or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Intel announces next-gen Thunderbolt with 4K resolution support, 20Gbps speeds coming in 2014
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel announces next-gen Thunderbolt with 4K resolution support, 20Gbps speeds coming in 2014 - Page 2

post #41 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

2) You'll hear people say that an iDevice can't have a TB controller because it doesn't have an Intel Core processor. That's not accurate. Since we're only talking about the iDevice being a peripheral it's possible, just like we have with displays, external drives, etc. That said, the cost, power usage, and size all make it less than likely for some time to come.

That's a good point, though I imagine people are also hoping that Thunderbolt on an iPad or iPhone could also be used for video out, which presumably would require the Intel chipset?

 

Out of interest, in the hypothetical situation where Apple puts a Thunderbolt controller and slim port on an iPhone (perhaps after switching to an Intel CPU), does Thunderbolt support crossover for attaching controller to controller for when you plug it into your Mac? i.e. is it like Firewire and ethernet, or like USB?  Seems like it'd be a good idea, but I don't think I've seen it stated anywhere.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #42 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You made this statement before where you think that a higher PPI means that you need to sit closer. It's the other way around. A high PPI allows you sit farther away whilst still getting a Retina effect.

A higher PPI allows you to sit closer while still getting the Retina effect - that's why people walk up to screens and rub their noses on the glass. When you are far enough away, the difference is negligible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

For example (like I showed in the other thread), a 55" 1080p HDTV will require the user to sit up to 7' away to get the minimum Retina effect for someone with 20/20(6/6) vision.

That's what I was saying. There's no point in moving to 4K for displays around that size. It's not the case that someone can sit 7ft away from even an 80" TV, move to 6ft away and all of a sudden the visual clarity is all gone and the pixels become discernible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Unless you want to argue that HEC displays will not get bigger and that living rooms will get shorter thus making 1080p the only option for the foreseeable future but that's a hard position to reasonably take, especially with Intel, VESA, HDMI Consortium, Sony, etc. all supporting 4K right now.

You're converging the living room and the office again. 4K is more useful for productive environments where you sit 2 ft or less from the display and read text but not for home entertainment environments where it's mostly 1080p video (and will be for a long time) viewed far away.

Manufacturers are going to try pushing it to sell expensive displays but the important improvement is OLED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Reductio ad absurdum. We're now just getting to the point where 2x 1080p can be supported effectively with HW and within a few years of the prices being where HDTVs were when they took off and you want to go 4x and 8x the number of pixels? In the words of the prophet Ed Lover, "Come on, Son!"

If you are saying 4K is the practical limit, it's the same thing I'm saying, I just stopped shorter. I'm assuming mainstream TVs won't exceed 60" and you assume they will. If mainstream TVs exceed 60", I agree that 4K is needed, I just don't see that being the case.

Consumers can only buy what manufacturers sell so we might well be here in 5-10 years and everyone has a 4K display but I still don't think media will be authored at 4K and I don't think the media will be viewed on 60"+ displays so it won't be particularly beneficial.
post #43 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

That's what I was saying. There's no point in moving to 4K for displays around that size. It's not the case that someone can sit 7ft away from even an 80" TV, move to 6ft away and all of a sudden the visual clarity is all gone and the pixels become discernible.
You're converging the living room and the office again. 4K is more useful for productive environments where you sit 2 ft or less from the display and read text but not for home entertainment environments where it's mostly 1080p video (and will be for a long time) viewed far away..

Logically, that's correct. However, the TV industry has done a great job of selling people on the 'need' for something that is indistinguishable. Look at all the 120 or eve 240 Hz TVs being sold for a premium price. In reality, most testing shows that you can't tell the difference from 60 Hz (and the content comes in at 30 Hz, so even 60 Hz requires extrapolation which can cause other issues).

I fully expect that at some point, we'll see 4K TVs being sold for situations where there's no chance of the viewer seeing the difference from 1080p. The problem is that the TV industry really doesn't have anything to sell. Previous generations were easy:
black and white --> color
color CRT ---> flat screen
flat screen ----> HD
There just aren't any obvious improvements any more - TVs are as good as they need to be. Improvements are likely to come in terms of non-visual factors (energy usage, ease of use, reliability, etc). The only potential breakthrough is 3D but we're nowhere near that being the same 'must have' as the above improvements. Too many people can't see the 3D effect or are actually harmed by it to make it mainstream.

This is, by the way, the same effect as computers have gone through in recent years (explaining the drop in computer sales in recent years). Twenty years ago, it was easy to justify a new computer because so many things took a long time. Today, even an entry level computer is more than fast enough for most people, and is likely to remain fast enough for years, so the drive to upgrade has slowed down.

It's going to take someone reinventing the TV the way Apple did with computer (via the iPad/iPhone) for a resurgence.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #44 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

Joke about supporting hardware shipping in 2024 in 3, 2,....

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I don't see how that would apply here, given that Apple has currently adopted Thunderbolt infinitely faster than any other computer manufacturer.

 

Infinitely because none of them use it yet, after three years.

 

Now, if you're talking PC adoption, that's a joke.

 

It was obvious I was talking about neither.   The port in the computer is only half of the picture.   You need to plug it into something that has actually shipped.  Intel is so tight about licensing that, truly, the general public could care less about it, and for good reason.   At some point it stops being about how great something is on paper and moves to what can you plug it into that's on sale now that's a smart dollar purchase for your needs?

