28K video camera to be released in 2010!!!

[dylanshmai]

http://www.red.com/epic_scarlet/ 28K is 28 times the resolution of you're 1080p TV... They already sell 4K video cameras for dirt cheap ($5,000, but price will be cut in half in less than a year) Peter Jackson has been using them in his new movies. ...I can't even comprehend 4K!!! And now 28K???!!! Imagine LCD screens that will be made in the near future to support that kind of format!!!

[Kushna Mufeed]

They won't be making those sorts of TV screens. Not for a long while at least. The only reason you'd want that kind of resolution is for the big screens in the movie theatre.

[Taosaur]

They won't be making those sorts of TV screens. Not for a long while at least. The only reason you'd want that kind of resolution is for the big screens in the movie theatre. You never know. If development continues on machine-rolled, flexible LCDs, near-future home theaters might have 28K+ wallpaper.

[drewmandan]

You never know. If development continues on machine-rolled, flexible LCDs, near-future home theaters might have 28K+ wallpaper. Well, it would have to be wallpaper, or even larger, for anyone to even see the difference between 4K and 28K, and then there's the problem of eye fatigue. I don't think there's going to be a major new format after 1080p for at least a decade. Oh, by the way, LCDs won't be used for much longer. The industry is switching to OLEDs and similar.

[Taosaur]

Well, it would have to be wallpaper, or even larger, for anyone to even see the difference between 4K and 28K, and then there's the problem of eye fatigue. I don't think there's going to be a major new format after 1080p for at least a decade. I don't know about a decade; even w/out adequate display area, companies will release 'higher def' products just to convince us our old gear is obselete, and gadget addicts will buy it just to have the biggest-newest-brightest-best. 1080p and current-gen LCDs will probably remain the prevailing standards for another 4-6 years. I don't see LCD wallpaper as the market standard at any point, but it may well be the kind of thing someone in a million-dollar home sets up in the basement. The nice thing about LCD is it takes little or no energy to hold an image, only to change it, so when not in use as a video wall, it can serve as actual wallpaper.

[Kushna Mufeed]

You never know. If development continues on machine-rolled, flexible LCDs, near-future home theaters might have 28K+ wallpaper. Yeah, but you gotta be one rich bastard to get that shit.

[dylanshmai]

But I don't think you guys understand the kind of accomplishment this is... a video camera that shoots 28K is a bit unsettling, and its going to give LCD manufactures a race for their technology in less than a decade, when this kind of technology is widely available and being used.

[drewmandan]

I don't know about a decade; even w/out adequate display area, companies will release 'higher def' products just to convince us our old gear is obselete, and gadget addicts will buy it just to have the biggest-newest-brightest-best. At some point consumers will probably say enough is enough. But only time will tell. The nice thing about LCD is it takes little or no energy to hold an image, only to change it, so when not in use as a video wall, it can serve as actual wallpaper. That's wrong. LCD is extremely energy inefficient. Every pixel constantly produces white light that then gets filtered to make a colour. Even showing 'black' on an LCD takes energy. The only display that uses more energy than an LCD is a CRT. I think you're thinking of OLED.

[ninja9578]

That's wrong. LCD is extremely energy inefficient. Every pixel constantly produces white light that then gets filtered to make a colour. Even showing 'black' on an LCD takes energy. The only display that uses more energy than an LCD is a CRT. I think you're thinking of OLED. Your knowledge of how LCDs work is a little ... well ... I don't know where you got that information. You are right that black takes power to display, but white takes none. White is much more common. LCDs are made of a series of polarized films. They are crystalline, but can flex when power is applied to them. When multiple films of polarized materials are rotated they let less light through. Black actually takes the most amount of power because of this. The amount of power required to flex those little materials is tiny. Each little pixel does not have a light, the entire screen is backlit. The backlight is an LED, which is insanely efficient. There is a scattering plate before the screen so that it looks uniform, even thought it's all coming from tiny points. The screen LED is the same light that lights up the apple on the back of Macbooks, turn off the screen and the apple turns off too. The ones with lights in every pixel are plasma screens.

[drewmandan]

Whatever, I was closer. He said that LCDs only use energy when the image changes...right...

[ninja9578]

He's partially right. The screen itself takes power any time that it's showing anything other than white, but most LCD monitors have flash RAM as their VRAM. So that only requires power when the image changes.

[drewmandan]

He's partially right. The screen itself takes power any time that it's showing anything other than white, but most LCD monitors have flash RAM as their VRAM. So that only requires power when the image changes. Showing white takes energy.

[dylanshmai]

you guys could discuss something ON topic too.

[ninja9578]

Showing white takes energy. Only the amount to keep the LED turned on, white is the default state of the LCD. 28K isn't that insane. IMAX runs at about 10K, it's not illogical that within 2 years they'll want to upgrade it to 28K.

[dylanshmai]

Only the amount to keep the LED turned on, white is the default state of the LCD. 28K isn't that insane. IMAX runs at about 10K, it's not illogical that within 2 years they'll want to upgrade it to 28K. where did you get this information? as far as I know there are only video cameras that can record up to 4K max.

[ninja9578]

where did you get this information? as far as I know there are only video cameras that can record up to 4K max. A tech forum, the guy exaggerated the 10K, it's actually 7K IMAX Wiki The intent of IMAX is to dramatically increase the resolution of the image by using much larger film stock at a resolution comparable to about 10000 x 7000 pixels (70 megapixels). I don't know how they take video, they may just use a 4K camera and interpolate it up.

[dylanshmai]

The 4K camera has only been available for a couple of years too...Very recent technology.

[tommo]

Hm, I don't think this will go through. Like it's not gonna keep on going to like 1000K I mean our eyes are only capable of so much. Unless they throw in a new set of 1000K eyes with every TV. I think after they get it to look like real life they will invent other things. Like floating LCD's.

[dylanshmai]

Hm, I don't think this will go through. Like it's not gonna keep on going to like 1000K I mean our eyes are only capable of so much. Unless they throw in a new set of 1000K eyes with every TV. I think after they get it to look like real life they will invent other things. Like floating LCD's. quality and size will will keep changing after we all die. Managing 4K into a 42" LCD screen is already going to be a huge challenge.

[Kushna Mufeed]

No, eventually we'll get to a point where extremely high resolutions will be possible, but it'll be pointless because the naked eye won't be able to tell the difference between a lower, but still ridiculously high resolution. 3D holograms are the future.

[Bearsy]

Yeah I agree. It'll get to be where 2160i or 2160p is the prevalent resolution and probably only one step higher than that. Holograms will look like a VHS and the next 10-20 years will be spent making it superHD. After that, who knows?

[dylanshmai]

I can tell the difference between 1080 and 720, and I will definitely be able to notice a difference between 2160 and 4K. The eye can compensate for the information given just like it does on the molecular level that we see.

[drewmandan]

I can tell the difference between 1080 and 720, and I will definitely be able to notice a difference between 2160 and 4K. The eye can compensate for the information given just like it does on the molecular level that we see. That's not how it works. Both the retina and the brain process visual information by pixels, except these pixels blend together so you don't notice them. There is definitely a point where you won't be able to tell the difference.

[Kushna Mufeed]

I can tell the difference between 1080 and 720, and I will definitely be able to notice a difference between 2160 and 4K. The eye can compensate for the information given just like it does on the molecular level that we see. Yeah, because you will be able to tell the difference when the image is sharper than your own vision.

[tommo]

LMAO, no you won't. How is that possible? It's like saying, this pitch is higher then we can humanly hear, but you will still be able to hear it and realise it's higher.