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 28

post #271 of 286
It seems prudent, at this juncture, to quote myself. Normally I wouldn't do this, but this thread has... uh, taken a turn for the less accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thracks View Post

I think we can reasonably expect IGZO to win out over OLED. It's cheaper, more reliable, more scalable and offers better ppi. Plus IGZO has inherent momentum, as it's closer to the current design of LCDs than OLEDs, meaning less to change at the factory.


There are also many types of 4K, and they're all 4K:
  • Digital Cinema 4K (2.39:1 AR): 3996x1714
  • 4K HD a.k.a. "Quad HD" a.k.a. UHD (16:9 AR): 3840x2160
  • Digital Cinema 4K (1.85:1 AR): 3996x2160
  • Digital Cinema 4K (1.9:1 AR): 4096x2160
  • 4K Super 166 (1.66:1 AR): 4096x2468
  • Academy 4K (1.37:1 AR): 3656x2664
  • Full Aperture 4K (1.32:1 AR): 4096x3072
  • 4K Super 178 (16:9 AR): 4096x2304
post #272 of 286
Holy jesus there's finally an affordable one.. I use the term affordable loosely but, you all know what I mean ._.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 2500K ASUS P8P67 Pro Gigabyte Radeon HD 7970 Super Overclock Windfor... Patriot Viper Extreme 8GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Caviar Black 2TB Caviar Black 1TB LG Disk Drive Cooler Master Hyper N520 
OSMonitorMonitorMonitor
Windows 7 Professional 64bit Seiki 39" 4K HP 2311x HP 2311x 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G510 Kingwin Black Box 750w NZXT Phantom White Logitech G9x 
Mouse PadAudioAudio
Custom Dokuro-Chan Mousepad Pioneer BS21 'Andrew Jones' Pair Creative XtremeGamer Sound Card 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 2500K ASUS P8P67 Pro Gigabyte Radeon HD 7970 Super Overclock Windfor... Patriot Viper Extreme 8GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Caviar Black 2TB Caviar Black 1TB LG Disk Drive Cooler Master Hyper N520 
OSMonitorMonitorMonitor
Windows 7 Professional 64bit Seiki 39" 4K HP 2311x HP 2311x 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G510 Kingwin Black Box 750w NZXT Phantom White Logitech G9x 
Mouse PadAudioAudio
Custom Dokuro-Chan Mousepad Pioneer BS21 'Andrew Jones' Pair Creative XtremeGamer Sound Card 
  hide details  
Reply
post #273 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stocking View Post

Holy jesus there's finally an affordable one.. I use the term affordable loosely but, you all know what I mean ._.

Considering this is the only one... (Monitor).
post #274 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHighDPI View Post


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.

Ah okay, I understand more what you're asking now.

 

Rendering time isn't THAT bad in terms of overall production cost, but keep in mind here that you're thinking more along the lines of Weta Digital, ILM, Pixar, etc., guys that own large shares in the movies they make AND charge top dollar for their services. Rendering is a HUGE bottleneck though, and in really bad cases will start to waste artist time...then you really begin losing money.

 

Our firm isn't top-rung like them. We do tons of stuff on films with 80M+ budgets, and we get shots on A-list titles, but never at the scale that they do and we're more for fitting a budget than "we MUST get Mr. X to do our work so the film looks like we imagined!" Not to dog on us though, because we do crank out some absolutely kick ass work as you can see in that reel. We'll get paid something in the neighborhood of $17M for our work on Resident Evil 5 as an example. A big chunk of change, no doubt...but with 120+ artists, a three floor studio downtown, 600+ rackmounted Xeons, 120+ Xeon workstations, and a few hundred TB worth of servers, there probably isn't a ton left over. Upgrading the farm from 2P 1366/1P 1155 to 2P 2011 would be a significant portion of our yearly profits if I had to guess...maybe even put us in the red if it's all in one year.

 

Back to your other questions though about what might be involved in 4K rendering...you're correct in thinking that the detail already in our assets' models would probably more than hold up at 4K resolution. Fur and water effects would probably not, and require heavier simulations and denser grooming/guide curve generation. I think a lot of our texture painting would need to be kicked up a notch, get more detailed, more crisp. It would take some beast workstations to paint those well...64GB mem with a Quadro 6000 or something like that. We'd be talking about dozens of 8K texture maps on a single asset.

 

Big publishers have a lot of luxuries too like access to power and infrastructure that we don't. We've basically maxed out the grid's delivery at our location right now, I don't think we can add more blades even if I wanted to, and it could be than a Xeon E5 upgrade isn't even possible for us right now.

 

Weta has a 6,000+ blade render farm to give you an idea...in a massive, private, data center that they built and wired from the ground up. The plebs like us have to create makeshift setups in whatever office building the studio space lives in.

 

So basically, Weta, ILM; they're Tier 1. Framestore, MPC, Cinesite, and a handful of others; they're Tier 1.5. Guys like us are Tier 2.

 

The Tier 1/1.5 guys wouldn't be hurt terribly badly by a move to 4K, but Tier 2 would be crushed right now if it were to happen.


Edited by kweechy - 12/7/12 at 9:15am
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 #275 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paratrooper1n0 View Post

Like I said, our eyes like to trick us. The trail may be in a tighter formation on a 120Hz display. But that doesn't mean we are seeing every single frame... our brain holds back our eyes a little. /remembrance.
How much? Compared to say a computer, science says something around 15... 15 what? Compared to video, 15 FPS. Compared to electricity, 15Hz. I don't understand it sometimes when I remember it, but then it makes sense when the only time things look like a slideshow is below 15FPS.
But, do our eyes see more? Possibly, but not all of the info can be processed by our brains. SO, I am wrong. And at the same time, so are you... why? Because someone chose to come back at your claims with other statements without realizing the views are similar. We can never be 100% correct on this subject because we will end up contradicting ourselves due to ignorance, or in my case, forgetfulness.
In the end, 60Hz is more than enough. 120Hz is luxury. And nothing today has changed my opinions, but there is a bit that has helped me remember some things.

Its different for every human but yes I have seen 240Hertz and 120Hertz screens , 240 has a seriously noticeable difference. There was another person with me and he gasped at it before I did , although 240Hertz screens are out of my budget... But Im sorry to disagree @ 60hertz is more than enough because as soon as I change my resolution higher and degrade hertz to anything below 85 , i.e 75 or 60 , my eyes start paining and i get tears. This is the reason I had a monitor upgrade 4 years ago.
post #276 of 286
I did search 28 pages but didn't find mention of the actual refresh

I do remember that HDMi was getting fairly constrained at 4k with regards to refresh. The new Sony 4K projector ( £10,000 ! ) cant do more than 24hz (24FPS) in 4K and that's proper state of the art technology.
So yea im all for 4K but make sure your digital interface can supply 60hz first, let alone 120hz !


My take is that given pixel pitch and the like, i wouldn't go replacing a 1440p 27" or a 1600p 30" for a 4k 32" . I would love to be able to drive the games but if there aren't proper 4k ready models and textures then you can kiss any benefit good bye and if it runs dog slow FPS/HZ to the eye then what's the point ? Im sat 40cm from a 25" 1080p and yes its a bit low on PPI but its not disastrous, i could put a 1440p 27" in front of me, have an ideal screen size and twice the pixels and have a chance of driving it !
Edited by Pip Boy - 12/28/12 at 3:21pm
post #277 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by phill1978 View Post

I did search 28 pages but didn't find mention of the actual refresh
I do remember that HDMi was getting fairly constrained at 4k with regards to refresh. The new Sony 4K projector ( £10,000 ! ) cant do more than 24hz (24FPS) in 4K and that's proper state of the art technology.
So yea im all for 4K but make sure your digital interface can supply 60hz first, let alone 120hz !

DisplayPort should be able to drive these screens at 60 Hz.

I can't wait for the first pics of someone's setup with 3 of these lined up in portrait. biggrin.gif
post #278 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by phill1978 View Post

I did search 28 pages but didn't find mention of the actual refresh
I do remember that HDMi was getting fairly constrained at 4k with regards to refresh. The new Sony 4K projector ( £10,000 ! ) cant do more than 24hz (24FPS) in 4K and that's proper state of the art technology.
So yea im all for 4K but make sure your digital interface can supply 60hz first, let alone 120hz !