 

I know TONS of people with Apple products in their homes, as opposed to workplaces, with Thunderbolt ports, and nearly all are ignoring the T-bolt port except for adapting it to FW.

 

THAT was the point.   Intel has much to do that has nothing to do with creating newer, better generations of Thunderbolt, and they ought to get on it.

post #45 of 101
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post
It was obvious I was talking about neither.


… Obviously not.


You need to plug it into something that has actually shipped.

 

Okay, STILL doesn't apply, as there are Thunderbolt accessories out.


Intel has much to do that has nothing to do with creating newer, better generations of Thunderbolt, and they ought to get on it.

 

They can't force third parties to make hardware or software. I'm not sure what "much" they have to do. Is licensing paid? Then make it free. Otherwise…

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #46 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

A higher PPI allows you to sit closer while still getting the Retina effect - that's why people walk up to screens and rub their noses on the glass. When you are far enough away, the difference is negligible.
That's what I was saying. There's no point in moving to 4K for displays around that size. It's not the case that someone can sit 7ft away from even an 80" TV, move to 6ft away and all of a sudden the visual clarity is all gone and the pixels become discernible.
You're converging the living room and the office again. 4K is more useful for productive environments where you sit 2 ft or less from the display and read text but not for home entertainment environments where it's mostly 1080p video (and will be for a long time) viewed far away.

Manufacturers are going to try pushing it to sell expensive displays but the important improvement is OLED.
If you are saying 4K is the practical limit, it's the same thing I'm saying, I just stopped shorter. I'm assuming mainstream TVs won't exceed 60" and you assume they will. If mainstream TVs exceed 60", I agree that 4K is needed, I just don't see that being the case.

Consumers can only buy what manufacturers sell so we might well be here in 5-10 years and everyone has a 4K display but I still don't think media will be authored at 4K and I don't think the media will be viewed on 60"+ displays so it won't be particularly beneficial.


This is all sorts of backwards again. A higher PPI doesn't force you to sit closer, it allows you to sit farther away and still get the Retina effect.

Lets use your 80" 1080p TV example. You'd have to sit almost 10 and half feet away before the Retina effect would be at a bare minimum for someone with 20/20(6/6) vision. That means anything less than 10.5 feet would not get that effect. How common are living rooms where the viewer sits more than 10.5 feet away? Not very. I'd say most are about 5 to 7 feet away which means that 38" 1080p display is the largest display you could have with a bare minimum Retina effect. for 5" away and 46" 1080p display for a bare minimum Retina effect for a 7" away.

We're outgrowing 1080p. This is quite clear! It has no baring on whether you personally like to sit 15 feet away. It has no barring if you think 4K is overkill or not, as it's the chosen resolution and it makes sense for many reasons (briefly: it's 3x 720p and 2x 1080p).


PS: You don't sound like a reasonable person by making comments about rubbing your noses on the glass. 4K is still only 80 PPI on a 55" display.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #47 of 101
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
…comments about rubbing your noses on the glass.

 

I do that just about every time I get to see a retina MacBook Pro. It just astounds me. I can focus roughly two inches from my face, so I get as close as I can and the pixels still elude me. 

 

It's striking, the difference that is made to the whole picture. I guess that's why they call it Apple: it's crisp!

 

Going back to my Cinema Display after a retina is a pain for a while, since while I can't quite see the pixels at normal viewing distance, I do see the jaggies (like on the cursor and text) where they're not. 

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #48 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

the TV industry has done a great job of selling people on the 'need' for something that is indistinguishable. Look at all the 120 or eve 240 Hz TVs being sold for a premium price. In reality, most testing shows that you can't tell the difference from 60 Hz (and the content comes in at 30 Hz, so even 60 Hz requires extrapolation which can cause other issues).

I fully expect that at some point, we'll see 4K TVs being sold for situations where there's no chance of the viewer seeing the difference from 1080p. The problem is that the TV industry really doesn't have anything to sell. Previous generations were easy:
black and white --> color
color CRT ---> flat screen
flat screen ----> HD
There just aren't any obvious improvements any more - TVs are as good as they need to be. Improvements are likely to come in terms of non-visual factors (energy usage, ease of use, reliability, etc). The only potential breakthrough is 3D but we're nowhere near that being the same 'must have' as the above improvements. Too many people can't see the 3D effect or are actually harmed by it to make it mainstream.

This is, by the way, the same effect as computers have gone through in recent years (explaining the drop in computer sales in recent years). Twenty years ago, it was easy to justify a new computer because so many things took a long time. Today, even an entry level computer is more than fast enough for most people, and is likely to remain fast enough for years, so the drive to upgrade has slowed down.

Yes, manufacturers will try to sell new features regardless of their benefit and they are running out of things to sell. The question really is whether or not people will continue to buy the premium options. Given that the average selling price of TVs is so low now, the premium products will have to drop quite far in price to become mainstream and there's less and less reason to go for the more expensive options:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/05/23/samsung_sony_begin_enforcing_minimum_prices_on_hdtvs_to_grow_margins

The current distribution of TV sales heavily favours 30-40" TVs. These things tend to get into a catch-22 where content providers won't adjust until there's an audience and the audience won't upgrade until there's content to be worth upgrading for.

