Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

154 comments

How about (5, Funny)

DJ.Flecktarn (1028326) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538620)

High end industrial pr0n?

Re:How about (3, Funny)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539030)

"High-end industrial"? What, for those with a CNC machine fetish?

Great!! (1, Funny)

TheMadcapZ (868196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538628)

Just in time for me to junk my HD CRT TV.

Re:Great!! (1)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 7 years ago | (#17541086)

Actuall, there is a point here. I too still use an HD capable CRT. This article illustrates the reason HDTV is not hitting real mainstream. I know of only 3 in the 60 some homes that I am freinds with and, only 2 of those use HD tuners to watch anything (all mostly sports).

Re:Great!! (5, Funny)

Schemat1c (464768) | more than 7 years ago | (#17541256)

I know of only 3 in the 60 some homes that I am friends with...
I have never had a home as a friend and you have 60. How does one become friends with a home?

Re:Great!! (3, Funny)

bazorg (911295) | more than 7 years ago | (#17541416)

Fire up your web browser, drag "home" onto "favourites".

I believe (4, Funny)

maroberts (15852) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538646)

I shall make a case for my living room viewing to be a "high end industrial application" :-)

Re:I believe (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538696)

Good luck finding content for that thing though! Could even a high-end gaming PC push that resolution at a decent rate? Is there even a monitor cable with that much bandwidth?

Re:I believe (2, Informative)

prefect42 (141309) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538788)

Yawn. This isn't even that monstrous (if the summary spec is correct). IBM T221 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T221 [wikipedia.org] gives you 3840x2400 and can give you 48Hz off a single card (using both connectors).

Re:I believe (1)

Higman (83293) | more than 7 years ago | (#17540366)

According to the summary, these screens are about twice the size of the T221. When they say "monitor", I suspect they mean the traditional definition of display only.. as in no built-in tv tuner or speakers.

Re:I believe (4, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538806)

Save your money for a UHDV living room. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHDV [wikipedia.org]

Super Hi-Vision's main specifications:

        * Resolution: 7,680 × 4,320 pixels (16:9) (approximately 33 megapixels)
        * Frame rate: 60 frame/s.
        * Audio: 22.2 channels
                    o 9 -- above ear level
                    o 10 -- ear level
                    o 3 -- below ear level
                    o 2 -- low frequency effects
        * Bandwidth: 21 GHz frequency band
                    o 600 MHz, 500~6600 Mbit/s bandwidth

Hot damn!

Re:I believe (2, Interesting)

ACMENEWSLLC (940904) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538960)

>>Resolution: 7,680 × 4,320 pixels (16:9) (approximately 33 megapixels)

With that resolution, you have more data than you can actually see, unless you have a super large monitor. Even then, you can't focus on everything.

Can you imagine what you could do with zoom? That actor way off set, but still in the focal range, is picking his nose.

Will this bring back those movies that showed split screens with the same scene at two angles?

Re:I believe (2, Funny)

BecomingLumberg (949374) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539102)

You could make a 5 foot, crystal clear shot of balls slapping an ass. *shudder*. 1080p is enough for me, and I have 20/10 vision.

Re:I believe (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539334)

You could make a 5 foot, crystal clear shot of balls slapping an ass. *shudder*

I bet that video would have to be stored on those protein coated discs [slashdot.org] ... :-S

Re:I believe (2, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539386)

Christ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein-coated_disc [wikipedia.org]

Bring me an edit window of at least 30 secs, Slashdot?

Re:I believe (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17539930)

Bring me an edit window of at least 30 secs

I give you....the Preview button

Re:I believe (2, Interesting)

jackbird (721605) | more than 7 years ago | (#17541130)

Huh? That's a higher resolution than film is mastered at. Even 6k frames are only used occasionally on really complex and detailed shots, and the frames are 4k or 2k by the time they're burned back out to film. Heck, I think that might be more resolution than IMAX film recorders use, although I'm not entirely sure. Ridiculous, and doesn't entirely pass the sniff test.

Re:I believe (1)

KUHurdler (584689) | more than 7 years ago | (#17540910)

Great... and just when I'm starting to get comfortable repairing the 1080i/p models.

How to feed it ? (4, Insightful)

Rastignac (1014569) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538674)

What can one use to feed this beast ? Where to find very-very-HD contents ? (And what about the huge bandwidth and the huge storage needed ?).

Re:How to feed it ? (2, Insightful)

Erwos (553607) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538782)

Content will always catch up. I remember when HDTVs first came out, people would whine constantly about the lack of even native 720p source material - you had your computer's output, and that was about it. But, after a while, content did catch up, and you can easily find 720p and 1080p source material - even streamed over the net. Same thing for this - for now, it'll be driven with dual-link or quad-link DVI. But in the future, if this hits the consumer-space, we'll see full-res content for it - I'm somewhat sure you can get that much resolution out of a new film transfer.

Re:How to feed it ? (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539356)

I was under the impression that 720p and 180p were extensions to ATSC that were added later, but they were part of the original spec [hdtvmagazine.com] . Now I really feel left out in the cold by my Mitsubishi W55509 leaving out ATSC 720p. Lacking 1080p is understandable for a 2001 HDTV, as I don't think I'd even want to think about the cost of that capability.

Re:How to feed it ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17539814)

720p runs at 48kHz, 1080i at 35kHz. The former is significantly more expensive to build in analog TVs while 720 still sounds like a lot less to the consumer and is therefore more difficult to sell. Adittionally, I believe ABC is the only station in the US that ever used 720p, everyone else uses 1080i.

Re:How to feed it ? (1)

JebusIsLord (566856) | more than 7 years ago | (#17541190)

My understanding is a lot of sports networks use 720p because its better for fast movement. I neither have HDTV (well, I have the TV but not the HD broadcasts) nor do I live in the US though, so... not sure.

Re:How to feed it ? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17538878)

NHK Super Hi-Vision [nhk.or.jp] , of course.

Re:How to feed it ? (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538882)

I hear Google will have their hands on some VVHD contents in the near future.

Re:How to feed it ? (5, Funny)

AxminsterLeuven (963108) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538930)

What can one use to feed this beast ? Where to find very-very-HD contents ?
Hook up four DVD players, with each disc containing a quarter of the movie's image. Then lign up your remotes on the coffee table and use the index and middle fingers of both your hands to press play.

Re:How to feed it ? (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17540208)

Ehm... that'd be four Blu-Ray or HD-DVD players, please. Four DVD players I can do with my current screen...

Re:How to feed it ? (1)

szrachen (913408) | more than 7 years ago | (#17541316)

Maybe they'll put in a hack for the DVD remotes that allows you to enter the following to control all 4: U, U, D, D, L, R, L, R, B, A, Select, Start They'll just have to add B and A buttons.

Re:How to feed it ? (3, Insightful)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538954)

They say it's not really a consumer device, so I would assume, if you had any use for a display like this, you would also be generating whatever content it would be displaying. The use that comes to my mind most easily would be people editing films. If you're working with a very high-def version of a movie that will eventually be transferred to film or projected with a very high-def digital projector, then it would be nice to see what the film is really going to look like with the definition those formats will have.

Another thing though is that media always lags behind the hardware to utilize it.

Re:How to feed it ? (2, Informative)

itlurksbeneath (952654) | more than 7 years ago | (#17540500)

Or display screens in a plant environment showing process flows, meter values and such. We have setups like this in the plant I work in and they use a wall of monitors (plasma screens running 1024x768, I think) to get all the information to a viewable state. The limiting factor appears to be just raw pixels - you can only make a font so small before it becomes unreadable, for example. With a higher resolution output device, the same information could be presnted in a smaller area, or use the same area to display even more information.

Red (1)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539428)

Looks like everyone will need to buy Red cameras [red.com] to get the resolution needed.

engineering and science (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 7 years ago | (#17541100)

An architect could easily fill up a 2k by 2K image with a building plan.
Oil geologists look at seismic data 10K by 10K by 10K samples.
Astronomers have had 100 megapixel images for some time.

Re:How to feed it ? (1)

ChrisA90278 (905188) | more than 7 years ago | (#17541112)

I have a Nikon DSLR. It's frame size is 3000 x 2000. It would be nice to see my photos in full resolution on the LCD screen. It would make a great computer monitor As for industrial use. I'm thinking of an X-ray machine's view screen. This is not for watching Hollywood movies but there is plenty of content

Re:How to feed it ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17541174)

With your ego....

Linux (-1, Offtopic)

rjdegraaf (712353) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538686)

Will this HDTV media work on Linux at some time, or are 'they' forgetting this market completely (and why) ?

Huh? (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538730)

Who are you talking about and what are you asking?

This article is about a HD set, and I have no problems plugging my DVI into my set's HDMI port and getting the modelines and having Xorg do things automagically. I watch HD content delivered over the air no problems.

By industrial applications (1)

shirizaki (994008) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538688)

I assume medical diagnosing, business presentations,




and the one 20-something intern that plugs in his game system to play some video games.

Re:By industrial applications (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538756)

Since consoles are usually at a set definition (and none are or will be higher than 1080p for the next decade at least) it'll make little difference versus a regular HDTV - all other things being equal.

It'd be a cool computer monitor though:)

But sadly, this thing is insane as a TV anyways - asides a computer - no media can take advantage of it and the channels are already slow as it is to adopt HDTV programming. Maybe I'll have one by the time I'm a grandpa in 30 years....

Absolute Statements are dangerous (2, Insightful)

suggsjc (726146) | more than 7 years ago | (#17541396)

and none are or will be higher than 1080p for the next decade at least
Although it *may* be a safe statement, a decade is a long time in the tech industry. I'd be careful with absolute statements...but since your not backing/betting/advocating a specific product, then I hope for all of us, your wrong.


2008 - Quantum Computing breakthrough
2010 - Virtual Reality nears reality
2012 - Mulit-TB personal storage
2013 - 3D Displays begin to go mainstream
2015 - Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft ready 4th gen consoles
2016 - Duke Nukem Forever FINALLY released, but still only VGA resolution
2017 - /.'er looks back to realize that post 10 years ago was mistake...

I could have also put down for each year that /. predicts the "year of the linux desktop" but would have detracted from the overall post.

Re:By industrial applications (1)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538876)

One industrial application would be movie theatres. If the dim-factor can be addressed (has it ever?) then digital projection would finally have the ultimate parity with film.

BTW - they mentioned Westinghouse. Who the hell is rolling the glass for them? I'm actually looking at a Westinghouse LCD at some time in the near-future. Is it decent overall?

Re:By industrial applications (1)

lonechicken (1046406) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539348)

BTW - they mentioned Westinghouse. Who the hell is rolling the glass for them? I'm actually looking at a Westinghouse LCD at some time in the near-future. Is it decent overall?


I've had a 32" (or 81.3 cm for those at NASA moonbase) Westinghouse for about a year and a half now. It's had light use since it's in my bedroom, but the reliability and video quality is better than I've hoped from a sub-first-tier company. The main drawbacks on my particular model are that everything is controlled by remote (not a big deal), and the volume range is not very "rangey." What I mean is, when I set it to volume level 1, it's just about as loud as volume level 10. Increasing it to about 25, and I hear a difference. So when I set the sleep timer, I like the TV to be audible but really soft (the need for a true level 1), but it's still a little louder than I'd like. At 30, it's not as loud as I want it. All can be remedied by plugging in some external speakers or a receiver, but this is my bedroom and I haven't bothered.

Oh yeah, your question... I also got it because I read at the time that Westinghouse was using panels from the same factory(s) making Sony and Samsung panels. Not sure what the current situation is though.

Re:By industrial applications (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538898)

Interesting enough, the display unit [tomshardware.com] was demoing geological information and other applications for the Oil industry.

What he really means to say (3, Insightful)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538692)

"[D]oes not really target the consumer market, but high-end industrial applications." Translation: "It's damn expensive right now, and we can't produce enough of them at consumer prices to make a profit."

Re:What he really means to say (3, Interesting)

TheRealFixer (552803) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538912)

It's not price that's going to prevent this from coming to the consumer market. Plasma 4 years ago was around $30,000 for the larger units, but the prices dropped pretty fast. The real issue for consumer adoption is bandwidth. Cable and satellite providers have enough trouble delivering decent-quality 1080i. And over the air broadcasts? Forget about it. The ATSC standard is 19Mbits with MPEG-2 compression. There's no way you're fitting 2160p in 19Mbits with MPEG-2 and have a picture that looks better than a 1990's era AVI. So unless a brand new broadcast standard is developed and adopted, that's not happening. Cable and satellite have the advantage of being able to go to MPEG-4. But even with that, DirecTV cripples their HD by dropping the 1920x1080 picture down to 1440x1080 so they can fit more content.

Re:What he really means to say (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539456)

But even with that, DirecTV cripples their HD by dropping the 1920x1080 picture down to 1440x1080 so they can fit more content.

Check out the following WP quotes:

"HDV 1080i uses a pixel resolution of 1440×1080, but when displayed is scaled to an aspect ratio of 1920×1080 = (1440 × 1.33)×1080."

"HDCAM, introduced in 1997, is a HD version of Digital Betacam, using an 8-bit DCT compressed 3:1:1 recording, in 1080i-compatible downsampled resolution of 1440x1080, and adding 24p and 23.976 PsF modes."

"DVCPRO HD downsamples native 720p/1080i signals to a lower resolution. 720p is downsampled from 1280x720 to 960x720, and 1080i is downsampled from 1920x1080 to 1280x1080 for 59.94i and 1440x1080 for 50i."

Unless you have some extremely fancy gear, you're not doing more than 1440x1080 anyway. But hey, it's nice to think you're getting 1920x1080 footage.

Re:What he really means to say (3, Interesting)

TheRealFixer (552803) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539956)

Your information is a little dated, and bit misleading. The Sony HDV 1080i is a consumer product, not a professional one. The Sony HDCAM is 10 years old. The newer HDCAM SR does full 1920x1080. And as I understand it, DVCPRO100 was intended more as an entry-level professional HD tape for news crews and the like, who aren't as concerned about full resolution picture as much as convenience and portability. Almost all modern professional equipment does 1920x1080. Most of what you see on stations like DiscoveryHD and INHD, not to mention film transfers like those on HDNet, are all done in full 1080i these days.

Re:What he really means to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17540242)

Not to metion Panasonic's new AVC "Pro" format - 1920x1080, 4:2:2 @ 100Mbps. On a P2 card, too.

Resolutions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17540520)

This isn't news at all, and it's not a HDTV thing. Broadcasters have been doing this for ages. Do you think they broadcast the standard definition channels @ D1 (DVD resolution)? More often than not, it isn't!

From the various providers I've tried before, the PPV events and such premium channels are @ 704x480 usually (cropped D1), most of the other stuff (~80% of broadcasts or so) is at 640x480 or 544x480 (depending on the provider), and some is below that (like the legislative networks stuff) which is sometimes 480x480 (SVCD resolution), or even sometimes 352x480. And the bitrates aren't very high (again, except the premium channels), and can get quite blocky at times. Sometimes I find it plain unbearable to watch, even on a conventional TV. Stretch that blocky low resolution stuff over a HDTV and it's beyond ugly.

They're doing it to save bandwidth. Coax, or satellite transponders only have so much of it. And what [blind] consumers seemingly don't want video quality, they just want their stupid local backyard news, so they have to fit a dozen stations of each major network on there (with 99% identical content). There's easily between 50 and 100 redundant channels on my current plan. Talk about a waste of bandwidth. I can only think how good TV would look if they were using it for that instead... But then again, I guess we can't really blame them, they're only giving people what they want (even if it's short sighted).

At least they're getting with the times and trying to use more efficient modulation, and seemingly H.264 adoption is starting to happen (mpeg2 is just wasteful, needs WAY too much bandwidth to look good)

I wish there were some available OTA feeds here in Canada (besides the CBC ones around Montreal, I haven't heard of any)

Re:What he really means to say (1)

bigpat (158134) | more than 7 years ago | (#17541092)

At such a high resolution this is primarily a computer monitor, not primarily a tv for all the reasons you state. But since it is 16:9 aspect ratio, then you can also conveniently show HD movies without stretching or letter boxing like you get on my Dell 24" monitor which is at a 16:10 aspect ration. It should be mentioned that 30" Wide screen LCD monitors are already selling at 2560x1600 resolutions, so 3840x2160 is a nice jump up from that but not a ridiculously big jump up in resolution at least computer wise. And really at 50" you are going to need that high a resolution if you want to get anywhere close to it to view presentations or work on graphics or animations. This might be in a lot of operations centers, conference rooms and the like as well as any office where displaying maps, or working on any other large format content in fine detail is needed. But if this was not much more than a 1080p HDTV, then why not buy it? You could then use it both as a computer with decent resolution and as a TV for when you want to pop in that 1080p blueray/HD DVD content. It wouldn't hurt the content, it might even look a bit better. And there could be a small consumer market for high end gaming, if the video cards can support this resolution at a decent frame rate. So, yes there is a consumer market for this monitor and price does matter.

for high-end industrial applications (3, Funny)

Thansal (999464) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538752)

Yah.

right.

Who wants to predict howlong it will take for those old fashion 1080P sets to become outdated, and that you really must have one of tese new 2160p sets if you want to even THINK of keeping up with the jonses.

As a quick note. I am actualy finaly ditching the first, and only, TV I ever had (making it around 14 yrs old now I think), a 20" CRT that had some sorta funky colour burns on the sides...
I am replacing it with:
My boss' old 20" CRT that works!

Re:for high-end industrial applications (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538846)

Who wants to predict howlong it will take for those old fashion 1080P sets to become outdated, and that you really must have one of tese new 2160p sets if you want to even THINK of keeping up with the jonses.

I won't be happy until I have a 4320p Jumbotron in my media room. All I need to do is figure out where to get a half kilometer long media room so I can watch the thing.

KFG

Re:for high-end industrial applications (1)

The Faywood Assassin (542375) | more than 7 years ago | (#17540046)

The only good thing from this HD hype is that CRT loyalists can upgrade their smaller CRT sets for larger ones at a fraction of the price it would have cost two years ago.


Sure, the prices of electronics always drops, but HD has accelerated this drop for CRT TV's


My girlfriend just upgraded from 20 inch to 27 inch for less than $300 Canadian! She would have gone to 32 inch for about $400, but the set wouldn't have fit in the cabinet. There's no way you can get a 32 inch LCD for $400, and don't get me started about plasma.


Now in your case, if your boss' set was free, then that makes a really strong case for NOT upgrading


Ben

Re:for high-end industrial applications (1)

the dark hero (971268) | more than 7 years ago | (#17540124)

Who wants to predict howlong it will take for those old fashion 1080P sets to become outdated, and that you really must have one of tese new 2160p sets if you want to even THINK of keeping up with the jonses.

As a quick note. I am actualy finaly ditching the first, and only, TV I ever had (making it around 14 yrs old now I think), a 20" CRT that had some sorta funky colour burns on the sides...
I am replacing it with:
My boss' old 20" CRT that works!

I'm to busy playing games in 2D to bother with games that are HD

Re:for high-end industrial applications (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 7 years ago | (#17540156)

Who wants to predict howlong it will take for those old fashion 1080P sets to become outdated

I would be interested to know if there is any provision for HDTVs handling higher resolution/bandwidth signals. I.e. is it possible for the broadcasters to transmit 2160p signals and for all the current (1080 and 720) systems to be able to receive it and down-scale? I imagine this isn't possible (decoding 1080p H.264+ takes enough CPU already, I dread to think how much CPU it takes to decode 2160p), but when broadcasters eventually want to go beyond 1080p it seems like an awful waste of bandwidth to transmit both versions independently. Maybe there is some scope for transmitting 1080p signals and then just transmitting some extra data in a separate stream which can be mathematically combined to produce the extra resolution?

PS3 drivable? (5, Interesting)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538820)

There was a lot made of the early specs of the PS3, one of them being it was capable of driving not one - but two 1080p displays in tandem. The potential of this being used in real-life led to it being dropped (so the story goes). If the PS3 was truely capable of driving two 1080p's wouldn't it be possible to drive a single 2160?

I recall that many early 30 inch progessive display cards used two cards in tandem to spit the screen into two vertical halves. If the PS3 video system has the omph, could it be similarly done?

Don't know how BIG the display would have to be to be ideal either. I recall that 1080p is barely perceptible with anything under 37-40 inches. I can only imagine the optimal size you'd need to see the advantages of Quad HDTV.

Re:PS3 drivable? (1)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538920)

Well ...

In theory the PS3/XBox 360 and Wii could all handle a 2160p TV, but with the extra processing power required to do generate the pixels the quality of the 3D images they could produce would be greatly reduced. Think of it this way, if you increase the number of pixels by 4 times you reduce the ammount of pixel processing per pixel to 1/4 the original ammount; so the PS3 could produce images at this resolution but they would look far worse.

Re:PS3 drivable? (2, Informative)

RicoX9 (558353) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538966)

Doubling the horizontal and vertical resolution gets you 4 times the number of pixels. Even if it could drive 4 1080p screens, that doesn't mean the timing logic is there to actually make a picture that makes sense. Most likely you would end up with a completely scrambled picture off a separate set of signals meant to drive 4 1080p screens.

Re:PS3 drivable? (4, Informative)

joshetc (955226) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539034)

No, 2160p is essentially four 1080p displays. Hence them calling it "Quad HDTV"

Re:PS3 drivable? (1)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539622)

oop - that would be correct sir. I was thinking vertical only.

Re:PS3 drivable? (1)

broller (74249) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539802)

So, a PS3 emulating a Nintendo DS on HDTV then? :)

Re:PS3 drivable? (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539140)

It's too bad the PS3 didn't accept an HDMI input. The thing would make a very cool pvr. It might still be possible with a USB dongle and MythTV running on it, but not as elegant.

Re:PS3 drivable? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539282)

To double the resolution, you need to drive 4x as many pixels.

Re:PS3 drivable? (0, Redundant)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539382)

1080p is 1920x1080 which equals 2,073,600 pixels.
2160p is 3840x2160 which equals 8,294,400 pixels.

I think people have a hard time remembering that doubling one dimension is actually quadrupling the AREA of something. So a 2160p display is actually four 1080p displays.

This problem comes up a lot in modeling. I am an HO (1:87) and O (1:48) scale model railroader and I find it interesting when people adjust area and volume by that same ratio when in fact area, for HO scale, should be 1:7569 and volume should be 1:658503. That would make an 80 ton coal car weigh less than 4 ounces.

I'm rambling again. Point is, we're dealing with 2D, not 1D. Square your numbers.

Re:PS3 drivable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17539482)

I think people have a hard time remembering that doubling one dimension is actually quadrupling the AREA of something. So a 2160p display is actually four 1080p displays.

You thinking is right, but you worded it wrong. Doubling one dimension indeed only doubles the area. Doubling one dimension while keeping the other dimension proportional quadruples it.

Re:PS3 drivable? (1)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539668)

if only the vertical resolution is doubled to 2160, then the PS4 would (in theory) be able to drive it if it can support 2 1080p displays. If the horizontal resolution was also doubled, to 3920, the number of pixels would increase by 4x, not 2x. It would require much more processing than simply driving 2 displays.

Re:PS3 drivable? (2, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17540494)

Don't know how BIG the display would have to be to be ideal either. I recall that 1080p is barely perceptible with anything under 37-40 inches. I can only imagine the optimal size you'd need to see the advantages of Quad HDTV.

37-40 inches doesn't say anything without distance. If you're talking field of view, then 1080p is good for about 20 degrees and 2160p for about 60 degrees at 20-20 vision. And even if you have 20-20 vision, you only have that in a very tiny area in the center. Note that a 60 degree FOV means you're sitting closer than 1:1, maybe like 35" away for a 37-40" display. Either you need to sit a lot closer to your TV or have a huge video wall to enjoy 2160p. Of course, if you're used to watching films at monitor distance (not unusual for students in cramped quarters) then 2160p will work for you. That is, if you can find a source with that resolution (and no, 35mm film doesn't have 2000 lines of resolution).

Re:PS3 drivable? (1)

Kopretinka (97408) | more than 7 years ago | (#17540498)

Haven't RTFA, but the name part "Quad" seems to imply that not only is the horizontal, but also the vertical resolution doubled in 2160p, so that would probably require four PS3s, unless a single PS3 can handle 1080p and double the resolution vertically. Unlikely.

1080p Monitor (1)

Lostconfused (1019042) | more than 7 years ago | (#17538998)

I just have one question. So whats the difference between a 37" monitor that can do 1080p and a tv? It doesnt have a tv tunner and thats it?

Re:1080p Monitor (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539278)

Well, most TVs come with speakers, while most computer monitors do not. I've often wondered why they bother putting speakers on every TV. If you're going to spend $5000 on a TV, you'd probably have a good sound system, so why even bother with the TV speakers. I mean, I personally don't want to watch everything with the sound system turned on. Morning news in surround sound? Sorry, I'll save on the electricity. But I could see a lot of people opting for a TV without speakers.

Re:1080p Monitor (2, Interesting)

holt (86624) | more than 7 years ago | (#17540328)

I've often wondered why they bother putting speakers on every TV. If you're going to spend $5000 on a TV, you'd probably have a good sound system, so why even bother with the TV speakers.

You know, I agree, but you'd be surprised how many posts I've seen on an AV forum (like AVS Forum [avsforum.com] where someone posts "I just bought a 72 inch HDTV. Can anyone recommend a good surround sound system for under $200?"

I'm not sure that the difference between a descent set of TV speakers and a mid-range surround system is necessarily as obvious as the difference between SDTV and HDTV. For example, when I installed my new HDTV last January, my mom commented on how good the picture looked, but she tells us that she can't really tell the difference between my sound system (Paradigm speakers with Marantz AVR) and her sub-$200 5.1-in-a-box system at her place. Maybe she just has mud in her ears?

As far as your comment about watching the morning news in surround sound, for me it's not the surround sound that makes it worth turning on the AVR. The quality of the sound is much higher than from the TV's speakers (which are actually supposed to be fairly good). If we're going to talk about saving money, I'm sure the sound system (speakers, amps, processors, etc) adds up to a couple hundred bucks in the cost of a TV like mine... and yet the first thing I did when I hooked the TV up was to disable the sound system in the TV menu. Oh well.

Re:1080p Monitor (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 7 years ago | (#17540666)

It may be a matter of source material. If you primarily watch network shows (as opposed to listening to studio music recordings) their sound design is carefully constructed to be perfectly acceptable on the speakers built into a $100 20 inch television. Upgrading to whatever stereophile equipment you want isn't going to help you much. For 90% of DVD movies, all you're going to gain is better bass, and 90% of the benefit there can be captured by a $200 surround sound system.

For most people, for most sources, a cheap sound system is all you need.

1080p Monitor? Why? (1)

^Z (86325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539314)

TV tuner and probably 5.1 audio or something like that.

The only thing I wonder about is why would I exchange my 21" 1600x1200 CRT monitor for this 37" device with 1080 lines. It has 90% only of the resolution and pixels about 1.5x as big. It only looks good for watching movies, and only for people that have the computer too far from the bed ;)

(For movie watching I'd take a good DLP projector -- the picture is far bigger for a comparable price tag.)

Re:1080p Monitor? Why? (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 7 years ago | (#17540426)

"The only thing I wonder about is why would I exchange my 21" 1600x1200 CRT monitor for this 37" device with 1080 lines."

I did the "downgrade" for width reasons. When I have something like Visual Studio or Eclipse open, it's nice to have the visual representation of the form/app/etc I'm building in it's intended native size and still have room for the toolbars/console/menus/etc to the left and right of the workspace. My 1600x1200 (or something along those lines) couldn't do that without making the visual representation quite small on the screen.

Re:1080p Monitor? Why? (2, Informative)

Surt (22457) | more than 7 years ago | (#17540738)

1920x1080 = 2073600
1600x1200 = 1920000

I think you may be wrong about which way the 10% goes.

Re:1080p Monitor (1)

benfinkel (1048566) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539430)

Inputs also. 1080p TVs generally don't have a DVI or VGA input, which is what most desktop systems put out. Monitors on the other hand do have those inputs.

Re:1080p Monitor (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539776)

Actually there are quite a few 1080p TVs with DVI and/or VGA input, but you're right when you say that not all of them do.

The other difference is a remote for the TV and the features associated with it. You might think "Yeah, but I mostly use the remote on my [cable box|satellite receiver|DVR]." And that's true, but many TVs have features like auto-power-on/off, color adjustments, PIP, etc. that are only accessible from the TV's remote.

If you don't care about these things, then there is almost no practical difference between many flat panel TVs and many large flat panel monitors.

Way to go Westinghouse (2, Insightful)

AnnuitCoeptis (1049058) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539014)

1280x1024 (1.3 MPix)
1920x1200 (2.2 MPix)
2560x1600 (4 Mpix)
3840x2160 (8 MPix) => would be nice for our current 8Mpix Nikon photowork


See, from the photographer's point of view any current consumer LCD is inferior (safe to rare Mac/Dell 30" 2560x1600 displays), but this Westinghouse offering would be really nice.

Re:Way to go Westinghouse (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539514)

10040x10040 (100 MPix) => Would be nice for my current 100MPix 1973 Mamiya TLR photo work.
(I currently run my CRT monitor at 1920x1440, but it's not enough)

Re:Way to go Westinghouse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17540458)

That's what's really sad about people getting excited about 10MP DSLRs. Classic camera formats have/had so much more resolution its just absurd. 6x6cm is around 100MP, 4x5in is many hundreds, 8x10in is well over a gigapixel. An 80 year old Ansel Adams print has more than enough data in it to choke any current generation desktop.

Industry (1)

certel (849946) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539026)

Well, time to ditch the old TV. Man, the market changes too quickly!

Ok, how about asking the real question: (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539300)

Will I be able to display what I want on it in that resolution or just DRMed junk? Let's talk business here, I don't care for displays that decide for me what they want to display.

Re:Ok, how about asking the real question: (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 7 years ago | (#17540772)

I'm pretty sure they're using HDMI 1.3 for the input, which will play nice with both DRM and non-drm material.

Re:Ok, how about asking the real question: (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#17540828)

Any examples of a display that decides for you? I've heard of players that make such decisions, but not displays.

By the way, your comment made me extremely happy. I'm a big fan of the crazies around here, and there was a serious lack of looniness going on.

Stop upping the resolution... (2, Insightful)

JFMulder (59706) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539360)

... and bring us HDR dammit!

Re:Stop upping the resolution... (1)

dr00g911 (531736) | more than 7 years ago | (#17541024)

I actually saw a few prototype HDR plasma screens at Siggraph this year.

They were being pushed by some proprietary software that seemed to playback OpenEXR files in real time, but they certainly were some purty images.

One thing I noticed is that HDR on highlights makes some hotspots unbearable to look at on the screens currently (ie sun flares, etc), which is accurate, but not particularly comfortable for viewing content.

Another thing I noticed is that the prototypes seemed to be mods of off-the-shelf equipment being driven over DVI.

To low for RED (1)

nattt (568106) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539408)

This is only 3840 x 2160 pixels, which is shy of the 4096x2304 pixels needed for the in-camera recording modes in RED ONE www.red.com, and quite a way below what is needed for the full sensor 4520x2540.

Given the RED is the only thing on the horizon that has the resolution to feed this screen, why stop a few pixels short with your design??

Re:To low for RED (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539752)

...Because it's 4 HDTVs smooshed together? The film industry has no problem with using a higher resolution format and then cropping it down. All 35mm flat (16.9 widescreen) films actually are filmed on 3:4 film stock, and then cropped down on the projector to widescreen. I don't see why digital could be any different.

Re: Not just RED, also too low for Digital Cinema (2, Informative)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 7 years ago | (#17540708)

The Westinghouse monitor is also, unfortunately, just a little too low for digital mastering/cinema applications. With the current paradigm being "master at 4K distribute at 2K" the monitor does not have the resolution for the mastering phase (4K = 4096x2160). That doesn't even begin to talk about the pixel bit depth, color space, gamma, etc. Also when the paradigm changes to "master at 4K distribute at 4K", then the film industry will really want 4K monitors for proofing.

Since it is very close to the required resolution perhaps the original manufacturer could be induced to increase the resolution slightly. Then perhaps Westinghouse could use closely spaced LED backlights that are individually driven so that the display could produce high dynamic range (HDR) images (very high contrast ratios). Add the appropriate color/gamma controls to match the digital cinema color space standard and NOW you've got a display!

Then again with all this I'm sure it will be NOT CHEAP.

Does PS3 support this? (1)

Mark Gillespie (866733) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539534)

Sorry, just getting in there, before the rabid Sony haters do...

Hah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17539600)

Try getting a decent quality signal (besides a game powered by a ridiculous graphics card) to power this! ROR... think I'll stick with my current set.

Sounds useful.. (1)

Awod (956596) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539684)

Westinghouse has stated that the Quad HDTVs, like the 52" on display, "does not really target the consumer market, but high-end industrial applications.""
This sounds like it would be useful for
Google has signed on with the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope project that will construct a powerful telescope in Chile by 2013
from The Astronomical Event Search Engine [slashdot.org]

price change (1)

oftencloudy (1047554) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539724)

Awesome, some great new technology that will still have zero impact on current HD set prices. Glad to hear about it.
This only happens, what, once a week now?

what are you going to look at with even 1080P? (1)

freddieb (537771) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539794)

Cable HDTV is 1080i so is satellite. Standard dvd's will upconvert to 1080i. Blue Ray and HD DVD's will go 1080p but even if you have the players you have to buy new dvd's. I can see industrial applications or computer monitor (or gaming) applications but the rest (the big push to 1080p and above) to me is marketing hype. Am I missing something?

What's the big deal? (1)

benfinkel (1048566) | more than 7 years ago | (#17539920)

Isn't this just a bigger sheet of LCD? I don't know much about this stuff, but the px/square inch are fewer than the 30" Dell which maxes out at 2560x1600

Four shows at once? (4, Interesting)

adenied (120700) | more than 7 years ago | (#17540228)

I know this is anathema to the Slashdot crowd, but I wonder if one could use this to watch four sporting events at once like sports bars do with big projection screens. There's enough HD feeds on most systems to make this look pretty nice. ESPN, ESPNHD, the various broadcast networks, FSNHD, NFL Network HD, INHD special events, etc. Just switch the audio feed around as needed.

Also would be cool when they do ESPN Full Circle where you get the same game but with different camera priorities on ESPNHD, ESPN2HD, ESPNEWS, and ESPNU. That's a sports geek's dream! Talk about sensory overload.

Re:Four shows at once? (1)

Secrity (742221) | more than 7 years ago | (#17541550)

With the proper input equipment, yes. It would be similar to PIP, only with 4 1080i pictures. Isn't ESPN a chain of restaurant/bars with lots of TVs?

2160p?!?!!? (1)

reddcell (1044072) | more than 7 years ago | (#17540480)

That's like...WAY more p's!

Clever marketing... (2, Insightful)

inviolet (797804) | more than 7 years ago | (#17540576)

Westinghouse has stated that the Quad HDTVs, like the 52" on display, "does not really target the consumer market, but high-end industrial applications."

They make statements like this in order to position themselves at the high end of the consumer market. After all, the overmonied folks in the high end of the consumer market invariably fancy themselves "above the consumer market".

Obligatory quote (1)

mianne (965568) | more than 7 years ago | (#17541282)

I totally don't know what that means. But I want it!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...