or Connect
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 3

post #61 of 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-hud View Post

What happens when a 4K TV plays a current Blu Ray? Is it essentially a line doubler ? Or does the picture look crappy?
Two phase Up-conversion.
adwY7c9Q.jpg

Here are a list of all the companies that showed 4K LCD TV's and monitors at IFA in Berlin.
All where 84" except when noted. In addition JVC will launch two 4K TV's.

LG, Sony, Samsung 70",Toshiba, Vitek (Turkey), Hisense, Haier 55" (China), Panasonic 20" (IPS Alpha LCD-pane),
Grundig displayed a 4K prototype, and Sharp showed a 31.5" 4K IGZO monitor/TV. (can this become the new PC monitor standard?).
Edited by coolscan - 9/7/12 at 4:44pm
post #62 of 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

BBC shoot a lot with RED cameras at 4K and 5K, particularly Nature docs. How much they edit and render out in 4K is unknown.
The previous poster had said "AFAIK the BBC shoots all it's HD in 4K", when that's not correct.

I just did a search and you are correct that they have used Red cameras, they have used the Red camera on a recent (2011) nature documentary (Human Planet), but for that, they say "The main work horses on “Human Planet” were the Panasonic Varicams, tried and tested tape cameras which allow us to film off-speed" - and those record at 720p resolution (assuming they use the built in recorder - wikipedia says there are now 1080p varicams, but I don't think they record over 30 fps so I don't think the BBC would be using those now).
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 9/7/12 at 5:13pm
post #63 of 576
I am not techie, to be able to make my own judgement on this, but I was brought up short re amoled vs lcd/plasma when I read this:

"The Verge journalist Vlad Savov describes OLED as "controlled self-destruction" because each OLED pixel burns when a current passes through it. As a result, it's difficult to produce OLED TVs that can maintain thier stunning picture quality and, coupled with the high number of manufacturing errors, are but two reasons why manufacturers are having a tough time releasing OLED TVs to the public. Let's not forget the price tag, which is expected to nudge 5 figures. "

Link:
http://www.channelnews.com.au/Display/OLED/Q4S2A9E3?page=2

Seems there are probs in life-span for amoled.

Hope that link works: have not tried putting in a hyperlink here before.
post #64 of 576
I am no techie, to be able to make my own judgement on this point, but I was a potential amoled convert, after reading many pro articles, but this brought me up short:

"The Verge journalist Vlad Savov describes OLED as "controlled self-destruction" because each OLED pixel burns when a current passes through it. As a result, it's difficult to produce OLED TVs that can maintain thier stunning picture quality and, coupled with the high number of manufacturing errors, are but two reasons why manufacturers are having a tough time releasing OLED TVs to the public. Let's not forget the price tag, which is expected to nudge 5 figures."

Link: http://www.channelnews.com.au/Display/OLED/Q4S2A9E3?page=2
post #65 of 576
How good can a TV get? It seems to me from Blu-Ray to 3D how can it look any better???? sure higher resolution but when does it end? my opinion anyway's.
post #66 of 576
thanks -- this is the best discussion of 4K to date
post #67 of 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post

Unfortunately we've been watching 35mm copies at the theater for years. It didn't seem any better than my HD set. I had stopped going to the theater. Now we are getting 4K transfers from the master film and 4K video cameras. What a difference! I saw "Step Up Revolution 3D" which was shot with Red 4K video cameras, looked better than "Black Knight Rises" in Imax to me.
I'll be happy when we can get this quality at home but the theater will probably be 8K by then. At least they won't be able to resell us old movies at 8K because 35mm masters are only 4K. Of course most people won't know that.

"Black Knight Rises"? Batman porn? biggrin.gif

From what I've read, despite many films being shot in 4K or having 4K digital interpositives, most of them are processed at 2K (there being a limit to what can be done at 4K in real time). This being the case, they end up being 2K cinema presentations. Many cinemas only have 2K projectors anyway.
post #68 of 576
Imagine these screens with the Darblet. wink.gif
post #69 of 576
Obviously we can't view a 4k image on my computers 1920x1200 screen, so what was the point of the video?

