Quake3World

We got a taste of the 56-inch, 3,840 x 2,160 model back at CES, but it looks like we can extinguish all hopes of this monitor making it to the consumer market anytime soon. Instead, it will be available to professionals working with 4K content.
...
Meanwhile, the 30-inch, 4,096 x 2,160 model is destined to hit the market sometime in 2014

http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/08/sony ... rototypes/

Wooh!

They say you can't tell the quality from the video, but as they mention in the audio commentary, there is a distinct lack of noticable pixels.

Sweet!
Even higher resolution proof of what a fucking failure you are.

Sony 4K OLED monitor prototypes (video)

I guess the next next generation of consoles wil output at 4K. Render at 480p and then upscale, but output at 4K all the same

Doombrain wrote:Sony 4K OLED monitor prototypes (video)

"Doombrain has meltdown and leaves Q3W"

"Mazda falls in love with first person he sleeps with and still lives with parents"

"Doombrain's bra snaps when he's angry"

yea those units have some impressive properties - namely incredibly deep blacks, high res, and good response time.

But they are native resolution displays, and not sure what scaling options exist. Plus there is the burn-in problem - remains to be seen how these latest OLEDs handle them.

I wonder if these displays are impulse driven, as opposed to sample and hold (critical for eliminating eye-tracking based motion blur). Impulse driven is similar to what lightboost does.

For now, I'm extremely content with my FW900, which is about the closest thing to an OLED that exists these days in terms of picture quality (ignoring the high end plasma displays and CRT projection systems). Watching game of thrones 1080p is unFUCKINGreal. I keep having to rewind because I keep getting distracted by the quality.

As far as being limited by native resolution goes, the 3840x2160 res (56" pro model) is both 2x 1080p and 3x 720p (horizontally and vertically, some call it 4x and 9x cause they measure area). The 4096x2160 model is hopefully wider, i.e. with square pixels rather than rectangular, making is suitable for displaying 3840x2160 just as well.

Other resolutions are becoming legacy, though you may find that something like 640x360 or 640x-something-less-than-360 scale to 1280x-whatever so some stuff not-so-standard (not so HD standard, basically) will work. Other stuff you'll have borders or scaling. The high res allows for lot of leeway when it comes to scaling a low res, and most non-HD stuff is low res. Photography OTOH is something you might want more reses with, but I don't recall any CRT or the like (non-native res) with a res so high I think you just want as high a res as possible with photography, rather than a non-native res. Don't you?

true, the clean multiples will help - I hope that there is no input lag cost with those multiples - if I'm not mistaken, LCDs suffer input lag when scaling is set to anything other than 1:1 (though I may be wrong).

As for high res photographs, yes for sure a 4k OLED display would be king (again, assuming no burn-in problem, which is a HUGE potential pitfall!).

for what it's worth, FW900 handles 2304x1440 @ 80hz fine, which is plenty of detail on a 22.5 inch viewable, and has gorgeous colors, inky blacks, zero input lag, and no motion blur.

Meaning, it's a treat to do video/photo editing, movie watching, gaming, and web surfing.

Display lag (input lag prolly isn't an accurate term here) isn't there only due to scaling, but because of a lot of post-processing TV's tend to do these days

nice, i've always found the term input lag to be misleading because ppl use it to talk about input lag from things like mice, as well as actual display lag. I'm gonna start using the term display lag from now on unless i mean other forms of input lag

Don't take my word on it, I just made that up out of the air. I do believe that input lag is generally used for the lag behind processing a controller's inpu, like a gamepad..

You could call it "output lag"

Seriously, though, I just call it "lag" *shrug*.

Edit: Actually I say the display has lag, so essentially I am calling it "display lag".

Yeah you can have endless discussions about it I guess Most of the time when people talk about input lag in the sense of game controllers, it's about the measure of time between a button press and the related action being visible on-screen. So this includes the lag caused by the TV itself as well.

The way to differentiate that would be to compare the sound to the visual.