Sony Creates Colossal 16K Screen In Japan (bbc.com)

Sony has unveiled a display that contains 16 times as many pixels as a 4K TV and 64 times as many as a regular 1080p high definition TV. "This will let viewers stand close to the unit -- which is longer than a bus -- without its image looking blurred," report the BBC. From the report: The 63ft by 17ft (19.2m by 5.4m) screen is currently being installed at a new research center that has been built for the Japanese cosmetics group Shiseido in the city of Yokohama, south of Tokyo. It is so large it will stretch between the first and second floors. The development was announced by Sony at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) trade show, which is currently being held in Las Vegas.

Sony had previously designed a separate 16K display that went on show at Tokyo's Haneda Airport in 2014, but that looked like it was made up of dozens of smaller screens rather than presenting a single seamless picture. The new "super-size" installation has in fact been created out of several modular panels, but because they do not have bezels they can be fitted together without any visible gaps to create the impression of being a single screen. The innovation does not require a backlight, but goes much brighter than OLED (organic light-emitting diode) screens while still delivering similar deep blacks. At present, however, the high manufacturing costs involved make it too expensive for widespread use.

Comments

Just one problem

[Locke2005]

Human eyes can't discern more than about 4000x4000 pixels in their field of vision.

Re: Just one problem

[Anonymous Coward]

That's complete bullshit.

Re: Just one problem

[meerling]

At approximately 120,000,000 rods, which do not sense color, if it were a convenient square arrangement, that would be a bit less than 11k x 11k.
Cones, which do detect color are only around 6 or 7 million in quantity. Using the 7 million number, that would make a matrix of a bit less than 2.65k x 2.65k.

Locke2005s statement is in between those numbers, so he's not exactly right or wrong, but it's not bullshit at all.

Looks like the anonymous coward had no idea how crappy the resolution of human eyes actually are.

Re: Just one problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Posts like this are why I still occasionally read slashdot.
People also forget that detail is concentrated in the center field of vision, whereas a 16MP camera is full resolution for the full frame.
It's amazing what the human brain can do with the input from the eye (not that the eye isn't remarkable in many ways as well).
 

Re: Just one problem

[pz]

Yeah, except that the rods and cones are NOT packed evenly. Your assumption that they lay in a nice uniform grid does not reflect reality.

In reality, the number of photosensitive cells are between 100 and 1000 times higher in the centralmost part of vision, the fovea, than in the periphery.

Our eyes and brains do an exceptional job of integrating information across different visual glances to give us a deep, persistent illusion of uniformly high-resolution vision. And while the resolution at the center of our vision is really quite good (about 60 cycles per degree of visual angle), it gets rather poor rather quickly.

There's a nice parlor trick to convince yourself of the existence of this illusion: take a paragraph of printed material. Printed material works well, but the exact text does not matter so much. Place your finger under a word in the middle of a paragraph. Using your finger as a guide to hold your gaze fixed, look at that word and try to read left and right WITHOUT moving your eyes. Use your finger as a guide. You should find that for most text you can read at most one or two words to the left or right, and perhaps the word immediately above. Beyond that, vision is too low resolution.

So, back to the original point, counting the number of photosensitive cells underestimates the effective resolution of human vision by at least a factor of 10 once you take into account that we move our eyes.

Re: Just one problem

[Kjella]

Locke2005s statement is in between those numbers, so he's not exactly right or wrong, but it's not bullshit at all.

Counting that way is wonky because we have a very small, high density area in the center of our vision and much lower in the rest. The standard measure of visual acuity (20/20) is resolving one arc minute (1/60th of a degree) of resolution. If you sit really close to the screen you get a ~50 degrees field of view so 3000 pixel horizontal resolution. But we know some people have down to 20/8 vision, so for them 3000*20/8 = 7500 pixel resolution.

However if you're viewing parallel lines you can get a kind of hyper-acuity called Vernier acuity that even in untrained people go down to 10 arc seconds and 2-3 arc seconds with training. Now 2 arc seconds (1/3600 of a degree) * 50 degrees = 90K, obviously we don't have that many photo receptors but if you want to make a screen of uniform density that's where you're at. It's pretty much irrelevant for viewing normal content though.

With all that said, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone claiming a razor sharp 4K movie is fuzzy, unless you're staring at a Snellen chart the main reason they want to go beyond 4K is to be able to crop and re-frame in post. There's lots of other things like dynamic range, color space, color fidelity, frame rate etc. you should work on before going beyond 4K as an end point. Probably the biggest thing is if they can finally manage to make CMOS sensors work with global shutter - that is to say, reading out all the pixels at once instead of line by line, which creates all kinds of distortions when things are in rapid motion.

Re: Just one problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Bring on foveated rendering!

Re:Just one problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said the viewers eyes are focussed in one spot, looking at the whole screen the whole entire time?