One other factor which is one reason I never bought Sony products is because the screen has a glass screen that makes it into a mirror. I can see all the reflections of the people walking around and the ceiling light fixtures. Why can't they use a matte screen? My Sharp Aquos has a matte screen, so why can't others?
post #70 of 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by madaudio View Post

I am no techie, to be able to make my own judgement on this point, but I was a potential amoled convert, after reading many pro articles, but this brought me up short:
"The Verge journalist Vlad Savov describes OLED as "controlled self-destruction" because each OLED pixel burns when a current passes through it. As a result, it's difficult to produce OLED TVs that can maintain thier stunning picture quality and, coupled with the high number of manufacturing errors, are but two reasons why manufacturers are having a tough time releasing OLED TVs to the public. Let's not forget the price tag, which is expected to nudge 5 figures."
Link: http://www.channelnews.com.au/Display/OLED/Q4S2A9E3?page=2

Nobody has shown any 4K OLED so it is not a valid discussion in this thread. OLED production has problems enough on its own.
Ongoing updates on OLED in the OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapper View Post

How good can a TV get? It seems to me from Blu-Ray to 3D how can it look any better???? sure higher resolution but when does it end? my opinion anyway's.
The UN governing body for Broadcast standards just approved UHD-8K as the Broadcast standard for the future.
post #71 of 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Nobody has shown any 4K OLED so it is not a valid discussion in this thread. OLED .

you can expect a 75" 4K oled from lg about 1 year after the real 55" 2k release so around end 2013.
that is the earliest date.

heise germany did a nice compare.
the put at ifa 2012 in berlin just few days aga a 55" oled side by side with a 84" 4k lg drive the oled with 2k and the
lg 4k with native 4k material and ask people what they pick... the 55" oled or the 84" 4k lcd from lg.

you know what...... half of the people will take the oled because of color cr. and brightness and more and half on it
will pick the 84" 4k lcd because of the size and the details you can see there.

so bring both together means a 75" 4k oled and all will pick them if this pice will be affordable.
i guess at this time it will
as may the print oleds will be hit the market and they will be not as expensive as the existing way of production.
post #72 of 576
That is is classic as it's get's! But hurtfully true.
post #73 of 576
Amazing! We're how many decades from the invention of 35mm film and we're just getting around to tasting a bit of what it's capable of... in the theater and at home.

Perhaps this will spur theater technology to get back to 70mm road-show quality and giant screens once more.

Sorry about the the mispost but this is what I was refering to 70mm film.
post #74 of 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delegator View Post

Ask me again in about 10 years and maybe I'll think 4k TVs make sense. Right now I just don't see it. What kind of network bandwidth is needed to stream 4k content? What physical medium will hold a 4k movie? How many cameras will have to be replaced before 4k content is even available?
Even now I watch sporting events in HD, and it is clear when you come across lesser broadcasts that are either over-compressing the video or simply filming in SD and up-converting. It will take at least a decade for there to be anything approaching a critical mass of content for 4k TVs.
In short, anybody buying one of these things now is foolish. By the time content is available, the prices will have dropped by a factor of 5-10.
Yep. HD broadcasts still mostly suck. It will be a very, very long time before there is actual television in 4K. Obviously movies could have a shorter timeframe.
post #75 of 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Two phase Up-conversion.
adwY7c9Q.jpg
Here are a list of all the companies that showed 4K LCD TV's and monitors at IFA in Berlin.
All where 84" except when noted. In addition JVC will launch two 4K TV's.
LG, Sony, Samsung 70",Toshiba, Vitek (Turkey), Hisense, Haier 55" (China), Panasonic 20" (IPS Alpha LCD-pane),
Grundig displayed a 4K prototype, and Sharp showed a 31.5" 4K IGZO monitor/TV. (can this become the new PC monitor standard?).
2K Reality Creation! Refine and Restore!! LOL rolleyes.gif
post #76 of 576
I don't mind advancements but what these companies failed to do is perfect what we already have today. Maximize 1920 x 1080p to perfection, dump the useless 3D and enhance the resolution with what we already have today.
I know they are trying to breath new like in the TV world but at $25K and with no real 4K hardware & content, this new tech is going to take many years before people see them as a 1080p display replacement.
post #77 of 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super XP View Post

