• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

Sharp inroduces 4k LCD panels

Right on, T7!

I even recall all sorts of people on this forum putting off HD sources and bragging about the quality of up converters for DVDs to make them as good as they will ever need. I even recall people saying they would never need HD.

Well, there are already processors and BD players with 4K upconversion capability.
 
While I'm sure that we will eventually see 4k media, players and displays, to me, the real question is what size display is needed to appreciate 4k? Haven't we been (generally correctly) advising that 1080p in certain instances is truly overkill because it's impossible to tell the difference. For example, a 42" display viewed from 12', such as in a bedroom, won't present the benefit of 1080p. However, a 52" viewed from 10' away, say in a LR or HT, will likely benefit from the added resolution. How far away from a 60" would you need to be to tell 1080p from 4k?

For those of us w/ projos, I think the difference could be substantial. I don't know, however, it if will be as significant as the jump from 720p to 1080p (despite the numeric significance).

John
 
yromj said:
While I'm sure that we will eventually see 4k media, players and displays, to me, the real question is what size display is needed to appreciate 4k? Haven't we been (generally correctly) advising that 1080p in certain instances is truly overkill because it's impossible to tell the difference. For example, a 42" display viewed from 12', such as in a bedroom, won't present the benefit of 1080p. However, a 52" viewed from 10' away, say in a LR or HT, will likely benefit from the added resolution. How far away from a 60" would you need to be to tell 1080p from 4k?

For those of us w/ projos, I think the difference could be substantial. I don't know, however, it if will be as significant as the jump from 720p to 1080p (despite the numeric significance).

John
Click to expand...

Tell that to anyone who upgraded their iPad, iPhone, or Macbook to one with the retina display. The universal accepted belief is that with the retina display, everything looks much better, especially photos and video.
 
Oh, I agree that the marketing will be easy. The real-world difference is what I'm talking about.

Just look at the HD sunglasses available, or the "3D" helicopters, etc. Buzzwords suck!!

John
 
Flint said:
yromj said:
While I'm sure that we will eventually see 4k media, players and displays, to me, the real question is what size display is needed to appreciate 4k? Haven't we been (generally correctly) advising that 1080p in certain instances is truly overkill because it's impossible to tell the difference. For example, a 42" display viewed from 12', such as in a bedroom, won't present the benefit of 1080p. However, a 52" viewed from 10' away, say in a LR or HT, will likely benefit from the added resolution. How far away from a 60" would you need to be to tell 1080p from 4k?

For those of us w/ projos, I think the difference could be substantial. I don't know, however, it if will be as significant as the jump from 720p to 1080p (despite the numeric significance).

John
Click to expand...

Tell that to anyone who upgraded their iPad, iPhone, or Macbook to one with the retina display. The universal accepted belief is that with the retina display, everything looks much better, especially photos and video.
Click to expand...
And yet, audio-wise, most younger folks are going backwards, to .mp3's. I wonder why, the improvement isn't at all hard to hear... :think:
 
Flint said:
Tell that to anyone who upgraded their iPad, iPhone, or Macbook to one with the retina display. The universal accepted belief is that with the retina display, everything looks much better, especially photos and video.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that there is no difference between a "retina" display and a non retina iPad? I switch between my iPad 2 and my work 3 all the time. There is a difference.
 
yromj said:
Oh, I agree that the marketing will be easy. The real-world difference is what I'm talking about.

Just look at the HD sunglasses available, or the "3D" helicopters, etc. Buzzwords suck!!

John
Click to expand...

You wouldn't want VGA resolution on your computer monitor, and most people sit only 18 inches away from that. I think there will always be a benefit to higher resolutions, albeit with diminishing returns.
 
^^ That argument is the opposite, the closer you sit is when higher resolution is more noticeable...
 
Batman said:
^^ That argument is the opposite, the closer you sit is when higher resolution is more noticeable...
Click to expand...

DOH!! Yeah, you're right, I had it backwards.
 
Towen7 said:
Flint said:
Tell that to anyone who upgraded their iPad, iPhone, or Macbook to one with the retina display. The universal accepted belief is that with the retina display, everything looks much better, especially photos and video.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that there is no difference between a "retina" display and a non retina iPad? I switch between my iPad 2 and my work 3 all the time. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

I am implying that higher resolution is worth some effort and cost.

I was the guy screaming that 1080i and 720p was better than 480i or even 480p and many kept saying it was overkill. Then I argued that 1080p was better than 720p or 1080i when BluRay came out and many kept saying it was overkill. Now we are looking at 4K being relatively common in the near future and people are already claiming it is overkill and unnecessary.

While audio may not be better once it reached a resolution of 48K sampling rate at 18bit depth, images are not the same. Because of how we move our focus around the screen, the way we pick and choose moments of concentration and moments of passive viewing, and the way we tend to expect to be able to stare at random objects in the field of view which are not necessarily something the director considered important - well, those things are bettered with higher resolutions.
 
Got a new Crutchfield catalog today, it featured an LG 4K TV, 84", only $16,999. :shock:
 
I remember the first 42" plasma set I saw at a retail store was something like $10,000.
 
In 2000 I was working for NEC and at the time the only plasma panels yu could get wer only monitors and were 42" from NEC or Fujitsu.

Even with my employee discount they were $7'500.

D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top