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?

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.

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.

Pho_shizzle · 06-28-2007, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josh

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.

That is a very good observation Josh, But you there is indeed a desparate need for better quality picture. If you've got a 60" Plasma or LCD than you're safe. The need for 1080p and greater are for those who have anything 80" and above. I sell home theater and we customize the whole set-up. On a 123" screen, 1080p looks nice. 720p is ok too, but you'd wish they would update all the HD channels to 1080p sooner

dialog_gvf · 04-14-2007, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Damn that's insane!

With the steady and quick drop in panel prices sqeezing the margins, it was only a matter of time before panel makers started to offer something with margin that distinguishes their product.

Gary

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!

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.

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."

Stundra · 04-10-2007, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jermwhl

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."

At Cebit in Hannover Sharp showed a working 65" Display with Apples proposed 4k resolution (4000x2000). So 1440p may be nice for your future kitchen TV

There have always been upgrade loops. The question you have to face is, which one will you do and which not. Thats freedom of choice.
As videos aren't that good scalable as computer graphics the loop frequency is anyway significatly lower.

stevei · 04-10-2007, 03:49 PM

I can't see movies going to 1440p. SD DVDs are still hugely outselling either high def format, the high def formats need to concentrate on not becoming the next DVD Audio and SACD, not thinking about yet another future generation. Who would release movies in 1440p format when many existing players wouldn't handle them, even if the PS3 could handle them via a firmware update? Any further complication / fragmentation of the high def disc market would just kill it dead.

What IS a possibility is games for the PS3 using 1440p. A PS3 game can only be played on a PS3, so if all the installed base of PS3s can be modified with a firmware update to handle 1440p, games can then safely be produced at 1440p provided the PS3 can downscale for TVs with lesser capabilities.

donricouga · 04-10-2007, 03:54 PM

Thats ridiculous !
You'd have to have a pretty massive sized screen to notice the difference between 1080p and 1440p and/or sit pretty close to the screen, like 5 feet or less.
Digital Cable and Satelite don't even have 1080p yet. Plus, to my knowledge, there aren't any av receivers out there or even planned that can pass through a 1080p signal for those of us that process the audio through HDMI as well. This resolution is very impractical in my opinion unless i buy a 110" tv

Plus, what would happen to "FULL HD" or "Beyond High Definition" market ploys ???
1440p is what "Way beyond High Definition" or "Too Full HD !"

11-28-2006, 03:40 AM	#10
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	#13
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, 10:09 PM	#6
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.

11-29-2006, 12:52 PM	#11
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!

11-12-2006, 02:04 PM	#12
Deciazulado Site Manager Top contributor Member since:Aug 2006 Location:USiberia Home Theater Gallery:6 4K collection:1159 Blu-ray collection:7044 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.

04-10-2007, 02:34 PM	#14
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	#15
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	#17
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, 03:49 PM	#19
stevei Banned Member since:Apr 2007 Location:UK	I can't see movies going to 1440p. SD DVDs are still hugely outselling either high def format, the high def formats need to concentrate on not becoming the next DVD Audio and SACD, not thinking about yet another future generation. Who would release movies in 1440p format when many existing players wouldn't handle them, even if the PS3 could handle them via a firmware update? Any further complication / fragmentation of the high def disc market would just kill it dead. What IS a possibility is games for the PS3 using 1440p. A PS3 game can only be played on a PS3, so if all the installed base of PS3s can be modified with a firmware update to handle 1440p, games can then safely be produced at 1440p provided the PS3 can downscale for TVs with lesser capabilities.

04-10-2007, 03:54 PM	#20
donricouga Senior Member Member since:Jan 2007 Location:Atlanta, GA Blu-ray collection:138 Blu-ray reviews: 9 Trading Score:1	Thats ridiculous ! You'd have to have a pretty massive sized screen to notice the difference between 1080p and 1440p and/or sit pretty close to the screen, like 5 feet or less. Digital Cable and Satelite don't even have 1080p yet. Plus, to my knowledge, there aren't any av receivers out there or even planned that can pass through a 1080p signal for those of us that process the audio through HDMI as well. This resolution is very impractical in my opinion unless i buy a 110" tv Plus, what would happen to "FULL HD" or "Beyond High Definition" market ploys ??? 1440p is what "Way beyond High Definition" or "Too Full HD !"

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals