Comments

Product News
4K Projectors the Future of HD Home Theater?
image
June 16, 2008 | by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
A new generation of projectors from Sony and JVC boast a whopping 4096 x 2400 resolution, more than four times the pixels of 1080p.
View this entire articleView this entire article
Back to top
6 Comments (displaying chronologically) Post a comment
Posted by Aron  on  06/16  at  09:31 PM

You said:
“Simple math shows 4K digital cinema projectors, at 4096 x 2160 pixels like those from Sony, deliver images with more than four times the resolution of 1080p, at 1920 x 1080 (also called 2K).”

Actually, 4K has twice the resolution of 2K, not 4 times. Yes, it offers 4 times as many pixels, but that’s simply what you need in order to double the resolution in a 2D image (e.g., in true 3D—such as a tomogram—you’d need 2^3 = 8 times as many pixels to double the resoution).

Posted by Artur  on  06/16  at  10:06 PM

haha, I work with a SRX-R110 on almost a daily basis, and the trident, while it may look stunning maybe be the worst thing i have ever seen. The whole thing is just ridiculous. If you want to see jaw dropping watch a Baraka on a 4k projector. It is just stunning and you aren’t laughing at how terrible the movie is to notice how great it looks.

Posted by John Singleton  on  06/17  at  09:32 AM

The only reason to spend the money on a 4k projector at home is if you have a huge screen.  I don’t see this being widely adopted except for people with 12+ seating.

Posted by Stephen Gentle  on  08/20  at  12:41 AM

Aron, you are completly wrong.

2K (at 16:9) is 2048*1152 (a bit larger than HD).
4K (at 16:9) is 4096*2304 - twice the size in each dimension, or four times more. So, it has four times the surface area, and therefore four times the pixels…

So it is four times the size, four times the resolution of 2K (and even more than four times HD). It is two times the horizontal resolution, but we’re talking about total resolution here.

Posted by Aron  on  08/21  at  03:39 PM

Stephen, if you’re going to use strong language, like calling someone “complete wrong,” you should first at least know what you’re talking about—which you don’t.  You need to educate yourself on the definition of resolution.  Let me help you:  resolution is smallest interval that can be resolved.  So suppose you have a digital TV that can resolve two points that are 0.1 inches apart.  Now suppose you double the number of pixels in both the horizontal and vertical directions (thus increasing the total number of pixel by 4x).  Doing so now allows the TV to (at best, assuming there are not other limiting factors, like the optics) to resolve two points that are 0.05 inches apart.  I.e., the resolution has been doubled.  It has not increased by 4x.  If it had increased by 4x, you would instead be able to resolve points that are 0.025 inches apart, which you can’t.  If this does not make sense to you, keep reading it until it does.

Posted by Aron  on  08/21  at  10:03 PM

Stephen,

One other thing: please don’t bother citing instances where people misuse the term resolution the same way you do.  They’re simply wrong as well:

From the Wikipedia entry on “image resolution” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution):
“The term resolution is often used as a pixel count in digital imaging, even though American, Japanese, and international standards specify that it should not be so used, at least in the digital camera field.”

See also “Misconception #3: Resolution is expressed in megapixels” in JR Jeffrion’s “Understanding Digital Camera Resolution (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/res-demyst.shtml)

Page 1 of 1 pages


Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

  • News
  • Cool Homes
  • Blogs
  • Photo Galleries