Shockingly bad news for the future of affordable large format OLED displays - Page 3

I've been clear. I'll use Rogo as a good example, because he's properly reading the entirety of my point and not picking and choosing. He doesn't agree, but he doesn't dive to simplistic arguments. Which is perfectly acceptable to me.

Regardless though, I've said this:
Now weather or not you agree with the camera concept, the simile holds. I'm clearly making a "rush to pixels" argument.

And this (referring to the cameras sold to the general public, and fooling the general public):
And this (same paragraph)
Rogo then modified this a little, which is also in concert with what I'm saying, so long as we ignore cost, which I don't do:
To which I clarified even further (re: cost):
Rogo, further clarified his position, with a very good point, but not my opinion. I still think people rush to higher mega pixels without thought and it costs them money, and the money is big. They'll march directly out of point-n-clicks into the high-end "ProSumer" market because of MP.
You can pick and choose what I'm saying without context all you like, but my clarifications have been relentless.
Edited by tgm1024 - 12/20/12 at 7:43am

Sure it is, if the ensuing image is fuzzy. Not all cameras are created equal and if a given camera is not performing at the pixel level for whatever reason, you have a digital image that is less sharper than it could be given a competently designed camera.
Wait, who will be routinely sitting 2 to 3 feet from their 40" TV to take advantage of 4K content that doesn't even exist? Yes, it might have an application for PC monitors, which I wasn't really inferring/discussing.

I agree with him too. Let me ask you a real-world question: *NOW*, If someone had no HD TV currently, would it be worth the $1500 to get an LG 55LM7600, assuming that $1500 was stretching the top of their sensibility budget a little? Sort of clumsy way to put it, I know.

No, it's really not important at all due to the way that sampling works. Those 6MP DLSRs that were popular a few years back (Nikon D40 etc) look sharp at the pixel level because they have very coarse sampling, and produce aliased images.

Higher resolution cameras produce more detailed images, and while they may look worse at the pixel level, that's because the "pixel level" on a higher resolution camera is at a higher magnification. For the same image size, a higher resolution camera should produce more detailed images, with lower noise. Even if noise is higher on the pixel-level, it has less impact on the final image, because an individual pixel makes up a much smaller portion of the overall image. With higher resolution sensors, you also have the option of downsampling the image more, depending on your output medium.
And this is the problem - people think you need to be sitting 2-3ft from a 4K screen to see the benefit. People said the same thing about 1080p. It simply isn't true. You will see a benefit from 4K far beyond the numbers that most of the "informed" people are posting around here.
Sorry.
Moving to 4K with current display technology, is still an improvement over current 1080p displays on the market. Just like the move to 3DTVs pushed panel technology forward, even if you have no intention of using them for 3D content.
I'm not sure I see the relevance here, but that person should save up and buy a good TV like a Sony or a Panasonic instead of an LG.
Edited by Chronoptimist - 12/20/12 at 12:18pm

You quoted me as having said something vinnie said.

^I take it you disagree then?

It comes down to the limits of what the eyes can distinguish, Chrono. It is similar to sitting at an excessive distance when viewing 1080p (to the point where 720p and 540p are indistinguishable). Lemme' guess, is 8K also going to grant some visual enhancement no matter the distance? If 1080p and prior have distance limits, so does every resolution that follows.

And I was not referring to DSLRs but to more recent point-and-shoots where complaints have been raised about lack of detail or fuzziness in the resultant photos themselves (thus, the implementation in these cameras is amiss and again points to the MP not being the bottom-line consideration when it comes to quality).
Edited by vinnie97 - 12/20/12 at 11:31am

I'm with Chronoptimist on the value of higher res on displays. As one of those home theater enthusiasts who wants a large display. higher res is a real advantage even at "normal" viewing distances. I recently viewed Sharp's 90 inch panel, and as I got closer to it (much farther than 3-4 feet) the image began to break down for me. By the time I moved back to where the image cohered I couldn't see the display's advantage over my 65 inch display.

Higher res screens will also be of value for passive 3D...maintaining good resolution at high brightness.

Regarding digital cameras, it's my understanding that a higher megapixel device is better if the sensor is well designed, and if all the other ancillary hardware and software is equally well-designed and integrated.

Of course a higher megapixel camera is better than one with a lower count assuming all of those aforementioned items are equal.

3D is off my radar, but it to me is the best argument for 4K with panels below 60 inches.

Yes, and this has nothing to do with the argument. Before addressing why, there's still an aliasing going on even with a perfectly focused light-image because of where the image may line up on the sensor. It's just higher resolution. The object being photoed isn't an array of dots, each landing on their own CMOS/CCD clustered element, it's your aunt Matilda.


Ok, I'm guessing I see where the disconnect is. It's multi-fold.

Here's how I'd frame your argument, if I were trying to make it. Tell me how close I get. Given a specific camera housing and a given lens, etc., the light image will land on the sensor and produce a certain amount of information. Now if I swap out that sensor with a magic wand (keeping everything else in place) with a sensor of double the X and Y resolution, the image will land on the sensor and produce more information with less noise. I don't know for sure, but you may be thinking of the edge of the circle as it crosses over one pixel block to the other producing a curved alias arc. Further you see a certain amount of element noise (they're not perfect) per square mm of the sensor, and with more elements/pixels within it, you get less noise per pixel. That last part is in error actually, because the element noise is yielded per element, not per area. And if you're talking about visual noise from the apparatus in front of it, you get THAT per mm, but it isn't valuable to have that divided by more pixels, because you get a sharper and shaper rendition of the noise itself.

Either way:, agree or disagree, Here's the rub. It. does. not. matter. to. the. point. I've. been. making.

