- Status
mightymaxio
Distinguished
- Nov 9, 2009
- 1,193
- 0
- 19,360
Wait I thought 8k was going to be UHDTV and 4k was going to be Super High Def. Things change quick lol
LOL what difference does it make if its 4k or 1080p or even 720 for that matter? Don't you people realize that beyond 1920 x 1080 the human eye doesn't even distinguish the pixelation factor at that point?
On TOP of that, current screens on various electronics won't even be mainstream with 4k or 'ultra HD' for another 15 years? Even as of 2012, all electronics are JUST getting into regular HD such as 480p, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p.
If you ask me, you are just wasting your money and again... the eye will not see any difference between 1080p and 4k.. TRUST me~
On TOP of that, current screens on various electronics won't even be mainstream with 4k or 'ultra HD' for another 15 years? Even as of 2012, all electronics are JUST getting into regular HD such as 480p, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p.
If you ask me, you are just wasting your money and again... the eye will not see any difference between 1080p and 4k.. TRUST me~
SteelCity1981
Distinguished
- Sep 16, 2010
- 1,129
- 0
- 19,310
phased out then you see the starting price at 25k. lol 1080p tv's are here to stay for a while by the time 4k tv's get down to mainstream range 2,000 and under you are looking at another 6 or 7 years from now. first lets start off with the research and development fees that will take a good 3 years to pay off from this companies and once that is paid off that will lower the price a lot from where it is now, but not nearly as much as going down under the 2,000 dollar price tag. Then you have to get the technology to become affordable to manufacture which will take another 3 or 4 years. So by the time it's all said and done you are looking at at least another 8 years of 1080p HDTV's being the mainstream choice for consumors. Another thing to factor in is the adaptation of 4k tv's I mean as of right now nothing viewing format supports it. Consoles, Blu-Ray, Broadcast stations, streaming vidoes Dish and cable providers don't support 4k. Heck, the vast majority of broadcast stations and dish and cable providers still don't support 1080p for the most part let alone 4k! Most broadcast station and dish and cable providers still broadcast in 1080i. So it's going to be a while before you start seeing 4k tv's become widely compatible with other media fromats.
so I am confused (Not that I would recommend doing this) but why can't I buy 4 "New Ipads" or Ipad 3's or what ever Apple calls them, gut the screens out of them and stack them 2x2 for a rectangle screen, use precise alignment tools so the pixels line up and for $2000 have a (approximate) 20 inch 4K display.
There is no way they cost $25,000 to make. I just proved it; now if you are talking about a 120 inch 4k display, then that might be different.
There is no way they cost $25,000 to make. I just proved it; now if you are talking about a 120 inch 4k display, then that might be different.
[citation][nom]jn77[/nom]so I am confused (Not that I would recommend doing this) but why can't I buy 4 "New Ipads" or Ipad 3's or what ever Apple calls them, gut the screens out of them and stack them 2x2 for a rectangle screen, use precise alignment tools so the pixels line up and for $2000 have a (approximate) 20 inch 4K display.There is no way they cost $25,000 to make. I just proved it; now if you are talking about a 120 inch 4k display, then that might be different.[/citation]
Costs include R/D and many other aspects. Research "product life cycle" if you want to know what's involved in pricing. I had an upper division class on it and still feel like a newb regarding it.
Costs include R/D and many other aspects. Research "product life cycle" if you want to know what's involved in pricing. I had an upper division class on it and still feel like a newb regarding it.
@ aoneone I think you will be surprised on seeing the difference. The great thing about it the viewing distance will be less. You will be able to buy a bigger tv for a smaller room and not see the pixels. That is the problem with 1080p people have these huge tv's in their small living room and you can see all of the pixels because it is to close.
[citation][nom]aoneone[/nom]LOL what difference does it make if its 4k or 1080p or even 720 for that matter? Don't you people realize that beyond 1920 x 1080 the human eye doesn't even distinguish the pixelation factor at that point? On TOP of that, current screens on various electronics won't even be mainstream with 4k or 'ultra HD' for another 15 years? Even as of 2012, all electronics are JUST getting into regular HD such as 480p, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. If you ask me, you are just wasting your money and again... the eye will not see any difference between 1080p and 4k.. TRUST me~[/citation]
So you think a 70" TV with 1080p will look the same as one with 4k? Ignorance...such bliss.
