[kraine]

There is not a lot to tell for the moment, but JVC (and SONY as well) will bring out a 4K projector for the home cinema market by the end of this year


Some french retailers will discover a pre-sample next week.

http://www.cinetson.org/phpBB3/proje...11-t34262.html

 

[stumlad]



Quote:
Originally Posted by kraine /forum/post/20873816


There is not a lot to tell for the moment, but JVC (and SONY as well) will bring out a 4K projector for the home cinema market by the end of this year


Some french retailers will discover a pre-sample next week.

http://www.cinetson.org/phpBB3/proje...11-t34262.html

Interesting.. but will it be able to accept a 4K input... assuming we had 4K content to feed to it, how would we do so. Also, is it 4K or 2160p? Note that I don't expect you to be able to answer these questions given the little information, but it would be interesting to find out! I can't read that thread

 

[kraine]

I'm expecting a real 4K resolution (4096 x 2160), but I hope to get all the specifications in a couple of days.

 

[Chuck Anstey]



Quote:
Originally Posted by kraine /forum/post/20873852


I'm expecting a real 4K resolution (4096 x 2160), but I hope to get all the specifications in a couple of days.

I think real 4K would be 4096x2304 for 16x9 at home. Not that there are any sources for that.


I just hope beyond hope that the projector uses removable boards for the input and processing electronics like the old Sony G70/G90 CRT projectors so that when a new standard or processing technique comes out they can simply make a new input board for $1-2K to replace the "outdated" input board. Just like I have an HDMI input board for my G70 even though there was no such thing when it was built. I'm rather frustrated that you have to replace the entire digital projector in just 2 years because they were made for that year's specific input standard/processing. My 13 year old CRT can do 3D in [email protected] but a two year old JVC DP cannot do 3D period. There is no reason a 4K projector shouldn't last 10+ years and still be fully current with whatever standards are changed during that time.

 

[Ericglo]

Exciting news. I think I know my first stop at Cedia.

Not much info in the link.
page 1 translated
page 2 translated

 

[amt]

Doesn't HDMI 1.4 support "4k" transmission? Hopefully this is not just a re-release of their current 4k projector.

 

[jlanzy]

Is my understanding correct, 4K projector, currently, takes our input, say, 1080p/24 from BR, and 'upscales' it to 4K, which then depends, at least in part, on the video processing chip in the projector to display it. The interest in this now , is that theoretically, 4K upscaled from 2K, looks ' better' ?


Which can be compared then to DVD upscaled to 1080p?

 

[Kris Deering]

Judging from the upscaled 4K images I've seen before it certainly doesn't look "bad". The real question comes as to whether 4K will truly benefit anyone beyond the 1080p we have already. If there was native 4K content to view I would be more enticed to try it and at least see if I saw enough difference to get excited about it in my own home theater, but the idea of upscaled 1080p to 4K in a theater where I sit 1.5x from my screen, I doubt there would be much benefit. Though I imagine with 3-chip designs there would be advantages in terms of convergence and such. I'd be far more interested in brighter, higher contrast displays with razor sharp lenses with 1080p resolution than probably anything 4K can bring at the moment (same statement goes for 3D if you substitute it for 4K in that last part).

 

[Chuck Anstey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kris Deering Judging from the upscaled 4K images I've seen before it certainly doesn't look "bad". The real question comes as to whether 4K will truly benefit anyone beyond the 1080p we have already.

Well does DVD look better on a 1080p display device versus a lower resolution one? I thought the general consensus was DVD upscaled to 1080p looked better than when displayed natively so I would think HD upscaled to 4K (well 3840x2160) would appear better than displayed natively. Now the improvement may not be worth the additional cost but that is a judgment call. I would definitely consider a 4K machine if it was designed to be "future proof" by being input / processing upgradable as I stated in my previous post.

 

[studiox_swe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amt Doesn't HDMI 1.4 support "4k" transmission? Hopefully this is not just a re-release of their current 4k projector.

HDMI 1.4 added support for additional resolutions:


3840 pixels wide by 2160 pixels high

4096 pixels wide by 2160 pixels high

 

[Ron Jones]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amt Doesn't HDMI 1.4 support "4k" transmission? Hopefully this is not just a re-release of their current 4k projector.

HDMI 1.4 increased the max. supported resolution to 4096×2160p24 with up to 12-bits per color (deep color). This is for 2D video, not 3D.


I believe the real lack of benefit vs. cost for a 4K projector is the lack of any native 4K consumer video source/content for the forseeable future. For Blu-ray this would probably require moving to (at least) a 4-layer disc and the formal development of an updated Blu-ray standard. Of course the movie studios would have to agree to actually release in 4K format, which I doubt will be highly unlikely anytime within the next several years.


