47" 1440p x 2560 LCD to ship in 2007 w HDMI 1.3 - Blu-ray Forum

Deciazulado · 11-11-2006, 09:07 PM

CMO to ship 47-inch 1440p x 2560 LCD in 2007

Quote:

It looks like your first chance to surpass 1080p will come in a 47-inch, 2,560 x 1,440 resolution package. Its 3.68 million pixels are 1.78 times as many as are in current 1080p (1,920 x 1,080) screens, along with 450 nits brightness, 1,500:1 contrast ratio, 90% NTSC color saturation and a 6.5ms response time.

Keep an eye out for a PlayStation 3 software update to 1440p, the only true definition of HD

Here is its 56" "big brother":

dobyblue · 11-11-2006, 09:30 PM

Damn that's insane!

Josh · 11-12-2006, 03:01 AM

What is the point of this? 1080p is quickly becoming the standard resolution of TV broadcast and of course Blu-ray. Adding pixels does nothing to add to the picture, just breaks apart the same information into more pixels. Unless you had a source that was higher than 1080p (maybe pictures?) then this wouldn't do anything for anyone.

hyperdine · 11-12-2006, 03:45 AM

Outta control, man...outta control. That's just crazy.

BIGSAPOTEER · 11-12-2006, 04:17 AM

This is getting ridiculous last week I replaced my VHS for a DVD player and now I have to replace my 20" black and white TV?

Deciazulado · 11-12-2006, 02:04 PM

Well, first you need higher resolution to display the images made on still cameras without decimating them. Second, 70mm film is higher resolution than 1080. Third, there are benefits in image quality when you upconvert lower resolutions into higher resolutions using a sinc filter and resharpening. That's why 480i looks better and more of a match when going from 480 to 1080, same principle will apply to a 1080 -> 1440 or 1080 -> 2160 upconversion. You'll get a smoother image where you can actually see detail clearer that might have been obscured by the interference of the "square wave" aliased pattern of the 1080 pixels when you see them on a big screen.

For example the digital intermediate of The LOR, scanned at approx 875 x 2048 from the Super-35 2.40 Camera Aperture area was then uprezed to at least 1750 x 2048 for 35mm 2.39 anamorphic film printing, as the Arrilaser film recorder can do up to 3500 x 4096 for Anamorphic prints, then there's the IMAX DMR process, etc.

Same principle as when you send you photos to the printer at resolutions of "300dpi" or "360dpi" etc. An 8 x 10" 300 dpi print has 2400 x 3000 pixels, a 360 dpi, 2880 x 3600 pixels

The eye can resolve up to a maximum of 4500p in some cases, although I think something around 2000p would be the practical limit.

PurpleAardvark · 11-12-2006, 10:09 PM

Daddy like, I wish it was bigger though. At that size does it really matter. Maybe if it was 55" I could see it in my living room.

Deciazulado · 11-12-2006, 10:50 PM

Then allow me to recomend you this vintage 2008 64" 2160 x 4096 bottle, Sir. A very good year.

dobyblue · 11-13-2006, 01:30 AM

^^^ I'm pretty sure that's the resolution that Star Wars II and III were shot in.
No doubt they'd look insane on that telly.

PurpleAardvark · 11-13-2006, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Then allow me to recomend you this vintage 2008 64" 2160 x 4096 bottle, Sir. A very good year.

I will take it with a nice 16oz tenderloin steak, some taders, and corn on the cob please. I prefur to uncork the bottle myself thank you. As for the bill, see that man over there, the one who is a New York Giants Fan, or NYG for short he will be picking up the tab. Thank you.

saljr · 11-28-2006, 03:40 AM

Sooner then I thought. Perfect timing for the SED tv better then DLP tv. I never thought I would see 2160p maybe until 2011. Thats my guess.

Blackraven · 11-29-2006, 12:52 PM

Looks perfect EXCEPT FOR....

-1,500:1 contrast ratio

Umm....Sony BRAVIA units have 1300:1 minimum CR while Sony SXRD sets have AT LEAST 5000:1 for contrast ratio and up to 10,000:1 as dynamic contrast (15000:1 CR for the European version models).

I do hope that's just native CR (or just the minimum)

Also...
-6.5 ms response time.

That's just sucky. If this is a next-gen display, why the hell is it so slow?!?!?
Current LCD TVs have 8 ms with SXRD having around 2.5 ms.

Heck, even Sharp's upcoming AQUOS line has 4 ms already. Even so, they've already had 6.0 ms since their 7G models. Pioneer plasma TVs now have less than 1 ms response time.

and finally...

