Sony's 16K Liquid Crystal LED screen - for $5Million?!?!?!

[LeSheen]

7 hours ago, Kongou said:

I'm afraid to think about how many dead pixels one can expect if they decide to buy one of these screens.

That's probably one of the reasons its that expensive. I hope they check this in the factory.

[Kisai]

11 hours ago, Doramius said:

Future-proofing.

Not really. Maximum Displayport is 10Kp60 24bpp 4:4:4, without HDR. HDMI 2.1 supports 8K@30  4:4:4

 

DSC (Display Stream Compression) may support HDR but actually throws away those bits by doing 4:2:0

 

A 16K TV would have to be a composite output of four DP/HDMI streams running to get 16K. Even with DSC, there's not 16K in either spec.

 

As it is, Cable/IPTV (DSL/Fiber), and DTH Satellite dish systems have noped out of 4K content. It's also fairly difficult to find a UHD Blueray player as nobody is making stand-alone models other than Sony (yes Panasonic, Samsung, LG and Philips have players too, try to find one in an actual store, they're easier to find on eBay.) 

 

Streaming won't solve it either since the average American and Canadian doesn't have the 25Mbit downlink profile needed to do 4K. To do 16k requires 400Mbps with existing HEVC, and that's still 4:2:0, and there's no consumer hardware capable of playing that. Unless you're going to put a HEDT computer in your home theatre.

 

https://immersify.eu/news/spin-digital-to-present-worlds-first-16k-media-player-at-ise-2018

 

Quote

16K Video Demonstration

The system to be demonstrated has the following features:

• Resolution: 16K (15360 x 8640 px)
• Frame rate: 60 fps
• Pixel format: 4:2:0, 10-bit
• Compression: HEVC at 400 Mbps.
• PC and display:
  • CPU: 2x Intel Xeon Scalable Platinum 8168 (2×24 cores)
  • GPU: 4x Nvidia M4000
  • Display: 16x 4K Monitor Dell 27” Dell UltraSharp U2718Q

 

[Doobeedoo]

Sick stuff, can't wait for this tech to start appearing in consumer monitors. It will take a while and especially at somewhat reasonable price, but yeah exciting. 

 

4K 240Hz 10bit HDR 1000+ would be my 'check all boxes' ideal monitor. With something like OLED which is not LCD with FALD which is not good. 

[Loote]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

Streaming won't solve it either since the average American and Canadian doesn't have the 25Mbit downlink profile needed to do 4K. To do 16k requires 400Mbps with existing HEVC, and that's still 4:2:0, and there's no consumer hardware capable of playing that. Unless you're going to put a HEDT computer in your home theatre.

1. UHD BD is rated at up to 128 Mb/s, 25 is Netflix being cheap which means some scenes look better on BD.

2. Compression isn't as straightforward as 4k = 25 -> 16k = 400

I think you know that and used simplification, just pointing that out.

 

If you have ADSL/ADSL2, too bad, if you have well working VDSL, you probably can play 2 '4k' Netflix streams at once, even bad cable connection should be capable of 100+ Mbit/s, which is probably what Netflix 8k is going to be. Any fibre connection is capable of well over gigabit, which is probably going to be enough for compressed 16k video from 10 years in the future.

 

The hardware part is not so far:

Regarding this 'screen', it's modular, for now they have one pixel density option, 8k seems like much more reasonable choice, imo it's great that such opportunity presents itself, even if it's not something I'm ever going to afford. 16k is probably just for press, maybe some specialist use cases, but the underlying technology is awesome nonetheless.

[CTR640]

For $5million you can buy yourself some braincells to make sure you'll think twice before buying such tech.

[The King of the Undead]

lets spend more than it is possible to on a consumer grade PC on my monitor.
 

[TechyBen]

1 minute ago, huilun02 said:

$5million can buy you a home and retirement

Why waste it on a stupid TV?

Some people pay more than that for a loo... (Gold loo got stolen here in the uk LOL!)

[Lowbuget]

20 hours ago, Doramius said:

Link to Original Article
Forget 8K, Sony’s New 63-Foot 16K Crystal LED TV Is Now Available—for a Few Million

The ballpark figure is $5 million.

BY RACHEL CORMACK ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2019

 

Courtesy of Sony

When a new gogglebox drops, it’s always the same drill: The screen gets bigger, the resolution gets better and the design gets bolder. Indeed, it’s difficult for a brand to stand out. Unless you’re Sony and the new TV your peddling is the size of a New York City public bus and also happens to boasts an unheard-of 16K screen.

 

Earlier this year when Sony unveiled the colossal 63-foot TV—the biggest 16K screen of its kind—it had commercial cinemas in its sights. But, hey, why should theaters have all the fun? Yesterday, the Japanese tech titan announced the Crystal LED display system will be available for home installation.

The best part? The system utilizes modular technology which means it can accommodate virtually any desired size and resolution—from a 16-foot 4K to an epic 63-foot 16K. Of course, we opt for the latter which features four times as many horizontal pixels as a 4K television and eight times that of a high-def 1080p TV. Translation: It delivers a stunning picture to a gigantic space.

 

Courtesy of Sony

“Crystal LED delivers over a million-to-one contrast ratio, the most accurate light levels, low heat emission and a picture quality that is absolutely breathtaking. By offering the display in modular configurations, consumers now have an exciting new option for the transition from home projection systems and large-screen TVs,” said Mike Fasulo, president and chief operating officer at Sony North America.

The micro-LED technology works like OLED, but the modules—which each measure 16×18 inches in size at 360 x 360 resolution with three tiny LEDs per pixel—are much brighter, producing 1,000 nit of brightness even though they are half the width of a human hair. The screen also boasts a 99 percent black surface area to ensure high contrast and high resolution; blur-free images with high frame rates of up to 120p; and a nearly 180-degree viewing angle.

As you might expect, the setup is not cheap. Although Sony has not yet released pricing, each module reportedly costs approximately $10,000. That means the 4K unit (which has 72 modules) would sit at around $720,000, while the 16K screen (with 576 modules) might cost up to $5 million, according to Engadget. But think of the movie tickets you’ll save on having a cinema in your own home.

 

_____________________________________________________

So the Main question is......When's Linus doing his review on it?

This was posted after a detailed search for anything identical or related.  If this is a duplicate, please delete this post. Thank you.

Welp i can start seeing movie tickets going up once the big MC gets  their  hands on this 

[TetraSky]

A 20 meter screen? What the fuck... where would they even fit that on. 

The screen on that picture is way too small to be 20 meters

[Murasaki]

We need this (said noone)

[EarthWormJM2]

22 hours ago, dizmo said:

That's. Insane. 63 foot is more than most movie theater screens by a pretty wide margin.

...maybe that's their intended purpose? sell to high end movie theaters or iMAX maybe???  Obviously the stupid rich will buy them for their homes. lol.

[Doramius]

I can definitely see IMAX, or similar theaters using this. No projection experience, and with the rich detail, it would look amazing.  They do film a lot of IMAX shows with insane resolutions and what sometimes seems like ridiculous camera equipment.  But, man, are those shows excellent.

[Chett_Manly]

Quote

 Of course, we opt for the latter which features four times as many horizontal pixels as a 4K television and eight times that of a high-def 1080p TV.

I think they need to check their math. 

[Derangel]

17 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Ah yes, Sony back at it with the uselessly niche things. Because they didn't learn anything from Betamax, pushing Video8 into homes and failing, the PSX, the PS Vita and the fall of their TV division.

Beta only failed in the consumer market but it was the standard used for broadcast until recently.

[PlayStation 2]

4 minutes ago, Derangel said:

Beta only failed in the consumer market but it was the standard used for broadcast until recently.

There should be a distinction made between Betamax and Betacam as they’re both totally different formats. Betacam succeeded largely on its portability fronts while not sacrificing quality. It required WAY less maintenance than most tape formats before it while still being both adaptable for editing and high enough quality to archive and broadcast.

Betamax, when compared relative to VHS, didn’t really have many distinct advantages that VHS also couldn’t copy. A Betamax cassette was more compact, but that was largely meaningless as a VHS cassette wasn't much larger.

