Face it, 1080p just isn't bleeding edge anymore. By the end of the year we're sure to have a $50, 1080p iPod from Apple, and then what are we going to do? Friends, we must move onto greater resolutions now before we miss the proverbial boat, and leading the way is
Sharp with their new 65-inch prototype LCD which sports a 4096 x 2160 resolution. They're not the only one playing the ultra HD game, Westinghouse was showing off a
56-inch 3840 x 2160 display at CES in January, and Japan's NHK has been prepping a
7680 x 4320 "Super Hi-Vision" TV standard for a while, but Sharp looks to be doing a pretty good job of things all the same. The display, which is still in development, will be initially targeted at film and television producers, along with medical imaging purposes, but we're sure we'll find a good enough excuse -- and the nefarious means -- to squeeze one of these into the Engadget HQ within a year or so. Along with the 64-incher, Sharp was showing off their new manufacturing methods that allow them to get six 52-inch LCDs out of a single glass sheet, along with a "Mega Contrast" display that boasts of a spanking 1 million-to-1 contrast ratio.
posted October 4th 2006 10:40AM
Dude...I can't imagine anything better than 1080P. But then again my grandfather couldn't imagine color way back when. Pretty soon we'll be able to jump into the damn screen!
dang.
Damnit Sharp! Stop dicking around and build me a holodeck!
The only way we'll get a 1080p iPod within the year is if we use Pluto's years. Starting now.
Great. this will be the tech that Sony will be trying to push the next gen of video game consoles instead of 1080p. 10yrs from now, I can see this happening.
except sony wont be around in 10 years.
giltronic
Is this the 4p [i]standard[/i] I had heard mentioned on some HD camera spec sheets (prototype stuff of course)?? So is 1080p going to be the standard for 3 years, 5 years, 10 years?? What do you guys think. When would we actually start seeing content for something like 4p (i like that name)??
And where is the info on that million to 1 contrast ratio display.
I saw the NHK system at NAB this year... and even being surrounded other TV pros who are barely impressed by HD now, there wasn't anyone in the 'theater' who wasn't absolutely blown away. Simply amazing. People were standing in line for over an hour just to see it.
These screens aren't meant to be looked at within 3 feet radius. If they are, most extra estate won't be viewed. If they aren't, our eyes can't pick up extra details. Either way seems redundant.
Soooo... what's the point of getting one for home-use if the content providers are just barely producing 1080i content? What exactly are you hoping to watch on this? Home-made images and video possibly? I think I'll wait until I can't find a SD broadcast in my cable TV schedule and then I'll worry about >HD.
It's for your home done porn collection of course, shot with your stolen Red camera.
so what kind of interface would one need to run these screens? DVI-D is maxed out at 2600x1900. two DVI-D inputs? three? if these ever come into production, there's a new standard to be made...
There's not a huge advantage to higher resolution displays in the home. The ideal viewing distance for a 56" TV is 7.2 feet, based on the THX recommended viewing angle. Anything much higher than 36 degrees starts to cause eye strain regardless of resolution.
Based on visual acuity the ideal viewing distance for a 56" TV showing fully resolved HDTV is 7.3 feet. Anything closer and you can make out individual pictures--anything further and you start to lose detail.
There's room for a little improvement over 1080p, but anything beyond that will be lost at a comfortable viewing distance.
http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html
Plugging in 36 degrees into that guy's formulas, the maximum resolution for a 36 degree arc would be about 7200 pixels in one direction. Any higher and it is not possible for the eye to distinguish 2 pixels as separate points.
So the super-high vision talked about in the article would be the end-all-be-all for the standard movie viewing experience.
Of course if you start talking about immersion, having the screen wrap around, or the use of peripheral vision in video games, there's pleeeenty more room to go. As the above link estimates, the max rez for a static image for full human vision (allowing your eyes to move around it) is over 576 megapixel. That's crazy.
Is 1080p enough for a moving (non-static image)? Probably. For now. :)
"There's room for a little improvement over 1080p, but anything beyond that will be lost at a comfortable viewing distance."
Well, increasing resolution just makes the image finer, not bigger. If you have a 42-inch tv with 1080 pixels down or 3000 pixels down, the latter will have a much sharper image, ESPECIALLY if you are closer to it. You ever been closer than 4 feet to a 1080 res 40+inch TV, and it looks like crap. Higher res will make closer viewing much better.
With Philips 3d engine, Sharps pixels, and more standard colors being added to plasma and lcd displays. We should be able to mimic the amount of colors and depth that the eye can see by 2009. Apparently, even the most modern of TVs today can only produce half the available colors in the light spectrum that the eye can perceive.
Except that Sony has a 4K projector that can amaze you ! I've seen it several times and it's amazing. I can't wait to see 4K on a 56" screen.
What is NHK goign to call their High-Vision tech? HIV compatible? Eeeeeeeeeeew...
Color Gamut? Dynamic range?
Sure, lots of pixels, but what's the color gamut like, and the dynamic range?
Those Q's aside, gotta say though I'm impressed.
I want an upscaling HD-DVD or Blu Ray player.
That wins comment of the day for me :D
Excellent I'll run out a get one today hmmm better call the cable guy and tell him he needs to beef up the bandwidth an order of magnitude or three.
Wonder if I'll have to wait an extra day for that?
"The ideal viewing distance for a 56" TV is 7.2 feet, based on the THX recommended viewing angle. Anything much higher than 36 degrees starts to cause eye strain regardless of resolution."
No, THX recommends 36 degrees *minimum* for the back row seat in a movie theater.
"The angle subtended by the left and right edges of the Cinemascope image and the farthest seat in the auditorium is recommended to be 36 degrees. The minimum acceptable angle is 26 degrees for THX certified cinemas."
36 degrees is not the recommended maximum, it's the recommended minimum. How can they recommend 36 degrees minimum if they claim more induces eye strain?
"Based on visual acuity the ideal viewing distance for a 56" TV showing fully resolved HDTV is 7.3 feet. Anything closer and you can make out individual pictures--anything further and you start to lose detail."
Yes, that's why higher resolution at the same screen size allows you to sit closer and increase your viewing angle. Maximum viewing angles are limited by currently HDTV resolutions and wider would be even better. Anyone who's sat 7' from a 56" screen knows that wider would be even better.
The digital film standard is 4k. This screen could resolve it. There's not much shot in it, but watching it would be like watching a 35mm film projected onto a 65" screen, probably pushing your ability to distinguish details in a moving picture.
There's no single resolution standard for 4k. It's not like HD where 1080p is always 1920x1080. Rather, pretty much anything resolving about 8 megapixels could be considered 4k. Though I suppose it technically should have 4,000 pixels of horizontal resolution.
Viewsonic had a 22" monitor that managed 3840x2160 (or something similar, it was at least 8mp) a couple years ago. This kind of resolution isn't really new, but resolution at that size certainly is.
Also, 1 million to 1 contrast ratio? Even SED TV makers are only claiming 50,000:1 from what I've heard. Shouldn't SED be the same as CRT? CRT is theortetically offers an inifinite contrast ratio because some pixels can be completely dark. In practice, ambient light, even that just coming from the lit parts of the screen, makes that impossible.
Consumers are already having a difficult time getting unadulterated HDTV delivered to their HD displays. Eith the local broadcasters are meek on content delivery, or agents like DirecTV and Dish Networks deliver HD-lite down-resolution versions of true HD content.
The only thing I could imagine these displays being good for in my home is as a computer monitor.
TheNatural: only can can determine what variables make a better picture quality. Is it the brightness, the contrast ratio, the resolution, the grayscale, the color resolution, the refresh rate, etc., etc., etc.
Christopher Johnson: While I would agree that digital photography could most certaingly benefit from a higher resolution display to perform post-production editing and even image evaluation (slideshow), this should not be interpreted as the limit of resolution is based on its source.
Interpolation can, under the right conditions, provide for a much better end result. Just think of how many people are scaling 480 interlaced lines to displays with higher resolution. Sure, I would tend to agree with someone saying there is a limit to that kind of interpolative scaling.
But, let's take the flip side of the coin. If no benefit came from a display with higher resolution than the intended source then anything above WVGA would be worthless unless the majority of someone's content was actually higher. So, should one do without watching 1920x1080 sources if they have a WXGA (1280 by 720) display, or someone using a rectangular pixel XGA flat-panel? U bet the market already spoke and thousands of displays got sold on the premise I'm offering.
looks hot, but i wonder if they cured dead pixel problems in new gen lcds yet