If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Japan Probe)   85" display debuts with 16 times the pixels of HDTV. There are approximately 4.6 actresses on the planet who will still look good under that much scrutiny   (japanprobe.com) divider line 85
    More: Spiffy, HDTV, reveal, liquid crystals, pixels, LCD, planets  
•       •       •

7629 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 May 2011 at 6:40 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-05-22 12:59:36 AM
Why porn will never go full HD.
 
2011-05-22 01:10:52 AM
5 minutes later, a woman walked right through the panel while texting to a friend.
 
2011-05-22 01:39:55 AM

2wolves: Why porn will never go full HD.


I don't see how Porn would be able to go 3D, but it has.

I mean, who wants to see arcing ropes of Jizm flying at them?
 
2011-05-22 02:28:15 AM

FirstNationalBastard: 2wolves: Why porn will never go full HD.

I don't see how Porn would be able to go 3D, but it has.

I mean, who wants to see arcing ropes of Jizm flying at them?


Hasn't porn already been on CD? I can swear I remember stuff like that...
 
2011-05-22 02:30:24 AM

FirstNationalBastard:

I mean, who wants to see arcing ropes of Jizm flying at them?


www.newcelebritweets.com

/Hot like arcing ropes
 
2011-05-22 04:29:28 AM
I see this being more important for commercial applications than home displays.

For most people, their televisions are too small and/or they sit too far from their televisions for them to take advantage of the higher resolutions. I sit 8' away from my display and when I recently upgraded it from a 42" 720p model to a 42" 1080p model, I could barely see a difference (which was expected and was why I didn't jump on the 1080p bandwagon when they first came out).

I'd expect that I'd need a 46" to really take advantage of the 2048×1556 (Digital Film 2K) resolution or a 50" to take advantage of the 3840×2160 (QFHD / 2160p) resolution.
 
2011-05-22 06:02:40 AM
Yeah like any of our content providers are even interested in pushing that much data towards our screens, sure it's a neat feat but nobody is gonna see that in a cable package anytime soon.

Hell some of our providers are capping service low enough that even streaming Netflix is gonna be a problem soon if you use your bandwidth for much of anything else

/and people are stoked that they are adding that to phones, LOL yeah have fun with those charges
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2011-05-22 07:14:53 AM
7,680 x 4,320

Finally I can see the whole picture from my camera at 100%, in either orientation.
 
2011-05-22 07:17:47 AM
At some point close up shots go from being entertaining to science.
 
2011-05-22 07:38:43 AM
Too bad this will never be used for consumers purposes. There's no consumer content with resolutions that high, and imagine the hardware it would take to even play at that resolution.

This is more a business display. Boardrooms and such that need that kind of resolution.
 
2011-05-22 08:10:03 AM
"the world market for computers will be 5. The only purchasers will be world governments, nobody else needs the computing power available"
 
2011-05-22 08:10:26 AM
I know more than 4.6 women who look good in full analog. Subby, you need to get out more.
 
2011-05-22 08:18:06 AM

moralpanic: Too bad this will never be used for consumers purposes. There's no consumer content with resolutions that high, and imagine the hardware it would take to even play at that resolution.

This is more a business display. Boardrooms and such that need that kind of resolution.


While I agree with you in principle, look up at ZAZ's post.

I happen to think that the march to ever greater megapixel counts in consumer cameras is stupid.
 
2011-05-22 09:09:29 AM
You bought the wrong TV sillyhead!
 
2011-05-22 09:15:41 AM

you have pee hands: I know more than 4.6 women who look good in full analog. Subby, you need to get out more.


There's plenty of women who look good in full analog. But something weird happens when you render them in 2D -- a slight retreat into the uncanny valley, perhaps. Have you ever taken a picture of a decent-looking person, only to think to yourself, "that didn't come out quite right"?

Also, when you blow up someone's face to the size of an 85" screen, you'll see all the tiny flaws on their face -- acne, slightly smeared makeup, a stray hair -- magnified to an uncomfortable level. That's what subby was probably referring to.

/not subby
 
2011-05-22 09:19:32 AM

moralpanic: This is more a business display. Boardrooms and such that need that kind of resolution.

Erm, why do you think a boardroom would need that kind of resolution. I count myself lucky when a meeting room has a projector at 1048x768 at the moment...the type of business application for this might be something more like monitoring displays in an operations centre.

On the other hand, I would kill for a computer monitor with this kind of resolution...everything you need in field of view, sharp and defined. Mmmmm.
 
2011-05-22 09:31:56 AM
Well then, this will be my new display for when Sword of the Stars 2 comes out.

/Always thought I'd want one of those 3x2 monitor arrays for that game to view its strategic map.
//Probably goes for any strategic map for other games too
 
2011-05-22 09:39:39 AM
Subby, you didn't state an average. You specified a specific, and small, number of people. Whole numbers, please.
 
2011-05-22 09:45:49 AM

Arkanaut: Also, when you blow up someone's face to the size of an 85" screen, you'll see all the tiny flaws on their face -- acne, slightly smeared makeup, a stray hair -- magnified to an uncomfortable level. That's what subby was probably referring to.


This. In my local mall, one wall beside an escalator has a huge picture (two stories high) of a smiling blonde woman's face. Eben though the individual "pixels" are relatively large (about the size of a fingertip, making the whole thing look blurry), it's so massive you can still see every pore, blackhead, and blemish. Her nose hairs are clearly discernible. There's even a faint halo of tiny blonde hairs around the edges of her face. She's clearly a very lovely woman in real life, but at that level of detail, and standing next to the wall so you can clearly see each dime-sized pore is pretty gruesome.
 
2011-05-22 09:49:55 AM
I'd rather have a set of kick ass video goggles. Something like in Snow Crash. Fark monitors.
 
2011-05-22 10:07:27 AM

rev. dave: At some point close up shots go from being entertaining to science.


I think that point has long since passed.

One of the (few) benefits of having crappy eyes is that even regular ol' tube TVs look far more crisp than real life, enough so that some things are almost unsettling to watch.
 
2011-05-22 10:08:49 AM

Accolade: Subby, you didn't state an average. You specified a specific, and small, number of people. Whole numbers, please.


What? Maybe Subby digs amputees.
 
2011-05-22 10:15:11 AM

Honest Bender: I'd rather have a set of kick ass video goggles. Something like in Snow Crash. Fark monitors.


Yeah, I never understood why these weren't more important. Sure, you gotta factor in the comfort - but wouldn't the experience be a hundred times better than any size TV? You can either have a video that encapsulates a portion of your peripheral, or one that covers every inch of eye sight - like your own personal IMax.
 
2011-05-22 10:15:24 AM

Mister Peejay: rev. dave: At some point close up shots go from being entertaining to science.

I think that point has long since passed.

One of the (few) benefits of having crappy eyes is that even regular ol' tube TVs look far more crisp than real life, enough so that some things are almost unsettling to watch.


After a year of having broadcast HDTV, I still get weird moments watching sports events, like when I'm watching an NFL play and suddenly notice that a guy in the stands is wearing a really weird hat - and not because the camera pans on him.
There is something just vaguely odd about seeing in that level of detail.
 
2011-05-22 10:28:14 AM
WTF, are you all blind? To me this appears to be the exact same resolution and quality as my netbook screen that I'm using. I don't see any improvement at all. weird.
 
2011-05-22 10:45:43 AM
1
i76.photobucket.com
2
i76.photobucket.com
3
i76.photobucket.com
4
i76.photobucket.com
and .6
i76.photobucket.com

I think your estimate was a little low, subby.
 
2011-05-22 10:51:12 AM

HystericalParoxysm: Arkanaut: Also, when you blow up someone's face to the size of an 85" screen, you'll see all the tiny flaws on their face -- acne, slightly smeared makeup, a stray hair -- magnified to an uncomfortable level. That's what subby was probably referring to.

This. In my local mall, one wall beside an escalator has a huge picture (two stories high) of a smiling blonde woman's face. Eben though the individual "pixels" are relatively large (about the size of a fingertip, making the whole thing look blurry), it's so massive you can still see every pore, blackhead, and blemish. Her nose hairs are clearly discernible. There's even a faint halo of tiny blonde hairs around the edges of her face. She's clearly a very lovely woman in real life, but at that level of detail, and standing next to the wall so you can clearly see each dime-sized pore is pretty gruesome.


