Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

What's the next big TV tech?

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:05:52 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
For ordinary flat screen dimensions, 4K is at eye resolution at six feet, so if you are more than six feet from the screen going to 8K will not show any more detail. You can test this limit by stepping back from 4K and HD displays and noting at which distance the two are indistinguishable, due to the limit of the eye resolution.

Sony has experimented with running the TV at 120Hz and putting a black frame between the picture frames. For reasons I don't understand, moving objects look much sharper. For example, you can read the license plate number on a passing car that is otherwise just a blur. The display is only half as bright. Maybe this has been marketed commercially, I don't know.

Slightly curved OLED displays are available, and it seems they haven't been a big hit. I think if a 4K video were put on a very large, say 10', more sharply curved display it would have a virtual reality presence. The image would have to be taken with a lens that matches the curvature of the display. Maybe that will be next.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 4:06:43 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 3:05:52 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
For ordinary flat screen dimensions, 4K is at eye resolution at six feet, so if you are more than six feet from the screen going to 8K will not show any more detail.

Yeah, I don't see 8K going mainstream for many, many years. It requires a huge increase in bandwidth without significant improvement in picture quality.

Sony has experimented with running the TV at 120Hz and putting a black frame between the picture frames. For reasons I don't understand, moving objects look much sharper.

Typically, on 24fps video, fast motion is blurred to prevent a strobe effect. At 120fps, there's no need to blur fast moving objects. High FPS probably provides better picture quality improvement than 8K, for a given cost.

Slightly curved OLED displays are available, and it seems they haven't been a big hit. I think if a 4K video were put on a very large, say 10', more sharply curved display it would have a virtual reality presence. The image would have to be taken with a lens that matches the curvature of the display. Maybe that will be next.

It's too much to ask for a lens to match the display size.

I'd like to see VR go mainstream, but VR is really just a solo experience for the foreseeable future.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:09:34 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 4:06:43 AM, Rukado wrote:
...
Typically, on 24fps video, fast motion is blurred to prevent a strobe effect. At 120fps, there's no need to blur fast moving objects. High FPS probably provides better picture quality improvement than 8K, for a given cost.

Strobing is prevented by showing the same frame multiple times. For 24 fps old-fashioned film movies, each frame is shown three times. For 30Hz video, each frame is shown twice. Sony takes exactly the same 60Hz video, and motion looks sharper when there is a black frame inserted. It's really remarkable.

... The image would have to be taken with a lens that matches the curvature of the display. Maybe that will be next.

It's too much to ask for a lens to match the display size.

The lens doesn't match the size, it has to match the curvature. IMAX movies are recorded with wide-field lenses that produce a distorted image in the recording, but are straightened out when projected on the curved screen.

I'd like to see VR go mainstream, but VR is really just a solo experience for the foreseeable future.

Yes, and having to put on a headset to watch TV is not convenient.

Another possibility is that video won't have a next step, but rather that screens will just get bigger, lighter, and cheaper for quite a while.
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 8:09:28 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
I remember reading an article about some nanotech researchers who were attempting to insert your TV into your contact lenses so that you could watch TV or have a real life visual UI any moment of the day.

I feel like that's a few decades away though.
For Mother Russia.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 9:05:30 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Is 3 D really a flop?
Perhaps they were using hard sell tactics to get you to buy a TV that is way too expensive.
I have seen 3D TV in stores. I think it was nice, but I can do without it. The improvement over 2D TV does not seem significant enough to justify spending so much money. I got the impression that the picture was better but it was not fabulous.
If they could make a 3D TV that had a price that was only a little higher than a 2D, I think it may succeed.
Besides what was different was those glasses you wear with the LCD lenses that turn from transparent to opaque in sync with the picture, and each eye sees a slightly different image. I doubt that those glasses cost a lot to make, and they could make a 2D TV into 3D TV by changing a microchip.
Kreakin
Posts: 240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 12:15:40 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Paper thin roll up screens are on the horizon.

I think holographic projectors are the next massive change we'll see.
KnowledgeBot5
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 1:32:19 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Flexible OLED is here, but not yet in mainstream. Im hoping at some point down the road we'll see pixel.less displays, light bleeding into light via symbiotic, nano light cells that take on the color tones of neighboring cells to reproduce exact true color
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 7:25:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
1080p is still the standard. 4K displays might be getting cheaper, but it requires more bandwidth than can be supplied with current affordable technology. Resolution has bypassed technology it seems...
wuliheron
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 4:45:09 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Theoretically, beaming lasers directly into each eyeball is the idea way to provide everyone whatever they want to see at any given time. A laser that would cut a steel beam in half may not give you a bad sunburn because their frequency is everything, but it can certainly convey information. The same trick works for sound as well with transducers already being used to mix ultra-high frequency sound in mid-air so it can sound like someone is whispering in your ear and, literally, nobody else can hear it. By simply mixing signals right at the source they can provide whatever any individual wants even in a crowded room making even the Star Trek holodeck look wimpy using the tiniest fraction of the same energy and hardware.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 3:01:38 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
I wil go with a TV that is like the they had on star trek, and something like the big chair kirk sat in. In the armrest he had all the electronics and all the switches, and all the computer hardware and he may have a key board, but he may just use dragon to say things instead of type.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 7:17:57 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 5/23/2016 6:30:24 PM, Rukado wrote:
4K is going mainstream. 3D is flop. What's the next bit TV tech?

My parents got a nice 3D TV. They have already gotten to the point where I wouldn't consider much beyond service, reliability, price, and features. I still prefer analog as my eyes are very sensitive to refresh rates :( and I can't afford larger screens with all the bells and whistles yet.

The next big thing will be a remote you can control with your mind. People will still lose it.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 7:20:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/4/2016 7:17:57 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 5/23/2016 6:30:24 PM, Rukado wrote:
4K is going mainstream. 3D is flop. What's the next bit TV tech?

My parents got a nice 3D TV. They have already gotten to the point where I wouldn't consider much beyond service, reliability, price, and features. I still prefer analog as my eyes are very sensitive to refresh rates :( and I can't afford larger screens with all the bells and whistles yet.

The next big thing will be a remote you can control with your mind. People will still lose it.

Oh actually, I gotta take that back. I miss when TV's used to look good. The one my parents got actually has some real styling. Prior to that they had a BEAUTIFUL furniture TV with excellent built in speakers. That won't be the next big thing, but it is something I really miss these days.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 1:38:45 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
As I remember it the top of the line Zenith was a large piece of furniture with a 25 " screen and when you opened the top there was a record player and AM\FM stereo in there. it had an 8" speaker on each end . Now that was big tv!
marvinbible
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 5:19:47 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
it seems to have been much slower than say HD, 3-D TV innovation out implied that substance was regularly made with youthful frameworks by unpracticed creators. then again, 6K is the most extreme determination, shouldn't something be said about 8k folks?
http://www.thepineappleinc.com...
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2016 5:56:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 5/23/2016 6:30:24 PM, Rukado wrote:
4K is going mainstream. 3D is flop. What's the next bit TV tech?

Could be what I call "dual TV" if I was younger and more ambitious I'd "invent" it, here it is:

We can now watch 3D TV - under the hood this system shows a left-image then a right-image, alternating at 30 Hz (I think). Our 3D specs are in sync and ensure that only the left eye ever sees the left-image and only the right eye sees the right-image.

Now tweak this system a bit so that my specs always show BOTH eyes only the left-image while my wife's specs always show BOTH eyes only the right image.

Tweak further so that rather than a 3D movie we instead show two distinct movies or rather frames, my specs would show my movie and my wife's would show her movie.

(of course we'd need headphones and our marriage would be sad, but you get the idea)