There was quite a big push for HD as all the TV networks moved, the quality difference was noticeable and there has been a long, slow upgrade period to get here. But recent stats still show Blu-Ray at ~30% vs DVD at 70%:

http://forum.digital-digest.com/f145/nielsen-videoscan-home-media-magazine-blu-ray-dvd-hd-dvd-stats-updated-weekly-86912-31.html#post592964

That's after 7 years. Disc-based distribution is a no-go for 4K adoption because people just won't upgrade the players and discs again. Network distribution is possible but average broadband speeds worldwide are under 10Mbps:

http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/09/akamai-global-average-broadband-speeds-up-by-25-u-s-up-29-to-6-7-mbps/

The minimum for 4K would be 20-30Mbps and it has to be sustained. This is more of a problem on the broadcast side.

On the content creation side, there is already 4K source content so things like 4K Thunderbolt and monitors have uses. If Apple moves the Cinema displays to 4K and can do it for $999, they'd probably be able to hit some segment of the TV market with it too. 27" is a bit small but 32" would be ok. A 32" 4K display for $999 would make for both a nice Cinema Display and TV. It's going to have the same problem of lack of content as a TV but it's not as important because they'd be hitting a reasonable enough price very quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It's going to take someone reinventing the TV the way Apple did with computer (via the iPad/iPhone) for a resurgence.

TV providers have tried the Smart TV route and that seems to have fallen a bit flat. I think OLED will be the next thing and they'll lump 4K in with it. With OLED, they'll have rich colors, possibly more interesting form factors, better black levels and thinner panels. That visual difference could be enough to sell them but the price isn't likel to come down for a while.

As for Apple's input, I don't see the same need to reinvent it like there was with phones and tablets. The distribution needs to be improved but I'd say the content needs improved most of all and there's far too much advertising so it clearly needs a better model for generating revenue. That's not really Apple's area of expertise. They might improve the UI but the TV doesn't offer much evidence of that, they can probably make a nice television design but those things would have a small improvement on the TV experience.

The premium TV market is almost non-existent too so their potential financial return is at best 10% of their current profit. It's still growth but it's never going to be a revolution in the way the iPad and iPhone have been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX 
This is all sorts of backwards again. A higher PPI doesn't force you to sit closer, it allows you to sit farther away and still get the Retina effect.

But that's backwards. Once you are beyond a certain distance, making the PPI higher is pointless (or still pointless 1wink.gif). I'm not saying it forces you to sit closer, it allows you to sit closer or more importantly, have a larger display without losing clarity at the same distance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX 
We're outgrowing 1080p.This is quite clear!

I haven't noticed that happening. Here's a couple of reviews, one a 60" 1080p TV, the other a 75" (try not to focus on the girl in the second one. The first one is funny, the guy's wife is clearly not as enthusiastic as he is about it):




Even in closer up shots, I just don't think there's a lack of clarity in the picture and I'd say those TV sets are pretty big for people to put in their homes.
post #49 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Okay, STILL doesn't apply, as there are Thunderbolt accessories out.

 

 

 

 

Of course it still does apply.  First, they are FINALLY out.  Second, the ones that can make Thunderbolt a useful reality in all of our homes are not.  Just because there are accessories out doesn't answer the question.  What are these accessories?   Adapters to FW and T-Bolt storage that the user might as well have bought a USB3 drive for half the cost?  A monitor with T-Bolt ports when I already have the monitors I want?   

 

How are your Thunderbolt docking stations working out?  

 

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

They can't force third parties to make hardware or software. I'm not sure what "much" they have to do. Is licensing paid? Then make it free. Otherwise…

 

??? What are you talking about?   Many, many vendors wanted to be able to put a Thunderbolt port on their peripherals but Intel has been extremely limited and exclusive with granting licensing.   This was exactly the words out of the mouths of manufacturers at the NAMM show about why Thunderbolt was still so limited use in DAW interfaces, and it applies to everything else as well.   It was so exclusive up (at least up until last year) that it wasn't even on the radar for 2013 production for most of the manufacturers of hardware I own and have asked about it.   

 

The Thunderbolt items that have been finally dribbling in are not the game changing kind that they should have been.  They don't take advantage of what is great about Thunderbolt, and the ones that do are too boutique for 95% of MBP owners.  I would love for this to change by the summer (and have a great T-Bolt docking station that's from a company I like, where I can choose from among the right functions for what I need without too much more or missing)  but as of now, no, of course it isn't used near its potential.  

post #50 of 101
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post
First, they are FINALLY out.

 

They're out. That's all that matters.


Second, the ones that can make Thunderbolt a useful reality in all of our homes are not.

 

Such as? What is out that isn't "a useful reality"?


Many, many vendors wanted to be able to put a Thunderbolt port on their peripherals but Intel has been extremely limited and exclusive with granting licensing. 

 

This is because Intel wants every Thunderbolt port to do everything that every other Thunderbolt port can do.

 

Are you saying there's something WRONG with that?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #51 of 101
@ Marvin,

1) I've showed the math for various resolutions at various sizes to show the minimum distance one would have to sit to get the 1080p effect. That 75" Samsung simply isn't going to be a good visual experience over smaller sets in terms of seeing pixels.

2) All that text on the 75" screen will just look horrible on a 29 PPI display if you are sitting 6" away. It will get more common to see text on sn HEC display as we move forward, not less. They are no longer just a dumb terminal for the antenna of cable analog feed. They use sophisticated digital connections and newer models have WiFi built-in.