At least you'll save yourself some $$$ in the meantime.
So you think a 70" TV with 1080p will look the same as one with 4k? Ignorance...such bliss.
At least you'll save yourself some $$$ in the meantime.
[citation][nom]aoneone[/nom]LOL what difference does it make if its 4k or 1080p or even 720 for that matter? Don't you people realize that beyond 1920 x 1080 the human eye doesn't even distinguish the pixelation factor at that point? On TOP of that, current screens on various electronics won't even be mainstream with 4k or 'ultra HD' for another 15 years? Even as of 2012, all electronics are JUST getting into regular HD such as 480p, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. If you ask me, you are just wasting your money and again... the eye will not see any difference between 1080p and 4k.. TRUST me~[/citation]
Sorry but your comment is a bit oversimplified. Depending on viewing distance and screen size, you can tell the difference. For home theater/large screen formats you will definately see a difference.
Not that I think a move to 4k or "Ultra HD" is needed. We have enough problems with 1080p video sucking up bandwidth on the internet. This will just make the problem 4x worse.
Sorry but your comment is a bit oversimplified. Depending on viewing distance and screen size, you can tell the difference. For home theater/large screen formats you will definately see a difference.
Not that I think a move to 4k or "Ultra HD" is needed. We have enough problems with 1080p video sucking up bandwidth on the internet. This will just make the problem 4x worse.
YardstickWHACK
Distinguished
- Mar 31, 2008
- 36
- 0
- 18,530
[citation][nom]aoneone[/nom]LOL what difference does it make if its 4k or 1080p or even 720 for that matter? Don't you people realize that beyond 1920 x 1080 the human eye doesn't even distinguish the pixelation factor at that point? On TOP of that, current screens on various electronics won't even be mainstream with 4k or 'ultra HD' for another 15 years? Even as of 2012, all electronics are JUST getting into regular HD such as 480p, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. If you ask me, you are just wasting your money and again... the eye will not see any difference between 1080p and 4k.. TRUST me~[/citation]
I see a huge difference between 720 and 1080 on my 58 inch TV and I wish the resolution went higher. Maybe being an fps gamer has made me more picky, but please don't speak for everyone else just because you are unable to discern a difference. You're also on the totally wrong way of thinking. You have confused high DPI of the 300+ nature with resolution. The bigger the screen, the lower the DPI.
I see a huge difference between 720 and 1080 on my 58 inch TV and I wish the resolution went higher. Maybe being an fps gamer has made me more picky, but please don't speak for everyone else just because you are unable to discern a difference. You're also on the totally wrong way of thinking. You have confused high DPI of the 300+ nature with resolution. The bigger the screen, the lower the DPI.
YardstickWHACK
Distinguished
- Mar 31, 2008
- 36
- 0
- 18,530
[citation][nom]jcurry23[/nom]@ aoneone I think you will be surprised on seeing the difference. The great thing about it the viewing distance will be less. You will be able to buy a bigger tv for a smaller room and not see the pixels. That is the problem with 1080p people have these huge tv's in their small living room and you can see all of the pixels because it is to close.[/citation]
You're exactly right. A friend gave me a 58 inch (lucky, I know) for my little multi-story apartment. The farthest viewing distance I could find for it was about 10 feet.
You're exactly right. A friend gave me a 58 inch (lucky, I know) for my little multi-story apartment. The farthest viewing distance I could find for it was about 10 feet.
freggo
Distinguished
- Nov 22, 2008
- 2,019
- 0
- 19,780
[citation][nom]aoneone[/nom]If you ask me, you are just wasting your money and again... the eye will not see any difference between 1080p and 4k.. TRUST me~[/citation]
Don't know if you have seen 4K content on a 4K display. If you have and did not see the difference I suggest you visit your Ophthalmologist.