[BaconLord222]

19 hours ago, Mihle said:

If you have so much money that you can afford the full size of 16k, you can also afford to pay someone to make a animation that is 16k most likely.

good point. No real life footage though

[Derangel]

7 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

There should be a distinction made between Betamax and Betacam as they’re both totally different formats. Betacam succeeded largely on its portability fronts while not sacrificing quality. It required WAY less maintenance than most tape formats before it while still being both adaptable for editing and high enough quality to archive and broadcast.

Betamax, when compared relative to VHS, didn’t really have many distinct advantages that VHS also couldn’t copy. A Betamax cassette was more compact, but that was largely meaningless as a VHS cassette wasn't much larger.

That is a good point.

 

Betamax had better video quality than VHS, but that's about the only real advantage it had. Being able to record on VHS and the porn industry adopting the cheaper VHS format pretty much killed consumer Beta. Amusingly, Sony did make Betamax cassettes all the way until 2016.

[Loote]

20 hours ago, TetraSky said:

A 20 meter screen? What the fuck... where would they even fit that on.

You're ignoring:

1. Cinemas

2. Modularity

12 hours ago, BaconLord222 said:

good point. No real life footage though

Not really, assuming software used to produce animations is even capable of doing that, the cost is crazy, usually we get 1080p with backgrounds that don't have so much detail, otherwise a singe movie costs hundreds of millions because there is a human that had to prepare the models, or, as in case of 2D animation, will just draw the same images that won't gain too much by enlarging them. And what you watch has to be interesting, so there's that part of the cost also.

Time lapses are what I've seen published in 4k at first and I think they will be just behind porn on 16k too, there's already this:
https://nofilmschool.com/First-16K-Short-Film

[Kisai]

On 9/17/2019 at 4:30 AM, Loote said:

1. UHD BD is rated at up to 128 Mb/s, 25 is Netflix being cheap which means some scenes look better on BD.

2. Compression isn't as straightforward as 4k = 25 -> 16k = 400

I think you know that and used simplification, just pointing that out.

 

 

25Mbit came straight off Netflix's page, and 400mbit came directly from the 16K media player quote beneath it.

 

Telus offers "4K" TV, but to subscribe to it you need an internet profile >25mbps.

 

So no 400Mbps profile presently exists.

 

The raw video bandwidth needed, certainly isn't 400mbps:

So assuming a 1:1 ratio, and worst-case scenario of 12-bit per channel dolby vision and 240hz

16384 x 16384  36bpp x 240fps = ‭2,319,282,339,840‬ bits per second. AKA 270GB/sec

 

The PCIe 4.0 BUS only does 31.5GB at x16. So there will be no pushing uncompressed worst-case 16K data through a computer. But due note, that if you limit the frame rate to 24fps, it does work, at 27GB/sec. So we do have the possibility of a single 16X PCIe4 GPU being able to decode a theoretical 16K raw Dolby Vision 24fps. BUT, There's always a but. What GPU actually has this spec?

 

Nothing less than the Geforce 1080 (320GB/sec) is capable of the full 240fps. So let's assume for the sake of argument that 270GB/sec was able to be compressed perfectly down to 400mbit/sec. What HDMI or DP spec actually can do that?

 

None right now. A single GPU could maybe break a 16K stream into 4 x 8K streams, but that memory bandwidth requirement doesn't go away.

 

HSC (stream compression) is just not going to be a thing for games, as it would incur a latency penalty. Video streams, certainly. But really, the industry just needs to get off it's collective butt and switch to optical connectors. They won't however because optical cables have to be treated like hazardous waste. So therein lies the problem and two easy solutions: Multiple HDMI/DP links and treat the screen like it's 4 screens, or create fiber cables where the physical transceiver is built into the physical cable thus preventing people from looking at it, and make sure it's armored to prevent people from cutting into it when they inevitably push their TV back against the wall.

 

 

[Doramius]

19 hours ago, Derangel said:

Beta only failed in the consumer market but it was the standard used for broadcast until recently.

