Sony to release 80 inch 4k led tvs for the holidays this year

[yoda313]

http://news.yahoo.com/sony-plans-launch-80-inch-led-tv-4k-153045301.html

So my question is when will those promised holographic discs be released to hold a 4k movie at hollywood quality? Hmmm?????

[Slipster]

For the benefit of anyone else who got as excited as I did when reading the thread title, they're LED-backlit LCD, not LED.

[El Heggunte]

IF resolution = 4K, THEN an 80-inch screen is too small

[TreeTops]

And at $30,000 a pop, I'll wait a year till prices drop.

[yoda313]

And at $30,000 a pop, I'll wait a year till prices drop.

Make that four or five years for me at THE LEAST

Until 4k bluray players or whatever they'll be called are the same price as they are now for regular blurays than I might consider it. That would mean the sets are down in price than as well.

Of course by the time that happens 8k sets will be coming out

[MeDiCo_BrUjO]

I just wonder when is it going to be enough... 100 inch TV?, 200?, custom wall to wall TV like Avatar?.

[yoda313]

when is it going to be enough

It will never be enough until we get either the matrix style interface (with saftey features of course) or we finally get a REAL holodeck. Until then SIZE DOES MATTER

(of course not at the thousands of dollars it will take - I can wait)

[El Heggunte]

I just wonder when is it going to be enough... 100 inch TV?, 200?, custom wall to wall TV like Avatar?.

The higher the resolution, the bigger the screen must be, period.

To me at least, the current business model is driving the video engineers and technicians INSANE

Does the average consumer really need a video resolution as high as 4K (and/or above) ?????

Also, H.265, H.2999 , whatever, for what ??? For broadcasting more garbage while using the same old bandwidth ?

[Slipster]

The higher the resolution, the bigger the screen must be, period.

...or, unless in an environment where the viewing distance can't be conveniently changed, sit closer to take advantage of the increased resolution at the same screen size. It's not compulsory to have an enormous screen just because it has a higher resolution.

I tend to apply the "30 milliradians of arc" rule to screen resolution versus viewing distance as the physical size of the screen bears no relationship to how much detail it can display. If a single pixel fills 30 milliradians of arc in terms of the viewer's field of view then this approximately corresponds with their threshold of detail discrimination if they have 20/20 vision.

Sitting closer than this reveals individual pixels and gains the viewer nothing in terms of detail. Sitting further away than this loses the viewer the ability to discriminate down to the single-pixel level, thus wasting display resolution. The maths is simple enough to do and applies equally to all viewers assuming that they have either 20/20 natural vision or properly corrected vision.

Present day Full-HD screens provide sufficient resolution to fill a relatively small field of view with as much detail as the human eye can discriminate, and this equates to an optimal viewing distance of roughly 1 metre for every 10 inches of diagonal screen size. The higher resolution of the '4K' panels increases the field of view the panel can fill whilst maintaining the same pixel density, but it can't improve on the crispness of a current Full-HD panel when viewed at the correct relative distance as the eye is already detail-saturated.

Unless someone is already sitting too close to their current Full-HD screen, they're going to gain nothing in terms of image crispness by going '4K', assuming equal clarity source material, so don't go getting overly excited about uber-high res screens just yet.

[yoda313]

assuming equal clarity source material,

But this is about resolution not clarity isn't it? I mean you generally only have 1080p source material now so even if you have access to 4k material you can't compare the two in the "real world" until you have a 4k set with 4k material to compare the same material with 1080p material on a 1080p set. Ie if you had a movie shot in 4k and converted professionally to both 1080p and 4k and played each on its respective max res set.

Then and only then can a "real world" comparison begin.

Of course I'm just as happy using my 32" 720p hdtv. Of course I'd like it bigger (who wouldn't huh? ) but I make do with what I have.

[Slipster]

But this is about resolution not clarity isn't it?

I guess it depends how you define each of those words. The newer panels may improve on other aspects too, but in terms of resolution, you do get to a point where more pixels equals zero visible improvement due to the limitations of the human eye. You can sit closer to smaller pixels to gain a larger field of view, but that's all the extra resolution gains you unless the previous lower resolution was inadequate because of too close a viewing distance being used for that resolution.

I mean you generally only have 1080p source material now so even if you have access to 4k material you can't compare the two in the "real world" until you have a 4k set with 4k material to compare the same material with 1080p material on a 1080p set. Ie if you had a movie shot in 4k and converted professionally to both 1080p and 4k and played each on its respective max res set.

Yes. That would lead to about as fair a comparison as you could have, but the point I'm making is that even if you have lossless source material at the native resolution for each of the displays, once you reach the point where the human eye can't discriminate any further detail (the 30 milliradians of arc rule), the rest is a waste. It's only field of view that increases as pixel density goes up once you've reached the saturation point, and we have that already with Full-HD unless people are sitting too close for the size of the screen.

[yoda313]

the rest is a waste.

Oh wow an industry trying to sell us something we don't really need? What a concept

(sorry not really being sarcastic at you just the whole hype and pushing extreme tech in general)

[Slipster]

Oh wow an industry trying to sell us something we don't really need? What a concept

For people with very long viewing rooms and very deep pockets it's not necessarily a waste. I'm just saying that the average Joe in an average size home (well, an average UK-size home anyway ) stands to gain little if anything.

(sorry not really being sarcastic at you just the whole hype and pushing extreme tech in general)

I know. Join the club.

[yoda313]

I know. Join the club.

Yep. Too bad though we aren't all millionaires and it would make a difference

[budwzr]

If you compare current HD resolution to film, film has unlimited native spatial resolution. There are no pixels in film, so they decide the SPI when they make digital prints.