Crystal LED. No pesky LCD hokiness in the way. Actually, I don't mean to bad-mouth any particular technology that forms a steppingstone to another. It was a critical development with a large divergent number of implementations for decades, but for television displays it seems a little like a great idea stretched a little too far.
Reply
Reply
post #365 of 557
11/4/12 at 6:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

He's probably talking about things like OLED or Sony's "Crystal LED" - ie. screens that don't use an LCD screen with a LED back-lights.

What he said. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #366 of 557
11/5/12 at 4:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

Sorry for repost, but it's been two weeks and I'd really like to hear your opinion on this:
Here's a quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Doubling the resolution of an image isn't as simple as just having twice as many pixels. In fact doubling the resolution of an image requires four times as many pixels
I mostly agree. Even the EBU news section says "4x the detail" (when they mean 4x the total pixel count) and "16x the resolution" (for 16x pixel count)
http://tech.ebu.ch/Jahia/site/tech/cache/offonce/news/uhdtv-closer-at-nab-11apr11

They should really be more specific.
If it was an advert (or a news article really) saying "4x the clarity" etc. they're really being misleading.

I suppose for "4x the resolution" and "4x the detail" it depends on the exact definition of "resolution" and "detail".

eg. detail 1. An individual part or item;

eg. if on screen one I could identify x objects, but with a screen with 4x the pixels I could identify 4 times the number of objects, would that be 4x the detail or 2x the detail?

A 3840x2160 display could show 4x as many 2 dimensional "blocks" (individual items - a definition of detail) as a 1920x1080 display.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 11/5/12 at 7:24am
Reply
Reply
post #367 of 557
11/5/12 at 8:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

I mostly agree. Even the EBU news section says "4x the detail" (when they mean 4x the total pixel count) and "16x the resolution" (for 16x pixel count)
http://tech.ebu.ch/Jahia/site/tech/cache/offonce/news/uhdtv-closer-at-nab-11apr11
They should really be more specific.
If it was an advert (or a news article really) saying "4x the clarity" etc. they're really being misleading.
I suppose for "4x the resolution" and "4x the detail" it depends on the exact definition of "resolution" and "detail".
eg. detail 1. An individual part or item;
eg. if on screen one I could identify x objects, but with a screen with 4x the pixels I could identify 4 times the number of objects, would that be 4x the detail or 2x the detail?
A 3840x2160 display could show 4x as many 2 dimensional "blocks" (individual items - a definition of detail) as a 1920x1080 display.

Imagine drawing anything---a tree for instance. Going from a 100x100 display to a 200x100 display: the "ability to resolve" (which is what "resolution" meant before DPI hijacked it :-P ) is doubled. Therefore 100x100 to 200x200 is 4 times the resolution, as irking as it may seem. I tend to say "double the resolution in each direction", or "double the DPI in each direction".


Note: HOWEVER, we are a country of common-usage which always seems to trump technological terms these days.
Reply
Reply
post #368 of 557
11/5/12 at 3:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Imagine drawing anything---a tree for instance. Going from a 100x100 display to a 200x100 display: the "ability to resolve" (which is what "resolution" meant before DPI hijacked it :-P ) is doubled.
But it isn't. Double the number of pixels and keep the same aspect ratio. 141x141 pixels vs. 100x100 pixels. 141x141 has (square root of (pixel count of higher res image/pixel count of lower res image) = square root of (19881/10000) = 41% higher quality than 100x100 image (compared to 100% for 200x200 image).
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

"double the DPI in each direction"
Each direction implies.
Reply
Reply
post #369 of 557
11/5/12 at 5:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

But it isn't. Double the number of pixels and keep the same aspect ratio on output.
I was keeping the same aspect ratio for the device. I should have been more clear perhaps, but ultimately when talking comparative clarity we are talking about differences from screens of the same size after all.

Given the same size output device, (pick one: 6 inch x 6 inch---doesn't matter)----move from 100x100 to 200x100. You now have double the ability to resolve. Precisely TWICE as much information is discernible now within the same space.

We're actually arguing semantics because it all depends upon the terms we're using. If when I say "double the ability to resolve" you want me to mean "double the ability to resolve in both directions" then fine. That's the definition of the term you want. But it isn't about math, and it isn't about anything to do with the eye.
Reply
Reply
post #370 of 557
11/16/12 at 7:27pm
I walked into a Sony store recently, sat down in front of a big display and thought "Hmm...what's this? Looks like a big plasma (looked more plasma image than LCD to me). Then I noticed the demo playing and saw the sign. Holy cow!
This is that Sony 84" 4K display, showing 4K content! Great. I'd been really interested in seeing such a display and getting a gander at 4K.

It turned out to be something of a disappointment. I didn't get that "wow"moment of increased clarity that I was hoping for. For many of the shots nothing stood out much as distinguishing it from a decent 1080p image I see on most flat panels. Then there would be some wide shots, overheads of beaches, towns etc, and then I could see "Yeah, that IS resolving information that even 1080p isn't going to do." But even though I could sometimes appreciate more detail, the image wasn't actually any more sharp looking (sharp as in "resolved in a more realistically sharp" fashion, not artificial). For instance, I'd look from the screen to "real objects" in the room, and out into the distance in the mall, and reality was significantly sharper and more clear looking. I'd hoped that 4K would be a distinct step toward real life clarity, but not in this demo. I have the JVC RS55 "4k-lite" projector at home and frankly in terms of *apparent* detail and clarity, it provides more "wow" and clarity than I saw on this 4K panel. I often find myself marveling at how realistically sharp and detailed the image is.

Despite that it was a dedicated set-up, dedicated 4K feed, I still presume that much of my disappointment with the image came from some incompetence or lack of care in setting up and tweaking the system. Which is really too bad, because I noticed a number of other folks mumbling that they didn't see any real difference between these super-duper 4K images and regular HD.

One other thing is I was sort of surprised how visible the pixels were close up. I didn't have to press my nose to the screen to see them, though from about 6 feet away I couldn't see pixels. It's just interesting to experience seeing pixels on a real 4K display when I'm used to seeing no pixels whatsoever on my JVC projector.

I hope I get a better demo in the near future. For now though, life with a 4K-lite projector is so good it's easy to wait.
Reply
Reply
post #371 of 557
11/16/12 at 8:01pm
^^^^

I'm shocked you were disappointed at the 4K panel. I saw it today with the 4K 1000 series at star power in Dallas. The panel was the best picture I've seen by far. And I have a Elite LCD. Both were very impressive.
Reply
Reply
post #372 of 557
11/16/12 at 10:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I walked into a Sony store recently, sat down in front of a big display and thought "Hmm...what's this? Looks like a big plasma (looked more plasma image than LCD to me). Then I noticed the demo playing and saw the sign. Holy cow!
This is that Sony 84" 4K display, showing 4K content! Great. I'd been really interested in seeing such a display and getting a gander at 4K.
It turned out to be something of a disappointment. I didn't get that "wow"moment of increased clarity that I was hoping for. For many of the shots nothing stood out much as distinguishing it from a decent 1080p image I see on most flat panels. Then there would be some wide shots, overheads of beaches, towns etc, and then I could see "Yeah, that IS resolving information that even 1080p isn't going to do." But even though I could sometimes appreciate more detail, the image wasn't actually any more sharp looking (sharp as in "resolved in a more realistically sharp" fashion, not artificial). For instance, I'd look from the screen to "real objects" in the room, and out into the distance in the mall, and reality was significantly sharper and more clear looking. I'd hoped that 4K would be a distinct step toward real life clarity, but not in this demo. I have the JVC RS55 "4k-lite" projector at home and frankly in terms of *apparent* detail and clarity, it provides more "wow" and clarity than I saw on this 4K panel. I often find myself marveling at how realistically sharp and detailed the image is.
Despite that it was a dedicated set-up, dedicated 4K feed, I still presume that much of my disappointment with the image came from some incompetence or lack of care in setting up and tweaking the system. Which is really too bad, because I noticed a number of other folks mumbling that they didn't see any real difference between these super-duper 4K images and regular HD.
One other thing is I was sort of surprised how visible the pixels were close up. I didn't have to press my nose to the screen to see them, though from about 6 feet away I couldn't see pixels. It's just interesting to experience seeing pixels on a real 4K display when I'm used to seeing no pixels whatsoever on my JVC projector.
I hope I get a better demo in the near future. For now though, life with a 4K-lite projector is so good it's easy to wait.
I saw the 4K set too a few weeks ago and i share your exact feelings. I saw some extra detail but nothing that looks a big difference from 1080p.

I posted my thoughts at bluray.com-
Quote:
So i got to see the sony 4K set and it was impressive. It wasn't OMG impressive but it looked great. It was good to confirm that there's not really night and day differences between 1080p and 4K like i've been saying. Thats not to say i didn't see the benefits of 8 million pixels. I surely did. There is no pixel grid up close. I had my nose to the screen and not a pixel in sight. Detail is also better resolved. Faces show more texture and have an overall real look to them. Like nothing is in front of the screen. Just the person. Don't know if that makes sense. Colors are better (10 bit color penton?). There was demo of a soccer match and the players uniform really popped off the screen. In this clip everything was better separated. As in the image wasn't just one big picture. You could see each and every little thing on screen. I liked that. Images of rooms and buildings looked really good. Again, they had the look of nothing being in front of the TV. Just the objects. Like someone placed them inside the TV.

As i stepped back about 12' the 4K difference went away. A little. I still saw detail but not as much. 1080p and 4K would about equal at far away distances. I know, i know, one of the points of 4K is being able to sit closer but it's just something i noticed. I don't understand how 4K will stand out with smaller displays. But i haven't see one yet.

I wanted to watch actual films but the employee said that they can only show the demo sony has for the TV. Too bad. I really wanted to see some blurays upscaled to 4K.

So based off the sony demo 4K looks great. I expected better from reading other peoples reviews on what they've seen of 4K but "stunning" and "remarkable" didn't come to my mind. Not saying 4K is useless. It's not. There are advantages and i easily saw them.

Let me repeat that this is from the sony demo. Thats the only 4K source i saw. I have yet to see other sources, films, or other kinds 4K video. But for now im content with my 60" kuro.
Reply
Reply
post #373 of 557
11/17/12 at 7:13pm
I saw the Sony 4K 84" set at the Sony Center in Berlin in October. The demo loop appeared to have been created specifically for these units. The was a soccer (football) segment; one on the Calatrava architecture in Valencia Spain; the wooden honeycomb Metropol Parasol in Seville, Spain; and others...

These segments had nice slow pans over highly detailed subjects. Perfect for showing off 4K resolution. I thought the 84" set did a very nice job with this material.

Recently I saw the new 65mm film "Samsara" at a theater with the Sony 4K projector. (Somewhat similar material to the Sony demo loop.) Samsara looked terrific in 4K.

I doubt that "4K" panels or projectors will offer significant advantages over 1920x1080 for the vast majority of source material that's currently available.
Reply
Reply
post #374 of 557
11/17/12 at 9:51pm
Maths and physics, detailed savvy about the human eye, I am just an average high school educated guy.

So just an average guy's understanding goes behind this question (which I think has been hinted at once or twice, but maybe not specifically (if I am wrong there, yell at me and let me know!!):

How good are the "up-scaling" algorythims in the latest projectors, blu-rays like the new Oppo 105, and these latest 4k tvs?? If any or all of these are really good, will this up-scaling be enough to keep most people happy until native 4k consumer source material becomes available??

Of course, I am assuming the upscaling is being done from good, current consumer-available 1920x1080p content.

(And please, don't confuse me with "more frames per second is more important": not because I dispute that, I neither dispute it nor reject it - simply because my science savvy isn't good enough to evaluate that argument for myself.

So, more frames per second put to one side (just for the sake of this question), is current up-scaling software good enough, for the moment, to significantly improve current 1920x1080 source material??

Edit: Good enough, that is, to give 4k displays a chance to shine, and live, until source-material technology catched up??
Reply
Reply
post #375 of 557
11/18/12 at 7:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Johnson View Post

I doubt that "4K" panels or projectors will offer significant advantages over 1920x1080 for the vast majority of source material that's currently available.

I agree with this. I think the very large screens or close sitting will benefit only because of the reduced pixel visibility and that's about it.When we get new releases in 4K, which is about all I expect, then this will be the jump.

Art
Reply
Reply
post #376 of 557
11/18/12 at 1:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I agree with this. I think the very large screens or close sitting will benefit only because of the reduced pixel visibility and that's about it.When we get new releases in 4K, which is about all I expect, then this will be the jump.
Art

The thing is it SHOULD resolve more information, right? I am often aware of the resolution limitations of 1080p - all the objects that I can't make out due to it's limitations, that I could if it were a real life scene. So I'd expect to really notice if there is a significant jump in the amount of resolution in an image. I'd have hoped that finally seeing more resolution with 4K native material on a 4K display I would have thought "there it is, that obvious step forward." But it wasn't, at least in this demo, anything obvious.
I just hope 4K can offer more than what I saw, ultimately.
Reply
Reply
post #377 of 557
11/18/12 at 6:49pm
Rich,
Did you see A/B HD to 4K ? Perhaps that" like looking out a window" thing will only happen when one is actually looking out a window.smile.gif My expectation is that long shots will have much better detail. Too bad sports is so f***ing compressed that HD is being watered down so that hopes for 4K for that are down the drain.

Art
Reply
Reply
post #378 of 557
11/20/12 at 1:29am
Sony claims "world’s first 4K Ultra HD delivery solution available exclusively to purchasers of Sony’s 84” 4K Ultra HD TV." will be released around thanksgiving.
Quote:
In the next couple of weeks, the XBR-84X900 television will ship to customers who placed pre-orders since the product introduction in September. As an extra bonus, included free with the purchase will be the world’s first 4K Ultra HD delivery solution, complete with pre-loaded, native 4K entertainment.
Not some goofy 4K content shot as a demo. I’m talking full length feature Hollywood productions, and available exclusively to purchasers of Sony’s 84” 4K Ultra HD TV.

Sony is always eager to claim "worlds first" regardless if they are the "worlds first" or not. Unless they have teamed up with RED (unlikely), the "worlds first 4K/UHD delivery system" for consumers (not exclusively to a Sony 4K display product that is overpriced compared to the competition like LG, Samsung, Toshiba and Hisense),
I believe RED will beat them to the claim with their release of the REDRAY™ player and their announcement of a content delivery partner for the REDRAY™ Player at 11-30-2012.


Made in California.

Edited by coolscan - 11/20/12 at 1:37am
Reply
Reply
post #379 of 557
11/20/12 at 5:00am
Fujifilm will introduce 1TB optical disc in 2015
November 18, 2012
Quote:
A double-sided optical disc with a 1TB storage capacity is possible. Fujifilm foresees bringing a 1TB optical disc to market in 2015.

Fujifilm simplified the manufacturing process by using "web coating" to form the recording, ultraviolet curable resin and adhesive material layers and sticking them together.

With BD, spin coating and sputtering are needed for each layer.
"It takes 147 seconds to form a four-layer BD," the company said.
"With our method, it takes only 58 seconds to form eight layers."

Overall, Fujifilm said that the new disc's manufacture will be cheaper than BD discs currently available.

The two-photon absorption disc has a cost as low as that of a magnetic tape. A company spokesperson said that, "We will continue the development of the disc with help from drive makers."
Reply
Reply
post #380 of 557
11/20/12 at 5:54pm
What resolution is digital IMAX? I saw Batman and the sequences filmed for IMAX were night and day different from the regular, presumably 2k video. I also find myself more comfortable sitting closer to the screen at IMAX for some reason.
Reply
Reply
post #381 of 557
11/24/12 at 4:35am
It's because IMax is designed for people to sit close and not suffer eye strain. As for there's, not sure though beyond 1080p I assume.
Reply
Reply
post #382 of 557
11/29/12 at 7:03am
Here is a list of 4K movies being released to purchasers of the 84" XBR. Their media server will be updated with more titles. Skyfall will be available upon release, for instance.
“The Amazing Spiderman”

• “Total Recall (2012)”

• “The Karate Kid (2010)”

• “Salt”

• “Battle Los Angeles”

• “The Other Guys”

• “Bad Teacher”

• “That’s My Boy”

• “Taxi Driver”

• “The Bridge on the River Kwai”
Reply
Reply
post #383 of 557
11/29/12 at 7:07am
To put Sony's release of the media server in perspective, when there was NO HDTV content, Mitsubishi offered a device, much like a server to dealers with HD content. JVC and Mits both offered videotapes (yes, videotapes) to demo HD. And at that time many were saying HDTV will never have content:) I believe we will be seeing a lot more 4k content available in a short time.
Reply
Reply
post #384 of 557
11/29/12 at 9:16am
Sony Unveils 4K Ultra HD Server For Its 84-inch LCD TV

By Greg Tarr 2012-11-29 09:19:00

http://www.twice.com/articletype/news/sony-unveils-4k-ultra-hd-server-its-84-inch-lcd-tv/104085

Los Angeles - Sony Electronics formally took "4K Ultra High Definition" to the next level Thursday by introducing the first 4K playback device supporting its newly released 84-inch LCD TV.
....

(See link for full article.)
Reply
Reply
post #385 of 557
11/29/12 at 10:52am
I believe this is just some intermediate solution for selling the 4K TV in the next 6 months or so, something else is brewing...................(and RedRay announcement in 24-48 hours)............
Quote:
I Want My 4K TV

I can hear them now. “Yeah, but what about future 4K content?”

Two things: 1) Sony’s solution is designed to be updated periodically with additional, new content, and

2) This is just the first step, as you have to wait and see what we have to show you at CES in January.

Oops! I may have just shot off my mouth again.
Reply
Reply
post #386 of 557
11/29/12 at 11:47am
So now everyone can stop debating about "if" 4k content will be available to consumers. It's here.
Reply
Reply
post #387 of 557
11/29/12 at 4:42pm
I have a feeling redray is going to be something like youtube for red users. A way for red users to share and sell home made / independent content. Hope I'm wrong, but I would be surprised if they've lined up real studios to release blockbuster content.

I added Tomato meter (critic) scores for each movie Chazz listed:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chazz77 View Post

• “The Amazing Spiderman”............................. 73%
• “Total Recall (2012)”..................................... 30%
• “The Karate Kid (2010)”................................ 67%
• “Salt”......................................................... 62%
• “Battle Los Angeles”..................................... 35%
• “The Other Guys”......................................... 78%
• “Bad Teacher”............................................... 44%
• “That’s My Boy”............................................. 21%
• “Taxi Driver” (1976) ...................................... 98%
• “The Bridge on the River Kwai” (1957) ............ 96%

Coolscan posted some 1080p vs upscaled 4k pictures here: http://www.dcicentral.com/forum/showthread.php?44-My-DCI-4K-Home-Theater&p=145&viewfull=1#post145
Edited by rabident - 11/29/12 at 5:23pm
Reply
Reply
post #388 of 557
11/29/12 at 7:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabident View Post

I have a feeling redray is going to be something like youtube for red users. A way for red users to share and sell home made / independent content. Hope I'm wrong, but I would be surprised if they've lined up real studios to release blockbuster content.
I added Tomato meter (critic) scores for each movie Chazz listed:
Coolscan posted some 1080p vs upscaled 4k pictures here: http://www.dcicentral.com/forum/showthread.php?44-My-DCI-4K-Home-Theater&p=145&viewfull=1#post145

I'm sorry, what does this mean ?

Art
Reply
Reply
post #389 of 557
11/29/12 at 9:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chazz77 View Post

To put Sony's release of the media server in perspective, when there was NO HDTV content, Mitsubishi offered a device, much like a server to dealers with HD content. JVC and Mits both offered videotapes (yes, videotapes) to demo HD. And at that time many were saying HDTV will never have content:) I believe we will be seeing a lot more 4k content available in a short time.

Dang, I had forgotten about the HDTV videotapes - I actually saw one demo'ed, then the format promptly died as it should have.

The OEMs really really want 4K to take off and they are going to give it a good push. I hope it goes, but they may well be pushing a string.
Reply
Reply
post #390 of 557
11/30/12 at 8:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Johnson View Post

I saw the Sony 4K 84" set at the Sony Center in Berlin in October. The demo loop appeared to have been created specifically for these units. The was a soccer (football) segment; one on the Calatrava architecture in Valencia Spain; the wooden honeycomb Metropol Parasol in Seville, Spain; and others...
These segments had nice slow pans over highly detailed subjects. Perfect for showing off 4K resolution. I thought the 84" set did a very nice job with this material.
Recently I saw the new 65mm film "Samsara" at a theater with the Sony 4K projector. (Somewhat similar material to the Sony demo loop.) Samsara looked terrific in 4K.
I doubt that "4K" panels or projectors will offer significant advantages over 1920x1080 for the vast majority of source material that's currently available.

Owning a 1000ES I can tell you it is a dramatic improvement over the many fine projectors I have had in the past. I do not have any 4K sources or the ability to play them if I did. So all my watching is deinterlaced and/or scaled to 3940 x 2160 (4HD rather than true 4K).
The picture has a degree of realism like nothing I have ever seen a projector do. Screen size 110 inch D, aspect 1.78, viewing distance about 12.5 feet.screen material Snomatt 100.

Why this is I am sure due to a variety of factors including increased pixel density. With regards to a small flat panel (80 inch D is small for a true theater in the home experience) I would tend to agree that increased pizel density would add much to anything But when supplied true 4HD content or true 4K content at higher rates etc, I suspect the picture will be substantially improverd just as Bluray 1080p substantially improved on 480i to 1080p deinterlaced and scaled.
Edited by mark haflich - 11/30/12 at 8:10pm
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › 4K… I have Seen The Light