I don't mind advancements but what these companies failed to do is perfect what we already have today. Maximize 1920 x 1080p to perfection, dump the useless 3D and enhance the resolution with what we already have today.
I know they are trying to breath new like in the TV world but at $25K and with no real 4K hardware & content, this new tech is going to take many years before people see them as a 1080p display replacement.

While I think 4K+ is the future, for now I have to agree with these comments. Heck, I if could stream good quality HD over high bandwidth cable without frequent stuttering now I would be happy. I think the reality for 4K is it will be at least 5 and maybe 10 years before it is affordable and worthwhile for consumers. But make no mistake about it, Hollywood and TV manufacturers are always looking for another way to get our money, and 4K is going to be their next market upgrade. OTOH, considering that probably 90% of consumer viewing is TV broadcasts, the question has to be asked whether 4K is feasible for broadcasting given current and even foreseeable technology? I have a feeling that TV broadcasters do not want to have to pay for the much higher bandwidth that will be required for 4K broadcasting, not to mention all the expensive new hardware required. Probably the best we can hope for is some kind of faux broadcast 4K, which is upscaled at the user level. Kind of what we are getting now with so-called 1080i, which we all know is far below the quality of true HQ 1080i/p.
post #78 of 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastard Ninja View Post

$25,000 might seem like a lot of money (and it is), but I see it as an investment price. They aren't targeting the everyday audience with that price and they don't mean to. When the extremely wealthy purchase this TV, it'll pay for the research and development.

It's more likely that the $25,000 is a price *below* cost. They have no issue with having such a small volume pay for R&D, but they certainly *do* have an interest in low-balling a price to keep their competitive edge apparent and not look ridiculous in the press. It also makes it a more daunting production price for competitors to match. But at such low volumes, pricing the thing to pay for R&D is a lose-lose.
post #79 of 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delegator View Post

...How many cameras will have to be replaced before 4k content is even available?...

What are movies natively shot at anyway (when shooting digitally)? I always just assumed that they were shot using cameras way over HD to allow for more flexible editing.
post #80 of 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

Have you seen the Super LCD screen on the HTC One X? It is better than any AMOLED screen currently on the market.


Yes i have and no its not,I like my GS3 screen better.Its a preference and some people might like One X better.

Does OneX have more accurate color reproduction?Yes.
Can OneX produce amoled colors?No.Yeah amoled screens have over saturated colors(for now),but i will take over saturated colors over bland lcd colors any day.

Just put any colorful picture on OneX and GS3 and see which one is more pleasant to the eyes.Why you think all the tv manufacturers are moving towards oled?
To me pics on amoled look better then real life,lol.
Edited by LVIV73 - 9/8/12 at 11:51am
post #81 of 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super XP View Post

I don't mind advancements but what these companies failed to do is perfect what we already have today. Maximize 1920 x 1080p to perfection, dump the useless 3D and enhance the resolution with what we already have today.
I know they are trying to breath new like in the TV world but at $25K and with no real 4K hardware & content, this new tech is going to take many years before people see them as a 1080p display replacement.

I have Time Warner and all they carry is 1080i and 720p.How many cable/satalite providers actually have 1080p?
Once we see nothing lower then 1080 on our tv's i dont want to even hear about other resolutions.
post #82 of 576
You know, I keep hearing people talk about how 4k televisions are useless, and that theirs no point in making them. The reasons always come out to things like "there's no content" or "the human eye can't see the difference" or "its useless on televisions smaller than 84 inches". Frankly that's all wrong. There is content, you can see the difference even on tiny screens, it's called text. But there are other more important (in my opinion) advantages over those. When it comes to watching movies, some of those points may be true, but more and more people now days have an HTPC, and as an occasional gamer it is easy to see that video games can easily run in 4k resolutions. Hell, there are several out now that can do it. Battlefield 3 comes to mind. One of the most obvious visual differences between 1080 and 4k is how many vertical lines of resolution there are on the screen. If you display a web page or frankly anything with text on it, like you will often see when working with your HTPC you will see many more lines of text displayed on the screen, and as a software engineer this is a HUGE deal to me. This is also a reason that 4k is useful on smaller screens. I would give my left arm to have a 30 inch 4k monitor to work on at work. The added resolution would allow me to have way more lines of code on the screen, which directly impacts my ability quickly and easily grok the code I'm working on and increases my efficiency. But this also applies to any careers/hobbies that involve displaying text on screens. I have friend that is a real estate agent and has constant issues with not being able to have enough text on the screen at once when reviewing or writing up documents and he's currently using a 24 inch monitor. One of the other major advantages to 4k, though no one ever seems to mention it, is that current displays spend a lot of time and energy anti-aliasing every frame displayed. This is ridiculous, when simply having a higher resolution reduces the need to do anti-aliasing, and with high enough resolutions it wouldn't need to be done at all. This would free up time that to allow for something else to be done in place of it, or to simply increase frame rates, which is one of the issues with LCD screens, and one of the reasons that some people still choose plasma.
post #83 of 576
Sorry, I have no inclination to upgrade and replace my display, projector, screen, in wall cabling, output device (vis a vis my BD players), my media content (BDs), just for a resolution standard that might be beyond the capability of the human eye to discern.
post #84 of 576
All I'm hearing in this thread is the same thing that's ever been said each time a new technology comes along. And I find it funny how no matter if the sets or the signal experience the upgrade first, someone is going to criticize the order of which one came first. "4K sets?!--there's no content, LOL" "Color TV broadcasts? By Joe!--there's no color televisions. Poppy-cocks and balderdash, says I!!"

I personally can't wait for 4k to become the standard.
post #85 of 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

For projectors I can see why someone would want 4000K, but CNET's article is pretty convincing and backs up their opinions with some factual information. I don't see why anyone would pay for 4000K unless it was for a projector screen. There is zero 4K HDTV content and currently no media offered (Blue-Ray) in it. I know there are 4K movie theater screens, and a handful of directors are shooting with 4K capable cameras, but even if it became the new standard would we be able to notice the difference on screens less than 77" in size? Unlikely. Most home consumers sit no closer than 9 feet to a 50" or larger HD screen, so 4000K seems like a gimmick to me, at least concerning consumer homes and non-projector screens.
YMMV.

We agree about the benefits of 4K projection of course.

But as far as 4K TVs are concnerned, I could see a benefit with larger sets (over 50") if the seating distance isn't too far away. What I've noticed with lots of "1080p" HDTVs is that the pixel-structure for Plasma and LCD sets have "side by side" RGB elements that add a grainy-texture to the image (unlike a LCOS projector for instance which overlays RGB on a single square pixel). Even when "pixels" aren't visible from a given seating position, sometimes on my own 55" Samsung in my living room I can see a grainy-quality to bright whites or uniform areas. If I had been able to purchase the 65" set I really wanted (it wouldn't fit next to the bookcase so I had to downsize) the "grain" from side-by-side color elements would be even more obvious. I think that in situations like this 4K could help to make a smoother, more analog/continuous like image that feels more photographic. Naturally most of the content we watch on TV isn't necessarily going to gain much given other nose problems like MPEG compression noise, but certainly high-quality blu-ray and using your HDTV as your computer desktop would make text much smoother and more readable.
post #86 of 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam1123 View Post

