Panasonic Unleashes Glasses-Free 3D 103-inch 4K HDTV

Status
Not open for further replies.

bak0n

Distinguished
Dec 4, 2009
792
0
19,010
9
Why is is called 4k and not 2160i or P. They trying to fool people into thinking the pixels are 4x that of a 1080p and not double the pixel count?
 
G

Guest

Guest
technically the 4k displays DO have 4x the pixel count of a 1080p... do the math.

1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600

3840 x 2160 = 8,294,400

not saying that has anything to do with the naming, but don't get it twisted.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Well - to be fair: The pixel count for the whole screen IS indeed quadrupled: From 2,073,600 pixels (1,920 x 1,080) to 8,294,400 pixels (3840 x 2160).

But the 4K refers to the horizontal resolution of the screen, so you're right too in a way. ;)
 

tmshdw

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2011
171
0
18,680
0
whats amazing here is not the size or the resolution but the 'glasses free' 3d.

Howze the 3d look? Visible from all angles? Thats what I want to hear about...
 

LukeCWM

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2011
146
0
18,680
0
Earlier this year on a news article covering a prototype 4k TV, I posted a comment saying I am looking forward to having a 4k OLED computer monitor. I got down-voted pretty hard. I wonder what will happen this time...
 

LukeCWM

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2011
146
0
18,680
0
For the record, 4k does not mean "4x 1080p". It means approximately 4,000 horizontal pixels.

Up to the present, we've always measured resolution in shorthand by the number of vertical pixels, e.g. 720p, 1080i, 1080p. But the true number of vertical pixels changes based on aspect ratio: if a movie is 16:9, it truly can have 1080 vertical pixels, but if it is 2.35:1 or a different aspect ratio, it can still be 1920 pixels horizontally, but it is no longer 1080 vertical pixels.

To avoid confusion over aspect ratios incorrectly representing resolutions, the decision has been made to switch to tracking the horizontal resolution. Also, they decided to round it for convenience. Next-gen is 4k, followed by 8k. Current, by the same system, is 2k. Each time, they are doubling the width (and height follows suit), which results in 4x the resolution per step-up.

What I don't know is if we'll always use numbers under the rounded figure, like 1920 under 2k or 7680 under 8k. Some have attempted to establish exactly 4,000 pixels horizontal, and others 4,096 pixels horizontal. It probably doesn't make that big of a difference visually, but as resolutions increase, our specifications stray further and further from the actual measurements, just like selling hard drives listing the capacity assuming a TB is 1,000,000,000,000 bytes, rather than the actual space which comes out less, since our computers see each TB as 1,099,511,627,776. Not a big deal with the old MB hard drives, but when we start seeing petabyte and exabyte arrays it is increasingly deceiving, since the rounding errors are compounded with each larger prefix.
 

CaedenV

Splendid
[citation][nom]slabbo[/nom]that 8k one makes me drool. too bad there won't be any TV programming to even take advantage of that.[/citation]
you could watch the Hobbit which is shot at native 4K to your hearts content.... and then you can purchase all your favorite films all over again as they are upscaled and cleaned up again for this new standard. Sadly TV shows shot in SD or early HD will have a hard time looking good on these new displays... Film upscales well as it is analogue (rough equivilant to somewhere between 4K and 8K from what I understand), and newer movies (after Phantom Menace I believe) started shooting in 4K. But everything from TV, and all movies shot in that awkward time between digital and 4K digital will have a rough time transitioning, and when 8K hits simply nothing will look quite right on it.
 

LukeCWM

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2011
146
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]caedenv[/nom]you could watch the Hobbit which is shot at native 4K to your hearts content.... and then you can purchase all your favorite films all over again as they are upscaled and cleaned up again for this new standard. Sadly TV shows shot in SD or early HD will have a hard time looking good on these new displays... Film upscales well as it is analogue (rough equivilant to somewhere between 4K and 8K from what I understand), and newer movies (after Phantom Menace I believe) started shooting in 4K. But everything from TV, and all movies shot in that awkward time between digital and 4K digital will have a rough time transitioning, and when 8K hits simply nothing will look quite right on it.[/citation]

If you are up-scaling from 1080p to 4k, it should look great, just each pixel of content is represented by four pixels of the TV. It wouldn't be any worse than 1080p, certainly. Unlike uneven resolution multipliers, you don't have to try to represent an image across pixel numbers that don't line up. Same with 4k into 8k.

I'm no expert on image processing, but if they develop (or already have??) some system of guessing what pixels should come between pixels, or can shade pixels like anti-aliasing, potentially 1080p could could better on a 4k or 8k screen than it does on a 1080p screen.
 

LukeCWM

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2011
146
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]caedenv[/nom]you could watch the Hobbit which is shot at native 4K to your hearts content.... and then you can purchase all your favorite films all over again as they are upscaled and cleaned up again for this new standard. Sadly TV shows shot in SD or early HD will have a hard time looking good on these new displays... Film upscales well as it is analogue (rough equivilant to somewhere between 4K and 8K from what I understand), and newer movies (after Phantom Menace I believe) started shooting in 4K. But everything from TV, and all movies shot in that awkward time between digital and 4K digital will have a rough time transitioning, and when 8K hits simply nothing will look quite right on it.[/citation]

Alternatively, we could just use the 8k screen to simultaneously watch all three Lord of the Rings movies and the first Hobbit movie, all in 4k. =D
 

TeraMedia

Distinguished
Jan 26, 2006
904
1
18,990
3
That 12' diag, 6' high 8k screen sounds impressive. I'm interested in how they did glasses-free 3D and how well it works, because it will eventually trickle down to the mainstream consumer market that most of us can afford. Tuan, any info on the underlying technology?
 

Vladislaus

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2010
1,290
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]BigMack70[/nom]Lol math fail... (3840 x 2160)/(1920 x 1080) = 4There are exactly 4x the pixels of 1080p.[/citation]
The 4 in 4K has nothing to do with UHDTV being 4 times bigger than Full HD. It has to do with the number of horizontal pixels which are almost 4000, hence 4K. Also the 4K resolution has appeared in movie theaters prior to TVs, and usually have 4096 horizontal pixels. 4K is the successor of 2K that has 2048 horizontal pixels.
 
G

Guest

Guest
[citation][nom]BigMack70[/nom]Lol math fail... (3840 x 2160)/(1920 x 1080) = 4There are exactly 4x the pixels of 1080p.[/citation]

Actually... you not knowing what the "k" means.... You are the math fail... LOL
 

dennisburke

Distinguished
May 12, 2008
100
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]tmshdw[/nom]whats amazing here is not the size or the resolution but the 'glasses free' 3d.Howze the 3d look? Visible from all angles? Thats what I want to hear about...[/citation]

I just did a search and it looks like if you view the screen from the sweet spot it looks ok, but if you move your head slightly the image blurs.
 

threefish

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2011
30
0
18,530
0
[citation][nom]LukeCWM[/nom]If you are up-scaling from 1080p to 4k, it should look great, just each pixel of content is represented by four pixels of the TV. It wouldn't be any worse than 1080p, certainly. Unlike uneven resolution multipliers, you don't have to try to represent an image across pixel numbers that don't line up. Same with 4k into 8k.I'm no expert on image processing, but if they develop (or already have??) some system of guessing what pixels should come between pixels, or can shade pixels like anti-aliasing, potentially 1080p could could better on a 4k or 8k screen than it does on a 1080p screen.[/citation]

Similarly anything shot in 720p would scale precisely to 9 pixels on the 4k screen for each pixel on a 720p screen.
 

hannibal

Distinguished
Now we are talking! "glasses-free 3D" and 4k or 8k resolution.
I think that upscaling is just fine. Upscaled DVD movies looks guite good in HD television, so upscaled 1080p should be ok, with 4k screen. Not affordable at this moment, but the technology is ready for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY