[jeff_rigby]

http://www.taranfx.com/4k-resolution-3d-lcd

LG has invented a new Technology called FPR or Film Patterned Retarder. FPR is said to be most superior 3D liquid crystal display (LCD) systems.

What’s different in FPR

The current generation system uses a frame sequential method and the display is viewed using liquid crystal shutter glasses (SG). The new technology uses a polarized film substrate in the panel and is viewed using polarized film glasses. FPR reduces the vertical resolution to half that of a panel and produces a near-4K resolution full high definition 3D picture that is extremely sharp and bright. The system was demoed on an 84-inch display, playing a 4x times 1080p HD video.

The step is evolutionary, and not by any means revolutionary. 3D TVs without Glasses would be the revolution. But achieving 4K resolution in 3D is the next big thing.

LG makes many of the Sony TVs. I expect 4K resolution will be one of the PS4 features. I believe the PS3 can display 4K resolution and would play 4K 2D video as well as display pictures in 4K res. So possibly 2-3 years for 4K to become a standard with blu-ray and high end TVs. PS4 released about the same time.

[Silent_Buddha]

That article is a bit confusing and unclear.

When they say 4x 1080p do they mean the resolution of 4x 1080p screens and thus 3840x2160? That would be doable with next gen consoles, but the consoles would likely end up costing around 1,000 USD.

Or are they REALLY bad at English and meant 16x 1080p screens (4x vertical resolution), which would be far beyond even the beefiest enthusiast PC available today.

Either way, they are wildly optimistic. I think I can safely say neither of those is going to come about in the next 5 years.

Regards,
SB

[jeff_rigby]

Originally Posted by Silent_Buddha

That article is a bit confusing and unclear.

When they say 4x 1080p do they mean the resolution of 4x 1080p screens and thus 3840x2160? That would be doable with next gen consoles, but the consoles would likely end up costing around 1,000 USD.

Or are they REALLY bad at English and meant 16x 1080p screens (4x vertical resolution), which would be far beyond even the beefiest enthusiast PC available today.

Either way, they are wildly optimistic. I think I can safely say neither of those is going to come about in the next 5 years.

Regards,
SB

4K res is already in movie theaters with DLP projectors. It should be available with MGA DLP high end in another year. This should only be in high end larger screens.

DLP projection TVs defocused or deliberately frosted the screen to blur the image to get rid of the screen door effect (being able to see the individual picture elements). With twice the horizontal and vertical elements this won't be necessary and sharper TEXT and edges will be possible.

High end 4K resolution is part of the HDMI 1.4 standard. The PS3 can probably display 4K and the PS3 blu-ray player spec is 2X which is probably fast enough.

[Laa-Yosh]

Originally Posted by jeff_rigby

4K res is already in movie theaters with DLP projectors.

And they use it to display 2K res content? Because there aren't any 4K movies, only analog IMAX has that amount of detail.

[jeff_rigby]

Originally Posted by Laa-Yosh

And they use it to display 2K res content? Because there aren't any 4K movies, only analog IMAX has that amount of detail.

4K movie releases
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-dig...slisting.shtml

For the most part upscaled from film with some having more than 2K resolution but only two filmed at 4K. Some converted from IMAX.

[jeff_rigby]

Originally Posted by Laa-Yosh

And they use it to display 2K res content? Because there aren't any 4K movies, only analog IMAX has that amount of detail.

There are only 6,000 4K res projectors with another 10,000 DLP 4K res projectors coming to theaters this year. 4K movies are coming and it makes sense to have the ability to display it.

[V3]

They demoed 4k screen several years ago. What's new with this one ? 4k 3D ?

[jeff_rigby]

Originally Posted by V3

They demoed 4k screen several years ago. What's new with this one ? 4k 3D ?

I think it's a polarized 3-D instead of sequential frame with higher light output. Work in progress for 4K's eventual release. It's difficult to understand but I think it's a polarized 3-D display and in order to get standard 1080P 3-D it starts with a 4K by 2K screen and half of that is 1080P 3-D.

DLP for full 1080P 3-D will also have a 4K by 2K screen when not viewing 3-D. So it's a by product of full resolution 3-D viewing that we have 4K resolution for DLP and for a polarized 3-D from a LCD system.when not viewing 3-D.

[Nesh]

Originally Posted by jeff_rigby

http://www.taranfx.com/4k-resolution-3d-lcd



LG makes many of the Sony TVs. .

They do?????

[manux]

There are too many issues and very few real benefits for 4k resolution in the home viewing at the moment. I don't see 4k feasible for viewing movies at home in short term. Maybe in 10 years things are different though

First of all there is the issue of viewing distances and screen sizes. 1080p is more than enough resolution for most homes. Secondly the amount of storage space shoots up and there isn't reasonably priced physical(or digital) media available. 3d movies are already pushing the 50GB blu-ray discs and more room even for current resolution would be preferred.

Thirdly there is the issue of source material. There just isn't massive amounts of source material that would greatly benefit from increased resolution(in home viewing again). In fact blu-ray already exposes many flaws in source material and not every movie even can "max out" what 1080p has to offer. In fact I would claim very few movies take full advantage of 1080p.

I personally would see increased framerate better than increased resolution... Especially with 3d movies increased framerate would be really nice as at least to my eyes 3d at 1080p24 is jittery. Also adding proper yuv-444 colours to current standard would be nice instead of the yuv420 and 16-235 levels blu-rays use currently.

And if you really would have 4k resolution source material, huge screen and room to go with it how much do you think there would be differrence with properly upscaled 1080p material... Not much for most people I guess. Some people even argue dvd is enough after good scaling and 1080p(blu-ray) doesn't offer much advantage.

[jeff_rigby]

Originally Posted by manux

There are too many issues and very few real benefits for 4k resolution in the home viewing at the moment. I don't see 4k feasible for viewing movies at home in short term. Maybe in 10 years things are different though

First of all there is the issue of viewing distances and screen sizes. 1080p is more than enough resolution for most homes. Secondly the amount of storage space shoots up and there isn't reasonably priced physical(or digital) media available. 3d movies are already pushing the 50GB blu-ray discs and more room even for current resolution would be preferred.

Thirdly there is the issue of source material. There just isn't massive amounts of source material that would greatly benefit from increased resolution(in home viewing again). In fact blu-ray already exposes many flaws in source material and not every movie even can "max out" what 1080p has to offer. In fact I would claim very few movies take full advantage of 1080p.

I personally would see increased framerate better than increased resolution... Especially with 3d movies increased framerate would be really nice as at least to my eyes 3d at 1080p24 is jittery. Also adding proper yuv-444 colours to current standard would be nice instead of the yuv420 and 16-235 levels blu-rays use currently.

And if you really would have 4k resolution source material, huge screen and room to go with it how much do you think there would be differrence with properly upscaled 1080p material... Not much for most people I guess. Some people even argue dvd is enough after good scaling and 1080p(blu-ray) doesn't offer much advantage.

The benefit in the article cited was 1080P 3-D with polarized glasses rather than shutter glasses. They start with a 4K resolution screen. The benefit would be seen in commercial applications first where multiple people, like in movie theaters, would be able to use cheaper more comfortable glasses. This will eventually be in high end home theaters, you know the ones you see in celebrity homes with 20 seats built in. The display cited was a 84 inch which seems to indicate the first target audience.

Judder is reduced in upper end TVs for 24Hz 2-D source material with special circuitry but is not yet seen for 3-D 24Hz media. Eventually enough 3-D media or enough demand and newer 3-D TVs will have anti-judder circuitry for 3-D also.

Best practices for filming 3-D should reduce judder, fewer pans or slower pans used, slow fades instead etc.

[Laa-Yosh]

Originally Posted by manux

In fact I would claim very few movies take full advantage of 1080p.

Exactly. Move VFX is rendered at ~2000x1500 resolutions and then it gets a lot of post processing from blur filters to film grain. A lot of the detail gets lost to match the live plate's looks. And if the DP of the movie was a bit sloppy with the lenses then the movie can look even less sharp.

I personally would see increased framerate better than increased resolution... Especially with 3d movies increased framerate would be really nice as at least to my eyes 3d at 1080p24 is jittery.

Cameron is already aiming at 48-60fps for the Avatar sequels. It'll very likely get mainstream before 4K resolutions.

[tritosine5G]

DLP projection TVs defocused or deliberately frosted the screen to blur the image to get rid of the screen door effect (being able to see the individual picture elements).

Not really,
DLP has no issue with screendoor to begin with , fillfactor is over 90% . And yes, Texas Instruments tells you to set the 1080p front projector out of focus, since its TOO SHARP because of its fillfactor. Sharp , square shape pixels are not nice.

Wobulation was employed in RPTV's to double the resolution, the RPTV DLP chip itself isnt true 1080p , it has half of the micromirrors, size is comparable to 720p chips. Yield per wafer with 1080p or 4k chips for that matter isn't that great. Wobulation is a form of oversampling, someone calculated 1.4x better result compared to a 720p DLP chip. DLP is somewhat old tech now, sure its the fastest yet, but I'm not sure its the best possible way to utilise a laser light source .

I'm not going to comment on that slime TV stuff, but it's half res afaik, interlaced.

[jeff_rigby]

Originally Posted by tritosine

Not really,
DLP has no issue with screendoor to begin with , fillfactor is over 90% . And yes, Texas Instruments tells you to set the 1080p front projector out of focus, since its TOO SHARP because of its fillfactor. Sharp , square shape pixels are not nice.

Wobulation was employed in RPTV's to double the resolution, the RPTV DLP chip itself isnt true 1080p , it has half of the micromirrors, size is comparable to 720p chips. Yield per wafer with 1080p or 4k chips for that matter isn't that great. Wobulation is a form of oversampling, someone calculated 1.4x better result compared to a 720p DLP chip. DLP is somewhat old tech now, sure its the fastest yet, but I'm not sure its the best possible way to utilise a laser light source .

I'm not going to comment on that slime TV stuff, but it's half res afaik, interlaced.

You have a correct understanding of the process. Currently DLP 3-D on a 1080P is a half resolution 3-D. To get 1080P 3-D a DLP TV would use a 1080P mirror array instead of 720P. This would result in a 4K 2-D resolution and a 1080P 3-D resolution.

1) Screen door is still an issue on larger screens which are higher end.
2) Media is filmed for movie theaters which use 4K by 2K DLP projectors and slightly defocus to reduce the screen door effect on 50 foot screens. So the media is already in a 4K format.
3) Current blu-ray media is generally single layer as that's cheaper to produce so they are using 20 some gigs not 50.
4) The PS3 specs call for a 2X drive speed. This could have been for 3-D which needs 1.5X speed or 4K resolution which the HDMI spec supports and would need 2X speed.

The PS3 would still be in it's 10 year life in 2 years and would support the 1080P 3-D and probably could support the 4K resolution 2-D as 1080P 3D uses the same amount of memory and maybe more CPU processing than 4K 2D.

What we are seeing in the article I cite is an effort to display 3-D using polarized glasses and still support 1080P 3-D so it starts with 4K resolution for 2D and halves that for 3-D. DLP 1080P 3-D would do the same. With relatively little change compared to LCD, a DLP could do both 1080P 3-D and 4K res, Mitsubishi could have this out in high end DLP 2011.

I can't see any reason for current blu-ray players, certainly the PS3, to (with only software changes) to not support 4K interlaced given a 2X drive speed. The DLP TV would need a 1080 mirror array and twice the frame buffer memory.

It's part of the HDMI 1.4 specs, HDBaseT and wireless HDMI to HDMI mention support for 4K so it's a standard that all should be thinking of supporting.

MGA uses a laser light source on it's high end and larger DLP TVs. They use laser LEDs because all photons are in phase when they reach our eyes and are thus additive which results in a 40% perceived brightness increase vs. non-coherent light sources (mercury vapor Lamps).

[Shifty Geezer]

Is the purpose of this thread to identify a need for 4k rendering next gen, or that high-res glasses free 3D is coming?

[Silent_Buddha]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Is the purpose of this thread to identify a need for 4k rendering next gen, or that high-res glasses free 3D is coming?

I'm not sure.

It's absolutely impractical for console gaming in the short or midterm. Greater resolution is going to do absolutely nothing for games when even next gen consoles will likely be limited to 1080p/30 fps and likely 720p/60 fps, especially if we want significant improvements in texture and shader quality.

3D movies will still require glasses, although the argument being made is that the screen will be brighter and thus polarized glasses will be useable. And those should be lighter. That still doesn't address that most people do NOT want to use glasses period.

The only area 4k vertical res (a ridiculous 7111x4000 or 7680x4320 for 16:9) would be somewhat useful is HTPCs where it would make a nice computer monitor. Only problem there is that most passively cooled HTPC video cards (the most commonly used) will struggle at that resolution. And even multi-GPU enthusiast class video cards will struggle at that resolution when gaming.

Heck, as someone mentioned 1080p 3D is already going to saturate current BRD sizes, and broadcast/cable/satellite TV already has to use sometimes heavy compression for 1080p.

As well, if you want to use it for HD video, HDCP will need an upgrade as it currently maxes out on 1080p video streams as far as I know.

Regards,
SB

[Kaotik]

Originally Posted by jeff_rigby

LG makes many of the Sony TVs.

They do what now?

Sony TV's are made by Sony, and they use panels from S-LCD (Sony & Samsung co-op company) and Sharp (newest or forthcoming models)

[jeff_rigby]

Originally Posted by Kaotik

They do what now?

Sony TV's are made by Sony, and they use panels from S-LCD (Sony & Samsung co-op company) and Sharp (newest or forthcoming models)

Maybe my information is dated then. I recently had a Sony 32 inch LCD in for repair and it had an LG motherboard. At the time the TV was 1 year and two months old, that was 4 months ago.

Look at 2010 Sony blu-ray players, Samsung 2010 blu-ray players and TVs over 40 inch in size all have Air 2.5 for TV in them. Sony blu-ray players don't, just like LG blu-ray players.

It was my impression that Air 2.5 was Samsung's answer to Sony Google TV.

[Laa-Yosh]

Which have been filmed at that res? There aren't any details listed... only Dark Knight has some sequences shot in IMAX as far as I know, but even there it's not the entire movie.

And upscaled movies are just a waste of storage space IMHO

[Npl]

I would rather have future movies shot at 60 frames/sec than an increase of resolution or this 3D crap.
Even the automatic frame-interpolation of my TV looks sooooo much better than the juddering mess of 24frames/sec - only problem is that it of course aint working 100%, thats why it needs to be fixed at the source.

[Shifty Geezer]

This thread closed until I know whether it's tackling 3D (where it'll be put into the 3D thread), or native 4k rendering which is such a lost cause it's not going to happen and needn't be discussed! (but I'll open it up then anyway for those who really want to chase the impossible)

[Raqia]

Are they making their next console sufficiently powerful for 4k resolution displays? It doesn't seem like it.

[Squilliam]

Originally Posted by Raqia

Are they making their next console sufficiently powerful for 4k resolution displays? It doesn't seem like it.

What's the point? Adoption will still be miniscule in 2016.

[Raqia]

Originally Posted by Squilliam

What's the point? Adoption will still be miniscule in 2016.

True, but if they're claiming a 10 year life cycle, it might still be a big deal in the second half of the cycle.

[Squilliam]

Originally Posted by Raqia

True, but if they're claiming a 10 year life cycle, it might still be a big deal in the second half of the cycle.

How exactly ought they support it? All 4K displays will be capable of upscaling content and there is no point dictating that high of a rendering resolution. 4K will be to the next generation like 1080P is to this one.