Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

2560x1440 standard?

John Fairstein

John Fairstein

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
164
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Knoxville, TN
Website
www.thinktankservices.biz
Caught this on another list. Apologies if it has been posted before. (For the record, I'm with Jim on 4K+):

"The new standard file for theatrical minimum and to split off for television, internet, home viewing-- 2560x1440 because it divides up into all of the lower formats easily, while the HD formats seem to have issues with some of the new "standard" personal device screen sizes and display rates. the 2560x1440/24p also seems to convert to 240a and 600a without a problem, and since about half of the new television sets being shipped are either 240a or 600a based units, that means a reduction in cost of distribution by over 75% compared to 1920x1080/30p since they will be able to broadcast the downsplit version directly from the 2560x1440/240a or or 600a master to all formats without any conversions-- it reads out directly, and there are no foul ups in conversion like the current system displays. BTW, 600a supports the 3D versions, too."
 
Last edited:
Ambarella, that produce chips for sub $100 cameras, already produces a chip that will do 4mp p30, at 2560 across. It can pull in 4K raw at 60fps, but not with the normal encoding it uses. I expect a camera sometime in the near future under $1000 (maybe under $700)

Jvc has announced a 4K consumer camcorder, that will do 8.3mp 60fps stills.

The 2560 decision seems ill timed and directed. All HDTV formats divide into 3840 (SHD) (1920 into 2560 does not). We could have gone down a 1280 and 2560, 5120 path but we didn't because of 1920. Even if it helps with wider formats.
 
2560

2560

I can see that the Apple monitor is a nice choice for post production... but Quad "full / 1080" HD (3840 x 2160) and now Quad "almost / 720" HD (2560 x 1440)? I concede the cheapest option to build a Quad HD panel is to stitch four 1080p or 720p panels together, but why not build a 4096 x 2160 panel and be done ?
 
Stuart English said:
I can see that the Apple monitor is a nice choice for post production... but Quad "full / 1080" HD (3840 x 2160) and now Quad "almost / 720" HD (2560 x 1440)? I concede the cheapest option to build a Quad HD panel is to stitch four 1080p or 720p panels together, but why not build a 4096 x 2160 panel and be done ?
Click to expand...

Bacause you cannot watch Epic footy at 1:1? -:)

I'd prefer a single panel any day, actually. Even at 1080...
 
Stuart English said:
I can see that the Apple monitor is a nice choice for post production... but Quad "full / 1080" HD (3840 x 2160) and now Quad "almost / 720" HD (2560 x 1440)? I concede the cheapest option to build a Quad HD panel is to stitch four 1080p or 720p panels together, but why not build a 4096 x 2160 panel and be done ?
Click to expand...

As someone who already works for a company dealing with high density image electronics and the inevitable associated issues with yields at those densities, I think you already know much of the answer to your question. And as someone who used to work for one of the largest - if not the largest - manufacturers of flat screens and glass substrates for them in the world, you know some other parts of the answer, too. And as someone who has been around consumer electronics and understands the financial realities of sales vs. costs, you know the rest of the answer as well.
 
2560

2560

:-)

I think I do understand the why (as in manufacturing expediency), I just don't understand the why (as in creating a sustainable new market)
 
3*3 720p panels = SHD 3840*2160p screen.

Pixel density today already allows a cheap SHD display. I am sitting in front of a new $99 low pixel density 18.5 inch display I just bought for a special project. 3*18.5 inches = 55.5 inch. So, a panel maker can theoretically (put more than likely) make and supply to market at $99*9 (less than $1000) a 55 inch and 4k across (this is a 1366 across screen) using cheap panel technology already. Of course, the failure rates for the screen should be higher, as it covers many more pixels etc.

A run down on recent SHD history, and why this is all rubbish:

Years ago it was revealed that the price difference between 720p and 1080i screens was not much (at the time). So, there is a possibility that a higher density smaller 4K display can be made. But it does not stop there, I did not buy the $99 13 inch 1366 HD TV's, and as far a density goes I think there are much higher density display technologies out there (including the 99 or 22 inch photo editing displays that had over 8mp available something like 5+ years ago). Projection should also be able to deliver these resolutions cheaply in office. So, the possibility of reasonably cost professional 30 inch 4K display is likely (actually they were to arrive around 4 years ago). It would not surprise me if 8K were now possible.

SHD panels were to come to the consumer/computer market around 4-5 years ago, but were squashed. Nvidia was promoting it as a new graphics standard, and SHD panels had already been developed, but people did not want to play ball.

