Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Sharp] Sharp's new 4K 32" LCD to cost $5,500 USD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Sharp] Sharp's new 4K 32" LCD to cost $5,500 USD - Page 26

post #251 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHighDPI View Post


I want to see everything in 4K@48hz, but it sounds like that would virtually cripple anyone without a big publisher behind them.
How much of the cost in just in rendering time?

Well, right now on the high end of the spectrum we'll have frames in some shots that take between 8 and 20 hours to render. If you watch our "showreel" at this link, those tidal wave shots in Resident Evil 5 took upwards of 100 hours when you add up all my renders needed to make a single frame: http://mrxfx.com/reels

 

4K is 4x more pixels than 2K...and it's pretty linear, so it would almost exactly quadruple our rendering time, assuming the higher density pixels require the same sampling strength as the pixels we watch now. Best case scenario is we sample them a little less since any noise and buzzing would be less visible on denser displays and only triple our render times instead of quad.

 

That means we're looking at render times of 28 to 70 hours for most of our higher end shots, on semi-current 2P LGA 1366 machines. Some day when we have upgrade to 2P Ivy-E Xeon machines instead of 1366, we could see those times drop down to maybe 12 to 28 hours per frame.

 

Unfortunately each film we're also doing more complicated effects and increasing rendering time as well...and the cost to replace 600+ rack units with Ivy-E would be astronomical too. Millions.

 

So basically, no, I'm really not looking forward to 4K.

 

I can guarantee you though that most studios won't render 4K. They'll render 3K, upsize it, and no one will be able to tell enough of a difference to call it. Hell, HD is already done like that in some commercial houses...render at 720p and scale 50%. Once things are moving on the screen, it's much harder to tell than on a still.

 

We ARE a big producer, and it would cripple us. Stereoscopic already hurts and it's only double render times.

2P Workstation
(13 items)
 
  
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
Xeon E5 2699 v3 Xeon E5 2699 v3 ASUS Z10PE-D16 EVGA TITAN X 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
128GB Crucial DDR4 @ 2133MHz Intel 750 Series 1.2TB 4 x 4TB Constellation RAID5 2 x XSPC Raystorms 
CoolingCoolingMonitorMonitor
RS480 MCP655 Dell U3011 Dell U3011 
Case
Silverstone TJ07 
  hide details  
Reply
2P Workstation
(13 items)
 
  
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
Xeon E5 2699 v3 Xeon E5 2699 v3 ASUS Z10PE-D16 EVGA TITAN X 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
128GB Crucial DDR4 @ 2133MHz Intel 750 Series 1.2TB 4 x 4TB Constellation RAID5 2 x XSPC Raystorms 
CoolingCoolingMonitorMonitor
RS480 MCP655 Dell U3011 Dell U3011 
Case
Silverstone TJ07 
  hide details  
Reply
post #252 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallsignVega View Post

Anyone post this yet?

that panel in portrait was sexy as hell.
AMD Transplant
(11 items)
 
To be a NAS
(13 items)
 
Death Kühler
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
965BE GA-78LMT-S2P MSI TFIII 7950 Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 830 Noctua NH-D14 Win7 Pro FX2490HD 
PowerCaseMouse
Seasonic X660 Antec Three Hundred Saitek Rat 7 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Gateway GM5072 AMD HD5550 2.0 Gb 
Hard DriveMonitorKeyboardPower
Seagate Barracuda 500Gb Samsung FX2490 MS Keyboard 3000 300w generic 
Mouse
MS Intellipoint 3000 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k GigaByte Z68M-D2H-B3 MSI 560 Ti TFIII Corsair Vengance 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 830 Antec Khuler 920 Win7 HP Samsung FX2490 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Keyboard 3000 Seasonic X-660 Antec Three Hundred Microsoft Mouse 3000 
Mouse PadAudio
None - Blue Track baby Senn HD428 
  hide details  
Reply
AMD Transplant
(11 items)
 
To be a NAS
(13 items)
 