-CMO

WHO THE HELL IS CMO?!?!?

Seriously, except for promised 1440p resolutions, HDMI 1.3 support and higher color gamut/color range, this thing is FAR from next-gen.

Remember, the ultimate objectives/goals FOR ANY flat-panel TV is to:

1) Get the contrast ratio as high as it can (probably exceed the 10000:1 barrier)
2) Improve the response times to LESS THAN 1 ms.
3) Lessen the power consumption to below 200w (under AC 100-240V 50/60hz mode)

I was hoping this would break through the 8 ms barrier and it did. But it's still not enough. Current Sharp Aquos with a WXGA panel (1366x768) is .5 ms faster than that thing.

This is quite sad that the PERFECT tv for me won't appear till like after 2010 (starts in 2011-2012). And this TV is not perfect and ever far from awesome. I'd say that for LCD TVs for 2007-2008, you'd want to at least get 4ms or faster. That panel above fails to do that.

/rant over

If you ask me though, it looks like OLED will be the true successor to LCD and Plasma and once they improve the Blue OLED bulb to at least 60k lifespan, OLED TV tech for HDTV application will be UNSTOPPABLE.

As for SED, they would need a company other than Toshiba. A Toshiba-run circus would only perform satisfactory and not maximize the technological R&D. Also, they've had "lower than satisfactory" marks in their quality and finish. (ie. REGZA line).

If they don't get anyone other than Toshiba onboard, then my money goes to OLED technology.

OLED FTW!

Zvi · 11-29-2006, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Third, there are benefits in image quality when you upconvert lower resolutions into higher resolutions using a sync filter and resharpening. That's why 480i looks better and more of a match when going from 480 to 1080,

I am all for more pixels and higher resolutions on bigger screens

However, SD looks like crap on my 61 Sammy DLP. And even upconverted DVDs from Oppo don't look that great. Yeah, I got spoiled by Hi Def DVDs lately, but I think there's a limit to upconversion too. It wasn't as bad on my first 42" TV, on 56 SD was noticeably worse, but not that irritating, and on 61" I pretty much hate watching it.

Deciazulado · 11-29-2006, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zvi

However, SD looks like crap on my 61 Sammy DLP.

I have a friend that has a 50" 720p DLP Samsung and I adjusted it so that DVD looks great in there. Maybe your Samsung has a different implementation of upconverting?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackraven

1)Get the contrast ratio as high as it can (probably exceed the 10000:1 barrier)

I agree contrast ratio is important, however, just before you get all crazy chasing the highest numbers, the best film transparencies (those 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 chromes seen in transparency illuminators in high end proffessional photography

) have a dMax usually at 10,000:1 or lower. And projected film simultaneous contrast due to lens flare and room ambient light flare is usually limited to 500:1 or less.
If you're comparing contrast ratio in a display, always look for the ANSI ("simultaneous") contrast rating on screen first, with no contrast tricks enabled (like auto iris)
And if you're comparing one display's contrast ratio to another, make sure the difference is more than 1.12x, like at least 1.26x (1000 vs 1260) cus otherwse you might not see a diference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackraven

If you ask me though, it looks like OLED will be the true successor to LCD and Plasma and once they improve the Blue OLED bulb to at least 60k lifespan, OLED TV tech for HDTV application will be UNSTOPPABLE.

Yes flexible OLEDs with pure chromacities and infinite on/off contrast ratios will be good . Maybe we'll get CINERAMA type curved screens even!

jermwhl · 04-10-2007, 02:25 PM

Holy crap!
http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/10/17...p-lcd-in-2007/

Wouldn't that be nice!!!!

baccusboy · 04-10-2007, 02:34 PM

1,500 to 1 contrast ratio.

No thanks.

I'll wait a few generations...

akadkins · 04-10-2007, 02:39 PM

Honestly? No I don't want this...don't let high-def become like the computer world where we become stuck in a continuous loop of upgrades. I'm mad enough that my 1080i/720p Sony Grand Wega is already not up to 1080p specs...don't want to buy 1080p and have there be something else in 3 years that I am behind.

Plus...don't want my Blu-Ray discs to be out of style so soon...

JTK · 04-10-2007, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baccusboy

1,500 to 1 contrast ratio.

No thanks.

I'll wait a few generations...

I'd never buy first gen of anything either, but to be fair, there's a lot more to a total package than just the contrast ratio, although that 1500:1 is pretty damned low these days.

I don't care how awesome the scaling is: I can't imagine trying to run SD content on something with a uber high end resolution like this thing has.

jermwhl · 04-10-2007, 02:40 PM

Wasn't really referring to the TV perse, It was more directed towards this:

"Dual-link DVI and HDMI 1.3 connections have WQXGA resolutions like this in mind, so keep an eye out for a PlayStation 3 software update to 1440p, the only true definition of HD."

HDJK · 04-10-2007, 02:41 PM

It doesn't actually say that the PS3 is 4k capable. They are talking about WQXGA (2560x1440) which might be possible with a firmware upgrade. The 56incher is a close to 4k display.

Check out this thread:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...hlight=display

post #9 especially. I think the same applies to WQXGA.

11-28-2006, 03:40 AM	#11
saljr Active Member Member since:Nov 2006 Location:Stockton,California	I heard of 1440p about year ago. Sooner then I thought. Perfect timing for the SED tv better then DLP tv. I never thought I would see 2160p maybe until 2011. Thats my guess. Last edited by saljr; 11-28-2006 at 05:55 PM.

04-10-2007, 02:25 PM	#15
jermwhl Special Member Member since:Jan 2007 Location:Virginia	PS3 Quad HD capable!!!! 1440P Holy crap! http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/10/17...p-lcd-in-2007/ Wouldn't that be nice!!!!

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
Jumping ship from LCD to plasma!	Plasma TVs	hitechiowa	31	05-25-2010 01:10 AM
FIREFOLD HDMI 1.3b/1440p rated cables...	Home Theater General Discussion	mr.hidef	7	12-16-2008 02:26 PM
Master and Commander new ship date 10/8/2007 ?	Blu-ray Movies - North America	m_tyson	12	10-09-2007 05:37 PM
Lg 2007 Lcd	Home Theater General Discussion	dipset420	12	03-23-2007 06:28 PM

11-11-2006, 09:30 PM	#2
dobyblue Super Moderator Top contributor Member since:Jul 2006 Location:Ontario, Canada Home Theater Gallery:71 4K collection:55 Blu-ray collection:655 Blu-ray reviews: 15	Damn that's insane!

11-12-2006, 03:01 AM	#3
Josh Super Moderator Top contributor Member since:Sep 2006 Home Theater Gallery:50 4K collection:37 Blu-ray collection:407 Digital collection:1 Blu-ray reviews: 15 Trading Score:34	What is the point of this? 1080p is quickly becoming the standard resolution of TV broadcast and of course Blu-ray. Adding pixels does nothing to add to the picture, just breaks apart the same information into more pixels. Unless you had a source that was higher than 1080p (maybe pictures?) then this wouldn't do anything for anyone.

11-12-2006, 03:45 AM	#4
hyperdine Senior Member Member since:Sep 2006	Outta control, man...outta control. That's just crazy.

11-12-2006, 04:17 AM	#5
BIGSAPOTEER Active Member Member since:Oct 2006	This is getting ridiculous last week I replaced my VHS for a DVD player and now I have to replace my 20" black and white TV?

11-12-2006, 02:04 PM	#6
Deciazulado Site Manager Top contributor Member since:Aug 2006 Location:USiberia Home Theater Gallery:6 4K collection:1159 Blu-ray collection:7041 DVD collection:4040	Well, first you need higher resolution to display the images made on still cameras without decimating them. Second, 70mm film is higher resolution than 1080. Third, there are benefits in image quality when you upconvert lower resolutions into higher resolutions using a sinc filter and resharpening. That's why 480i looks better and more of a match when going from 480 to 1080, same principle will apply to a 1080 -> 1440 or 1080 -> 2160 upconversion. You'll get a smoother image where you can actually see detail clearer that might have been obscured by the interference of the "square wave" aliased pattern of the 1080 pixels when you see them on a big screen. For example the digital intermediate of The LOR, scanned at approx 875 x 2048 from the Super-35 2.40 Camera Aperture area was then uprezed to at least 1750 x 2048 for 35mm 2.39 anamorphic film printing, as the Arrilaser film recorder can do up to 3500 x 4096 for Anamorphic prints, then there's the IMAX DMR process, etc. Same principle as when you send you photos to the printer at resolutions of "300dpi" or "360dpi" etc. An 8 x 10" 300 dpi print has 2400 x 3000 pixels, a 360 dpi, 2880 x 3600 pixels The eye can resolve up to a maximum of 4500p in some cases, although I think something around 2000p would be the practical limit.

11-12-2006, 10:09 PM	#7
PurpleAardvark Active Member Member since:Jul 2006 Location:Cross Plains, WI	Daddy like, I wish it was bigger though. At that size does it really matter. Maybe if it was 55" I could see it in my living room.