What we are seeing is strategy and marketing politics. Why sell tomorrow today, when you can sell yesterday today at greater profit margins. When people have the cash, but stop buying yesterday, then sell them enough days after to get them buying again. Hence we got 1080p, wide color gamut/led, 4+ color and 3D. Now that is not doing the trick, we seem to be getting ready for SHD displays (ultra HD (close to 8K) is under development. An advantage of 2.56K is it will probably be very cheap to make panels for in the high end, high profit TV's compared to SHD, and users will have to buy SHD to replace them eventually.

I had a friend who is a top engineer, and used to work in a very large top corporation as an engineer/slash future top management. As I illustrated to him, even being an engineer does not necessarily inform you of the real reasons why (you are told what you need to know and what to do in these situations), or what is going on, what is really going on at sections of the top. Some of the things that maybe going on are actually illegal, so you won't find them out in the open. All assessment of what somebody else tells you, who has a vested interest, has to be weighed up against the fact, it actually requires thinking beyond ones normal realm.

We originally started up the dvinfo DIY cinema camera projects, which led to the Red one and scarlet, because the camera industry was under-delivering, promoting stratifications which promote profit, and consumer video camera performance was going sub-par below acceptable levels (not that is was completely acceptable top begin with), they were very dark days indeed. So we deliberately threatened to kick them up the but, and today the features slowly flood in, so much so it made many of the projects pointless. But today there is still room for somebody to do what they are not prepared to do.


So, SHD capability has been here, and is possible cheaply now, the rest is ...
 
Wayne Morellini said:
...why this is all rubbish:

SHD panels were to come to the consumer/computer market around 4-5 years ago, but were squashed. Nvidia was promoting it as a new graphics standard, and SHD panels had already been developed, but people did not want to play ball.

What we are seeing is strategy and marketing politics. Why sell tomorrow today, when you can sell yesterday today at greater profit margins. When people have the cash, but stop buying yesterday, then sell them enough days after to get them buying again. Hence we got 1080p, wide color gamut/led, 4+ color and 3D. Now that is not doing the trick, we seem to be getting ready for SHD displays (ultra HD (close to 8K) is under development. An advantage of 2.56K is it will probably be very cheap to make panels for in the high end, high profit TV's compared to SHD, and users will have to buy SHD to replace them eventually.

I had a friend who is a top engineer, and used to work in a very large top corporation as an engineer/slash future top management. As I illustrated to him, even being an engineer does not necessarily inform you of the real reasons why (you are told what you need to know and what to do in these situations), or what is going on, what is really going on at sections of the top. Some of the things that maybe going on are actually illegal, so you won't find them out in the open. All assessment of what somebody else tells you, who has a vested interest, has to be weighed up against the fact, it actually requires thinking beyond ones normal realm....
So, SHD capability has been here, and is possible cheaply now, the rest is ...
Click to expand...

I see. So it's all a conspiracy. And companies making profit is evil.

Uhhhhh.... OK. If you say so.
 
M Most said:
I see. So it's all a conspiracy. And companies making profit is evil...
Click to expand...

I imagine it's pretty normal sort of corporate business practice for those that practice such things and can get away with it. They are there to massage and manage the market to get the most amount of money, simple supply and demand economic strategies (manufacturing=we control the supply, and marketing=we make you want it). No use being naive about it. Hasn't anybody been to business school recently.. ohh..wrong group.

In other words, how would one think it is done?

To start you off, have a look at the documentary the corporation, and watch the several hours of extra interviews. The old shell corporation boss is interesting, follow the screen full of web links.

That should give us a week ;) .
 
Flat Panels

Flat Panels

3*3 720p panels = SHD 3840*2160p screen.

Pixel density today already allows a cheap SHD display. I am sitting in front of a new $99 low pixel density 18.5 inch display I just bought for a special project. 3*18.5 inches = 55.5 inch. So, a panel maker can theoretically (put more than likely) make and supply to market at $99*9 (less than $1000) a 55 inch and 4k across (this is a 1366 across screen) using cheap panel technology already. Of course, the failure rates for the screen should be higher, as it covers many more pixels etc.
Click to expand...

That's one way to make a 4K panel - take nine 1366 x 768 panels = 4098 x 2304, use HDMI 1.4 for input, add a 2 x up-converter.

But the real issue is to build a panel in volume... and 4096 x 2160 has an obvious fit to HDTV and UHDTV and DCI format movies....
 
Stuart English said:
But the real issue is to build a panel in volume... and 4096 x 2160 has an obvious fit to HDTV and UHDTV and DCI format movies....
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't see how 4096x2160 has any fit to HD, at least not without cropping. 3840x2160 (Red's 4KHD format, designed for the purpose) fits perfectly, though.

4096x2160 is a mathematical match for the current digital cinema package, but I really don't see a market for solid state panels for a theatrical exhibition format - unless, of course, you're talking about not having to reformat for a theoretical home targeted 4K product. Doh! Sorry, it's still relatively early and my brain isn't quite working yet...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top