For me the first upgrade I would like to see for Blu-ray would be to (1) support deep color for the source material and (2) support 1080p/48 for 3D video (as this seems to be where the higher end 3D movie producers are headed, e.g., starting with James Cameron and Peter Jackson). For projectors perhaps native 2.40:1 display chips would have much greater near-term utility than 4K and should also be less expensive to produce (i.e., 2.5 Mpixel vs. 8 Mpixel for 4K models). Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[amt]

I can see 4k as an advantage today, even with 1080p sources, for CIH on a 2.35 screen, where the projector is permanently zoomed to fit the width of a 2.35 screen (without a lens). The problem with this today (on 1080p projectors) is that content with an a/r lower than 2.35 is shrunk to maintain CIH, and we then lose detail on 1080p sources that are 1.85 or 1.78 a/r (you never get to use more than ~810 lines). With a 4k projector, even with "zooming" to fit a 2.35 a/r screen, those sources with lower than 2.35 a/r still get to use at least 1080 lines (looks like about 1620).


IMO, I would rather see other features first like really good lens memory, bright LED light sources, better convergence controls. And I would probably not consider 4k without Lumagen offering a processor for it.

 

[Spizz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kris Deering . I'd be far more interested in brighter, higher contrast displays with razor sharp lenses with 1080p resolution than probably anything 4K can bring at the moment (same statement goes for 3D if you substitute it for 4K in that last part).

Well said. But maybe the 4k panels will bring that Sharpness? Time will tell.

 

[Highjinx]

I feel, though 4k will make the panel features less evident, the scaling of 2k to 4k will end up softening the detail.


4k sources with 4k panel will be detailed and sharp.


I too will be quite happy with improved 1080p material for my viewing ratio.

 

[Kris Deering]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck Anstey Well does DVD look better on a 1080p display device versus a lower resolution one? I thought the general consensus was DVD upscaled to 1080p looked better than when displayed natively so I would think HD upscaled to 4K (well 3840x2160) would appear better than displayed natively.

This is apples and oranges though. DVD resolution just isn't enough for larger screens. When you start breaking the 60" barrier, it just simply isn't enough pixels to provide a sharp image on large front projection screens. So upscaling was a necessity. 1080p doesn't have that problem. 1080p has more than enough resolution for most large front projection screens unless you are going REALLY big. So scaling up even more in resolution isn't adding much if you are already maxed out in what you can perceive already.


What I do love about 4K is with material shot in higher resolutions (4K, 70mm, IMAX native) it makes BD 1080p transfers look even better. I would love to see 4K become more of a standard for DIs, or at least the minimum. But I doubt the majority of the HT market would see much if any benefit for 4K displays in the home.

 

[stumlad]

Someone started a thread in one of the HD media threads -- why 4K versus 3840x2160... It now becomes a real question since they are making it a consumer item. It's no longer 16:9 so it would require either stretching, cropping, or pillar boxes to watch all current content.. it took forever for "HD" to become the norm.. now that it is, they want us to buy now, even though we'll have to wait another 10-15 yrs before it becomes practical to use... and we already know these 4K models wont be able to do what the 2025 models can do

 

[Mikenificent1]



Quote:
Originally Posted by stumlad /forum/post/20875772


Someone started a thread in one of the HD media threads -- why 4K versus 3840x2160... It now becomes a real question since they are making it a consumer item. It's no longer 16:9

If you know basic math, you would know that 3840x2160 IS 16:9.

 

[Mark_H]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering /forum/post/20875571


This is apples and oranges though. DVD resolution just isn't enough for larger screens. When you start breaking the 60" barrier, it just simply isn't enough pixels to provide a sharp image on large front projection screens.

For CRTs it was more about doubling the scanlines so you could fill the screen instead of having 50% of the screen covered in black lines. For digital I don't see it as necessary.


I'd quite like a 4K panel though for my 2.35:1 screen as I could display all aspect ratios without an anamorphic lens and with no loss of detail (simply letter/pillar box the 1080p image within the 4k space)


On the other hand I'd rather see improvements, as others, in brightness, sharpness etc over the current JVC models.

 

[Lawguy]

4k may make LCOS projectors sharper. As Mark Petersen observed, the JVCs have an issue related to edge transitions that effectively results in some loss of sharpness. Even if this issue remains with 4k, the effect on sharpness could be reduced because the pixels are smaller.

 

[Bigus]

4k isn't about how large a screen is, but rather about the viewing angle.


Human vision isn't defined in terms of absolute pixel size but rather arc seconds and minutes of resolution. And the viewing angle is the same whether we are discussing sitting 10' from a 120" wide screen at home or 30' from a 360" wide screen in a cinema. Bottom line, at the limits of what we typically find comfortable for screen size (around 60 degrees of horizontal viewing angle for scope images), good normal human vision can resolve finer details than what 1920 x 1080 provides. This is just as true at home. It looks damned good, but isn't at the limit of out visual capability. 4k is. Beyond that more resolution is unlikely to be beneficial.


Of course this is only true if 4k source material is available, which of course it isn't. And personally I think upping framerates would be a better next step, then further improvements in contrast, brightness, and color space. 4k has benefits for the home, but minor compared to some of those other items.