Face it, 1080p just isn't bleeding edge anymore. By the end of the year we're sure to have a $50, 1080p iPod from Apple, and then what are we going to do? Friends, we must move onto greater resolutions now before we miss the proverbial boat, and leading the way is
Sharp with their new 65-inch prototype LCD which sports a 4096 x 2160 resolution. They're not the only one playing the ultra HD game, Westinghouse was showing off a
56-inch 3840 x 2160 display at CES in January, and Japan's NHK has been prepping a
7680 x 4320 "Super Hi-Vision" TV standard for a while, but Sharp looks to be doing a pretty good job of things all the same. The display, which is still in development, will be initially targeted at film and television producers, along with medical imaging purposes, but we're sure we'll find a good enough excuse -- and the nefarious means -- to squeeze one of these into the Engadget HQ within a year or so. Along with the 64-incher, Sharp was showing off their new manufacturing methods that allow them to get six 52-inch LCDs out of a single glass sheet, along with a "Mega Contrast" display that boasts of a spanking 1 million-to-1 contrast ratio.
posted Oct 4th 2006 10:40AM
So where does this fit in with SED technology? Which would have better PQ a 56inch LCD with 4096 x 2160 resolution or a 56inch SED TV?
First of all, television production HD video codecs only go up to 1920x1080, so this resolution could only be fully realized by using some kind of large 2k or 4k digital print file like in in digital movie theater. Otherwise these are wasted pixels.
Second of all, how about these companies give us MORE ACTUAL 1920x1080 displays instead of all of this 700 line crap????
THIS WOULDNT BE WASTED. it could be used as a pc monitor. also in the future for upconverting blu ray and hdvd video via pc.
Consumers are already having a difficult time getting unadulterated HDTV delivered to their HD displays. Eith the local broadcasters are meek on content delivery, or agents like DirecTV and Dish Networks deliver HD-lite down-resolution versions of true HD content.
The only thing I could imagine these displays being good for in my home is as a computer monitor.
TheNatural: only can can determine what variables make a better picture quality. Is it the brightness, the contrast ratio, the resolution, the grayscale, the color resolution, the refresh rate, etc., etc., etc.
Christopher Johnson: While I would agree that digital photography could most certaingly benefit from a higher resolution display to perform post-production editing and even image evaluation (slideshow), this should not be interpreted as the limit of resolution is based on its source.
Interpolation can, under the right conditions, provide for a much better end result. Just think of how many people are scaling 480 interlaced lines to displays with higher resolution. Sure, I would tend to agree with someone saying there is a limit to that kind of interpolative scaling.
But, let's take the flip side of the coin. If no benefit came from a display with higher resolution than the intended source then anything above WVGA would be worthless unless the majority of someone's content was actually higher. So, should one do without watching 1920x1080 sources if they have a WXGA (1280 by 720) display, or someone using a rectangular pixel XGA flat-panel? U bet the market already spoke and thousands of displays got sold on the premise I'm offering.
How many pixels before the human eye cant tell the difference between an image and reality from a resolution standpoint?
Looks good to me, I could run 1080P PiP and still have my PC running in the background too. They really should come out with a 30inch LCD with this resolution for PCs.
Bring on the 4k, 7k footage!! Nooo problem with that. just need those terabyte Discs to come out & don't forget those 300, 500, 750 terabyte hard drives;)
Wow
insanity