Besides, eventually computer folk may finally get screens that go beyond 1080 without breaking the bank.
Don't know if you have seen 4K content on a 4K display. If you have and did not see the difference I suggest you visit your Ophthalmologist.
Besides, eventually computer folk may finally get screens that go beyond 1080 without breaking the bank.
djscribbles
Honorable
- Apr 6, 2012
- 1,212
- 0
- 11,460
[citation][nom]aoneone[/nom]LOL what difference does it make if its 4k or 1080p or even 720 for that matter? Don't you people realize that beyond 1920 x 1080 the human eye doesn't even distinguish the pixelation factor at that point? On TOP of that, current screens on various electronics won't even be mainstream with 4k or 'ultra HD' for another 15 years? Even as of 2012, all electronics are JUST getting into regular HD such as 480p, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. If you ask me, you are just wasting your money and again... the eye will not see any difference between 1080p and 4k.. TRUST me~[/citation]
Wasting money? Maybe.
No visible difference between any resolution and any other resolution? Complete garbage. Unless you clarify screen size and viewing distance, you are just spouting nonsense when making statements comparing resolutions... Trust me
Wasting money? Maybe.
No visible difference between any resolution and any other resolution? Complete garbage. Unless you clarify screen size and viewing distance, you are just spouting nonsense when making statements comparing resolutions... Trust me
ttg_Avenged
Distinguished
- Feb 23, 2012
- 545
- 0
- 19,010
Wow, I do not know what to do, I have a GTX 680, good luck running anything besides minesweeper at 4000 resolution. Hack, it would probably struggled with video.
PS I'm using Microsoft voice recognition, it's pretty awesome. Kind of like Kinnect for Xbox but on Windows 7.
PS I'm using Microsoft voice recognition, it's pretty awesome. Kind of like Kinnect for Xbox but on Windows 7.
fantasticles
Distinguished
- May 24, 2011
- 30
- 0
- 18,530
Great news, hope my next upgrade in 3 years will have 4K TV's at a good price point (TV hooked to PC setup).
SteelCity1981
Distinguished
- Sep 16, 2010
- 1,129
- 0
- 19,310
4k TV's will make a diff with TV's 60 inches or above. I think what some people are missing here is the larger the screen the more pixilated it becomes so while 4k TVs' won't be necessary for anything below 60 inches it will be necessary for anything above above 60 inches.
[citation][nom]jn77[/nom]so I am confused (Not that I would recommend doing this) but why can't I buy 4 "New Ipads" or Ipad 3's or what ever Apple calls them, gut the screens out of them and stack them 2x2 for a rectangle screen, use precise alignment tools so the pixels line up and for $2000 have a (approximate) 20 inch 4K display.There is no way they cost $25,000 to make. I just proved it; now if you are talking about a 120 inch 4k display, then that might be different.[/citation]
I work in the LCD industry, perhaps I can explain. There are various generic issues (supply/market demand, quantities involved, etc) which are very basic reasons for the price, I'll skip over those and address the technical issues affecting costs.
Mostly it's a matter of yield. When you make an LCD, you are layering a complex lattice of components and chemicals in a very precise fashion to formulate a functional display. The higher the resolution, the greater the chance of a faulty panel. 4K res is over 8 million pixels per display. That's over 24 MILLION sub-pixels in an RGB panel. The chance of pixels being faulty is... well, high. For a premium TV, dead/stuck pixels are basically unacceptable, so you've gone to all that effort to make this complex panel and now you must throw it away. Bear in mind these complex materials and chemicals cannot really be recycled into the process, so they're wasted too unless you spend even more money trying to recover them. Because of the low yield, you're doing this a lot to get working panels.
On a smaller display, no big deal, but these are large telly panels. They use more glass and fab resources. Each one wasted is a bigger deficit. For a given surface area of glass, you could have several defects, but when the glass is divided into smaller panels you have several workable displays from a given batch. On a bigger panels, much more wastage occurs. So your iPad Retina displays are much cheaper to manufacture than these 4K display can be.
