Mitsubishi's upconverting technology takes 1080p to 4K x 2K, you to cloud nine
By Darren Murph 
posted February 19th 2010 5:12AM
posted February 19th 2010 5:12AM
posted February 19th 2010 5:12AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
why would the japanese tv debut in Korea?
That model is obviously a korean girl.
@purecussion
They outsource their waifu's now.
@Dante of the Inferno unless you are of asian decent there is no way you can be sure she is Korean
@bigdonny
Shes white, i can tell because i'm white as well.
@purecussion
No she looks Japanese to me. And i'm quite good at distinguishing my fellow Asians.
@purecussion
well, depend, there are noticeable difference between a citizen of Hokkaido and Okinawa just for name an example.
@KGB
well said
@purecussion I dunno...she looks black to me.
Buy a projector?
1080P is 1080P, just as 720P is 720P. All this 'upscaling' rubbish is embarrassing. But, as ever, customers bite.
@Oflife Amen.
@Yemble The problem is, with less and less people being trained in foundation skills such as engineering (instead preferring to become celebs - 50% of British youth want to be famous, only 1% want to work in an office, according to a survey last week), increasing numbers lack any ability to comprehend what they are buying and form an educated decision. Makes money of course, but it's hardly ethical. As it happens, the Japanese trailed ultra HD TV years ago. (Double or more the resolution of 1080P). So the tech does exist to do this properly.
@Oflife
Indeed Oflife, but up-scaling isn't rubbish.
Upscaling isn't about finding detail that isn't there. You have a 4000x2000 display that you need to fill with 1920x1080 data. Upscaling it to do with HOW you fill those missing pixels - what algorithm you use - do you double the size of the pixel (things could turn blocky), do you keep the pixels the same size and fill in the gaps in between them with a colour that is a misture of the two "true pixels" (things could turn blurry).
The only question we should be concerned about is how does the up-scaled picture look.
But you are correct in your assumption that some people will think it's creating detail that isn't there.
@Howzer
solution: don't get a pointless 4kx2k screen
@Oflife
Well, as long as they use technobabble and numbers to drown the consumers...
@Oflife
Not to jump on your shit Ofife, seems like enough people have disagreed with you, but, the bigger the display, the higher (nearly exponentially) the resolution you need to maintain equivalent pixel-density. If they're going to create demand for Displays larger than 70", they really need to solve this problem. The media is created at a resolution for the average consumer, 1080, but typical "couch-to-TV-distances" will reveal shortcomings that will be evident at point of sale. Also, if computers are going to be used on these displays, in order to have tight looking text, you need high pixel density. If any of you actually see for yourself what a computer looks like on a 1920x1280 50" display.. or look from 9' at a 70" display running only 1080p, you'll see the problem their working on solving.
@Howzer
But aren't you creating a false detail? You mention "Upscaling it to do with HOW you fill those missing pixels - what algorithm you use - do you double the size of the pixel (things could turn blocky), do you keep the pixels the same size and fill in the gaps in between them with a colour that is a misture of the two "true pixels" (things could turn blurry)."
Whatever extrapolated value the pixel has wasn't there from the original smaller picture. So by definition this is a false detail. Right?
I don't follow your reasoning.
Making detail where there was none? Can't do it. KTHXBAI.
"we tend to prefer starting with the former"
@Darren Murph
I thought the thinking was to do it the other way around as people tend to remember the last bit of information most, so it's better to end on a good thing?
Or do you all like crushing the hopes and aspirations of us mere mortals? ;o)
Will she be sitting there the whole time I watch a movie?
@cdf74dc9 I'll buy if she is, lol
@hiron39
No you wont.
will there be a 2000p standard soon?
@mocax 2160p to be exact. But would that be a 16:9 standard or 21:9 - I do not know.
Actually, since we're getting specific, 4k resolution is typically 4096. So at 16:9, it would be 2304 high. At least, that's what 16:9 RED footage is.
Mitsubishi!? i thought they made cars...
@JustThatNerdyGuy they make some stationary items too
@JustThatNerdyGuy
Errm... was that supposed to be sarcasm or genuine ignorance? Assuming the latter, Mitsubishi is Mitsubishi Corporation - an industrial giant, like GE. Like Toshiba Corp. H U G E. They do so many things, you wonder how.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=mitsubishi+corp&aq=f&aqi=g10&oq=
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/18/global-09_The-Global-2000_Rank.html
@JustThatNerdyGuy
Mitsubishi is a Heavy Industry, Heavy Industry is some special kind of industry that is able to build from a Tank to a can of beer.
@JustThatNerdyGuy
they also make cameras as Nikon is owned by Mitsubishi a super conglomerate
"the tech is not yet compatible with Blu-ray content" Somehow I think DRM is killing it! Welcome to the future!
Sharp came out with this killer technology 3 years ago.
http://hd.engadget.com/2007/01/15/sharps-4k-x-2k-64-inch-ultra-high-res-monitor/
@KGB
Not the same thing. This is talking about upscaling 1080p to 4k x 2k, not just screens supporting that resolution. As in so Full HD can look better than Full HD (in theory at least) and put these screens to good use.
Where did they get that chick, anyway? There's some piece of technology...
@nomadewolf
she doesn't seem to be upscaled tho'
@mrqs
No matter. Not everything is perfect...
Can human eyes even perceive the difference?
@(Unverified) - If you sit 3 feet from a 100" screen, you just might!!
Flip the HDCP passthrough bit from 0 to 1, problem solved!
I'd upconvert HER to...Uh...Nope, nowhere I can go with this.
Does she come with it?
Here's what I want 3D+OLED+1080P on a 55 inch screen for around 2 grand? Can you do that? All you manufactures out there!
4K is really pointless if there's no 4K specific content or hardware to support it.
@ray000000001 oh yeah baby, no content,no content.,And, is it 3D? lmao Again when the TV industry is totally at 1080p, which will be never then we may need to move to 4k x 2k in 2025. Obviously there is more use for 4k x 2k on on a PC but for TV, forget it.
So they are shipping TV's that are 4k x 2k now in readiness for what signal? and when?
What is the format used in digital theaters? I know those are huge files but couldn't you get your 1 or 2 TB portable drive loaded at something like redbox, or downloaded on Google's new mega ISP system and play it on a screen like this in the near future?
@SoCalCaliente
I like the way you think. You need to get this sorted sharpish.
I remember reading that for TV sets under 45" or so, the human eye is scientifically incapable of discerning the difference between 720p and 1080p at normal viewing distances. I assume that this means that you'd have to have about a 90" TV screen before you'd be able to tell the difference between 1080p and the next multiple.
In short, I'm not too excited for this advancement. I'd rather see picture quality enhancements, OLED, and maybe better/faster internet connectivity.
@ColinMcGraw
I call BS on those scientific studies. I used to think that 720p was enough on my humble 40" LCD, but I had never bothered to actually see the pixels (I had seen pixelation in games and grainy blockiness in HD channels, but I dismissed them as AA errors and low bandwidth respectively). Not too long ago, I actually loaded an all-black image with one white pixel through the VGA connection at the panel's native resolution, and man, those pixels are HUGE, I can see their square shape from 3 meters away. They're responsible for pretty much every artifact I've seen on that TV!
So yes, we need higher resolutions. Perhaps we do need better dynamic ranges and higher color depths before resolution, but we still need more resolution.
I remember reading an article back in the day that said there was a point where they human eye wouldn't be able to tell the difference in pixels anymore. I've also read articles that the human eye can't tell the difference between 1080 and 720. So would 4kx2k even matter?
in one word "POINTLESS".
by the time we get to this level of broadcast quality we should have "HOLOGRAPHIC'S"