[Macworld]

Post your comments for Samsung demos super-high resolution 3D HDTV here

[TeaEarleGreyHot]

I suppose that two by four resolution here essentially means standard 1080 resolution for each eye (to give the 3d effect), while doubling the number of pixels in the vertical dimension. Impressive, indeed.

Still doesn't solve the point-of-focus/point-of-convergence disparity though, which will continue to dog 3d systems, making them painful to watch.

This post has been edited by TeaEarleGreyHot: 07 June 2011 - 11:56 AM

[PetitPaul]

I believe you have something wrong here about 2k and 4k. My believe is that current HD is 1080 pixels or lines verticaly by 1920 pixels horizontaly; which makes about 2 million pixels or 2K. I believe that Super HD would be 4K because it would be about 4 million pixels total. Like 1K, or "little HD", is 720 lignes of 1280 pixels which is about 1 million pixels. Standard definition in Europe is 576 lines of 720 pixels which would be about half a million pixels. 4K televisions would have roughly 4 million pixels, but this TV set would then be... 8K!
Nevertheless... correct me me if I'm wrong... Which I can be... 2000px by 4000px on a 70 inch tv set is about 1.8m in diagonal, way down lower than my projector screen which is 2.2m in base. At the low distant I'm looking at it (about 4m) when I'm playing Blu Ray disks, at a "mere" 2K, it is virtualy impossible to tell the pixel structure and I have good eyes.
I might be able to tell a difference if the source material itself would be 4K or 8K, but scaled up, no way anyone can tell the difference, especially on a TV set that is after all "only" 70 inches in diagonal, much much less than a reasonably priced projection screen and a reasonably priced HD projector are combined.
Movie theatre that have huge projection screens have less resolution than 8K and still you wouldn't see the difference.
This is only a technology demonstratron. But in the end, our eyes, how good they are, have less definition than that, unless you are 2 feet away from the screen to tell the pixels apart.

[aestival]

Quote

Now you're probably asking what sort of physics trickery Samsung is pulling, where the company can multiply the number of typical pixels by a factor of 100,000 times.

No, I'm asking what sort of appalling lack of math ability led the author and/or an editor to make such an absurd statement (even 1930's TV prototypes did better than 800 pixels).

This post has been edited by aestival: 07 June 2011 - 01:45 PM

[JScott]

I just want to know who thought making the female presenters, aka "booth babes", look like flight attendants from the 80s was a good idea.

[SeanSmith]

aestival, on 07 June 2011 - 01:44 PM, said:

Quote

Now you're probably asking what sort of physics trickery Samsung is pulling, where the company can multiply the number of typical pixels by a factor of 100,000 times.

No, I'm asking what sort of appalling lack of math ability led the author and/or an editor to make such an absurd statement (even 1930's TV prototypes did better than 800 pixels).

Actually, 4000 x 2000 / 100,000 = 80, not 800, making PCWorld's statement even more absurd. Evidently Kevin Lee's editor (and perhaps Mr Lee as well) believes that "the number of typical pixels" [sic] is 80.

In reality, a 4k x 2k display has four (4) times as many pixels as a typical 1920 x 1080 HD display - which, to be fair to PCWorld, is reasonably close to 100,000, if you're just picking numbers out of thin air because they sound impressive and if you assume that your readers are as slipshod or as witless as you are.

(Amusingly, the sentence "Now you’re probably asking what sort of physics trickery Samsung is pulling, where the company can multiply the number of typical pixels by a factor of 100,000 times" has been deleted from the original article at PCWorld, but the next sentence there still reads, "The answer lies in shrinking pixels and using better transistors." Now that their article no longer poses a question, any reader will wonder: the answer to what? Ignorance? Careless editing? Disregard for the value of their readers' time?)

[JohnnyO]

It seems a big disconnect between higher resolution displays, and yet more and more people content with low resolution streaming video feeding their flat panel TVs.

[Sigil]

The 3D format seems irrelevant now, because the industry is taking its time releasing content.

[Wiggin]

I suspect this will go the way of SACD. Unless the manufacturers to can put together a really good marketing/brainwashing campaign, consumers will say 1080p is "good enough".

[Fixx]

Who will know what happens in 10 years? After all, 4k video is kind of standard in film industry (which does not use so much film anymore ;-)