You know, I keep hearing people talk about how 4k televisions are useless, and that theirs no point in making them. The reasons always come out to things like "there's no content" or "the human eye can't see the difference" or "its useless on televisions smaller than 84 inches". Frankly that's all wrong. There is content, you can see the difference even on tiny screens, it's called text. But there are other more important (in my opinion) advantages over those. When it comes to watching movies, some of those points may be true, but more and more people now days have an HTPC, and as an occasional gamer it is easy to see that video games can easily run in 4k resolutions. Hell, there are several out now that can do it. Battlefield 3 comes to mind. One of the most obvious visual differences between 1080 and 4k is how many vertical lines of resolution there are on the screen. If you display a web page or frankly anything with text on it, like you will often see when working with your HTPC you will see many more lines of text displayed on the screen, and as a software engineer this is a HUGE deal to me. This is also a reason that 4k is useful on smaller screens. I would give my left arm to have a 30 inch 4k monitor to work on at work. The added resolution would allow me to have way more lines of code on the screen, which directly impacts my ability quickly and easily grok the code I'm working on and increases my efficiency. But this also applies to any careers/hobbies that involve displaying text on screens. I have friend that is a real estate agent and has constant issues with not being able to have enough text on the screen at once when reviewing or writing up documents and he's currently using a 24 inch monitor. One of the other major advantages to 4k, though no one ever seems to mention it, is that current displays spend a lot of time and energy anti-aliasing every frame displayed. This is ridiculous, when simply having a higher resolution reduces the need to do anti-aliasing, and with high enough resolutions it wouldn't need to be done at all. This would free up time that to allow for something else to be done in place of it, or to simply increase frame rates, which is one of the issues with LCD screens, and one of the reasons that some people still choose plasma.

Agreed.

I'm always a bit shocked when I use my 55" 1080p HDTV as my computer monitor how grainy and rough-edged text looks. Having double the pixels in both axis to smooth out text edging and get rid of all visible RGB elements would make an enormous difference to being able to use large screens for computer and other fine-image needs. And of course, being able to read more than 50 lines of text at a time or to have multiple documents open in a panoramic view would revolutionize the office-work experience.
Edited by DaViD Boulet - 9/8/12 at 3:17pm
post #87 of 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalvatronType_R View Post

Sorry, I have no inclination to upgrade and replace my display, projector, screen, in wall cabling, output device (vis a vis my BD players), my media content (BDs), just for a resolution standard that might be beyond the capability of the human eye to discern.

There's almost no such thing as "beyond the capability of the human eye to discern" when it comes to computed visuals. Even at full motion. At least not yet.

My background is in software....I came from computer graphics, imaging, and pre-press industries. I was working on all that stuff back when things were *truly* rotten. smile.gif It's amazing the difference between 600 dpi (note, per *inch*, forGET the whole display) and 1200 dpi. And reflectively, it's amazing how many people will confuse "you don't really need 1200 dpi" (that is possibly true), with "you can't tell the difference" (which almost never is). Two entirely different concepts.
post #88 of 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by LVIV73 View Post

I have Time Warner and all they carry is 1080i and 720p.How many cable/satalite providers actually have 1080p?


2......DTV & Dish.
post #89 of 576
1080 I/P........4K I don't really care. Get me some higher frame rates. That's where the WOW factor is.

But no matter which, we are lucky dig. storage is so much less expensive than film.

We need as many movie makers as possible to shoot in higher frame rates.

That will give us the content we need.

And according to other posts here, this will fit on BD now.

Then we'll have some saying "I don't like it......it looks to real"
post #90 of 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by decodave View Post

1080 I/P........4K I don't really care. Get me some higher frame rates. That's where the WOW factor is.
But no matter which, we are lucky dig. storage is so much less expensive than film.
We need as many movie makers as possible to shoot in higher frame rates.
That will give us the content we need.
And according to other posts here, this will fit on BD now.
Then we'll have some saying "I don't like it......it looks to real"

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