Even if the panel has no dead pixels, it may have other issues. Panels are very complex to drive properly. New, higher resolutions and smaller dot-pitches demand new technologies to make them happen. There are teething problems (look at Apple's Retina Macbook image retention issues, for instance).
There's also development costs for these new technologies and new manufacturing equipment. It's expensive. Very expensive.
There's also the cost of the components required to drive the display. To me, it's incredible displays work as well as they do. Seriously impressive. 8 million pixels (24 million sub-pixels) requires some serious hardware to push the incoming data to the crystals. You can't just pop a voltage across each sub-pixel and call it a day. DC voltage damages pixels, they're actually driven by an AC waveform. It's a complex weave of carefully design PWM pulses at varying levels designed to oscillate the pixels, while moving them into the correct orientations for a given image, without inducing interference in neighbouring pixels. It's a bloody nightmare and the more pixels you have... well, you can image. This, again, costs oodles of money to achieve.
So no, you can't just glue four Retina iPads together, haha. Well, you could, but assuming you managed to build a Retina display without a bezel (you can't) you'd still have this bizarre cross-shaped line running through the middle of your bodged display. The pixel pitch is vastly smaller than the distance between the display's active area and its edges.
I work in the LCD industry, perhaps I can explain. There are various generic issues (supply/market demand, quantities involved, etc) which are very basic reasons for the price, I'll skip over those and address the technical issues affecting costs.
Mostly it's a matter of yield. When you make an LCD, you are layering a complex lattice of components and chemicals in a very precise fashion to formulate a functional display. The higher the resolution, the greater the chance of a faulty panel. 4K res is over 8 million pixels per display. That's over 24 MILLION sub-pixels in an RGB panel. The chance of pixels being faulty is... well, high. For a premium TV, dead/stuck pixels are basically unacceptable, so you've gone to all that effort to make this complex panel and now you must throw it away. Bear in mind these complex materials and chemicals cannot really be recycled into the process, so they're wasted too unless you spend even more money trying to recover them. Because of the low yield, you're doing this a lot to get working panels.
On a smaller display, no big deal, but these are large telly panels. They use more glass and fab resources. Each one wasted is a bigger deficit. For a given surface area of glass, you could have several defects, but when the glass is divided into smaller panels you have several workable displays from a given batch. On a bigger panels, much more wastage occurs. So your iPad Retina displays are much cheaper to manufacture than these 4K display can be.
Even if the panel has no dead pixels, it may have other issues. Panels are very complex to drive properly. New, higher resolutions and smaller dot-pitches demand new technologies to make them happen. There are teething problems (look at Apple's Retina Macbook image retention issues, for instance).
There's also development costs for these new technologies and new manufacturing equipment. It's expensive. Very expensive.
There's also the cost of the components required to drive the display. To me, it's incredible displays work as well as they do. Seriously impressive. 8 million pixels (24 million sub-pixels) requires some serious hardware to push the incoming data to the crystals. You can't just pop a voltage across each sub-pixel and call it a day. DC voltage damages pixels, they're actually driven by an AC waveform. It's a complex weave of carefully design PWM pulses at varying levels designed to oscillate the pixels, while moving them into the correct orientations for a given image, without inducing interference in neighbouring pixels. It's a bloody nightmare and the more pixels you have... well, you can image. This, again, costs oodles of money to achieve.
So no, you can't just glue four Retina iPads together, haha. Well, you could, but assuming you managed to build a Retina display without a bezel (you can't) you'd still have this bizarre cross-shaped line running through the middle of your bodged display. The pixel pitch is vastly smaller than the distance between the display's active area and its edges.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Intel SSD 320 series fried diode (?) CR3, one contact, should I remove it?
- Started by kornsoud
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
-
Question Can I just upgrade my graphics card or should I be upgrading my processor as well for UE5?- Started by Tolstoy1990
- Replies: 5
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Question My SSD activity is spiking up to 100% usage. Any ideas as to why?
- Latest: aFishIntheSea
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram