Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

TV's and stuff

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
June 14, 2011 11:23:07 PM

Hello everyone, I was at best buy's today trying to review TV technology for my new job at sears wean I had a interesting thought. why are all the TV's LCD,LED,Plasma still using pixels. I mean TV's have been using pixels or some sort of square type thing for so long. Could we not just some how create the picture with some sort of laser technology or perhaps some sort of flowing colored gas or something I don't know why are we using pixels.
oh side note can anyone explain to me why plasma TV's can't be made small is it that they would be to expansive to justify the creation for smaller TV sizes or what can the technology simply not be made small.

More about : stuff

June 16, 2011 10:58:47 AM

the closest thing to an upgrade from square or round pixels is ray tracing.
i would suggest you have a look at it, and its definition.
but
even ray tracing uses pixels.
the density is higher, and the dots are much much smaller.

we always use pixels because you cant program a robot to display something without them.
sure, you could make a whole picture from one giant pixel.
but the area that shows viewable data is still considered a single pixel, that is the term of endearment.
it might be called an 'applet' .. but if you dig deeper into the mechanics of the machine, the designer will note that the area is still just a single pixel.

CRT televisions could have worked like that.. meaning they might actually have been categorized as such.
to say that there is one giant viewable area, and that the viewable data is constructed with pixels to form a graph.

without the graph, you have no coordinates to say where one thing goes and where one thing doesnt go.
it would be total chaos without organization.

again, without the grid.. the space is infinite.
it is defeated by the laws of physics.

to say you go out into space and that spaces goes on and on forever, if you select an area.. then you have created a grid.

they say the solar system isnt infinite because there is always the sun or the other planets that define a location.
m
0
l
June 16, 2011 4:46:34 PM

I read about ray tracing off Wikipedia. It seems perhaps a step in the right direction but it also states that the power to do the creation of the images takes much longer so fast past images such as the kind in movies or games may be impossible. I wonder if in the future a higher end processor could do the calculations at a faster rate to therefore make ray tracing work better.

I mean I can think of outlandish ways of going away from pixel but they would probably be to expansive and impossible like perhaps using nano bots to create the picture but then again is not everything a pixel, I mean a atom could be considered a pixel but because of there small size in are world we don't see it as a pixel but as a sold. Perhaps the real goal then is to get pixels down in size to the point were the human eye can not detect them. Wonder if that is ever going to happen.
I like modern TV's and computer monitors(although I think the computer monitors look better for there size) but wean I notice a pixel it just throws of the artificial illusion however if I step back it comes back perhaps I should not worry.
m
0
l
Related resources
June 17, 2011 1:20:23 AM

they said ray tracing already happens with the new directX 11
but maybe i am mixing two things together..

i'm off to have a look

**okay back**

it appears that there is no ray tracing specifically listed for directX 11.
but
knowing my rationale is high.. i know this is how it goes.
back in the older versions of directX .. the wires themselves had a limit imposed on them.
obviously this limit is to keep the graphics card from running at low frames per second.
and in reality, the limit could be raised as long as the graphics card can support it.
you just cant ask the graphics card to do more than it can.

now, if the wires are that choppy.. it means the closest thing to ray tracing would be the shadows.
since all shadows are like a blanket of pixels that lay over the wires.
this too has a limit imposed to prevent the graphics card from running at low frames per second.

we have seen the many shadows from directX 9 games.
and based on the looks of those shadows, it is safe to say that the limit of the shadow 'space' in pixels is quite the same as the limit of wires.

then.. the actual pixels within the textures, these can be a totally seperate 'function' than the wires or the shadows.
what some people may not realize..
the entire world is full of pixels.. no matter how much they try to argue that it isnt.
you could take a map and give it four points, but then you would have to give each space between any of those four points a coordinate.
when you say the map has 1024x1024 pixels.. that is for the up and down / the left and right.
and people forget that there is also front to back pixels.. meaning 1024x1024x1024
if you wanted to get crazy.. you could do up/down .. left/right .. front/back .. sideways/sideways
and it would look like an X with a line through the middle (probably known as 4D)


anyways..
this is the special part..
when the edges of the world are brought in closer to eachother, that means the wires can get more complex.. the shadows can get more complex (however, locked to the amount of shades of black and grey available).
this means a step closer to ray tracing, since more pixels in a square inch is going to be closer to the more pixels per square inch like ray tracing.
i dont know if ray tracing works with x,y,z coordinates or if it uses an X with a line through it.. or even an X with a line through the middle both ways.
maybe it is an X with two lines through the middle.. and then a line through the middle of all of those.
doesnt matter much to be now.

but..
directX 11 added tessellation.. and tessellation is nothing more than more pixels available for the wire frames (meaning more vectors easily processed)
and that could mean the shadows are also upgraded with more vectors (pixels) available.
and again, maybe more pixels for the 'world' coordinates.

first lets say this, a pixel being rendered as a pixel is not the same thing as a pixel being rendered as a vector.
if you have 2048x2048x2048 pixels for the x,y,z coordinates.. there doesnt have to be that many vectors available.
there is a limit imposed by the graphics processor as to how many of those pixels can be turned into vectors.
directX 11 has increased that number.
since we see directX 9 games with bigger maps.. that means there were more wires made available, but those wires does not mean more vectors (not really, it doesnt.. )
maybe some more vectors were unlocked with the newer graphics cards.. or maybe they were always unlocked, but the current graphics cards would not render them fast enough (say not until the late 7900 or 8800 nvidia graphics cards came out)

so, now with more vectors available for rendering.. the amount of vectors available is massive compared to the older directX version.
maybe there is a limit imposed to the space between each vector.. and if there is, you could minimize the edges of the 'world' and squeeze those vectors closer together to get a results much more closer to ray tracing.
ray tracing is about the number of vectors, but could also be about the SIZE of the vectors.
i dont know if directX 11 changed the vector size or not.
but
to a skilled person, all of these changes are possible.. only to be confronted by a 'policy' or some other junk that tries to get into the way.


again with the pixels and vectors and shadow vectors/pixels being seperate 'functions'
maybe any combination of those are combined together.
but
i wouldnt think twice about lowering one to raise another.
this gets you a 'custom engine' stamped onto your marketing advertisement, and the game would look better than those who didnt decrease something to increase something else.
as an artist, those choices are like choosing a color.
lots of colors and color combinations to choose from.
that is a baseline principle to the design of the foundation the game is supposed to run on.
as the content of the video game is taken from the imagination, the actual mechanics are a game of design (or architecture)

say you give me the chance to build a car.. but you wont let me choose what engine, or what transmission, or the suspension.
that team effort is really going to put out the flame for a dedicated designer who wants (or thought) that they were going to design a vehicle.
no sense in telling me that i am going to design a vehicle and only shape the body without any say about anything else.
anybody can take a box van and beat it into shape with a hammer and some clay.
that is like saying you want to make your own music.. but you use music presets that are loops of pre-made sounds (found in ejay music software).
you really dont have any control unless you take the time to shorten each loop to a single sound.. and even then, you wont have every sound available.. not even if you use the special effects module to warp or manipulate the sound.
to say you would get close is an understatement.. as the real amount of audio sounds would be far far away from what is actually available.
and then what.. you get a sound and use a special effects module to manipulate the sound to something you want.. and then the graphics card says 'i will gladly play the sound.. but i am having difficulty playing the sound with the manipulation added onto it'
that just doesnt fly.. the special effect module would be a tease, taunt, and a tormenting/abusive joke (a sick one at that).
say you use the special effects module to change all the sounds and create a bunch of new ones you want.. and then you find out the audio player wont play the song back without skipping and stuttering.
that is enough to make any sane person quit the project entirely.


just how many vectors are available with ray tracing, and how small those vectors are, and how big the edges of the 'world' can be.. these all play a factor to the comparison of trying to re-create it fast enough to keep the frames per second up.
many people consider a circle to be 360 degrees.. but you can add or subtract points whenever you feel it necessary, since that is your human right.
to say that ray tracing uses 360 angles for each of the x,y,z coordinates.. it really means adding more coordinates.
an X with a line through the middle would be 6 angles.. and that can be used for ONLY the front to back coordinate space.
if you flip the world around, you could add the 'sideways' for the other two coordinates.
when each coordinate moves left/right.. you could always add a diagonal X .. then add a diagonal X to that .. and again and again until there are 360 'points' on the X (since the X only has four)
no reason to stop at 360?
who came up with 360 degree angles.. leonardo divinci ?
did somebody say 360 is enough for video, or for measurements?

you HAVE TO have those degree angles for ray tracing to work its magic.. more than 360 would be even better.
that is how you really snap a photo and pull out the bump map from the image.
same with snapping a photo and allowing a program to bend and fold the picture until it is 3D
adding a second camera lens to record stereoscopic would then give you the data for 4D images.
since the diagonal view from the lenses would provide data for the diagonal coordinates of the front to back coordinate space.

you wouldnt need more lenses for more data.. sure you could do it that way and get solid results, but you could also specify the distance between each lens and give it a coordinate.
no different than taking two points and adding (really dividing) the space inbetween into sub points.
each sub point would reflect the sub coordinate (the diagonal coordinate for front to back pixels)
they would be a combination of front to back and left to right since they are diagonal.
so say you take the two lenses and add five subsections.. then you add five diagonals to the front to back coordinate space.
in the end.. you would see the same depth that is highly sought after.
if your LCD television cant reproduce it all.. an old CRT probably could with ease.
the depth would be so amazing that it might give a casual person a heart attack (even if they do remember seeing it before).


it is very very possible to make each graphics card do one coordinate space.. then tie all of the diagonal spaces in together by connecting the graphics cards together (sli strap or whatever).
the situation would HAVE to be multi-threaded, and that generally means it would be best to be multi-cored.. to keep the processing time down.
no matter what, if you ask one processor to do two things.. there is going to be halts interlaced between the two requests.
the only way to remove the halts of the second request is to double the speed of the processor.


this means, if you have a 1.5% overclock on your dual-core CPU .. you could leave the threads at two, and see a 50% decrease in time to finish the process.. or you could increase the threads to three and see a 50% increase in productivity.
now.. that 50% increased productivity might be lower if the processor gets confused as to which core will do the third thread.
it would have to be hard coded into the functioning of the processor to interlace the third thread across both cores equally.

what does this mean for pixels and a television working with zero pixels?
well it talks about how pixel rendering is done and where it can go.

i faithfully believe if you increase your productivity 50% .. that has got to be like quantum computing (or whatever word it is)
because a 50% decrease in the amount of time to finish the process is nothing compared to a 50% increase in productivity.
i begin to wonder if that is how directX 11 is adding more tessellation.
to say that there is only one graphics processor and it has been made faster, then to overclock that processor 1.5% and add another thread.. you would get 50% more done in the same amount of time !!!

this is astonishing fact, and it could pave the way for people who develop video games.. because it means their games do 50% more and look much better than the other games being released the same year.

adding a third thread would be awesome.. but doing the coding to make a new thread possible, that might downright make my head spin.

kinda crazy to think a dual-core processor at 4ghz can do the exact same amount of work that a 2ghz quad core can do.. and they both finish in the exact same amount of time.
overclocking should have a new respect if you didnt know this already.

every atom IS a pixel.. but to say there are smaller things than an atom, it would be true.
maybe the line that connects one atom to another is smaller than the atom itself.
and it is a real solid way of looking at things, to know that every atom is a pixel.. or that you could put 4 pixels on a single atom.
it totally would amount to the pixels becoming smaller and smaller, until the human eye can no longer detect a single pixel without a microscope.
that kind of effort would be the closest thing to having a television appear as though there were no pixels at all.


see what i remember is this.. if you want 1920x1080 pixels ... if the screen is smaller and those pixels really exists in the number of 1920x1080 .. then those pixels would be smaller, making the video look more realistic.
that is why you could see a lot of 19 inch CRT televisions that actually look better than a 32 inch CRT television.
the pixels are bigger with the bigger screen.. and the only way to shrink those pixels is to step backwards away from the screen until your eyes see each pixel the same size as the 19 inch television.

kinda like holding a tape measure out with your arms fully extended.. you measure how wide the 19 inch screen is with the tape measure from your hands to your eyeballs.
then get in front of the 32 inch television and move forwards or backwards until the width is the same.

this is why a television looks better if you are further away.
pixel size has always been something available to put in the specifications.
it is called the 'dot pitch'
and usually it is something like 0.24 millimeters
you can read about that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch

they say it is measured both ways.. how big the pixel dot is, and how far away the pixels are from eachother.
and
i suppose i was wrong to say that the dot pitch is how big the pixel is.
the dot pitch is important though.. because the bigger the dot pitch, the further away from the television you have to be before the image blends well together.
and
if the dot pitch is really small, the further away you are from the screen.. the more detail and realism you are going to lose because of blurriness at a distance.

computer monitors should have a smaller dot pitch than televisions.. because people arent expected to use their television as a computer monitor.
and with the release of LCD televisions.. this has all changed, as people want to use their television for a computer monitor.
anyways.. it is all about how far away you intend to sit from the screen.

you might find that you cant find a dot pitch big enough for 12ft viewing distance.
the only way to ensure the dot pitch increases is to buy a bigger television.
but
this is why people buy bigger televisions for when they sit further and further away.
you dont buy a huge television and expect it to look good from 3ft away.. because you can see all of the gaps between the pixels.
yes, you might need to be that close to read text.. but being that close is still going to be harmful with all of the gaps between the pixels.

pixels per square inch is everything, unless you are too far away to focus on them.
no sense making the pixels close together and struggling to see them because you are too far away.
maybe this picture will shed some light:
 ixel_geometry_01_Pengo.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:p ixel_geometry_01_Pen...

when you consider how many of the reds and greens and blues are in each pixel.. that helps get more colors, but it can also ruin the amount of black available.
that is why the PC monitor and the XO-1 LCD seem to have the best chance at being black or changing the color.

tv crt has a lot more black than the lcd square.. and this suggests that the tv crt would have a higher contrast ratio than the lcd.
but it looks like the lcd has more red, green, blue dots.. and that means those dots can combine to create more colors for the pixel.
sometimes more colors really means a more realistic visual experience.. especially when the movie is during the day without much dark blacks.
m
0
l
June 17, 2011 1:31:57 AM

what is really bad..
when the pixels dont get any bigger, they simply get more space between them.

because a bigger pixel can display smaller elements with more viewable detail.
(can doesnt mean they do)

if you see some salt splashed out of a tub of salt.. the salt grains are tiny, and if the pixels are tiny.. you wont see much of the grains at all, because they would fill up the entire pixel.
but
if the pixel was bigger.. then you would see more of the salt grains because there is space around the entire grain of salt with room to spare.
if the pixel is too small, then it is like zooming out and hard to see.
and when the pixel is bigger, it is like zooming in with a microscope or binoculars to better see what you are looking at.


apparently, they are using a specification called 'pixel pitch'
and i cant find the exact definition.
i dont know if it is the size of the pixel.. or the space between each pixel.

more space between each pixels means a higher contrast ratio, and maximum sharpness from far away.
but
that also means those grains of salt are going to look worse and less detailed.
instead of tiny pieces of salt.. it is going to look like somebody blew a bottle of baby powder.

is it cheaper for an LCD maker to use smaller pixels because there is less liquid crystal in the display?
chances are, that answer is yes.
but
maybe it costs more for them to zoom in and make the smaller pixels, and actually it is cheaper for them to use bigger pixels.

tough calls just got tougher !!

**edit**

you can find proof about what i said with the whole being up close is bad and being farther away is better..
there is a very small article about it here:
http://www.ehow.com/about_6376368_lcd-pixel-pitch_.html
m
0
l
June 17, 2011 1:43:13 AM

this link describes how dot pitch and pixel pitch are the same thing:
http://www.answers.com/topic/dot-pitch

so if you see one 42 inch with ___ pitch
another 42 inch with a smaller pitch = bigger pixels

now say this..
if the video was recorded with a specific pixel size.. and your televisions pixels are smaller.. then the television would be forced to remove some of the video data.
and that is how grain of salt looks worse.
m
0
l
June 29, 2011 8:05:35 PM

followthedon said:
Hello everyone, I was at best buy's today trying to review TV technology for my new job at sears wean I had a interesting thought. why are all the TV's LCD,LED,Plasma still using pixels. I mean TV's have been using pixels or some sort of square type thing for so long. Could we not just some how create the picture with some sort of laser technology or perhaps some sort of flowing colored gas or something I don't know why are we using pixels.
oh side note can anyone explain to me why plasma TV's can't be made small is it that they would be to expansive to justify the creation for smaller TV sizes or what can the technology simply not be made small.


Oh I'm sure there can be technology or maybe there is technology other, but are you willing to pay hundreds of thousands if not millions to fund its research and then buy it?
And whats the problem with pixels?
m
0
l
July 23, 2011 11:56:43 PM

anwaypasible said:
this link describes how dot pitch and pixel pitch are the same thing:
http://www.answers.com/topic/dot-pitch

so if you see one 42 inch with ___ pitch
another 42 inch with a smaller pitch = bigger pixels

now say this..
if the video was recorded with a specific pixel size.. and your televisions pixels are smaller.. then the television would be forced to remove some of the video data.
and that is how grain of salt looks worse.


that is a lot of good info about pixels and possible places we are going to go in the future. my home monitor right now is a old Mitsubishi Diamond pro 920. It is kind of funny because the pixel pinch on it I recall reading was 0.25 and looking at newegg monitors have around the same pixel sizes as that old 17 inch monitor in fact much of them are 0.26 or 0.27 however we are only talking a few points so perhaps it would not be to different. Also new monitors are bigger too I think I may end up getting a 24 inch monitor so it actually should have more pixels for its size compared to my old 17 inch.
Now what you said about the graphic processor is rather interesting. so with a good graphics engine basically you can create a better illusion despite the fact that we are using pixels and depending on how the pixels are oranged. What you said about the atom is also true technically a atom could be considered a pixel and all these pixels make up everything. any how this has been informative.
m
0
l
!