Content makers must love people like you when they use DOF to force you to look at one part of the screen only.

Re: Just one problem

[Locke2005]

Thanks. My point was that at 4000x4000, you cannot make out the individual pixels IF the entire screen is in your field of view. Higher resolutions are only useful if you move closer so only part of the screen is in your field of view -- but that's not really useful for movies. I can see going to much, much higher resolutions for still pictures that get blown up or zoomed in on (e.g. satellite pictures). But for watching entertaining, 4000x4000 is the point of diminishing returns for most people. Of course, what they CALL "4K" isn't is only 3840 x 2160 pixels or 4096 x 2160 pixels.

Re:Just one problem

[AHuxley]

Lets make the screen first and then let humans see how that works out.
Theory is all good until humans sit in front of a new screen and enjoy art, sport, computer games and entertainment.
Then see if/how 16K content sells on the open market.
Is 8K really a limit? Do people like their new 16K content more over 8K?

Re: Just one problem

[hcs_$reboot]

Looks like the anonymous coward had no idea how crappy the resolution of human eyes actually are.

The brain helps to give the impression that human eyes have infinite resolution.

Re: Just one problem

[Hognoxious]

Presumably these numbers are best cases - young'uns' eyes?

Re: Just one problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, human vision is pretty good, compared to other animals.

Some species, have very good specialized vision night vision but it's pretty poor overall. Cats, for instance, have very good night vision but they can't discern a lot of colors. And while they are good at discerning movement, the overall resolution of their eyes is rather limited compared to human vision.

Sure, human vision is nowhere near as good as the vision of prey birds. It's still much better than most animals' vision.

Re: Just one problem

[Kjella]

Presumably these numbers are best cases - young'uns' eyes?

The short version is that if you see 20/20 without glasses/contact lenses you don't need them, but many people have better vision than that when they're young or they can get better than 20/20 with glasses/contact lenses. Often the problem when you get older is the ability to focus, not the actual sharpness if you wear the right glasses but of course people lose visual acuity to some some degree. So as a video standard you should aim higher than 20/20, at least 20/16. It's up to your purpose, are you looking for video that there's no reason to record resolution for anyone or is most people happy. Because most people have been happy a long time...

Re: Just one problem

[skegg]

Cones (colour) are concentrated in the centre. Rods (black and white) dominate the periphery.

The idea being we need to see in full colour directly ahead, but have the sensitivity to detect subtle movement / predators in our peripheral vision. (Go nature !)

Trivia:
Ever notice in a very dark room you may tilt your head a little / look askance at an object? It's because you're instinctively trying to use the rods (black and white) which work better than cones (colour) in low light.

Re: Just one problem

[skegg]

>> Our eyes and brains do an exceptional job of integrating information across different visual glances to give us a deep, persistent illusion of uniformly high-resolution vision.

YES ! The brain is a remarkable computer.

Of course, there many situations in which the brain makes patently wrong conclusions
But on the whole, I think the human brain is one of the most remarkable things in the universe.

Re: Just one problem

[skegg]

*Wipes a tear*

I love Slashdot.

Re: Just one problem

[skegg]

According to Wikipedia an eagle can spot a rabbit up to 3.2 km away !!

Just wow.

Re:Just one problem

[thegarbz]

Human eyes can't discern more than about 4000x4000 pixels in their field of vision.

Which is irrelevant because humans instinctively shift their gaze and in doing so take in far more than the individual points in their field of vision are capable of seeing in any snapshot in time.

Human eyes are actually quite shit, horrible colour definition at the edges, poor focus area, poor ability to discern dark objects in the centre. It's the processing in our brains combined with us constantly moving our eyes that makes our vision worth a damn at all.

Re:Just one problem

[AmiMoJo]

To be fair the second line of the summary mentions that the use-case is people standing close to the screen, i.e. only seeing part of it in their field of vision.

Re:Just one problem

[WaffleMonster]

Human eyes can't discern more than about 4000x4000 pixels in their field of vision.

It's more like 1000x1000 yet this metric is meaningless because eyeballs and head are not fixed at a single point.

Pixels per degree of arc is what matters in discerning whether piling on more pixels is helpful or wasteful.

Re: Just one problem

[WaffleMonster]

At approximately 120,000,000 rods, which do not sense color, if it were a convenient square arrangement, that would be a bit less than 11k x 11k.
Cones, which do detect color are only around 6 or 7 million in quantity. Using the 7 million number, that would make a matrix of a bit less than 2.65k x 2.65k.

Counting rods and cones is an irrelevant meaningless endeavor. Rods are not even worth mentioning WRT TV because they can't resolve any detail.

What matters is degree of arc resolvable by cones and pixels per degree that can be discriminated which amounts to roughly 1MP (1k x 1k)

Of course this whole metric is bullshit to begin with for the simple reason eyes are not fixed in their sockets nor is head position fixed WRT to display.

Re:Just one problem

[Local ID10T]

Human eyes can't discern more than about 4000x4000 pixels in their field of vision.

Why would you want to discern the individual pixels of the image you are viewing? That would make for a shitty viewing experience. I want to see the image, not its component pixels.

Re:Just one problem

[Locke2005]

The point is that you cannot see the individual pixels at 4000x4000 or 8000x8000... in other words, you can't tell the difference IF you are far enough away from the screen for the entire screen to be within your field of vision. I'd say I don't want to watch a movie that close to the screen, but with wide screens people probably are not watching the entire width all at the same time anyway.

1 million ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Providing currently the 2.5 meter screen cost 99999â, i bet this 20 meter screen will cost more than 1 million...

Enough

[dohzer]

640k should be enough for anyone.

Re:Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

thats ten times what I need.

Re: Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Far cry from the days when I was just a youngster trying to get noticed and someone took a personal but inconclusive interest in me. I thought I would get an opportunity to work at a tech giant, but he was no friend, and there was no tech giant, although personally I hope to talk to him again someday.

Re: Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Far Cry on this screen would be great! Good idea.

Bad maths

[Misagon]

There is some obvious bad maths in the article. The screen is not composed out of 4*4 "4K televisions".
A "4K TV" has an aspect ratio of 16:9, whereas this screen has an aspect ratio of 32:9.
So, if it is "16K" across, then it is only equivalent to eight "4K" TV screens, not sixteen.

And that's not mentioning that "16K" here is 4 * "4K" = 4 * 3840 = 15360 = 15 * 1024 ...
But Sony is counting like Sony is counting. Back a few years ago it was Sony who had started the convention of calling "UltraHD" standad "4K.

Re:Bad maths

[reboot246]

Way too big for my living room!

As if I could afford such a beast.

Re:Bad maths

[Anonymous Coward]

A "4K TV" has an aspect ratio of 16:9, whereas this screen has an aspect ratio of 32:9.
And that's not mentioning that "16K" here is 4 * "4K" = 4 * 3840 = 15360 = 15 * 1024 ...

Was curious if you could share where you found the 32:9 ratio.
The linked article is devoid of any useful details.

It does briefly mention a previous 16k screen was made, but that one was a 7:1 aspect ratio and 16320 by 2304 resolution.

If this one is the same 16320 but at 32:9, that would imply a vertical resolution around the 4600 pixel mark.

16320 * 4600 = 75,072,000

"4k" usually refers to either 16:9 at 3840 x 2160 (8,294,400 pixels) or 2:1 at 4096 x 2160 (8,847,360 pixels)
That would be either 9 times or 8.5 times respectively, as you said.

The 2:1 "4k" at 16 times would be 141,557,760 pixels, and the 16:9 "4k" at 16 times would be 132,710,400 pixels.
Using a 16320 horizontal would require either 8673 or 8131 vertical respectively to contain 16 times the pixels of a 4k display.

This would be either 1.8:1 or 2:1 aspect ratio, and just looking at the picture in the article, there is no way in hell this thing is only twice the width as it's height. It is far wider than that.

So not only is the article devoid of useful details, but their hyperbolic math is flat out wrong as well.
I think you are far closer to the mark with your 8x number, or at best my 9x number, than is their 16k claim.

Pffft, still small.

[Anonymous Coward]

Still not as big as Frank's 2000" TV.

Re:Pffft, still small.

[Anonymous Coward]

Came here for this

It's called "MicroLED"

[Bitmanhome]

Sony calls the technology "Crystal LED", which is its brand name for micro-LED display tech. Samsung is also experimenting with the format.

They're basically making a display out of tiny but normal LEDs. As they said -- very bright, and infinite contrast. But mostly only useful for commercial displays due to the limited density.

Re:It's called "MicroLED"

[Kjella]

They're basically making a display out of tiny but normal LEDs. As they said -- very bright, and infinite contrast. But mostly only useful for commercial displays due to the limited density.

For now, Samsung has shown a 75 inch UHD prototype so it's not impossible to make them small - just hard and expensive. I wouldn't mind lower density if they can get production cost down though, I'd rather have a TV with half the density and twice the size. Like 150" with 4x1080p pixels. The good thing about MicroLED is that price will scale linearly with size, so I'm guessing a bunch of sheikhs will order a 225" TVs because it's "only" 9x the price of the 75" TV. Though we don't know the base price for the 75" version yet, it's supposed to come this year though.

Re: It's called "MicroLED"

[Anonymous Coward]

Infinite contrast? It can only be as dark as the absence of reflected light at the source as a difference between that point and the brightest pixel. Are they tiny black holes? No? Then it's not infinite.

Re:It's called "MicroLED"

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't mind lower density if they can get production cost down...