This will, however, be excellent for the Big Brother wall pictures where the eyes follow you around. They can hide the ultra-hi-rez TV camera that is scanning the retinal patterns of everyone in the crowd inside one of the pixels.
 
2011-05-22 11:01:49 AM
Speaking of bad HD, does anyone else hate LED TVs? Other than the fact that the framerate gets screwy every so often, I just think the picture is too good. If I'm watching a blu ray or some HD show over fios, the picture is fantastic, but the production value looks worse so I have trouble suspending my disbelief. I think it looks like I'm watching a show being filmed, whereas if I'm watching the same thing on a DLP it looks like a final product. Anyone else feel this way too?
 
2011-05-22 11:09:16 AM

FirstNationalBastard: 2wolves: Why porn will never go full HD.

I don't see how Porn would be able to go 3D, but it has.

I mean, who wants to see arcing ropes of Jizm flying at them?


upload.wikimedia.org
He does.

/but he doesn't want to see the guy's hairy ass.
 
zz9
2011-05-22 11:28:24 AM

2wolves: Why porn will never go full HD.


With this level of detail you'll be able to see if he really does fix the cable/aircon/plumbing properly before he starts shagging.
 
2011-05-22 11:29:54 AM

BigLuca: WTF, are you all blind? To me this appears to be the exact same resolution and quality as my netbook screen that I'm using. I don't see any improvement at all. weird.


Just zoom on the article's image and enhance it.
 
2011-05-22 11:46:30 AM

BumpInTheNight: BigLuca: WTF, are you all blind? To me this appears to be the exact same resolution and quality as my netbook screen that I'm using. I don't see any improvement at all. weird.

Just zoom on the article's image and enhance it.


cdn.wg.uproxx.com
 
2011-05-22 12:06:48 PM
what's the pixel size on this thing? I'm not impressed by the high resolution of the pixels are huge or normal size, all they did was make a screen bigger.

I think there's diminishing returns for resolution, I don't think we've quite hit the practical limit yet, but there is a minimum pixel size that would add sharpness that someone could discern while sitting the proper distance from a screen.

3d, true per pixel dynamic brightness etc would be the real thing. Speaking of which, with the advent of LED backlit tv's what ever happened to the dynamic brightness technology? bright side technologies, so impressive (new window)
 
2011-05-22 12:08:28 PM
About 103 PPI. So.. by my calculations if you have normal visual acuity you would need to be sitting .... distance away for this to appear completely clear.

/oh screw it
//also neeed 8k material
///lazy
 
2011-05-22 12:21:40 PM

bookman: They can hide the ultra-hi-rez TV camera that is scanning the retinal patterns of everyone in the crowd inside one of the pixels.




I'm sure farkers will be able to tell.
 
2011-05-22 12:53:17 PM

MetaRinka: what's the pixel size on this thing? I'm not impressed by the high resolution of the pixels are huge or normal size, all they did was make a screen bigger.

I think there's diminishing returns for resolution, I don't think we've quite hit the practical limit yet, but there is a minimum pixel size that would add sharpness that someone could discern while sitting the proper distance from a screen.

3d, true per pixel dynamic brightness etc would be the real thing. Speaking of which, with the advent of LED backlit tv's what ever happened to the dynamic brightness technology? bright side technologies, so impressive (new window)


Let me guess, you didn't read the article. The first line of the article states the resolution is 7,680 x 4,320. Compare that to a typical HD set which is 1920x1080. Not to mention, that screen is 85 inches big, which is huge. I'm pretty sure you can be pretty damn far away, and still see the difference.
 
2011-05-22 01:00:34 PM

FirstNationalBastard: I mean, who wants to see arcing ropes of Jizm flying at them?


For some reason the fact that you capitalized "jizm" really disturbs me.
 
2011-05-22 01:01:29 PM
So...if ZBR was to be the last optical media format, what will be the medium for UHD data streams...USB3 thumb drives?

I have a 50Mb DOCSIS3 modem which could theoretically handle the 36Mb max burst of BR. Even if you have dynamic compression, in scenes where highdef is desired the Dara burst requirements might exceed a typical home connection, potentially even FiOS.
 