3) You keep saying that this or that can't handle 4K but I've shown repeatedly that HDMI 1.4 and DP 1.2 support 4K.

4) Think about it: It's April 2013 with a 4K display for under $5000 from Sony. Remember when Sony had 1080p for $5000? Remember what content was available then? Did you say then that 1080p will never catch on? Do you really think a 4" phone should have the same resolution as a 75" TV?

5) I am absolutely flummoxed as to how you think that all displays will increase in their pixel density but that at any size HDTVs will never go past 1080p when they already at sizes that result in a poorer viewing experience over a smaller display.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #52 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

[...] recent stats still show Blu-Ray at ~30% vs DVD at 70%:
 

 

I wonder how much of that is because content distributors are still charging more for HD content? Continuing to present HD as a "premium" product rather than just the current "standard" is getting a little tiresome now. It's 2013 -- HD is no longer a novelty, it's the norm. For me, paying 25-33% more for an already expensive movie or TV series is a deterrent.

post #53 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

They're out. That's all that matters.

 

Sorta... so far it feels like Firewire II: The Sequel except with even LESS product and even SLOWER adoption (and that's saying something!).

 

What products DO we have so far?

 

High resolution displays? Apple has one. Does anyone else?

 

 

Multichannel audio interfaces? With every Joe and Joanne that ever picked up a guitar now having a "studio" in her or his bedroom I expected we'd have a whack of 'em by now. Or maybe at least a handful. Or even just ONE?! Nope.

 

How about camcorders? Thunderbolt seems like the ideal way to transfer media to the editor, yet so far we've seen it adopted by... hmm, no one. We have two or three manufacturers producing outboard capture boxes, but they're real-time transfer converters which utterly defeats the benefit.

 

How about devices that don't necessarily need the bandwidth but would afford us the benefit of reduced clutter through a single-cable daisy-chain incorporating ALL of our devices like printers and scanners? None.

 

How about professional controllers like fader units, jog/shuttle controls and button boxes for mixing and editing? They require an ethernet switch between the controller and the computer. Thunderbolt would simplify setup and reduce clutter, and address the fact that the top-of-the-line Macs don't even HAVE ethernet ports. It's even a category that's not as price sensitive as consumer devices. And yet... nada.

 

About the only area we've seen any kind of real attention paid to TB is storage (which admittedly is probably the best use for TB), but even there all we've seen is a handful of expensive RAID units. Firewire was available on low-cost single-drive external storage units so I was able to daisy chain additional drives one at a time as my requirements grew, and grab just the one I needed when I went out on a project. No one is offering me that kind of product with a TB interface, even though that's an excellent application for it.

 
So, I think it's fair to say that compared to interface solutions that have gone before it, adoption of Thunderbolt is bordering on non-existent in most areas and where it is making any in-roads at all is progressing at a rate that might be described as "glacial."
 
I was as excited as anyone about the potential for TB to improve my life, and I suppose it could still catch on, but at this point I'm fending off disappointment by resigning myself to the apparent likelihood that it's going to be just another micro-niche technology. It's a damn shame.
post #54 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Clearly faster than the speed of thought. 1wink.gif

This stuff is hot off the press, there's going to be more typos than usual.

More than usual?? I rarely see the typos fixed days later, let alone at publishing. The errors in articles at this site are numerous and frequent, and are almost always for a lack of care, not just info being misunderstood.
post #55 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

When will it be (or will it ever be) plug-and-play in windows?

I flip back and forth between Windows and Mac depending on the client/project, and lack of plug play with a thunderbolt drive basically made me need to switch to USB3.

Seriously, did they not think about this, or are they trying to supplant USB3 as number 1 by completely dropping the ball on windows PCs? I mean when was the last time you had a device that wasn't PnP?

On Windows Vista, I often find FireWire doesn't function as PnP, randomly, and then sometimes it does. Sometimes adding or removing a device crashes the whole bus. Not so on my MacBooks. It's Microsoft's problem.

(While I'm on about FireWire on Windows, why has Microsoft not updated their FireWire drivers in three major versions of Windows???)
post #56 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

They're out. That's all that matters.

 

 

You're saying the quality Docking stations are out?   The home video breakout boxes that everyone is scooping up?   Have these made headway in Mac homes as of today?

 

Which are out?  The game changers?  No, the adapters and storage.  Your question was answered in my post, but you avoided it.  

 

And yes, I know the Matrox dock is out, to 2 star reviews, as well as a few other more-interesting-than-storage devices.  But the potential-fulfilling widgets that would be the answer contained in the  "They're out. That's all that matters" are not in anyone's homes that I've seen as of yet.   Maybe it's different where you are.   

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Such as? What is out that isn't "a useful reality"?

 

 

 

Explained in my post and reiterated above.   Using Thunderbolt for anything that could mundanely be accomplished without it (single drive consumer storage, for example) misses its value completely.  But these are the "accessories" you are referring to, I would have to assume.   It's like spending $150,000 for a Nascar to use for driving to the Starbucks around the corner instead of using it for what it can do better than other cars.   The "useful reality" clearly meant boxes that would do the more special things that a T-bolt port can provide.   Using this amazing port to connect an SATA drive is obviously not the reason it was created.

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

This is because Intel wants every Thunderbolt port to do everything that every other Thunderbolt port can do.

 

Are you saying there's something WRONG with that?