A typical ceiling in a house will have 2 ft joist spacing. If you could get the cost down enough, such that you can make say 4 ft x 4ft panels, or the 16x9 alternate, but at least 4 ft near zero bezel both dimensions, then perhaps you could use them as your ceiling.

Ideally each panel would perhaps be able to vibrate and act like a speaker, but really that is a bonus. Each panel might have a hidden microphone as well, with each panel hard wired connected to a gigabit, at minimum home network.

Essentially you could make the hogwarts ceiling, by saying, alexa, show me what is outside, or alexa, turn on the news. Yes there are additional details, but nothing all that hard really. You certainly wouldn't need regular lights, since this would replace them.

Thinking about costs, assume you make a 12ftx12ft bedroom, which is certainly plausible. That would be a 3x3 array, or assuming a typical price of maybe $500 a piece, so $4500, plus the cost of the networking, and the server you hide somewhere to manage all this, say another $1500 there, so perhaps $6500 total. That is basically feasible now...

Actually, if you did 1080p screens, then your talking 3-4 monitors per video card, so that's doable in a high end PC right now and you can run the hdmi cables that far easy. You might need to add an extra layer of wood for support, but you'd probably have to do that anyway. At any rate, I'm not sure anyone should have an entire ceiling of monitors, but its doable...

Holy...

[mirthful1]

Holy mother of pearl, that's big. Must check piggy bank.

Weird Al Predicted this...

[flogger]

Frank's 2,000 Inch TV.

Important question...

[meerling]

Of course what we all want to know is what kind of computer and graphics card specs do we need to run that at a minimum of 60 fps?

If I wanted to play Crysis on that ...

[Babel-17]

What kind of hardware would I need to get a buttery smooth 60 fps?

Re: If I wanted to play Crysis on that ...

[Anonymous Coward]

What you should really be asking is just how powerful a magnifying glass will you need just to be able to see the full resolution of the display?

Once even a 100 inch display has a higher resolution than the human eye can detect even from a couple feet away, the continual boosts in resolution become completly pointless. The smaller the display, the more pointless it is.

16K Tentacle porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohhhh yeah!

Grand Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not 'research'. There is no 'research' going on. They're selling snake oil, and this is just another grand stupidity that will suck in the easily connived and liberated of their money.

It deserves about as much respect as dog poop. Bag it up and take it away.

Yawn ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really interested in higher resolution screens, thanks.

See, Standard Def to HD was a huge jump, it got us widescreen format, better display ... and most importantly a whole lot of new gear. Of course, that also includes computer monitors.

I'm not going to go out and replace my amp, my BluRay player, my collection of videos or any of that stuff as long as it is still working. And the amount my ISP would want to be able to bill me to download something at 16K resolution.

As soon as I heard of 4K, I knew there would be an 8K and a 16K .. OK, cool, fine .. but I as a consumer do not have space in my life for another new video format.

HD is just fine with me. I don't find myself wishing I had higher resolution .. I'd need a bigger screen just to see everything I have at this resolution.

This is a technical accomplishment, kudos on them. I'm sure it will make an awesome jumbotron. But your average consumer still has no need or desire for 4K, let alone this.

Re: Yawn ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And when 16k comes out....most of the sets will still be showing 480i stretch-o-vision and crop-a-rama because people still can't be bothered to set up their equipment properly

Re: Yawn ...

[bn-7bc]

well as long as yhe source (broadcaster/disk autor/steramiong service provides the correct meta data and the display (and /or stb etc)bothers to actually read it, most people shuld be fine, with setting aspect ratio to auto right (is y\tha not the default well it should be)

Yawn....

[Anonymous Coward]

..Introducing the 100k screen...introducing the 1000k screen, blah blah blah.

After 4k, it's all just penis waving.

Is this Sony Africa?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wait... there IS no Sony in Africa, it's a third world shithole full of sub 70 IQ Africans, who are incapable of producing something like this.

Anybody care to prove me wrong? Where are all the chip fab plants in Africa? Car manufacturing plants? Anything?

Re: Is this Sony Africa?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that there is indeed a Sony Africa and both chip fab, and automotive plants in Africa demonstrates your incompetence and ignorance. Do you need so.done to spoon feed you links or can you handle getting a grip on reality on your own.

16K to shove ads into your eyes!

[Slayer]

Once this new monitor is sold to regular consumers, I am sure that Sony will not forget to upload this important patch

.

IMAX

[Anonymous Coward]

We can finally replicate the information found in an IMAX frame.

Coming Soon

[Anonymous Coward]

A screen with a higher res THAN REAL LIFE ..... ...( this reminds me of the 7 blade shaver )

wides guy

[Anonymous Coward]

...it too expensive for widespread use.

Widespread use. I see what you did there.

Hey look

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey did you guys know that Benjamin Franklin was the first fireman?