5K Laser Projector was shown today at NAB
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
![]()
There are broadcast standards being developed which are sometimes referred to as 4K, but are actually quadHD or UHD (ultra HD) which is 3840x2160 or double the width and double the height of HD. To call this 4K however would be a bit of a misnomer.
5K is precisely 5120 pixels across. 4K is precisely 4096 pixels across, and 2K is 2048 pixels across. It's semantics but those 128 pixels are the difference between HD and 2K. The difference between a film and a TV show.
There are broadcast standards being developed which are sometimes referred to as 4K, but are actually quadHD or UHD (ultra HD) which is 3840x2160 or double the width and double the height of HD. To call this 4K however would be a bit of a misnomer.
You're right, it is semantics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
There's a mammoth problem with laser based projection for the post market. Metameric failure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_(color)#Metameric_failure
Laser light being uniquely spiky in its spectral composition will appear quite different to different observers.
This makes it impossible to use in the post market, where we're evaluating color and image, if two people can look at the same projection and see different tonality (in the case of laser projection drastically different) it makes it very difficult to really evaluate anything. And what's the point of projection in post if not image evaluation?
Laser light being uniquely spiky in its spectral composition will appear quite different to different observers.
This makes it impossible to use in the post market, where we're evaluating color and image, if two people can look at the same projection and see different tonality (in the case of laser projection drastically different) it makes it very difficult to really evaluate anything. And what's the point of projection in post if not image evaluation?
I've heard similar comments being made against Sony's OLED BVMs, although nobody referred to them as being metameric. Some claim that they have a slightly pinkish cast, others green, and most claim that they look neutral. The few times that I've looked at them they appeared neutral. Similar problem with the primarys, in that the OLED spectral output is pretty narrow, in contrast to the CRTs they are replacing that are as broad as a barn door (with two reds to boot).
I look at one every day. But use it just as op monitor. Don't share screen with clients. Have plasma and projection for that. As metameric failure is an issue. New gen 3 panels seems to be improved. But laser light is actually far spikier than OLED light.
I look forward to seeing what you can do. But I wonder, what is behind this (not yours specifically, but the broader markets) push towards lasers? In a world that was moving towards 3D shifting to laser light made perfect sense, as you can polarize it at the source. Have bright 3D images, as Christie demoed. But, if as seems to be the case now, no one cares about 3D anymore, what's the point of going ahead with lasers? Brightness? As it is now, xenon projectors are too bright from a post perspective, and plenty bright from an exhibition perceptive, in 2D. Accuracy? Well metameric issues aside, I suppose laser light is generally more stable. What else is there? Power efficiency? Heat? Maintenance cost? Or is it just that lasers sound freaking cool?
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Join the discussion