Death Kühler
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
965BE GA-78LMT-S2P MSI TFIII 7950 Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 830 Noctua NH-D14 Win7 Pro FX2490HD 
PowerCaseMouse
Seasonic X660 Antec Three Hundred Saitek Rat 7 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Gateway GM5072 AMD HD5550 2.0 Gb 
Hard DriveMonitorKeyboardPower
Seagate Barracuda 500Gb Samsung FX2490 MS Keyboard 3000 300w generic 
Mouse
MS Intellipoint 3000 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k GigaByte Z68M-D2H-B3 MSI 560 Ti TFIII Corsair Vengance 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 830 Antec Khuler 920 Win7 HP Samsung FX2490 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Keyboard 3000 Seasonic X-660 Antec Three Hundred Microsoft Mouse 3000 
Mouse PadAudio
None - Blue Track baby Senn HD428 
  hide details  
Reply
post #253 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camph View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paratrooper1n0 View Post

HD 7750, just for everyday use. 7970 recommended for gaming though.

Isn't the maximum supported resolution on those 2560x1600? 4k is way higher than that.

Nope. the DP and HDMI ports support 4k. DP @ 60Hz I believe and HDMI @ 24Hz.
post #254 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by kweechy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHighDPI View Post

I want to see everything in 4K@48hz, but it sounds like that would virtually cripple anyone without a big publisher behind them.

How much of the cost in just in rendering time?
Well, right now on the high end of the spectrum we'll have frames in some shots that take between 8 and 20 hours to render. If you watch our "showreel" at this link, those tidal wave shots in Resident Evil 5 took upwards of 100 hours when you add up all my renders needed to make a single frame: http://mrxfx.com/reels

4K is 4x more pixels than 2K...and it's pretty linear, so it would almost exactly quadruple our rendering time, assuming the higher density pixels require the same sampling strength as the pixels we watch now. Best case scenario is we sample them a little less since any noise and buzzing would be less visible on denser displays and only triple our render times instead of quad.

That means we're looking at render times of 28 to 70 hours for most of our higher end shots, on semi-current 2P LGA 1366 machines. Some day when we have upgrade to 2P Ivy-E Xeon machines instead of 1366, we could see those times drop down to maybe 12 to 28 hours per frame.

Unfortunately each film we're also doing more complicated effects and increasing rendering time as well...and the cost to replace 600+ rack units with Ivy-E would be astronomical too. Millions.

So basically, no, I'm really not looking forward to 4K.

I can guarantee you though that most studios won't render 4K. They'll render 3K, upsize it, and no one will be able to tell enough of a difference to call it. Hell, HD is already done like that in some commercial houses...render at 720p and scale 50%. Once things are moving on the screen, it's much harder to tell than on a still.

We ARE a big producer, and it would cripple us. Stereoscopic already hurts and it's only double render times.

Very cool, but you didn't exactly answer my question (not that there's any obligation, thank you for your time. And yes I realize that not everyone knows everything and I may be asking too much).
I'm wondering if rendering time is actually a significant portion of the production cost vs. artist workload. From what I've read the polygon counts in CGI movies have always been insanely high just to give it a clean look (I'm thinking of Tron and Toy Story).
Point being it sounds like movies should inherently have more than enough detail for very high resolution displays, in which case rendering time may be the only thing that actually changes with higher resolution. If artist workload is the main production cost and that doesn't change, then the overall cost of doing higher resolution movies may not actually be a lot higher, you just have to sit there waiting longer (or quadruple the size/power of your rendering farm).


It actually surprises me that a few million dollars for a hardware upgrade would be an issue, what with movie budgets regularly running into hundreds of millions of dollars. I guess a publisher owned CGI studio would be different from something independently run. The big wigs wouldn't want to just give an independent company a free hardware upgrade.
When I say "big publisher" I'm thinking of projects headed by people like Peter Jackson or James Cameron where the publisher will throw everything they have at them. If the CGI department says their machines would take ten years to render everything in The Hobbit, then PJ gets them what it takes to fulfil his vision for the movie within his production schedule (or maybe I have unrealistic assumptions of how much control producers have over the budget?) in which case the upgrade would have to cost a whole stinking lot to make them hold back on their goals.
post #255 of 286
Too much $$$. Wonder how much it actually cost to design? How much they cost to make now that they know what to do? I'd say $1200 is reasonable. Can't expect to gain market attention unless they drop the price or give a bunch away as sweepstakes
Kilo 3.0
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 2500K Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3P HIS HD6970 1GB 8GB G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
OCZ Vertex 3 Seagate Barricuda Seagate GoFlex WD Passport 
Optical DriveOptical DriveCoolingCooling
Lite-On BD-RW ASUS DVD-RW Cooler Master H80 Arctic Cooling Twin Turbo II 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8 Pro 25" Hanns.G K710 Corsair TX750 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Cooler Master 690 M710 XTrac Ripper Logitech 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Kilo 3.0
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 2500K Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3P HIS HD6970 1GB 8GB G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
OCZ Vertex 3 Seagate Barricuda Seagate GoFlex WD Passport 
Optical DriveOptical DriveCoolingCooling
Lite-On BD-RW ASUS DVD-RW Cooler Master H80 Arctic Cooling Twin Turbo II 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8 Pro 25" Hanns.G K710 Corsair TX750 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Cooler Master 690 M710 XTrac Ripper Logitech 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #256 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIMPSONATOR View Post

Too much $$$. Wonder how much it actually cost to design? How much they cost to make now that they know what to do? I'd say $1200 is reasonable. Can't expect to gain market attention unless they drop the price or give a bunch away as sweepstakes

At $1200 they would be going negative in profits and then the project would be scrapped.
Do some research before talking about this stuff. (Advice)
post #257 of 286
I wouldn't want one at all. LCD makes me vomit. I'd rather get a low resolution oled screen than a high resolution lcd.
post #258 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Microtom View Post

I wouldn't want one at all. LCD makes me vomit. I'd rather get a low resolution oled screen than a high resolution lcd.

LMAO! LED is just a lighting method. It's still LCD technology in them. There is LED LCD and CCFL (Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp) LCD.
post #259 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paratrooper1n0 View Post

LMAO! LED is just a lighting method. It's still LCD technology in them. There is LED LCD and CCFL (Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp) LCD.

In OLED displays there is an OLED that represents each sub-pixel (red, green, blue, and even white in LG displays). There is no need for an LCD to filter the light. The only drawback of OLEDs is their lifespan compared to LCDs (specifically blue OLEDs).

At CES this year Sony showed off their Crystal LED display which used traditional LEDs as each sub-pixel. It could be the answer to the lifespan issue of OLEDs, but little is known about this display. Considering it only demonstrated static images means it is probably no where near the maturity level of OLEDs.
Lil Burninator
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770K ASUS Gryphon CF R9 290Xs Samsung 4x4GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung EVO 1TB 2x 240s | 360 | MPC35X | Mostly BP W7 Pre x64 XL2720T 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
K70 AX1200 CaseLabs S5 + Ped G700/Mamba 
Mouse PadAudio
Vespula WA7 + KRK RP6s + HD650s 
  hide details  
Reply
Lil Burninator
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770K ASUS Gryphon CF R9 290Xs Samsung 4x4GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung EVO 1TB 2x 240s | 360 | MPC35X | Mostly BP W7 Pre x64 XL2720T 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
K70 AX1200 CaseLabs S5 + Ped G700/Mamba 
Mouse PadAudio
Vespula WA7 + KRK RP6s + HD650s 
  hide details  
Reply
post #260 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeing Red View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paratrooper1n0 View Post

LMAO! LED is just a lighting method. It's still LCD technology in them. There is LED LCD and CCFL (Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp) LCD.

In OLED displays there is an OLED that represents each sub-pixel (red, green, blue, and even white in LG displays). There is no need for an LCD to filter the light. The only drawback of OLEDs is their lifespan compared to LCDs (specifically blue OLEDs).

At CES this year Sony showed off their Crystal LED display which used traditional LEDs as each sub-pixel. It could be the answer to the lifespan issue of OLEDs, but little is known about this display. Considering it only demonstrated static images means it is probably no where near the maturity level of OLEDs.

Yeah, considering my TV on average is on for >12 hours a day, the lifespan of an OLED TV would be a little less than 4 years in my ownership. I'll just stick to LCD displays.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Sharp] Sharp's new 4K 32" LCD to cost $5,500 USD