11-12-2006, 10:50 PM	#8
Deciazulado Site Manager Top contributor Member since:Aug 2006 Location:USiberia Home Theater Gallery:6 4K collection:1159 Blu-ray collection:7041 DVD collection:4040	Then allow me to recomend you this vintage 2008 64" 2160 x 4096 bottle, Sir. A very good year.

11-13-2006, 01:30 AM	#9
dobyblue Super Moderator Top contributor Member since:Jul 2006 Location:Ontario, Canada Home Theater Gallery:71 4K collection:55 Blu-ray collection:655 Blu-ray reviews: 15	^^^ I'm pretty sure that's the resolution that Star Wars II and III were shot in. No doubt they'd look insane on that telly.

11-29-2006, 12:52 PM	#12
Blackraven Expert Member Member since:Jan 2005 Location:Makati, Philippines	Looks perfect EXCEPT FOR.... -1,500:1 contrast ratio Umm....Sony BRAVIA units have 1300:1 minimum CR while Sony SXRD sets have AT LEAST 5000:1 for contrast ratio and up to 10,000:1 as dynamic contrast (15000:1 CR for the European version models). I do hope that's just native CR (or just the minimum) Also... -6.5 ms response time. That's just sucky. If this is a next-gen display, why the hell is it so slow?!?!? Current LCD TVs have 8 ms with SXRD having around 2.5 ms. Heck, even Sharp's upcoming AQUOS line has 4 ms already. Even so, they've already had 6.0 ms since their 7G models. Pioneer plasma TVs now have less than 1 ms response time. and finally... -CMO WHO THE HELL IS CMO?!?!? Seriously, except for promised 1440p resolutions, HDMI 1.3 support and higher color gamut/color range, this thing is FAR from next-gen. Remember, the ultimate objectives/goals FOR ANY flat-panel TV is to: 1) Get the contrast ratio as high as it can (probably exceed the 10000:1 barrier) 2) Improve the response times to LESS THAN 1 ms. 3) Lessen the power consumption to below 200w (under AC 100-240V 50/60hz mode) I was hoping this would break through the 8 ms barrier and it did. But it's still not enough. Current Sharp Aquos with a WXGA panel (1366x768) is .5 ms faster than that thing. This is quite sad that the PERFECT tv for me won't appear till like after 2010 (starts in 2011-2012). And this TV is not perfect and ever far from awesome. I'd say that for LCD TVs for 2007-2008, you'd want to at least get 4ms or faster. That panel above fails to do that. /rant over If you ask me though, it looks like OLED will be the true successor to LCD and Plasma and once they improve the Blue OLED bulb to at least 60k lifespan, OLED TV tech for HDTV application will be UNSTOPPABLE. As for SED, they would need a company other than Toshiba. A Toshiba-run circus would only perform satisfactory and not maximize the technological R&D. Also, they've had "lower than satisfactory" marks in their quality and finish. (ie. REGZA line). If they don't get anyone other than Toshiba onboard, then my money goes to OLED technology. OLED FTW!

04-10-2007, 02:34 PM	#16
baccusboy Banned Member since:Feb 2007 Location:South Korea Blu-ray reviews:3	1,500 to 1 contrast ratio. No thanks. I'll wait a few generations...

04-10-2007, 02:39 PM	#17
akadkins Senior Member Member since:Jan 2007 Location:San Diego, CA Blu-ray collection:2 Trading Score:2	Honestly? No I don't want this...don't let high-def become like the computer world where we become stuck in a continuous loop of upgrades. I'm mad enough that my 1080i/720p Sony Grand Wega is already not up to 1080p specs...don't want to buy 1080p and have there be something else in 3 years that I am behind. Plus...don't want my Blu-Ray discs to be out of style so soon...

04-10-2007, 02:40 PM	#19
jermwhl Special Member Member since:Jan 2007 Location:Virginia	Wasn't really referring to the TV perse, It was more directed towards this: "Dual-link DVI and HDMI 1.3 connections have WQXGA resolutions like this in mind, so keep an eye out for a PlayStation 3 software update to 1440p, the only true definition of HD."

04-10-2007, 02:41 PM	#20
HDJK Blu-ray Guru Member since:Oct 2006 Location:Switzerland Trading Score:2	It doesn't actually say that the PS3 is 4k capable. They are talking about WQXGA (2560x1440) which might be possible with a firmware upgrade. The 56incher is a close to 4k display. Check out this thread: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...hlight=display post #9 especially. I think the same applies to WQXGA.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals