Panasonic unveil 20" 4K tablet

Discussion in 'Industry News' started by blibbax, Jan 8, 2013.

  1. blibbax

    blibbax nahm8

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    6,210
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    73
    "Even if not a product consumers at large will be holding any time soon, it's yet another insult to PC monitor makers that still have the audacity of charging $500 for 27-inch monitors with 1080p."

    Source: NextPowerUp
     
  2. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,667
    Likes Received:
    1,519
    Trophy Points:
    138
    :x yeah!

    Totally agree with the statement about PC Monitors being forever stuck at 1080p or 2560x1440 (and even those suckers are extremely hard to find for anything below $650 that isn't total garbage) being shameful.

    20" 3840x2160.... my gaud my eyes would drool if they had salivia glands..... tear ducts just wouldn't do it justice.

    Now if i can get my hands on say 5x 24" 4k monitors.... i'd be happy as hell.

    Make em 120hz too..... booya
     
  3. comp_ali

    comp_ali Sniper

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    10,427
    Likes Received:
    281
    Trophy Points:
    108
    I still don't get it , how can mobile manufactures make 5" 1080p screens while most big monitors , TV struggle to reach 1080p, most of them are 720p or even lower.
    Something not right here, I feel like being milked.
     
  4. blibbax

    blibbax nahm8

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    6,210
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    73
    The average TV buyer is a lot less tech conscious than the average tablet buyer. And phones and tablets are held closer to your face, so pixel density is more noticeable. That's all I can think of.
     
  5. comp_ali

    comp_ali Sniper

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    10,427
    Likes Received:
    281
    Trophy Points:
    108
    but for 5" would the naked eye be able to tell between 720p and 1080p apart from the smaller icons ? I think not.
     
  6. blibbax

    blibbax nahm8

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    6,210
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Depends how close to your face you hold it.
     
  7. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,667
    Likes Received:
    1,519
    Trophy Points:
    138
    actually yes..... of course based on distance...

    People with reasonable vision and near/far sighted balance can see details in the leaves of trees 1/4 mile away.

    There will of course be a case in which diminishing returns occurs, but we are far from it.

    There are imo people that are saying how anything higher than 1080p is a total waste in a living room. I find this statement totally and incredible stupid. Considering that 1080p at anything above 50" at a sitting distance of approximately 6-10 feet is already starting to show significant signs of "blur" effect as the pixel sizes increase to cover such a large screen reducing the clarity/sharpness of the original image.

    It's NO different than seeing a standard definition tv at 27" or larger appears to get blurry at a 6 ft distance requireing you to continously sit back further to get a better "quality" image.

    The detail and depth are provided at higher resolutions. You won't have to sit further back to get as good or better picture viewing.

    The old rule was the larger your screen the further back you HAD to sit. Now, the higher the resolution, the closer you can sit. OR The higher the resolution the larger the screen without needing to change your sitting distance.

    Having viewed a few 4K tvs with 4K content (Sony has over 10x Movies that are 100% 4K over their service system) The 84" Is a MASSIVE difference, utterly incredible, the best 1080p tv out there that is equivilent in size looks like trash, it's like comparing Standard 480i Television to 1080p on a 55" tv..... whole new world.

    Also saw a demoed panasonic projector that is reportedly 4k, @ 100+" screensize the 4k starts to lose it's crispness at which point this is where 8K would clearly win the races.

    While i think the 8k will be the stop gap for home use, i would hope it makes another jump in the future in which you could walk up to a wall, and see such fine minute detail in a single square inch. In a case, lets say an entire 12 foot by 12 foot wall covered in 5" 4k displays.... The resolution would be rediculiously high, and sure... MOST if not almost everyone won't be able to "really" see that level of detail, but it clearly won't matter where you sit or what you do, it'll be 100% perfect.

    Pixel Density above 150 is the wave of the future.. to long we've been sitting in around the 90 +/- and below for small screens.. and dipping well below the 50 marks for large format screens...

    5" = 440ppi @ 1080p
    15.6" = 141ppi
    17.3" = 127ppi
    24" = 91ppi
    27" = 81ppi
    32" = 68ppi
    40" = 55ppi
    55" = 40ppi
    82" = 26ppi
    108" = 20ppi

    Typically any value below 40PPI will start to make it glarying obvious allowing for you to see each pixel and even the minute "space" between each.... this is bad... very very bad..

    now for 4k

    5" = 881ppi
    15.6" = 282ppi
    17.3" = 254ppi
    24" = 183ppi
    27" = 163ppi
    32" = 137ppi
    40" = 110ppi
    55" = 80ppi
    84" = 52ppi
    108" = 40ppi

    So taking into account the above information... it appears anything in around under the 50ppi mark is where the eye really starts to pick up on things being to low of detail/resolution, seeing things it shouldn't. Above that it's mostly happy.... this is for sitting at a distance of 6-10 ft of course.

    For situations like computer use for monitors...

    One of the things i noticed is that i could tolerate and use a 32" 720p display just fine... but a 37 or 40" 720p display was uncomfortable... (3ft distance)

    1280x720

    32" = 45ppi
    40" = 36ppi

    so even though 45 ppi is tolerable at the 3ft distance..... it's definitely not ideal..

    @ the 3ft range i would prefer to have AT LEAST 60+ ppl...

    reason when i got a 40" 1080p .... suddenly i felt considerably more comfortable compared to the 720p. At 110 ppi it looked gaud damn excellent actually.

    When i moved from the 40 1080p to 52" 1080p.... it was again "tolerable" just sitting on the verge of feeling similare to that of the 40" 720p display But still just a hair above 40ppi.

    So i would say.... again... 40ppi seems to be the line, anything below that is rather quite terrible to bother with @ the 3ft range, anything marginally above that is tollerable.... definitely not ideal, anything above 100ppi however at the 3ft range is spectacular.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2013

Share This Page

visited