Sony Announces the World's First QD-OLED 4K TV (theverge.com) 44
Sony is setting some pretty grand expectations with its 2022 TV lineup -- led by the introduction of the world's first consumer QD-OLED TV. From a report: The company's current and well-regarded OLED sets use panels from LG Display that are tuned with Sony's own processing. But the new flagship Bravia XR A95K TV will include a QD-OLED (quantum dot organic light emitting diode) panel manufactured by none other than Samsung Display. It'll come in 65-inch and 55-inch sizes, with both coming in at 4K resolution. It was rumored that Samsung Electronics might announce a QD-OLED 4K TV at CES 2022, but that hasn't panned out so far. So it's Sony that gets the prime spotlight instead. Samsung Display has been developing QD-OLED for a number of years, and the display technology could become something of a middle step between standard OLED and the MicroLED displays that only Samsung is selling right now -- for ungodly sums of money. QD-OLED is designed to combine the best traits of OLED (perfect blacks, infinite contrast, etc.) with benefits of quantum dot LED TVs like improved brightness and more vivid color reproduction at higher brightness levels. It's not a major new approach like Micro LED, but more of a progression from where things have stood for a few years.
Its time 4K was given its proper moniker (Score:2)
ie: 2160p
Calling it 4K by counting the horizontal pixels instead of the vertical pixels/lines as has been done previously ever since TV was invented is just cynical marketing designed to sucker people into thinking its far more of a step up from 1080 than it really is.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? 'Television Lines' (TVL) [wikipedia.org] have been an important measurement of video quality since forever. There is a standard (EIA-1956) for measuring it. Nobody ever discussed vertical lines as it was a standard.
Re:Its time 4K was given its proper moniker (Score:4, Informative)
> What are you talking about?
https://ihax.io/display-resolu... [ihax.io]
"If you think 4K and UHD are one and the same, I don’t blame you. I blame the companies that LOVE to use them interchangeably all the time. You pick up a Blu-Ray movie disc of a 4K movie and you will most definitely see an Ultra HD label on it. 4K is actually not a consumer display and broadcast standard but UHD is. 4K displays are used in professional production and digital cinemas and feature 4096 x 2160 pixels."
"UHD features a 16:9 aspect ratio and is twice the resolution of full HD. In other words, two times 1080p, two times 1920 x 1080 pixels, that is 3840 x 2160 pixels. Having the same 16:9 aspect ratio means it is backward compatible with other HD derivates. However, both 4K and UHD can be shortened to 2160p to match the HD standard and therefore, companies use the terms interchangeably."
Re: (Score:2)
I am not saying that they aren't 2160p. I am challenging the assertion that VERTICAL lines were what was counted 'ever since TV was invented'. They weren't. Horizontal lines were what was counted. For instance, if you look at the specs for different video tape formats (beta, super beta, vhs, s-vhs, etc) you will see the difference is in the horizontal lines. The vertical lines were never mentioned, because they were always the same. Same with differences in picture tubes, etc.
Now that both horizontal
Re: (Score:2)
That's because analog TV is wei
Re: (Score:2)
There certainly IS a horizontal resolution in analog. Furthermore, the horizontal resolution is the MOST IMPORTANT measure of picture quality in an analog system. Perhaps what you mean is there was no standard for horizontal resolution, which is true.
The number of lines (vertical resolution) in an analog raster is fixed by the standard(s). It is an utterly useless measure of picture quality. What separates a high quality picture from a low quality picture is the horizontal resolution. And that horizont
Re: (Score:2)
I dislike terms like HD, FHD, and UHD because I've been using computers since the CGA days. VGA, SVGA, and XGA were tolerable. But after that it just became an alphabet soup [l-com.com] that you can't distinguish without looking it up. That defeats the whole purpose of using an abbreviat
Re: (Score:2)
It goes back to CRT when they used scan lines rather than the discreet pixels like modern LCD monitors.
Re: (Score:2)
Except 4801, 720p, and 1080p are VERTICAL resolutions.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
480i = 640 vertical lines x 480 horizontal lines, interleaved
720p = 1280 vertical lines x 720 horizontal lines, progressive
1080p = 1920 vertical lines x 1080 horizontal lines, progressive
Pixel count would be even more worthless. At least the above are proper video standards.
Re: (Score:2)
MachineShedFred insisted:
Nope.
480i = 640 vertical lines x 480 horizontal lines, interleaved 720p = 1280 vertical lines x 720 horizontal lines, progressive 1080p = 1920 vertical lines x 1080 horizontal lines, progressive
Nope.
The lines themselves are horizontal. The number of lines is how many of them are stacked one atop another, vertically.
The larger, companion number is the width of each line. In pixels.
I only know this because of a previous career in video production and editing going back to the days of the NTSC standard [wikipedia.org] - from which we get the 480i digital resolution standard. (It's the equivalent of old-skool analog TV resolution in the USA, because it's the same as the visible raster height
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. You just used a lot of words to say the same thing I did, but with an argumentative quality, far more pompous attitude, and smugness that was completely unnecessary.
I called them horizontal lines, and so did you. How else would horizontal lines be configured, other than stacked vertically, to make up a display matrix?
Thanks for agreeing with me while being dumb enough to not even realize it; but also thanks arguing about ephemera that is not germane in any way to the discussion. And for being a self
Re: (Score:2)
Call them lines of resolution. There are 1080 'horizontal lines', which makes 1080 lines of vertical resolution.
Re: (Score:3)
FFS. Vertical as in going downwards counting the lines across, not as in the lines themselves being vertical. I'd have thought that would have been obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
FFS that is NOT what was counted. 'Going downwards counting lines across' ALWAYS (for NTSC) was 525. What was counted were the number of HORIZONTAL lines that could be resolved. As in, draw vertical bars, then count them going ACROSS. Broadcast TV had a resolution of about 300 TVL. VHS tapes had 230 TVL - they had lower resolution. BOTH had 525 scan lines.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, well done , NTSC was 525, PAL was 625 and 1080p is , errrm, 1080! And 4K is 2160 pixels down or if you prefer lines across.
I suggest you improve your english comprehension.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really this dense? OK, here are three resolutions (going downwards counting lines across):
VHS - 525 lines
Broadcast - 525 lines
S-VHS - 525 lines
Which of those has a better picture?
How about if we measure them they way they were ACTUALLY done (going left to right counting lines):
VHS - 230 lines
Broadcast - 300 lines
S-VHS - 400 lines
Which of those has a better picture? THAT, in fact, is how picture quality was measured 'since TV was invented'. By seeing how many VERTICAL lines you could draw.
Now, if
Re: (Score:2)
The really silly thing is those line counts were how many vertical lines you could discern in a space equal to the vertical space -- i.e. how many you could draw in a 3:3 square centered in the 4:3 aspect ratio.
It was a very strange measurement.
Re: (Score:2)
There was no such thing as vertical lines on analogue systems - it was continuous. But you've demonstrated how thick you are already so no surprise you don't realise.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the lovely combination of ignorant and obnoxious. Look at https://www.imatest.com/wp-con... [imatest.com] - this is the EIA-1956 Video Resolution Standard. It is from the days of black and white television. You will notice that it is for measuring 'Television Lines', which are the number of VERTICAL LINES that can be resolved horizontally. You will also notice the statement that the limiting horizontal resolution is the MOST IMPORTANT resolution measure.
The analog raster was drawn a line at a time - horizontally.
Re: (Score:2)
Do explain how you divide a continuous analogue input into discrete lines (or pixels if you prefer). You're making the common mistake of confusion ultimate resolution with fixed definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about 'fixed definition'? '4K' is a statement of picture quality (which happens to be the number of horizontal pixels). You made the claim that VERTICAL resolution was used as an indication of picture quality 'since TV was invented'. This is flat out WRONG. Vertical resolution was never used, it was always horizontal. Often qualitative words were used to describe the horizontal resolution - sharp, soft, 'broadcast quality', etc. Sometimes marketing words were used 'VHS' vs 'Super VHS
Re: (Score:2)
" This is flat out WRONG. Vertical resolution was never used, it was always horizontal"
I don't know what country you're in , but here in the UK it was ALWAYS vertical. 405 for B&W pre-PAL, 625 for PAL and now 1080 for HD. The horizonal resolution was NEVER mentioned in marketing until 4K.
And no, I don't fucking care what measure geeks used in labs, I'm talking from the consumer POV and how it was sold to them.
Re: (Score:2)
What benefit do you give the world by renaming something they already understand other than to satisfy your own OCD? It's a marketing name. Just deal with it. No one really cares that 4K UHD is different from 4K DCI (a standard which has nothing to do with people buying TVs or playing blurays).
Also it wasn't invented by marketing to sucker people in. The use of the "K" moniker predates the use of 1080p. Hell 1080p isn't even called 1080p when discussing displays, it's formal name is "Full HD" separating it
Re: (Score:2)
Oh right. So no one ever mentioned 625 lines for PAL or 525 lines for NTSC did they?
And if no one really cares why use a number at all? Could have just called it SuperduperRes and be done with it.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course they did. They were TV broadcast standards. No one bought a 625 line display, or a 525 line TV / monitor ever in the history of displaying moving pictures in our home. I challenge you to go to any random person and ask them what a 625 line display is. Oh hell I'll throw you and bone and make your silly example even easier for you: Got to a random person in the street and ask them how many lines a NTSC signal has. Not only does that not have anything to do with displays but I'll bet you a Marsbar y
Re: (Score:2)
Oh dear, have I trodden on your ickle wickle hobby horse? You seem rather indignant about the whole thing. Perhaps you work in the marketing side of the industry. Too bad , fuck off.
Sony TV Support (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice... (Score:4, Interesting)
But I ain't buying one. Sony has been on my shit list ever since the rootkit scandal in 2005.
Re: (Score:2)
does it have ATSC 3.0? (Score:2)
does it have ATSC 3.0?
Burn in (Score:2)
I am way too paranoid about burn in. Granted I havenâ(TM)t seen it happen on a TV yet, but I have definitely seen it happen on old smartwatches within just a year and it is horrible.
Re: (Score:2)
$5 Smart watch OLED panels and TV panels are not the same thing. OLED TVs have been on the market for a decade now with burn-in effectively a non-issue in applications where the display is designed to be on for a large portion of its life.
No 43"? Not buying it. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And 43" would look like a laptop display in my home theater.
As it turns out, Sony probably didn't create this specifically for you, so it's fine.
Re: (Score:2)
4k really was the answer to make 3D great but they all stopped short right as they reached the goal of 4k and 120Hz displays...
- A 4k LED TV can show passive 3D at a full 1080p (vs only 540 on a 1080 display)
- A 120Hz TV can show active 3D at up to a full native framerate vs only half (as low as only 12Hz from 24Hz content)
LG actually had a neat approach to passive 3D that didn’t halve the resolution. They’d double the frame rate, just like you would with active 3D, but then their polarizing filter in the display would “spin” 90 degrees with each frame, so you’d get a full 1080p frame with polarized light for one eye, the filter would spin, then you’d get a full 1080p frame with polarized light for the other eye. In practice, the filter was always spinning, so you could get away with tiltin
Eyes 2.0 upgrade required (Score:2)
Then I will probably need a faster internet service.
Then I will maybe have to upgrade my wifi.
Sounds like an expensive proposition before purchasing what will, no doubt, be a very expensive TV.
OLED is incredible (Score:2)
There are moments when I get the feeling I am starring at a window to a different world instead of a TV.
They go to great lengths to prevent burn-in though. If you pause a movie, it switches to a screen saver in a matter of seconds. Also they claim to be able to detect stat