Why?

• I've been talking about different camera choices themselves. This brings with it all the problems I've been mentioning.
• I've been talking about the cost, and whether or not the camera was increasingly worth it given the cost increase.
• And most importantly, the lens + OIS apparatus in front of a 12 MP camera might well be lower enough to produce a worse image than one at 10 MP. The increase in pixels just does not guarantee an increase in clarity.

Leave it at this. Endlessly chasing after cameras with more and more MP is not the bottom line. Clarity is. Nuts and Bolts: The average consumer when faced with two cameras, one with 10MP and one with 12MP will likely shell out more money for the 12MP and the camera could be producing an inferior image. They're not asking about image *clarity*, they're fooled into asking about MP. If the 12MP camera defocusses the image bad enough, the increase in pixels will yield only more *bad* information.

I should have specified lens quality being important as well in my previous post. All the elements have to be there for a higher megapixel camera to show its advantages. There are higher MP cameras that produce an inferior image to lower MP cameras where all the camera elements are well designed and integrated.

As in everything else, a good design always depends on more than just one or two design elements. And there are differences between sensors that transcend brute MP.

LOL. I get the you put here, but just to make myself feel better: I didn't have a stake in that fight. It's just that it's probably good to aim arguments at the right people.

^I agree, just looking for a little reciprocal backup but not trying to be too forward in the process, lol.

Ha! ok ok, I agree, I agree.

This is off topic, but if one's current budget is $1500, I wouldn't worry about future proofing. I'd buy the best product I could get for that budget. I don't follow the LG's very closely, but know they are generally pretty solid options. In other words, sure, it'll be a good TV for several years.

Ok, thanks. I put this here only because we're slammed up against the 4K everywhere in a few years thing.

Thanks, TGM! Yea, I kind of assumed you included those in your previous post as understood (software AND hardware ). This is the page tgm and myself are on.

Ah! Smart fellow are you! (Yoda Speak)

I like to focus on purely the hardware aspect since it's easiest to comprehend, but yes, firmware is deeply meshed into this.

I just play one on the forum. Others have me beat (see above) by several orders of magnitude. ;D

Well, you put on a good show, just like everyone else on the forum!

Your idea of "shockingly bad" news must be very different the mine.

I don't see "OLED is dead" I don't see "OLED won't be coming out for another 5 years" I don't see anything but a change to 4k and a 2 year delay.

Hardly "shockingly bad", especially since this means everyone is probably moving to a different manufacturing method faster, instead of trying to run some sort of hacked together old manufacturing tech squeezed into making OLED.

If anything, this my bring larger cheaper OLED TVs to market faster.

The 4k sets aren't going to take over the market. Like 3-D, people will ooh and aah about the demo sets, but until a adequate supply of 4k material becomes available, there will be no incentive to buy the sets. 1080 is more than enough for most people for the size sets that get bought.

1000 posts. Nice.
It's going to be chicken or egg thing until we have plenty of both. It's the same game that we played with 1080p. 4K will be no different. 4K cameras will be everywhere in a year or two, H.265 too.

Don't worry. By the time the yields have reached 50% (for the 4K's), the 8K's will bring us right back to LCD again. LOL...

Actually, hopefully by then the LCD will be considered the RPTV (DLP) of today and be dropped except for a couple hold-outs like Mitsubishi, who, by the way, is now out of that niche too. http://www.cepro.com/article/mitsubishi_drops_dlp_displays_goodbye_rptvs_forever/

I hope we get that 50% yield isn't a real interesting number. Any display line running at 50% is unprofitable or selling at astronomical prices.

As for LCD going away, that's just not happening soon. First, the world is too good at making them. Second, they are too good at displaying images with little power.

PC sources have supported 4K for a year or two at this point. Upscaling Blu-ray players also support 4K output. There is 4K footage available online. Red has announced plans for 4K distribution with Redray. Quad-layer Blu-ray drives already exist - I have a BDXL drive in my PC right now.

It's rumoured that Apple is working on a TV system that will likely support 4K, due to their push towards "retina" displays on all their other devices. My iPad has 50% more pixels than my TV has, at a fraction of the size.
It's ridiculous how low resolution TV displays are, they're falling way behind every other kind of display now.

4K allows for passive 3DTVs to display full 1080p content. (still a compromise, but better than active 3D)
Even when just displaying upscaled 1080p content, you are going to see less aliasing, and the elimination of the pixel grid over the image.

I'd argue that that's only if you're looking specifically at the display technology and not what the device is /for/.

I'm walking into the painfully obvious here, so forgive me, but maybe it's worth saying anyway. TV's solve a largely different problem than do computer displays, though the two have had their charters merging for some time. Regardless though, televisions are primarily for displaying video content. PC monitors/tablet displays/etc., are for that as well, but HAVE to display largely static and highly dense graphics information. Small icons, razor thin graphics, lots of text of varying sizes, etc.

A TV's video gains effective resolution just by the nature of it moving. Our eyes/brains make wizbang edge detection machines, etc., for video. Not so for the scroll bar over———>there.

It's moved from apples and oranges to maybe tangerines and oranges, but they're still distinctly different beasts.
Edited by tgm1024 - 12/21/12 at 9:59am

Excellent points made by tgm1024 regarding motion on TV!

Without paying a fortune--you may be able to one day buy 65-inch 4K LCD.

What is the farthest away you could sit from a 65-inch LCD 4K display and see a difference over the same display that was only 1080p?

Some LCDs currently have a frame rate of 240 so that motion is better.

Since presumably 4K displays are to be better visually so that people will buy them--what is the chance that they will go to a frame rate of 480?