 

 

You miss and twist the point, and it's a silly statement anyway.   It's in the exclusivity of the doling out of the licensing.   You're implying Intel couldn't control the quality by granting it to twice as many vendors, which is baseless, and also remarkable given that they DID grant early license for a product like the Matrox, which I have mostly read awful to mediocre things about, from dealkiller display issues to needing to reboot the computer if it sleeps.    This is what such exclusive control gets you?   Hey, let's make sure the really buggy stuff gets out first.  That should make people really happy.

 

Yes, there's something wrong with whatever Intel has been doing regarding T-Bolt for the past two years.

post #57 of 101
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post
Explained in my post and reiterated above.

 

So docking stations. That's it. 

 

Do you have any idea how many people actually use docking stations versus those that use JBODs or RAIDs? 

 

No one cares about docking stations. I feel justified in my overarching statement because you feel justified in yours.


You miss and twist the point, and it's a silly statement anyway.

 

Of course¡

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #58 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You keep saying that this or that can't handle 4K but I've shown repeatedly that HDMI 1.4 and DP 1.2 support 4K.

Just like the move to 1080p, there needs to be support at every point of the chain. You need a 4K source, 4K transmission, 4K decoders and a 4K display. The last 3 are starting to come out, what's the source for the 4K content?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Think about it: It's April 2013 with a 4K display for under $5000 from Sony. Remember when Sony had 1080p for $5000?

Here's a Samsung 1080p from 2005 at $4500:

http://reviews.cnet.com/1080i-vs-1080p-hdtv/

That was about 7.5 years ago. So for a 4K $5,000 TV today, it should reach $700-800 around about 2020-2022 assuming it follows the same uptake as HD. That will likely give it a 30% or so marketshare if the average selling price stays the same or drops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Did you say then that 1080p will never catch on?

Probably but there was a reason to go to 720p/1080p vs SD. 1080p content still hasn't taken over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Do you really think a 4" phone should have the same resolution as a 75" TV?

The viewing distance has to be factored into it, the resolution isn't meaningful when you separate it from distance. If you were looking at a billboard, you could ask why the PPI is so low when it's showing text but it's because it's further away. Like I say, IMAX is 90ft diagonal. There are a set of calculations for each size at the following site:

http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes-by-dr-optoglass-the-resolution-of-the-human-eye/
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v 
I wonder how much of that is because content distributors are still charging more for HD content? Continuing to present HD as a "premium" product rather than just the current "standard" is getting a little tiresome now. It's 2013 -- HD is no longer a novelty, it's the norm. For me, paying 25-33% more for an already expensive movie or TV series is a deterrent.

You can bet providers will try adding a further premium for UHD content too.
post #59 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

So docking stations. That's it. 

 

Do you have any idea how many people actually use docking stations versus those that use JBODs or RAIDs? 

 

No one cares about docking stations. I feel justified in my overarching statement because you feel justified in yours.

 

Of course¡

 

LOL!  They don't use them because they couldn't BUY them!!!!   RAIDs in home use?  Are you nuts?  Forget about businesses.  Get a figure for how many homes (not offices) have Macs and/or Thunderbolt computers.  Normal homes with normal people.  Apple's target buyer.  Those millions.  Then get a figure for how many of them have RAIDs in the home.     A blip, if that.   What a funny notion that RAIDs are causing people to not have gone out and bought Thunderbolt Docking Stations.

 

And why did I even bother mentioning everything ASIDE from docks if you're going to quote me as if I only had docks as an argument?

 

But I'll have some of what you're smoking, please.

post #60 of 101
Well question so is the Mac line going to be the only line to get original thunderbolt, and when this comes out the new accessories not work with the 2 thunderbolt ports on the brand new MacBook Pro with 15 retina display I activated yesterday?
post #61 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

That is all sorts of wrong. You made this statement before where you think that a higher PPI means that you need to sit closer. It's the other way around. A high PPI allows you sit farther away whilst still getting a Retina effect. Again, 1080p isn't cutting it as we move into larger and larger displays. For example (like I showed in the other thread), a 55" 1080p HDTV will require the user to sit up to 7' away to get the minimum Retina effect for someone with 20/20(6/6) vision. Unless you want to argue that HEC displays will not get bigger and that living rooms will get shorter thus making 1080p the only option for the foreseeable future but that's a hard position to reasonably take, especially with Intel, VESA, HDMI Consortium, Sony, etc. all supporting 4K right now.

 

No, the reason IS to sit closer with a wider horizontal field of view.  1080p is "retina" with 30 degrees horizontal FOV to replicate the movie theater experience in the VERY last row.  Sitting further away from the same size TV negates the resolution advantage AND minimizes any attempt to improve immersion via the "induction effect".

 

What you wrote is stupid.  By definition the further away you are, even with 1080p sets, the more "retina effect" you have since the pixel sizes are even smaller and less resolvable even with better than 20/20 vision.  Sitting further than 7 ft away from a 55" 4K set is asinine.  You want to sit CLOSER than 7 ft from a 55" set but currently you cannot.

 

A 55" 1080p set at 7 feet is like the very last row in a movie theater.  You can sit no closer than 7.15 ft and have the "retina effect".

A 55" 1080p set at 4.82 feet is like the optimum row in a movie theater (as defined by 20th Century Fox with 45 degrees Horizontal Viewing Angle for 2.39 letterbox) but far too close and you see lots of pixel structure.

A 55" 4K set at 4.82 feet is is like the optimum row in a movie theater AND better than "retina" (which is anything farther away than 3.58 feet).

 

A 85" 4K set at 7.45 feet is like the optimum row in a movie theater.

post #62 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

No, the reason IS to sit closer with a wider horizontal field of view.  1080p is "retina" with 30 degrees horizontal FOV to replicate the movie theater experience in the VERY last row.  Sitting further away from the same size TV negates the resolution advantage AND minimizes any attempt to improve immersion via the "induction effect".

What you wrote is stupid.  By definition the further away you are, even with 1080p sets, the more "retina effect" you have since the pixel sizes are even smaller and less resolvable even with better than 20/20 vision.  Sitting further than 7 ft away from a 55" 4K set is asinine.  You want to sit CLOSER than 7 ft from a 55" set but currently you cannot.

A 55" 1080p set at 7 feet is like the very last row in a movie theater.  You can sit no closer than 7.15 ft and have the "retina effect".
A 55" 1080p set at 4.82 feet is like the optimum row in a movie theater (as defined by 20th Century Fox with 45 degrees Horizontal Viewing Angle for 2.39 letterbox) but far too close and you see lots of pixel structure.
A 55" 4K set at 4.82 feet is is like the optimum row in a movie theater AND better than "retina" (which is anything farther away than 3.58 feet).

A 85" 4K set at 7.45 feet is like the optimum row in a movie theater.

You're repeating what I wrote except for some nonsense that 1080p replicates sitting in the back row of a theater. First of all, theater screens nor their seating capacity, rows and row widths are standardized so you can't possibly say that as fact. Secondly, 1080p TVs are not all the same size thus making a larger TV have larger pixels and therefore affect the minimum viewing distance for the Retina effect.

As I very clearly stated, as TVs grow larger the average sitting distance will make the Retina effect vanish thus the need for a higher resolution display and content to increase the viewing experience. This is math and you can not argue with it.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #63 of 101

Fact:  I often trade resolution for screen size by sitting within 5 feet of my 55" HDTV because I'm too lazy to fire up my 100" projector screen.

 

A 4K 100" screen would be killer since I could sit at 8.5 feet, have better than retina resolution and be around where I usually like to sit in the theater in terms of screen size (how much the screen covers my field of view).  Currently for a 100" screen to have retina resolution I need to sit no closer than 13 feet.

 

The sheer size and resolution would make sports look even more awesome although 1080p is already pretty good.

post #64 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Fact:  I often trade resolution for screen size by sitting within 5 feet of my 55" HDTV because I'm too lazy to fire up my 100" projector screen.

A 4K 100" screen would be killer since I could sit at 8.5 feet, have better than retina resolution and be around where I usually like to sit in the theater in terms of screen size (how much the screen covers my field of view).  Currently for a 100" screen to have retina resolution I need to sit no closer than 13 feet.

The sheer size and resolution would make sports look even more awesome although 1080p is already pretty good.

You're arguing my points. 5' is pretty damn close to sit. My living isn't exceptional and my eyes to the TV on the wall are right around 7' 9". That makes 1080p perfectly acceptable but it's not a large display thus it has the Retina effect. When the prices come down for a 60" plus K display I will buy one. I will not buy a 60" plus 1080p display. They are here, they will get cheaper, adoption will happen, and I predict it will be better than the fiasco we experienced with HD and FullHD.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #65 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


You're repeating what I wrote except for some nonsense that 1080p replicates sitting in the back row of a theater. First of all, theater screens nor their seating capacity, rows and row widths are standardized so you can't possibly say that as fact. Secondly, 1080p TVs are not all the same size thus making a larger TV have larger pixels and therefore affect the minimum viewing distance for the Retina effect.

As I very clearly stated, as TVs grow larger the average sitting distance will make the Retina effect vanish thus the need for a higher resolution display and content to increase the viewing experience. This is math and you can not argue with it.

 

No, what you wrote is backwards.  "Retina effect" is when you have greater than 60 pixels per degree of viewing angle.  It means that the pixels are more or less too small to resolve (there are caveats, but we'll skip them).  This is dependent on both resolution and distance.  Yes a larger TV means you have to sit further from the TV to have "retina" resolution so the OBJECTIVE is to be able to sit closer without seeing pixel structure.  NOT to be able to sit further away as you stated.

 

In case you forgot this is what you wrote:

 

 

Quote:
A higher PPI doesn't force you to sit closer, it allows you to sit farther away and still get the Retina effect.

 

The correct statement is a higher PPI ALLOWS you to sit closer and still get the Retina effect.

 

Induction effect is when you have greater than 30 degrees horizontal viewing angle (HVA) and you get a big increase in immersion into the scene because it covers so much of your field of view.  This is the second part of the HDTV spec and just as important as the 60 PPD number and how the 1080 resolution was selected.  This defines the DISTANCE part of the equation given a 16:9 aspect ratio screen.

 

Yes, theater sizes are standardized as a function of screen height.  SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) has a minimum viewing distance (2 x picture height), a reference distance (3 x picture height) and a maximum (4 x picture height).

 

THX also certifies theaters and their requirements are slightly different from the SMPTE ones and are based on HVA.  Maximum recommended distance (aka furthest row) of 36 degrees HVA (i.e. something that 1080P cannot meet) with a maximum acceptable being 26 degrees HVA (back of the theater).

 

"The recommended audience viewing angle for the Cinemascope image (2.39:1) from the farthest seat in the auditorium is 36 degrees. The minimum acceptable angle is 26 degrees."

 

 

See that 4x screen height SMPTE line?  The 1080 HDTV spec puts you behind that SMPTE farthest line and behind the farthest recommended rear seat for THX certified theaters in that gray region.  They'll certify a theater out to 26 degrees but unless you like sitting in those last few rows of theaters barely in spec that's the best that reasonably priced home theater equipment can currently generate until 4K sources and 4K displays become common.

 

You don't know what you are talking about and yet you seem so confident to tell other folks they don't know what they are talking about.  This is both amusing and annoying.

post #66 of 101
edit: Ah. I see where I switched a word around.
Edited by SolipsismX - 4/9/13 at 6:07pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #67 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


What you said is what is what I stated and what I stated is correct.

 

How you can say that after clipping the quote where you say the exact opposite is beyond me.  

 

You misspoke, I corrected you and you doubled down by asserting that theaters don't have standards which is clearly wrong.

post #68 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

If you have a 30 PPI display the minimum distance to still get the Retina effect is just over 9.5 feet.

If you have a 60 PPI display minimum distance to still get the Retina effect is just over 4.7 feet.

 

Yes, and unless you have a requirement for 30 degrees HVA then a 30 PPI display meets retina requirements and you can stop there.

 

The reason that 4K is desired by many isn't because of the "retina effect" which we already have but because of the desire for a greater than 30 degrees HVA and a more immersive experience closer to what we get in the theater.

post #69 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

How you can say that after clipping the quote where you say the exact opposite is beyond me.  

You misspoke, I corrected you and you doubled down by asserting that theaters don't have standards which is clearly wrong.

So you do think that a higher PPI forces you to sit closer. You do think that a higher PPI means you can't sit farther away and still get the Retina effect for the same size display. You seriously don't see what is wrong with your logic? 1rolleyes.gif

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #70 of 101

Higher PPI means you can sit a bit closer and still enjoy the same visual clarity (whether Retina or not).  How much closer depends on how much higher the PPI is obv.  You can sit further away too, but you'll be missing out on image fidelity, so doing so would be pretty pointless.

 

Don't see what's so difficult about that.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #71 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


So you do think that a higher PPI forces you to sit closer. You do think that a higher PPI means you can't sit farther away and still get the Retina effect for the same size display. You seriously don't see what is wrong with your logic? 1rolleyes.gif

 

I already wrote what I think.  A higher PPI allows you to sit closer.  A desire for a higher HVA forces you to sit closer.  A higher PPI doesn't matter if you want to sit further away so that last sentence is stupid.  Your statement regarding theaters was incorrect.

 

Marvin's opinion was valid:

 

 

Quote:
I don't think 4K is beneficial at those sizes. You'd have to be less than 6ft away - who sits less than 6ft away from a 60" TV? With an 85" display, I could see some people sitting closer than 10ft away. Between 60"-85", any pixels/blurriness would be more noticeable the higher up it went.

 

Despite all your accusations that Marvin is wrong it turns out he's right.  The reason he's right is because most folks don't want to sit close enough to the TV for 4K to matter.  It's more fatiguing based on a subjective assessment of fatigue in a study using a 42" plasma at varying distance.  Most folks preferred to be 3-4 screen heights from the TV.  

 

At 3-4 times screen heights from the TV 4K screens make little difference.  We're back in 1080 territory.

 


 

So you actually do need to sit closer (forced if you like) for the PPI difference to matter.  If you sit further away it makes no difference and you just paid a lot of money and bandwidth for no perceivable gain.

 

That said, in actuality the preferred viewing distance appears to be a function of screen size.  The absolute distance doesn't vary as radically as much as a function of screen height.

 

This iTU paper has data describing the relationship between Preferred Viewing Distance (PVD) and Designed Viewing Distance (DVD)

 

Recommendation  ITU-R  BT.2022 - General viewing conditions for subjective assessment of quality of SDTV and HDTV television pictures on flat panel displays

 

You'll have to google it.  Safari wont give me a usable link but here's the relevant data.

 

PVD vs screen size:

 

 

 

See that slope on the left?  That's Marvin being right.  Most people prefer to sit far away (as a function of screen height) for screen sizes under 55" to the point where 1080p HDTV is good enough.   2160p UHD matters a lot more for the larger screen sizes because people sit closer as a function of screen height and therefore pixel size even though the absolute distance may not be all that different.

 

DVD On Table 1:

 

For 1920x1080 HDTV the optimal horizontal viewing angle is 31 degrees at 3.2 screen height distance.

For 3840x2160 UHD the optimal horizontal viewing angle is 58 degrees at 1.6 screen height distance.

 

The DESIGN distance for 2160p 4K UHD is a mere 1.6 screen height distance.  Where does that correlate with the distances found in previous studies regarding preferred viewing distance?  In that 85"+ range.    

 

Even for 65" TVs it appears most folks prefer to sit in that 3x screen height range anyway. The improvements will be incremental until you hit that 80"+ range and folks prefer to be at the 2x screen height range.  1.6x screen height is pretty damn close even for me.

post #72 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The reason he's right is because most folks don't want to sit close enough to the TV for 4K to matter.

Again you assume that the size will somehow stay at some diminutive level. You can buy 60" plus HDTVs for under $1000. You really think the future of the HEC display will be for them to shrink in size so that 1080p will always look Retina or that living room couches will be pushed farther back so that 1080p is the only choice for the future with ever increasing display sizes? Seriously? Bottom line: 4K will replace 1080p!

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #73 of 101

tl;dr 

 

4K matters to AV geeks who have screens bigger than 70".  Everyone else probably wont care that much until it drops into that $2-3K range for a 70"+ UHD TV which won't be 2014.  Even $5K is pricey for a TV.  

 

There are journaled papers that nobody but AV geeks and TV/Movie engineers will read that show this is to be likely the outcome based on where people like to sit to watch TV.

post #74 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

tl;dr 

4K matters to AV geeks who have screens bigger than 70".  Everyone else probably wont care that much until it drops into that $2-3K range for a 70"+ UHD TV which won't be 2014.  Even $5K is pricey for a TV.  

There are journaled papers that nobody but AV geeks and TV/Movie engineers will read that show this is to be likely the outcome based on where people like to sit to watch TV.

1) 6 sentences is too long when you keep posting pages of irrelevant data? :facepalm:

2) $5K in less than 2 weeks. No one has stated that 4K will be popular right now. If you can't understand the meaning of the word future than there is more wrong with your statements that 1080p is all we'll ever need.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #75 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Again you assume that the size will somehow stay at some diminutive level. You can buy 60" plus HDTVs for under $1000. You really think the future of the HEC display will be for them to shrink in size so that 1080p will always look Retina or that living room couches will be pushed farther back so that 1080p is the only choice for the future with ever increasing display sizes? Seriously? Bottom line: 4K will replace 1080p!

 

No, I assume that the price won't drop as rapidly as you seem to think and market penetration will not be high until you can get a 70" UHD screen for around $2-$3K.

 

Even then 70"+ of glass is huge to move around and finding a wall for it can be moderately challenging in many homes. Even though the Chinese are showing their ability to make 84" and 110" glass cuts getting that into your house and on the wall is rough even if it's "only" $6K.  The LG Hecto laser projector looks promising.  The advantage for projectors is that you can easily make the screen disappear but they have many other downsides to be viable for the masses.

 

Bottom line: 4K will replace 1080 but not for years.

 

Been there.  Done that.  It takes a while.  

 

And this sidesteps the fact that many of your earlier statements were incorrect.

post #76 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) 6 sentences is too long when you keep posting pages of irrelevant data? :facepalm:

2) $5K in less than 2 weeks. No one has stated that 4K will be popular right now. If you can't understand the meaning of the word future than there is more wrong with your statements that 1080p is all we'll ever need.

 

It was in reference to my long post.  The data is not irrelevant, you simply choose to remain ignorant.  The fact is that most folks don't get all the benefits of even 1080p today because of their preferred seating distance.  The data is there.  So is the data regarding theater standards.

 

There are largish $5K UHD expected to appear from some chinese manufacturers.  I did not say that 1080p is all we'll ever need.  Nice strawman.

 

Your inability to simply admit you wrote something incorrect is highly amusing.

post #77 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

No, I assume that the price won't drop as rapidly as you seem to think and market penetration will not be high until you can get a 70" UHD screen for around $2-$3K.

Even then 70"+ of glass is huge to move around and finding a wall for it can be moderately challenging in many homes. Even though the Chinese are showing their ability to make 84" and 110" glass cuts getting that into your house and on the wall is rough even if it's "only" $6K.  The LG Hecto laser projector looks promising.  The advantage for projectors is that you can easily make the screen disappear but they have many other downsides to be viable for the masses.

Bottom line: 4K will replace 1080 but not for years.

Been there.  Done that.  It takes a while.  

And this sidesteps the fact that many of your earlier statements were incorrect.

1) So now you're again saying what I've been saying all along: 4K will replace 1080p.

2) Of course it takes awhile. Why would you expect people to throw out their current TVs for more expensive TVs that are limited in content?

3) Replace is exact but when it comes to technology we have to use certain metrics. There is rarely any shift in technology that has zero overlap so you need to compare milestones. Duration between first 1080p TV going on sale to first 55" 1080p selling for under $5K. Then compare the firs 4K TV going on sale to the first 55" 4K selling for under $5K. You think that it's taken much longer for that size 4K TV to drop to that price; I don't. If you want research it go ahead, but I have no desire to because I know they will become more common and cheaper in the years to come.

4) Have fun watching 1080p on your 100" projector 5 years from now. That'll be a treat¡

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #78 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Your inability to simply admit you wrote something incorrect is highly amusing.

Accept where I acknowledged I flipped the terms.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #79 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Accept where I acknowledged I flipped the terms.

 

Really? Where?  And where did you acknowledge you were wrong about theaters and the other things you claim were wrong but are in fact correct?

post #80 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Really? Where?  And where did you acknowledge you were wrong about theaters and the other things you claim were wrong but are in fact correct?

1) The previous post (obviously) and in a another post in this thread. It happens. The logic is still sound, but one sentence read incorrectly. However, the context was still the same and my message that HEC displays will continue to grow and as they grow they will push the viewer closer to not having the Retina effect if they maintain the same seating distance and resolution.

2) Show me proof that the last row in every movie theater has to have the the equivalency of 1080p. No less. No more.
Edited by SolipsismX - 4/9/13 at 8:14pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Intel announces next-gen Thunderbolt with 4K resolution support, 20Gbps speeds coming in 2014