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 :)

A link for Mr. Jannard.

Mr. J
did tell last year its coming very fast.

Nice find.
Luis
 
Hope they wont be too large to put in a "small" studio.. If they start at 65" you still have to put them quite a distance to view it comfortably.. Still it would be the best option to view 4k I guess. For now :) We still have to see what Red come out with.
 
Nice post Chris! did anyone else see the SONY AD BEFORE THE ARTICLE?

Said "Super 35MM for EVERY budget"!! LOL!
 
Christopher Polis said:
Only downside to that screen was a 50ms refresh. Not for playing games on :)
Click to expand...

Come on, dude... It was 47.952ms. :P

Seriously though, it was a Hitachi panel. IBM sold it, as did ViewSonic and Hitachi and a couple others targeting specific industries.

Quad-HD displays have made appearances here and there over the past 10 years. Consumer-oriented panels have been shown at CES, CEDIA, E3 and SIGGRAPH now for the past 4 years. Seen them more than once myself. I'm pretty sure we would have Quad-HD / 4K displays right now if the industry had not gone on the path to 3D. Samsung showed a 57" Quad-HD display back at CES 2008 (January). I was there. They said it would be "on the market" by the end of '09. Didn't happen. Looks like it's going to happen next year though. Many of the "experts" I know in the AV industry who are more in-tune with consumer and prosumer display products are telling me they're coming by the end of 2012. Looks like LG, Samsung/SONY, Sharp and one or two others will have QHD/4K on the market within the next 12 months.

Of course, it isn't a sure thing until it happens, but it's definitely coming. Part of what the TV makers are waiting for is something to connect them to. RED-RAY could very well be that something.
 
I don't think 3D delayed 4k at all. If anything passive 3D will hasten 4k more than 4k itself.

I have a 120hz TV that doesn't do 3D in any form. It's relatively easy for them to up the refresh rate. It's much more difficult to quadruple the pixels. Since they were already selling the "smooth-o-vision" they just needed to alter the electronics to alternate between two images instead of refresh one very quickly. As I understand it, 3D displays were pretty much just a side-effect of work already being done to diminish ghosting and increase refresh rates.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
I don't think 3D delayed 4k at all. If anything passive 3D will hasten 4k more than 4k itself.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. And yes, passive 3D could benefit from the higher resolution. OTOH, switching polarity masks over the entire screen are the new direction -- and should have been the direction from the start. And that's resolution-independent. IMO, I think it's more a matter of they didn't want to push into the higher resolution screens while also pushing into signal processing and delivery at 120fps. The industry loves to move along with incremental baby-steps. It's disgusting most of the time. How many years have we had 120Hz+ capable displays, but no way to actually input and display such a frame rate, even if we had a means to output from a PC or other device? But we got the motion blur reduction stuff. The TV makers love that shit for some reason. No one else likes it, but every new TV has it and it's usually switched on by default. Everything they do, "mooth-o-vision", 3D, etc.. are all side effects of what has come before.

I don't think 3D in and of itself is what really caused 4K to be late. Which it is... These manufacturers have been showing 4K displays for years now and before 3D hit, they were saying "next year" for a couple years in a row. At CEDIA '09 and CES '10, 3D was the buzz and if you asked about 4K, any manufacturer reps just changed the subject to 3D. Even if you tried to inquire about higher resolutions as they pertained to passive 3D, even when talking to passive 3D guys like JVC and LG, it would trip them up and they would act as if those high resolutions were now not going to happen because 3D was better and what people wanted.

Anyway, I'm not alone in this opinion. Many of the bigger consumer electronics and HDTV market gurus like to refer to the whole 3D thing as the "3Detour". It stifled a lot of things previously shown, not just higher resolutions. It's like manufacturers dropped everything, in many cases took major steps backward in display functionality, just to give us 3D. For example, Samsung's display quality took a major hit with the 3D introduction. Major light-leaks and streaking in corners on all the 3D models, completely tossing most of the advancements in backlight systems from the previous two years on the 3D models, things like that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top