General > General Technical Chat
The EU is banning 8K TV's!!!
<< < (31/53) > >>
coppice:

--- Quote from: nctnico on November 06, 2022, 09:41:51 pm ---
--- Quote from: coppice on November 06, 2022, 09:28:11 pm ---Not only was their starting point quite different and their population much higher, but they have also developed from a rather poor country, to one with a middle class bigger than the whole of Europe's population. Those people use a LOT more energy per capita than they did when poor.

--- End quote ---
That is exactly my point!

--- End quote ---
I said "Those two things are not unconnected. A lot of the reduction in Europe is simply heavy industry moving to China. Same CO2 emission, different place.". That is Europe has done little to reduce its CO2 output. Its just happening as part of China's overall CO2 output these days. Apart from some changes to electricity production, which is only 20% to 25% of overall energy use, what has Europe done to truly reduce CO2 output? Its all smoke and mirrors. Obviously China, India and other developing places, have seen massive overall increases in CO2 production, as is their right.
BrianHG:

--- Quote from: MK14 on November 06, 2022, 08:39:08 pm ---This is because the smaller pixels (8k rather than 4k ones, fitting in the same overall panel dimensions), will in effect, have much bigger borders (relatively speaking).
I.e. Although they can make the pixels ever smaller, the borders, between the pixels, sadly, remain the same size (as I understand it).  Probably due to technological limitations, at the moment.
So, proportionally, that forces (scientifically or mathematically speaking), the space for the smaller pixel to shine through, disproportionately smaller.

Or in other words.  The display brightness, for a given amount of power on a 4k panel, will dramatically fall (be much less efficient), as so much light is lost/wasted, by the borders between the pixels, which HAVE NOT become smaller, because of current technology limitations.

N.B. That was my understanding, by reading up on it.

--- End quote ---
You got it right.
The signal traces and the transistors for the rows and columns need to be masked black and since the feature size of these printed items on the LCD cannot get any smaller, the active open window pixel region has shrunk.

If said traces weren't masked black, they would be in contact with the LCD fluid manipulating transparency all over the place plus the added capacitance on those traces would also cause the circuit to fail.

The only solution would be if the LCD, both on top and bottom, had a separation layer as these traces and transistors without the black mask are transparent, but the active pixel regions would need to go down to a second layer where it is in contact with the LCD fluid, like a PCB with a via per pixel, where the vias still need to be transparent and LCD fluid proof.  (Also, the materials which make the traces and transistors cannot alter the polarization of the light going through them...)  This would magnify the price of the LCD by an insane amount, but, even the 4k panels would allow a tone more light through and such a designed 8k would probably become more efficient the today's 4k displays.

I would not want to be the one to have to figure out a way to align such a hi-res active-matrix module to it's next layer in the middle, as I'm sure that just the current masks and color stencils must have been a hell to perfect the manufacturing process.
coppice:

--- Quote from: BrianHG on November 06, 2022, 09:57:45 pm ---
--- Quote from: MK14 on November 06, 2022, 08:39:08 pm ---This is because the smaller pixels (8k rather than 4k ones, fitting in the same overall panel dimensions), will in effect, have much bigger borders (relatively speaking).
I.e. Although they can make the pixels ever smaller, the borders, between the pixels, sadly, remain the same size (as I understand it).  Probably due to technological limitations, at the moment.
So, proportionally, that forces (scientifically or mathematically speaking), the space for the smaller pixel to shine through, disproportionately smaller.

Or in other words.  The display brightness, for a given amount of power on a 4k panel, will dramatically fall (be much less efficient), as so much light is lost/wasted, by the borders between the pixels, which HAVE NOT become smaller, because of current technology limitations.

N.B. That was my understanding, by reading up on it.

--- End quote ---
You got it right.
The signal traces and the transistors for the rows and columns need to be masked black and since the feature size of these printed items on the LCD cannot get any smaller, the active open window pixel region has shrunk.

If said traces weren't masked black, they would be in contact with the LCD fluid manipulating transparency all over the place plus the added capacitance on those traces would also cause the circuit to fail.

The only solution would be if the LCD, both on top and bottom, had a separation layer as these traces and transistors without the black mask are transparent, but the active pixel regions would need to go down to a second layer where it is in contact with the LCD fluid, like a PCB with a via per pixel, where the vias still need to be transparent and LCD fluid proof.  (Also, the materials which make the traces and transistors cannot alter the polarization of the light going through them...)  This would magnify the price of the LCD by an insane amount, but, even the 4k panels would allow a tone more light through and such a designed 8k would probably become more efficient the today's 4k displays.

I would not want to be the one to have to figure out a way to align such a hi-res active-matrix module to it's next layer in the middle, as I'm sure that just the current masks and color stencils must have been a hell to perfect the manufacturing process.

--- End quote ---
You are assuming an LCD display. A lot of the high end 8k displays seem to be OLED, which doesn't have the same issues.

For LCDs, the percentage of screen space taken by pixel to pixel borders has reduced a lot since the early panels. Does anyone have information about how that reduction has been progressing recently. and whether there are considerable reductions still in the pipeline?
BrianHG:

--- Quote from: coppice on November 06, 2022, 10:05:33 pm ---For LCDs, the percentage of screen space taken by pixel to pixel borders has reduced a lot since the early panels. Does anyone have information about how that reduction has been progressing recently. and whether there are considerable reductions still in the pipeline?

--- End quote ---
Oled has a similar issue as you now need enough current to illuminate the pixel meaning some circuit size is still required.  Also, smaller pixels are less efficient at generating light = more current = a tradeoff you need to make.  Remember, large screen Oled is different from smart-phone AMOled displays.  Efficiency and longevity would vastly improve if we can get a large screen AMOled.

Same goes for QD-OLED, a QD-AMOled would be the gold standard as the entire screen process is just a single process blue pixel with QD phosphor paint for the green and red pixels which have no electrical circuit like the original Oled where you need 3/4 different types of organic dye which need to be energized to glow.


Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: PlainName on November 06, 2022, 09:45:52 pm ---When arguments discussions of this sort break out it's important to be correct. It is one thing to say "there's a bit more current due to blah but it's not significant" and quite another to say "there is no extra current used".
--- End quote ---
You're absolutely right, and I fully agree.  (I just read the question at face value, and didn't see the subtext.)
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod