4K...

[feppe]

Erik

there is even more: The announced Canon 4k Videodevices  and if you think of it - 8K video has about 33 Mpix.
This may be pretty exactly what will come out of the new chips from Sony and Canon in the "Full Format" 24x36 range with over 30 Mpix.
The Japanese (and Koreans) make plans longer and more strategically than western companies.
They have built a potential platform support and infrastructure during the last years, HD is a done Business in Asia, they need something new to secure their revenues.
We should not believe only because the US and Europe are a bit late compared to the Hightech Asian countries we are the main target of their business plan.
We are massmarket and will fill their RD costs on the volume, but their center markets are Korea and Japan (and maybe now China) where the competition for Hightech is
hard and very much giving these companies their positioning against their competitors.

This is how Asia ticks today. And the japanese/korean Public is technology crazy like nobody here in Europe or the US. They pull development not us here in the "old and shrink to dying" countries. I know this will give many "western" people hickups, but that´s the reality like it or not.

Typical Japanese and Hong Kong homes are much smaller than European or US homes, so 4k makes even less sense there for consumers. Don't know about rest of Asia.

[BJL]

Typical Japanese and Hong Kong homes are much smaller than European or US homes, so 4k makes even less sense there for consumers.

Going beyond 4K makes sense ... if you sit at a distance from the screen about the screen height or less, so less than half the screen diagonal. I suppose people could do that even with moderate size screens, like viewing a 30" diagonal screen from 15" away, or 40" from 20" away, but I really do expect it to happen with any home screen size, even in the long-term.

[feppe]

Going beyond 4K makes sense ... if you sit at a distance from the screen about the screen height or less, so less than half the screen diagonal. I suppose people could do that even with moderate size screens, like viewing a 30" diagonal screen from 15" away, or 40" from 20" away, but I really do expect it to happen with any home screen size, even in the long-term.

Assuming you didn't miss any "no"s in the above passage, I disagree. It is very hard to setup a living room to allow for 100" plus screens in homes or apartments. You need proper viewing distance, for the screen to be close to the floor, and clearance in front of the screen.

It's no problem for those of us who can dedicate a room for a home theater, or are such movie buffs that they put cinema before feng shui, and can afford such a setup, but for the 99% it's not an option; especially with 4k which asks them to drop a few thousand euros to replace their 1080p TV they just bought a few years ago.

Caveats: the upcoming generation watching movies on their laptops might change things as they are comfortable sticking their noses to a big screen, as would heads-up-displays, direct drawing to the eyes with a laser, or contact lenses with screens on them (all of these are at least on proof-of-concept stage, no scifi).

[Farmer]

Removal of "screen door effect" is a reason why it might still be successful in areas where smaller homes are more common.  Living in Australia, houses are typically large (we just recently overtook the US for largest average house size) but it's a good point about many parts of Asia and even Europe.

However, even a smaller screen if you sit closer you can start to pick up the screen door effect from a 3LCD projector - higher pixel density would tend to remove that, allowing you to sit closer without reducing the quality.

I think Feppe is probably onto something with the point about emerging HUD technology and similar, though.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I could easily make the projection screen larger. It's a motorized, mounted on the roof, so it is nonobtrusive when not in use.

Best regards
Erik

Assuming you didn't miss any "no"s in the above passage, I disagree. It is very hard to setup a living room to allow for 100" plus screens in homes or apartments. You need proper viewing distance, for the screen to be close to the floor, and clearance in front of the screen.

It's no problem for those of us who can dedicate a room for a home theater, or are such movie buffs that they put cinema before feng shui, and can afford such a setup, but for the 99% it's not an option; especially with 4k which asks them to drop a few thousand euros to replace their 1080p TV they just bought a few years ago.

Caveats: the upcoming generation watching movies on their laptops might change things as they are comfortable sticking their noses to a big screen, as would heads-up-displays, direct drawing to the eyes with a laser, or contact lenses with screens on them (all of these are at least on proof-of-concept stage, no scifi).

[feppe]

Removal of "screen door effect" is a reason why it might still be successful in areas where smaller homes are more common.  Living in Australia, houses are typically large (we just recently overtook the US for largest average house size) but it's a good point about many parts of Asia and even Europe.

However, even a smaller screen if you sit closer you can start to pick up the screen door effect from a 3LCD projector - higher pixel density would tend to remove that, allowing you to sit closer without reducing the quality.

A non-issue, depending on the PJ. I'm on my second projector, both LCD, and the first Panasonic PT-AX200 720p PJ didn't have a screen door effect, and neither does my current Epson 8350 1080p PJ. I've projected up to 120".

I could easily make the projection screen larger. It's a motorized, mounted on the roof, so it is nonobtrusive when not in use.

I'm sure you can, but I'm talking about the masses. Motorized screens are expensive, and even then one has to re-arrange a typical living room to be able to watch it at a comfortable height and distance.

[hjulenissen]

I'm sure you can, but I'm talking about the masses. Motorized screens are expensive, and even then one has to re-arrange a typical living room to be able to watch it at a comfortable height and distance.

The future will show what display sizes will be available at economic price points. The world have gone from 32" to 40" to 46" in a few years now, I dont see it stopping yet. Many people would buy a 100" lcd if it was <10mm thick, used <150Watts, cost less than $2000.

People can watch their display at pretty much any distance. If the distance is small enough compared to the display size, they will be able to distinguish high-quality 4k from high-quality 1080p*). This is true for iPad-type displays, 40" tvs and 200" home cinema setups.

The recommendation is to sit at a distance equal to approximately 3-4 times the display height, but this could be as much to conceal limitations of the format as anything else. If screens covering a larger field of view become more prevalent, I predict that movies will be framed different - spending more of the screen real-estate on stuff that is not critical to the story, but perhaps adds to the "feeling of being there" (ala what Philips are trying to do with their rgb wall lighting system).

-h
*)There are of course limits to how close people can focus their eyes, but I dont think that is very relevant.

[Farmer]

A non-issue, depending on the PJ. I'm on my second projector, both LCD, and the first Panasonic PT-AX200 720p PJ didn't have a screen door effect, and neither does my current Epson 8350 1080p PJ. I've projected up to 120".

Then you haven't been that close to the image. Even on the latest 1080p 3LCD models once you get close enough you can see it.

At normal viewing distances and conditions you don't notice it but if people have smaller areas then it's more likely to be seen.

[BJL]

Assuming you didn't miss any "no"s in the above passage, I disagree.

I missed a crucial "not", so we agree. See correction above.

Irony and bad typing are a bad combination!

[feppe]

The future will show what display sizes will be available at economic price points. The world have gone from 32" to 40" to 46" in a few years now, I dont see it stopping yet. Many people would buy a 100" lcd if it was <10mm thick, used <150Watts, cost less than $2000.

While you are correct on all accounts, my main argument is and has been that living room arrangements and viewing distances don't allow for a big enough screen to get the benefit from 4k in consumer surroundings - this excludes most enthusiasts -, unless some disruptive tech comes along.

I'm done here, as I've rehashed that argument at least three times now.

Then you haven't been that close to the image. Even on the latest 1080p 3LCD models once you get close enough you can see it.

At normal viewing distances and conditions you don't notice it but if people have smaller areas then it's more likely to be seen.

What's the point? I realize we're on LL which is full of pixel peepers, and there's a place for such activity. But what on earth would be the point in pixel peeping a 100" screen? I guarantee you won't see a screen door effect at reasonable screen sizes and viewing distances with the PJs I mentioned unless you use binoculars. Likely quite a few other PJs are the same.

I missed a crucial "not", so we agree. See correction above.

Irony and bad typing are a bad combination!

Heh, thought so

[hjulenissen]

While you are correct on all accounts, my main argument is and has been that living room arrangements and viewing distances don't allow for a big enough screen to get the benefit from 4k in consumer surroundings - this excludes most enthusiasts -, unless some disruptive tech comes along.

Yes we have repeated our arguments back and forth a couple of times now.

I still don't get how one can argue screen-size and resolution without taking distance into account. People are using screens from 3.5" to 200", they are sitting at 0.3 meter to 20 meter distance. They are viewing 100x100 pixel MMS videos and 4k DCI. For some combination of screen size and viewing distance, 4k will be warranted.

I imagine some student homes where a 32" 1080p might be somewhat improved by a 32" 4k, without sitting "20cm from the screen".

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP092.pdf
I interpret this report as 5% of the viewers would have some benefit of 4k at 35" diagonal and 2.7 meters viewing distance.

Nit-picking aside, I think that for the majority, 720p is plenty for video, even at 50". There are many other quality aspects than resolution (encoding quality, avoiding frame-rate conversion, color accuracy etc), and the tendency to talk about only spatial resolution is bad.

-h

[Farmer]

Feppe - over the Christmas / New Year period I was watching a 3LCD projector at home for about a month.  I've watched, literally, dozens of different models over the years, including the very latest.  The screen door has been improved, but it's still there.  4k will reduce that effect just as 1080 over 720 improved it (along with general technology improvements).

[feppe]

Feppe - over the Christmas / New Year period I was watching a 3LCD projector at home for about a month.  I've watched, literally, dozens of different models over the years, including the very latest.  The screen door has been improved, but it's still there.  4k will reduce that effect just as 1080 over 720 improved it (along with general technology improvements).

Which PJ was it? I just pixel peeped my Epson 8350, and the screen door is visible to 1.5m or so on a 86" screen. I normally view it at 3m.

[Farmer]

The two most recent?  TW-5500 and TW-9000W.  I think out to about 1.5m to 2m is right (don't have it right in front of me now), and with a still image (you don't notice it on moving images until you get a little closer).  The screen size was 105" (diagonal).

FWIW, I don't wear glasses and I do tend to have better accuity (noticeably) than many of my friends and peers, but I'd take a punt and say it's 6/6 and theirs is actually slightly degraded.  Being in my 40's, I doubt I have the acuity that I exhibited as a child anymore :-)

I'll make a point of specifically measuring next time.

[Stefan.Steib]

Funny......
The same people who swear they can see Micron size differences in Prints and that this makes sense to print with 300 or more DPI on 2x3 meters deny that there will be an improvement when this same thing shall happen on a video screen...............hmmmmm

I believe a 100" AMOLED 4k or better 8k screen will be exactly what I want to see in my Livingroom, hopefully in latest 5 years from now.

Regards
Stefan

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

When I got my first flat panel TV at 42" and 720p I tried to sit as close as possible (< 2m). After that I upgraded to a 1024x768 projector and 1.5 m wide screen. Resolution at 3.5 was barely acceptable, so it was difficult to find seating. Three years ago I got 1080p projection and upgraded to a 1.75wide screen. Now we can sit 2.5m from the screen but resolution could be better. With 4K I could probably keep viewing position and maybe even getting a larger projection screen.

A 100" at 8K would be a nice way of displaying images, instead of prints. I would love it! ;-)

Best regards
Erik

Funny......
The same people who swear they can see Micron size differences in Prints and that this makes sense to print with 300 or more DPI on 2x3 meters deny that there will be an improvement when this same thing shall happen on a video screen...............hmmmmm

I believe a 100" AMOLED 4k or better 8k screen will be exactly what I want to see in my Livingroom, hopefully in latest 5 years from now.

Regards
Stefan

[hjulenissen]

A 100" at 8K would be a nice way of displaying images, instead of prints. I would love it! ;-)

I believe that the DR could be a lot higher than paper if your room is properly darkened. That might be the closest to "viewing HDR without the tonemapping" that we get.

-h

[Stefan.Steib]

This is exactly my opinion. And why I think Prints are doomed !
I already use my full HD 50" plasma more for viewing images than I do prints.
There is simply no match for he color and contrast the Plasma can deliver, I can zoom in and I can calibrate it !
I have spent the best 10 Bucks since years for a 10m DVI to  HDMI cable (Ebay). This I plug into the second port of My MacBook Pro 17
and run the plasma as a Second screen, I have calibrated it with my iOne Pro and this really rocks !!!!
I only say Vimeo timelapses with full HD on 50" (my Apple TV did only 720p)...............YES !!!!

Once you have seen this, it is easy to understand that this kind of displays (and larger) will take over FAST, I´m already an addict !

Regards
Stefan

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Stefan,

I guess that folks like you and me wanting flat screen for stills are a very small minority, unfortunately.

Best regards
Erik

This is exactly my opinion. And why I think Prints are doomed !
I already use my full HD 50" plasma more for viewing images than I do prints.
There is simply no match for he color and contrast the Plasma can deliver, I can zoom in and I can calibrate it !
I have spent the best 10 Bucks since years for a 10m DVI to  HDMI cable (Ebay). This I plug into the second port of My MacBook Pro 17
and run the plasma as a Second screen, I have calibrated it with my iOne Pro and this really rocks !!!!
I only say Vimeo timelapses with full HD on 50" (my Apple TV did only 720p)...............YES !!!!

Once you have seen this, it is easy to understand that this kind of displays (and larger) will take over FAST, I´m already an addict !

Regards
Stefan

[Stefan.Steib]

we had some discussions about soft profing devices becoming the main target of output over at Linkedin with People like Karl Koch and other Colormanagement Pro´s.
Fact is that the capabilities of even todays displays surpass print in almost any aspect, with the resolution and the brightness being the main drawbacks right now.
But as this is to be solved very soon (4k/8k res , AMOLED and sizes up to 100 ") I think it is clear now that a large viewing device will be the central part of anybodies livingroom of the future. There will be differing qualities, as of resolution and color depth which will express in pricing, but for a professional grade display there should be a pricerange of under 10k$ US possible especially when massproduction will start.

So if anybody has Epson stock, it would be a good point to rethink this investment.

Regards
Stefan