Actually, broadcasting used HDCAM cassettes.  The technology is Betacam, but it is NOT Beta.  The cassettes were very large, and expensive.  They only used it because of the high quality they could get through the type of technology.  They'd use other equipment to zoom in, crop, edit, etc. the higher quality video.  Broadcast companies would later convert the edited footage to standard tape because it was so much cheaper.  They'd wipe the HDCAM cassettes and re-use them.  It was just impractical for any other use.

Betamax is strictly a consumer grade media.  There were several reasons for the downfall of Betamax, but only on the very low end did porn have anything to do with VHS winning the format.  That's mainly a myth.

 

As for Blu-Ray, Sony almost lost that war, too.  Blu-Ray had a lot of unsubstantiated boasts in its capabilities, and many that still have not come true or been capable.  They were on the right track (pun intended) using the narrower blue spectrum laser, as that significantly allowed more data space on the disc, they had not fully developed the technology.  They pushed very hard to get their idea to market and hemorrhaged money in many very shady dealings.  When they finally won because Toshiba backed out at CES from continuing the fight, they thought it was a huge victory.  DVD sales continued higher than Blu-Ray and really didn't show much of a hit. DVD sold more than 4 times the amount of Blu-Rays the first years they appeared.  In the first 4 years of Blu-Ray, they didn't push past the sales of DVD.  Now with Streaming services and the ability to download content, Blu-Ray will never be able to push past DVD and will probably still end up in a lifespan matching that of Betamax and many other Sony formats.  With that in mind, What did Sony evidently win with Blu-Ray?

[BaconLord222]

10 hours ago, Loote said:

I think they will be just behind porn on 16k too

16k porn? It'll be like you're really there, except you're not, and you'll begin to cry knowing that you will never experience this outside of watching a $5 million screen

[Loote]

19 hours ago, Kisai said:

The raw video bandwidth needed, certainly isn't 400mbps:

So assuming a 1:1 ratio, and worst-case scenario of 12-bit per channel dolby vision and 240hz

16384 x 16384  36bpp x 240fps = ‭2,319,282,339,840‬ bits per second. AKA 270GB/sec

I thought we were talking about streams, nobody keeps raw image, my points were Netflix is bitrate starved and 16k isn't going to need 16 times more bandwidth than 4k, it should achieve better compression ratios.
I think Dolby Vision metadata is separate from video stream, so even more, but... 240 fps is impossible on that panel, input device takes up to 120, but the screen maxes out at 60, what's more 12 bit 4:4:4 is limited to 30 Hz, probably due to bandwidth as you say(at 60Hz you get 8 bit color 4:4:4 or 12 bit YCbCr 4:2:2), DV is impossible(or it's not mentioned in Sony's manual) on that panel and even the biggest version is 16K 63 feet x 18 feet (576 modules), so to modify the math:
16384*64/18 =4681,14
16384*4682*36bpp*30fps=82 831 512 137 AKA 77.2GB/s and rising it to 60 fps with DV(for when it's supported) should still not exceed 200GBps

[Doramius]

Being that the value of the screen is so high, as stated in a few previous posts, this is most likely geared towards a commercial usage, such as a movie theater or other commercial business entity, rather than home consumer use (even as much as I would like it to be and to be able to afford one within 3 lifetimes).  It's most likely going to have a proprietary connection that connects to a large digital codec system that's normally found in movie theater projectors.  Most likely we'll see this as a screen in a special experience movie theater.  The amount of space this would save, could add to a few extra rows of seats in a theater.  I'm also interested to know what kind of thermal output and power usage this system has.  I'm sure it is quite large, but if it has even a slight increase in advantage over a traditional projector, This Could Be the future of movie theater watching.  Projectors going the way of the Dodo.

[Sauron]

On 9/17/2019 at 2:12 AM, Kongou said:

I'm afraid to think about how many dead pixels one can expect if they decide to buy one of these screens.

Probably not many since it's modular, each panel is only a small fraction of the resolution. Plus given the price I'd assume extra care is taken to ensure there are no dead pixels or backlight bleed that would ruin the single panel effect.

[Sharp_3yE]

LOL SWEET! But theres like 0 content at that resolution. Like none. lol