Recall that
4k D-ILA chip that JVC announced earlier this year? Fast forward a few months, and feast your eyes on JVC Victor's not-yet-named 4k x 2k
projector, which was on display at this year's CEATEC. The device boasts an incredible 4,096 x 2,400 resolution and can "throw a 200-inch picture from about 7-meters away." Additionally, the unit featured a contrast ratio of 10,000:1, 3,500 lumens, and employed the same 1.27-inch D-ILA microdisplay that we saw in June. No word on price, but start saving those pennies for a "first half of 2008" release.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
cirby @ Oct 5th 2007 2:40PM
Nice resolution, but 3500 lumens for a super-high-res large-venue projector?
Not so great.
The big problem is that, for the kind of thing this resolution is going to be used for, you need a lot more light. A 200 inch (16.6 foot diagonal) screen isn't particularly huge nowadays - 14 feet wide (usually, a 10.5 x 14 screen). If I had to use these for a big show, I'd have to stack up two of them to get enough brightness for the image (or the client would complain the whole time) - and that ends up dropping your effective resolution in half right off.
Sean O @ Oct 5th 2007 5:37PM
Just call it 4k. It's a digital film standard. Nobody says "4k by 2k".
Alvin @ Oct 5th 2007 8:43PM
The 4K film scanning standard you refer to is actualy 4096x3112. And if we really wanted to start nitpicking, 2K is 2048px, not 2400. So while 4K-by-2K isn't exactly correct, it's a lot closer than saying "4K".
Sean O @ Oct 5th 2007 10:08PM
No. That is not the "standard" I referred to. Some still photographers might scan at 4096x3112, but it is never done that way for cinema because movies are not presented at that aspect ratio (4:3).
Any digital film resolution that is around 4000 pixels wide is called 4k. Period. That's the reality. People who work with DI don't say 4k by 2k. They say 4k. People who make cameras and scanners don't say 4k by 2k. They specify the exact resolution, or they just say 4k.
As far as actual 4k standards, you can find the ones defined by the MPAA here:
http://www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/defineterm.jhtml?term=4Kresolution
Digital film is defined by the width (4k wide or 2k wide). Unlike video which is defined by height (480, 720, 1080 high). The reason is simple. The height of film can vary dramatically depending on the aspect ratio. Your example is a very extreme one which would never be used for cinema.
With video however, it is defined by height. There are only two aspect ratios (4:3 16:9). And any variance on the standard resolutions are done by altering the width, not the height. For example, an anamorphic DVD is stretched to be wider. It's still 480 non-square pixels high. Another example is how HDcam "cheats" by recording at 1440x1080, rather than 1920x1080. It's still 1080 lines though.
Since 4k can mean different resolutions, specifying the exact resolution of a particular projector is important and I'm glad the author did it. You do so by saying 4096x2400 (which he did). But by saying "4k x 2k" in the headline is confusing and bad terminology, especially since there is also a "2k" standard.
Nobody calls 1080 HDTV "2k by 1k".
Alvin @ Oct 6th 2007 12:46AM
Oh. Thanks
pagercam @ Oct 5th 2007 5:46PM
Perfect for displaying 4K movies filmed with your RED camera!!!
scott @ Oct 5th 2007 6:57PM
You'd need a mighty impressive RAID to show any media at native rez, and likely a quad SLI to play solitaire from a comp (if possible at all). Not to mention the ferrari-on-a-whim bank account.
Fun first-gen toy, i sure want one, but this one ain't for me.