2011-05-22 01:03:46 PM
s/ZBR/BR/

Damned autocomplete.
 
2011-05-22 01:06:18 PM

FirstNationalBastard: 2wolves: Why porn will never go full HD.

I don't see how Porn would be able to go 3D, but it has.

I mean, who wants to see arcing ropes of Jizm flying at them?


Your mom.
 
2011-05-22 02:23:30 PM

ArkAngel: FirstNationalBastard: 2wolves: Why porn will never go full HD.

I don't see how Porn would be able to go 3D, but it has.

I mean, who wants to see arcing ropes of Jizm flying at them?

Hasn't porn already been on CD? I can swear I remember stuff like that...


Don't be ridiculous, you can't get VD from watching porn.
 
2011-05-22 02:26:01 PM
[idiocracygianttelevision.jpg]
 
2011-05-22 02:42:19 PM
Yes but parts of many, many actresses will appear magically on my tv screen in all their pointy, fleshy, heaving, convulsing grandeur.

And I will fap.
 
2011-05-22 02:46:45 PM

FlukeBoy: ArkAngel: FirstNationalBastard: 2wolves: Why porn will never go full HD.

I don't see how Porn would be able to go 3D, but it has.

I mean, who wants to see arcing ropes of Jizm flying at them?

Hasn't porn already been on CD? I can swear I remember stuff like that...

Don't be ridiculous, you can't get VD from watching porn.


I don't even *own* a TV.
 
2011-05-22 02:49:13 PM
i know it sounds crazy, but i think the high-def thing has one benefit eventually. people might start getting used to the idea of how people look in reality. the up-close imperfections that every person has end up on-screen and hard to avoid seeing. at some point, we perhaps tip toward reality again. maybe humanity accepts that they're not all shiny smooth and flawless. maybe we just learn to accept that people have pores, and pimples, and little imperfections. at some point, we just give up needing the fantasy and find out we can enjoy things even if they're not a lie.

i know coping with reality is tough, and softens your erections. but somehow, we managed to survive before pancake makeup, hair bleach and camera tricks. our species even evolved kinda ugly, and it happened anyhow! accepting the Truth always ends up being good for people.
 
2011-05-22 02:50:21 PM

ArkAngel: FirstNationalBastard: 2wolves: Why porn will never go full HD.

I don't see how Porn would be able to go 3D, but it has.

I mean, who wants to see arcing ropes of Jizm flying at them?

Hasn't porn already been on CD? I can swear I remember stuff like that...


This new technology will require the new DVD-A format for video reproduction.
 
Oak
2011-05-22 03:10:53 PM

minitrue noram: i know it sounds crazy, but i think the high-def thing has one benefit eventually. people might start getting used to the idea of how people look in reality. the up-close imperfections that every person has end up on-screen and hard to avoid seeing. at some point, we perhaps tip toward reality again. maybe humanity accepts that they're not all shiny smooth and flawless. maybe we just learn to accept that people have pores, and pimples, and little imperfections. at some point, we just give up needing the fantasy and find out we can enjoy things even if they're not a lie.

i know coping with reality is tough, and softens your erections. but somehow, we managed to survive before pancake makeup, hair bleach and camera tricks. our species even evolved kinda ugly, and it happened anyhow! accepting the Truth always ends up being good for people.


Stop - you're trying to help dumb people reproduce.
 
2011-05-22 03:14:04 PM
Are we finally getting to the point where when we buy a TV, it comes with a coupon for laser vision correction surgery?
 
2011-05-22 03:25:08 PM

BumpInTheNight: FlukeBoy: ArkAngel: FirstNationalBastard: 2wolves: Why porn will never go full HD.

I don't see how Porn would be able to go 3D, but it has.

I mean, who wants to see arcing ropes of Jizm flying at them?

Hasn't porn already been on CD? I can swear I remember stuff like that...

Don't be ridiculous, you can't get VD from watching porn.

I don't even *own* a TV.


Then you shouldn't call television "TV", because TV is a nickname, and nicknames are for friends, and television is no friend of yours.
 
2011-05-22 03:39:53 PM
does it come with an hdmi cable?
 
Displayed 50 of 85 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report