quote:

---

Seiko Epson Corporation ("Epson", TSE:6724) today announced that it has developed the world's first* 4K-compatible high-temperature polysilicon (HTPS) TFT liquid crystal panel for 3LCD projectors. Measuring 1.64 inches diagonally, the new panel supports displays with resolutions up to 4096 × 2160 pixels.

Projector applications continue to expand. In addition to being used for business presentations, projectors are gaining wider use in the classroom, in auditoriums and at big events. Meanwhile, demand for high-performance products is expected to grow as more and more households enjoy full HD content via digital broadcasts and high definition video players.
With a resolution of nearly 8.85 megapixels, 4K panels offer four times the resolution of full HD (1920 × 1080), making them ideal for the high resolutions required by special applications such as industrial design, architectural design and simulations, as well as for presentations and projecting four full HD images at the same time.

Epson will show ultra-high resolution images including 3D when it exhibits a prototype ultra-high resolution projector using the panel at the International Broadcast Equipment Exhibition (Inter BEE 2009) to be held at Makuhari Messe, Chiba, Japan, from November 18 to 20.

---

 

---

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-24-2009, 11:58 AM:
 
If you think about it, that is still kind of a let-down from 35mm slide projectors.

They gave you a solid 8-12 MP, or less if it was heavily duped, but that is true of all content and resizing.

Why is 4K suddenly such a big numbeR?
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 11-24-2009, 01:24 PM:
 
Shhhhh ... Just don't tell all those cinemas installing $100K 2K 2-Megapixel projectors TODAY ...

Well, this "4K" projector is 8.85-Megapixels. And if you try to do 30 (or 60) fps from a slide projector, it could be a tad tricky

Then again, if you rather have 8K, with ~35.4 Megapixels, just get one of those

JVC announces 8K 35 megapixel 60fps projector

Evans & Sutherland 8K laser projector
 

---

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-24-2009, 02:23 PM:
 
Julio, I dont' want to fight. I'm just pointing out when they talk about applications like architecture that a slide projector from ten years ago would give them a better-quality screen image.

Same thing with the 1.3K digital preview projectors. Sure, they could do motion and stills interchangeably, but I was in a theatre the other day that did 35mm slide shows before starting the movie (and ads on film before the trailers), and the quality on screen *could* be far better assuming the slides weren't just film-recorded from the same 1.3K digital files as the preview projectors.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-24-2009, 05:03 PM:
 
Julio...30-60fps slide projectors? They are called VistaVision projectors
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-24-2009, 05:41 PM:
 
Yes, but do they display wacky trivia and ads for the local dentist?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-24-2009, 05:56 PM:
 
4K home projectors right now? Why? This is a classic example of putting the cart in front of the horse. There is NO 4K resolution movies available to home video consumers.

The only thing 4K related that would get me excited at all is a large high performance computer monitor for graphics purposes. For what I do, there is no such thing as having too much native resolution. I could use a wall-sized 20,000 line graphics monitor for editing vehicle wraps and billboards. But a 4K graphics monitor would at least be nicely productive. It would be nice to have something that truly displays nearly all the RGB gamma range -the vast majority of affordable LCD displays fail to do this (including nearly all notebook displays).

I think we're at least another couple or so years off at least before next-gen video game consoles and computer gaming PCs can do high quality gaming in 4K. I think 3D in 1080p is going to be a much bigger deal in that area than going 4K. There's actually a lot of gaming people (XBox360 owners in particular) who argue anything higher than 720p is unnecessary. I think they're full of shit, but they still argue. One XBox360 fanboy I know here in Lawton claims human eyesight is no more than 720p! I laughed hard when he floated that turd of an idea! Worse yet, he lied, saying the American Medical Association made the 720p claim. That's some deep bullshit right there.

It's obvious Hollywood is putting more of their marketing muscle behind Blu-ray and will continue to do so for the next few years. Online movie downloading seems to be the only other alternative they're exploring. 4K doesn't have a place on either platform. 4K movie downloads certainly will not be practical for at least another decade. I think we're still at least 5 or more years away from being able to do 1080p real time movie downloading -even in severely compressed shitty cable/satellite quality. We may be waiting longer for 1080p real time movie downloading in Blu-ray typical bandwidths of 30Mb/s or better.

Summing it up: this 4K in the home talk continues to be very pointless. Home theater is stuck in 1080p for now and probably will be for much of the next decade.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 11-24-2009, 07:40 PM:
 
Well, needed or not, here they come

Sony's 4K LCD monitor

AUO presentation of their new 4K panels, 3D and other new gear for next year

http://www.cmo.com.tw/opencms/cmo/products/lcd_tv/products_lcd_tv_V562D1.html?__locale=en
[link is to chi-mei 4K panel in production]

JVC and Sony have had fairly popular 4K projectors for the high end market for a while now.

Etc, etc.

I think the point continues to be missing.

There is NO need of 4K at home or even of 4K in the movie theater. It has been proven that the layman doesn't care if a theatre is 2K or 35mm. Most patrons like it just the same under most circunstances and only marketing claims may make a difference but they don't see 2K as a problem. Very few people *REALLY* need true-4K.

But I'll leave up to you to figure why they'll be here, sooner if not later.

HINT: The same reason why there are 8 cores mainstream computers that few people actually need at home and 2TB cheap drives that a lot of people would never fill up. Because they can be made cheap (or soon will) and people rather buy them than 1-core 1Ghz 250GB computers that hardly cost $100 less. I predict 54" QFHD (4K) tv's for $1500 retail. I don't know if it will take 1 year or 2 or 3, but they'll be here. I'll be very surprised if they are not in 5 years.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-24-2009, 11:23 PM:
 

quote: Julio Roberto

---

There is NO need of 4K at home or even of 4K in the movie theater. It has been proven that the layman doesn't care if a theatre is 2K or 35mm.

---

The "layman" doesn't know shit. Sorry if that hurts anyone, but that's the fact, Jack. Therefore, the "layman" doesn't have any freaking business at all in defining quality standards, much less putting in his 2¢ on areas where he doesn't know what he is talking about. It's mostly been that way in the past and needs to continue. "Lay people" need to just lay down, relax and not meddle in things they do not understand.

In my line of work a "layman" draws a stupid blank merely telling the difference between a raster and a vector. Graphics 101 stuff. Even a bunch of wannabe graphics people out there with their pirated copies of Photoshop don't even know that very basic tidbit. In the "service industry" the customer is always right but in areas where expertise is required the customer is often 100% wrong.

Aside from that point, there are no 4K native movies to play in home theater. That basic point alone makes a 4K TV set a very odd, largely unnecessary thing. What are the electronic companies going to do? Sell 4K "upconverting" Blu-ray players? Jeez.

 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-25-2009, 12:37 AM:
 
The way technology is going, I guess instead of upgrading my theatre to digital cinema, I could just wait 10 years or so and buy a ~96K home system from Wal-Mart for $799.96 and play Blu-Ray IIs, or whatever they'll be called.
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 11-25-2009, 01:49 AM:
 
Mike.

Good call. And that's the reason most indie theatres won't be rushing out to go digi any time soon.

At the rate of obsolescence happening at the moment, why would anyone risk blowing big $$$ on so called "standards" that will be obsolete in 2-3 years.

This, apart from expenditure, is the cause of digi's slow uptake- and Technicolor have seen this and acted with their 3D system.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 11-25-2009, 05:00 AM:
 
Well, as we know, 4K cameras are here and more are coming on the "cheap" (i.e. under $4K) in the next few months. Also, a 4K optical disc player (red-ray) is also announced for under $4k for the next few months. It has been publicly shown and the price stated and production started.

Independent movies and "home video" could be made and display in 4K by next summer in semi-pro setups. Once a cheap 4K display system is in the market, 4K will start to take off somewhat. Hollywood would see the opportunity to re-sell their movies once again in QFHD (using red-ray or their own souped-up version of blu-ray) on the long run.

Etc, etc.

Again there is NO NEED or strong incentive for 4K-at-home today nor likely in the near future, that is true, but that doesn't mean that it won't happen. There is NO NEED for 3TB 5Ghz-16core 8GB RAM computers at home for under $1k but watch them come sooner if not later.

I'm not saying domestic-4K is going to happen, nor that it will happen fast. I'm saying that I *know* an optical disc player (a blu-ray like thing) for 4K *can* be made and sold for a profit for under $1K TODAY and that a 4K flat panel TV 56" *can* be made and sold for a profit today at ~$2.5K and that a video camera can be made and sold at a profit today at around (fake) 4K resolution levels for under $4K.

That is TODAY if someone wanted to make it (and someone IS actually making them or is getting ready to do so in the near future, BTW).

Imagine in 5 years.

A lot of this stuff is not made because it follows the usual cycle. First squeeze all the profit you can from HD. Then, once the competition starts doing 2.5K, 3K and 4K, you do the same, but first for the "high-end" and "professional" markets to milk nice margins. Once that market is full, you go to the mass market at reasonable prices until it's also full and you have to move to the next thing. 8K?

They would do the same to movie theatres with 1.3K, 2K, 4K and, pbbly, 8K if they could. Cheap theater owners are a tougher sale than they anticipated, though, so it's taken some 10 years to reach the 35mm-reasonable-replacemente-level of 4K. (*joking*)
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-25-2009, 10:04 AM:
 
Something about this is really funny to me. There's a joke here somewhere about the theater industry's arrogance in trying to replicate (and hence try to keep up with) the home theater environment in their formerly 35mm auditoriums in order to save money. Yes, there's a punchline here somewhere, and I can't put my finger on it. But I'm laughing hysterically anyway.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-25-2009, 12:09 PM:
 
Sounds like an Onion story in the making.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-26-2009, 12:31 AM:
 

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Well, as we know, 4K cameras are here and more are coming on the "cheap" (i.e. under $4K) in the next few months.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Also, a 4K optical disc player (red-ray) is also announced for under $4k for the next few months.

---