My take is that given pixel pitch and the like, i wouldn't go replacing a 1440p 27" or a 1600p 30" for a 4k 32" . I would love to be able to drive the games but if there aren't proper 4k ready models and textures then you can kiss any benefit good bye and if it runs dog slow FPS/HZ to the eye then what's the point ? Im sat 40cm from a 25" 1080p and yes its a bit low on PPI but its not disastrous, i could put a 1440p 27" in front of me, have an ideal screen size and twice the pixels and have a chance of driving it !

It is 60 Hz refresh. The largest problem for me besides the low refresh is that in games, it wouldn't be the textures that are the problem (I've run many 10+ mil pixel eyefinity/surround setups just fine). The problem would be 4K pixels on a 31.5" screen is going to make game hud, icons, and text extremely small and hard to read. Most games do not have scale-able UI's.
Zybane
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 6950X - 4.5 GHz Edition 10 Rampage V Extreme Titan Xp  G.Skill 32GB 3200 MHz CL14 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
1TB - Samsung SM961 Windows 10 Pro OLED 4K 55" LG C7P Razer BlackWidow TE Stealth Chroma 
PowerMouseAudioAudio
Corsair AX1500i 1500W Titanium Razer Mamba TE Denon AVR-X7200WA Elac BS 312 
AudioAudioAudioOther
Sennheiser HD-700 Headphones Velodyne MiniVee Subwoofer Buttkicker LFE Razer Orbweaver Stealth Chroma 
  hide details  
Reply
Zybane
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 6950X - 4.5 GHz Edition 10 Rampage V Extreme Titan Xp  G.Skill 32GB 3200 MHz CL14 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
1TB - Samsung SM961 Windows 10 Pro OLED 4K 55" LG C7P Razer BlackWidow TE Stealth Chroma 
PowerMouseAudioAudio
Corsair AX1500i 1500W Titanium Razer Mamba TE Denon AVR-X7200WA Elac BS 312 
AudioAudioAudioOther
Sennheiser HD-700 Headphones Velodyne MiniVee Subwoofer Buttkicker LFE Razer Orbweaver Stealth Chroma 
  hide details  
Reply
post #279 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallsignVega View Post

It is 60 Hz refresh. The largest problem for me besides the low refresh is that in games, it wouldn't be the textures that are the problem (I've run many 10+ mil pixel eyefinity/surround setups just fine). The problem would be 4K pixels on a 31.5" screen is going to make game hud, icons, and text extremely small and hard to read. Most games do not have scale-able UI's.

by textures i meant game textures being large enough to be of use so benefiting from the extra detail possibility. But yes the hud would be stupid small
post #280 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallsignVega View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by phill1978 View Post

I did search 28 pages but didn't find mention of the actual refresh
I do remember that HDMi was getting fairly constrained at 4k with regards to refresh. The new Sony 4K projector ( £10,000 ! ) cant do more than 24hz (24FPS) in 4K and that's proper state of the art technology.
So yea im all for 4K but make sure your digital interface can supply 60hz first, let alone 120hz !

My take is that given pixel pitch and the like, i wouldn't go replacing a 1440p 27" or a 1600p 30" for a 4k 32" . I would love to be able to drive the games but if there aren't proper 4k ready models and textures then you can kiss any benefit good bye and if it runs dog slow FPS/HZ to the eye then what's the point ? Im sat 40cm from a 25" 1080p and yes its a bit low on PPI but its not disastrous, i could put a 1440p 27" in front of me, have an ideal screen size and twice the pixels and have a chance of driving it !

It is 60 Hz refresh. The largest problem for me besides the low refresh is that in games, it wouldn't be the textures that are the problem (I've run many 10+ mil pixel eyefinity/surround setups just fine). The problem would be 4K pixels on a 31.5" screen is going to make game hud, icons, and text extremely small and hard to read. Most games do not have scale-able UI's.

That is actually incorrect. 4k pixels on a "31.5" screen current HUD's will be easy to read unless your vision is not that great and you have something against glasses or contacts.
I am on a 17" 1920x1200 screen, the same pixel density as that 4k 32 inch monitor and I can see everything just fine. if the UI/HUD got bigger than I would never, ever game on 4k as I hate when space is wasted thinking I have 20/50 vision.
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