4K displays announced at CES 2011

[Blazkowicz]

I've learnt on another thread that hdmi isn't compatible with 120Hz, only 60Hz and below. so you have interleaving or side by side things for 3D display.

this sucks as there's less incentive for 120Hz displays displaying real 120Hz, they're still doable but need an additional dual link DVI and educating customers. this sucks.
those displays could have been your cheap 3D TVs.

 

[Npl]

I've learnt on another thread that hdmi isn't compatible with 120Hz, only 60Hz and below. so you have interleaving or side by side things for 3D display.

this sucks as there's less incentive for 120Hz displays displaying real 120Hz, they're still doable but need an additional dual link DVI and educating customers. this sucks.
those displays could have been your cheap 3D TVs.

Unless you have 120HZ/Stereo60Hz source matertial, why would that be a problem?
The TV could just repeat the pictures as often as it needs, doesnt need to be fed the same thing over HDMI

 

[Blazkowicz]

Sure, it works perfectly but I was ranting .
with 120Hz input, you can use the display for 120Hz PC gaming. it's a niche as well, and one that you don't market that much to the masses (need to configure 120Hz locking somewhere), but something I and other people do care about. it's always good to have even with slow hardware.

back when 120Hz panels appeared I thought that pretty much all computer displays would switch to 120Hz, just update electronics on the production lines, mass produce to death and forget about it.

 

[Npl]

Sure, it works perfectly but I was ranting .
with 120Hz input, you can use the display for 120Hz PC gaming. it's a niche as well, and one that you don't market that much to the masses (need to configure 120Hz locking somewhere), but something I and other people do care about. it's always good to have even with slow hardware.

Well, then I misunderstood you.
True, Im not too confident with HDMI either, and I dont understand why a fixed rate (or resolution) is used with todays devices. Just send the information (timing, res, bitdepth, colorformat, etc) along with the header each frame (or pack of frames if compressed formats should be supported), just like its done in container formats ala MP4/MKV.
Displays arent tighly locked to the exact timing of the input signal like (old) CRTs where, and could do a better job displaying them if they are using the source-material unaltered.

But on-topic...
I can see 2K/4K getting big on TVs in the next couple years, as soon TVs could be replacing "casual desktops" used for browsing the Net, emails, handling photos and word/excel stuff. We are almost there and higher res always matters if text is involved.

 

[nutball]

I can see 4K mattering at the <=30" desktop monitor level (same size, twice the DPI), and the >=WTFLOL-inch TV level (same DPI, twice the size, even if it means buying a bigger house).

For most consumer electronics? Irrelevant. 3D? Also irrelevant because it means major cash outlay to upgrade to input sources and content that'll do it justice.

 

[Beef Stallmer]

I never said anything about 4k being a target for next generation console, I just stated that the same as with HD (either 720P or 1080P), or with 3D, every tv sold will have it.

the guy whom I replied to was talking about the year 2020.
If people buying new TV's equate to a 1% a year adaptation rate, this will translate to about 10% in 2020 no?
I am sure less than 10% of all tv's in 2005 and 2006 were 720P capable, or even 1080P capable. Still Sony (and MS to a lesser extent) targeted it.

So yeah, even if you cannot image what kind of consoles the year 2020 will have, doesn't mean that nobody can ;-)
Plus 4k movie content is already being shot FYI

 

[Beef Stallmer]

Also: 4K tv's will have better passive 1080P 3D blu-ray playback so expect 4K sets before 2013

 

[AlphaWolf]

I never said anything about 4k being a target for next generation console, I just stated that the same as with HD (either 720P or 1080P), or with 3D, every tv sold will have it.

Eventually every TV might be 3D (if it actually doesn't die long before then), but we're nowhere near that atm., I doubt that date is 2020. Even for 3D. 4K is further out.

the guy whom I replied to was talking about the year 2020.
If people buying new TV's equate to a 1% a year adaptation rate, this will translate to about 10% in 2020 no?
I am sure less than 10% of all tv's in 2005 and 2006 were 720P capable, or even 1080P capable. Still Sony (and MS to a lesser extent) targeted it.

Nope, was more like 30% in 2006. (Using US numbers, but Japan started broadcast HDTV in 2000 or 2001, who is starting 4k broadcast in the immediate future? How about the distant future? Not to mention diminishing returns) High definition TVs were being sold in the 90s. 4k TVs will start selling when? Next year or the year after for $20k each maybe? 5 years later they might hit a price point where normal people actually think about buying one. So that would put us near 2018, where almost no one would have one. If it gets massive traction like 3D (kidding), that could put them in 2% of homes by 2020. So even if console makers bothered to support it, no developer would offer at it seriously.

So yeah, even if you cannot image what kind of consoles the year 2020 will have, doesn't mean that nobody can ;-)
Plus 4k movie content is already being shot FYI

I'm more likely to have a flying car in 2020, than 5% of the population having a 4k display. CE has a huge chicken and egg problem, there's no reason to upgrade to 4k until there's 4k content, and there's no reason to produce 4k content until there's a significant audience. This is why it moves relatively slowly. You can already see the problems that 3d is having, yes a lot of people are buying 3DTVs now, because all high end TVs are now 3D, not necessarily because they want that feature.

And 3D probably has more nerd attraction than even 4k would, because most people won't care about the difference in 4k content vs 1080p at 10 feet from their 55" screen. At least 3D offers a very noticeable difference (with the attraction level to it being debatable).

And then there's the fact that 4k still lacks a standard.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I never said anything about 4k being a target for next generation console, I just stated that the same as with HD (either 720P or 1080P), or with 3D, every tv sold will have it.

Okay, perhaps you weren't stating that, although that was the whole line of discussion at the time.

the guy whom I replied to was talking about the year 2020.
If people buying new TV's equate to a 1% a year adaptation rate, this will translate to about 10% in 2020 no?
I am sure less than 10% of all tv's in 2005 and 2006 were 720P capable, or even 1080P capable. Still Sony (and MS to a lesser extent) targeted it.

That same guy was refuting the idea that 1080p wouldn't be relevant in 2020. ie. 1080p will have been phased out. You agree that 4k will be a niche?

So yeah, even if you cannot image what kind of consoles the year 2020 will have, doesn't mean that nobody can ;-)

Seriously, the attitude "I'm smart and have vision and everyone who disagrees is thick" doesn't result in long stays on this board, even if followed with a wink smilie. We're all capable of speculating on what the future might hold by considering current trends and possible changes to the industry. Doesn't mean everyone's right or will agree, but we respect well considered points and those who can present a decent case for their POV. 2020 is 8 years away. For 2020 to have substantial 4k adoption so that it's targeted by consoles anticipating significant 4k users by 2025, it'd need far faster adoption than any other TV tech. What's the reasoning to think 4k will be desired and adopted faster than colour TV or flat-panels or HDTV or 3D ever were or will be?

Plus 4k movie content is already being shot FYI

Have you read the rest of this thread? About how 4k nets no visible improvements for most TV owners, and so regardless of what's developed for cinema's giant screens, household TVs don't need a higher resolution than 1080p in many cases? Before you raise a counterargument, how about you review what's already been discussed to see that we're not all quite as ill-informed or short-sighted as you suggest?

 

[Blazkowicz]

funny fact : for broadcasting you would benefit from higher bitrate at 1080p already. even then I guess 1080i and 720p are broadcast, not even 1080p.

at 4k you would need that bitrate and them some for it not to look like ass. so you have a resolution that can't work for broadcasting. you need dual layer bluray as bare minimum or triple layer, or vaporware holographics.

it will be like 3D but more niche. with the same positive point : if you need it for your fringe use it will be somewhat available, and industry supported.

3D is a niche but the bigger availability of solutions is nice if you want to use it for scientific, engineering or other reasons. well until the fad it was readily available but required using big end-of-lined CRTs at low resolution, and goggles that made you look like this

Spoiler

alright, double warning needed. it's gross!

Spoiler

availability of 4K displays likewise is nice, they will be more available for you to build a control room (and take over the world with an evil plan), or for data visualisation, etc.
also 4K allows for cheap, high quality small theaters (though even Blu ray is quite enough, they used to beam VHS cassettes in the third world and elsewhere)

 

[AlphaWolf]

that spoiler has scarred me for life

 

[tabs]

Dude. Not cool.

 

[Davros]

Also: 4K tv's will have better passive 1080P 3D blu-ray playback so expect 4K sets before 2013

how can that be true if tv's look best at native resolution ?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Theoretically a good upscaled image to the same physical dimensions as a lower resolution image should look better. eg. Take a DOS game on PC with chunky pixels and compare that to the same game with a decent upscaling technique; the latter is much better. Some sophisticated upscaling of 1080p to 2160p on a 100" screen would look better than a 1080p native 100" screen.

 

[Blazkowicz]

a dumb pixel doubling would also mean there's no difference with 1080p, you might use that for 3D 1080p playback with a scheme that halves the display resolution in one direction.

 

[AlphaWolf]

A good TV has pretty decent scaling these days. I'd need to get out of my chair to tell the difference between 720 and 1080 input. For 4k, you'll probably need a magnifying glass.

 

[AlphaWolf]

4K is about $10,000 now but if it catch on in 2015 they should be in the same price range that 1080P was around 2006.

it will have a slow start but this is a console that's going to have to last until about 2020 so these 4K TVs are going to be dirt cheap in this console life so it would be better to support 4K than to come out right before 4K becomes a standard & not have it.

Just like blu-ray is having a much slower uptake than DVD, I'd expect 4k will have a much slower uptake than HD. The difference between 720 and 1080 on a 55" screen at 10' is already negligible. 5 years after 4k becomes popular on computer displays I think you might see it start to make its way into average homes. I expect in 2020 4k will still be very niche in the home (if at all), if it hasn't been usurped/replaced by something completely different. 4k right now isn't even as established as HD was in the 1980s.

 

[Crossbar]

No it isn't ... it's a transitional niche technology. Fixed viewing zone displays will never be popular in the living room.

It is probably transitional, just like shutter glass 3D, but to what and when? What do you have in mind?

Just like blu-ray is having a much slower uptake than DVD, I'd expect 4k will have a much slower uptake than HD. The difference between 720 and 1080 on a 55" screen at 10' is already negligible. 5 years after 4k becomes popular on computer displays I think you might see it start to make its way into average homes. I expect in 2020 4k will still be very niche in the home (if at all), if it hasn't been usurped/replaced by something completely different. 4k right now isn't even as established as HD was in the 1980s.

People were saying the same about 1080p just 5 years ago, the difference between 720p and 1080p was barely noticeble, 1080p would be a niche market for video aficinados. Today I can´t hardly find a 720p TV. I guess it all comes down to the manufactoring costs.

 

[cal_guy]

People were saying the same about 1080p just 5 years ago, the difference between 720p and 1080p was barely noticeble, 1080p would be a niche market for video aficinados. Today I can´t hardly find a 720p TV. I guess it all comes down to the manufactoring costs.

That's because a significant amount of broadcasters have chosen to broadcast at 1080i which can actually make good use of those pixel. That's why the vast majority of all CRT tv remained at 480i/576i even though by the mid-90s the technology was available for cost-effective higher resolution CRT televisions.

 

[Entropy]

People were saying the same about 1080p just 5 years ago, the difference between 720p and 1080p was barely noticeble, 1080p would be a niche market for video aficinados. Today I can´t hardly find a 720p TV. I guess it all comes down to the manufactoring costs.

I'd say that manufakturing costs takes a back seat to milking the consumers. Didn' t you notice how, for instace, HD capable 1920x1200 screens for a long time cost twice as much as the 1680x1050 ones? Despite being driven by the same electronics?

Consensual market segmentation rules pricing of consumer electronics.