Question about Large Format Display and viewing images

[McLovin]

So essentially what I am need to do is replace a 70" Sharp TV that is going out. in a conference room. The conference room is for our electrical department. They want to be able to continue using the display to show wiring diagrams to people but when they zoom in on the diagrams they don't want the image to be so pixelated that they cant differentiate between wires. The issue now isn't that they are using low quality images, the issue is that the TV's PPI is so low that it makes everything you put up on the screen to appear pixelated/

I know most PC monitors have a PPI of 100+ and 70" TVs have 30-ish PPI. Is there a display out there that can resolve this?

Maybe this: http://www.lgecommercial.com/digital-signage/products/Ultra-HDLarge/lg-84WS70BS

or : http://www.lg.com/uk/commercial-display/lg-55LV77A

or : http://www.necdisplay.com/p/large--screen-displays/x841uhd

These are ones I've found in about 20 minutes worth of looking. I'm not set on any of these so don't feel like this is all I'm wanting.

We are a government entity so I'm sure I can get better pricing on stuff once I actually figure out which models would work and the budget is roughly $9k.

Thoughts?

 

[McLovin]

Over 100 views and no responses? I didn't think my question was that far out in left field lol


I've also found 2 Sony Pro Monitors:

FWD70X850B

FWD65X950B


Not a lot of info anywhere for these. Sony phone support/sales sucks and I got transferred around 4 times before someone said "we'll have to call you back"

I did also find NEC MultiSync® X651UHD, but their sales rep says that won't be available until Mid-April.

 

[destrekor]

It's not a large market for that kind of thing, as you've discovered. I've been doing some searching and am having trouble finding much in the way of 4K professional displays.

You might be down to those you have already found, and as you see, will need to pay out the rear for one. (perhaps the business expense doesn't matter?).

UHD for professional displays is rather nascent. Most of the best ones, meant for collaboration/whiteboard/store display/advertising are all Full HD (1080p) and that's basically all that's needed for most content, so it may be awhile before UHD is common in that segment of the market.

I'm assuming you are definitely avoiding consumer TVs in that size and resolution? Would probably make sense, you'll have input lag and slower pixel response, which isn't pretty when you actually need the higher grade.

Another solution if you want to go large AND have fun AND make it look awesome, is a six-panel Surround/Eyefinity/Matrox multi-head solution. You would also have the benefit of not only having one large resolution you can stretch between them, you could also at various times have a combined array of some individual and some spanned displays, or have all 6 displaying unique content on some occasions, spanned on others.

For demoing of wiring diagrams, that may, admittedly, not be the most ideal solution, due to the obvious issue of bezels interrupting the flow.
I'm sure either people at the company, or a custom solution provider, could remove the bezels and put them into one shared custom housing.

 

[sheh]

If you're just looking for a large screen with higher DPI than 1920x1080 monitors, doesn't that just mean get a 4K one? These can be had for much less than $9000.

http://www.tvsuperstores.com/LG_84UB9800_84-Inch_4K_Ultra_HD_3D_LED_Smart_TV_4404.html

http://www.abesofmaine.com/item.do?item=SSUN85HU8550

Etc.

 

[EliteRetard]

Any chance a projector will work? I know there's been 4k units for years now.

 

[Murloc]

Any chance a projector will work? I know there's been 4k units for years now.

black out the conference room? Everyone drops asleep after 5 mins :awe:

 

[EliteRetard]

Some projectors don't need a dark room. Especially when spending $$$

 

[McLovin]

The idea of a projector has been brought up, but is not practical for this scenario unfortunately.

Sheh part of the reason for looking at professional displays is for the length of the warranty, 3 years instead of 1, and also typically better response times, 1-2 days on site vs 10-14 business days and possibly having to ship it for repair. In my experience, most consumer TV models are like consumer based PCs. The model line doesn't stay current for very long. Once those model lines are out of production support costs drastically increase. Quality of the internals in a professional display vs consumer TV is also higher.

Destrekor you're absolutely right, this is a very niche market and having to replace this Sharp TV so unexpectedly is really making the process of finding a good replacement harder. The 2nd link in my OP is to a video wall from LG, but like you stated the interupts between the displays seems to be an issue because of the wiring diagrams.

NEC's X651UHD would be just absolutely perfect for our needs, it's just to bad it won't be out until April.

The Sony Monitors are also very high on my list, but if the pre-sales support, or lack thereof, I'm getting from Sony is any indication about there warranty support, I'm greatly concerned. Anyone have experience with Sony's Professional Product line support?

 

[sheh]

I assume these "pro" monitors cost much more. Just get 2 mass market ones, keep one as backup.

You can buy extended warranties if needed, or just pay per fix if something goes wrong. But why do you expect it to fail so quickly? I would expect any consumer monitor to easily last more than 3 years. There's not much to the internals. A standard LCD panel from one of the major manufacturers, a logic board or two, and a power supply.

 

[gorobei]

this really shouldnt be that big of an issue.

if a 70" 1080p results in pixelation when zoomed, a 4k tv should be acceptable in the short term. just get a seiki 65" for $900 as a interim replacement and wait for a better solution down the line to spend the remaining $8100.
http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE65UY04.../dp/B00FJPO5O8

it sounds like there was more of a software scaling issue than hardware ppi.

 

[McLovin]

I assume these "pro" monitors cost much more. Just get 2 mass market ones, keep one as backup.

You can buy extended warranties if needed, or just pay per fix if something goes wrong. But why do you expect it to fail so quickly? I would expect any consumer monitor to easily last more than 3 years. There's not much to the internals. A standard LCD panel from one of the major manufacturers, a logic board or two, and a power supply.

We are out in the middle of no where so pay to fix options are very limited. The TV that we currently have cost us about $2k and only lasted a year and a half. We realize this isn't a normal thing but because of the importance in up time, we don't want to risk it.

At this point people above me are waiting to pay to not be in this situation again.

 

[KingFatty]

when they zoom in on the diagrams they don't want the image to be so pixelated that they cant differentiate between wires. The issue now isn't that they are using low quality images, the issue is that the TV's PPI is so low that it makes everything you put up on the screen to appear pixelated/

The issue for me is the above statement. I don't understand what you are saying.

The crispness of the TV is tied to the pixel size and viewing distance. For a 70" TV, that means you gotta consider how close to the TV are people standing.

For me also the thing that pops out is how you mention zooming in. If anything, zooming in would make the wires *clearer* and not more pixelated.

If you are suffering from pixelation as a function of zooming, then something else is going on with software or image rendering. Are you sure it's not the computer/video card driving the TV that has a problem? Maybe the video card is clogged with dust and overheating and causing the pixelation?

 

[EliteRetard]

Makes sense to me, take this image:

And throw it up onto a big screen 5x like so:

There may be some scaling or whatnot that's going to cause a bit of distortion if the original image was not 1080. At this point the "pixelation" isn't to bad, but if you try to zoom in 2x now:

You can now see some pretty bad image distortion/jaggies. You're essentially exaggerating the distortion of scaling. Now if you go back to step 2 and quadruple the resolution of the display you start with a much more detailed image and zooming in even at a 2x factor provides you the same or better image quality than the non zoomed 1080 large picture.

I want to say the term is "crop factor" and it's not a bug or error, it's simply the disparity between the original image resolution/ppi and that of the large display monitor. The more you "zoom" the larger the disparity and thus the worse the distortion or "pixelation".

 

[Black Octagon]

The issue for me is the above statement. I don't understand what you are saying.



The crispness of the TV is tied to the pixel size and viewing distance. For a 70" TV, that means you gotta consider how close to the TV are people standing.



For me also the thing that pops out is how you mention zooming in. If anything, zooming in would make the wires *clearer* and not more pixelated.



If you are suffering from pixelation as a function of zooming, then something else is going on with software or image rendering. Are you sure it's not the computer/video card driving the TV that has a problem? Maybe the video card is clogged with dust and overheating and causing the pixelation?

This post up sums up most of my first reactions to this thread.

I'm also unclear as to why response time is a consideration when you are (presumably) only displaying STILL images...?

More generally, you might have more luck taking this question to https://www.avforums.com

 

[EliteRetard]

Thinking through my response more now, I realize I needed to provide the comparison 4k large image and zoom. It's 5am though, been up all night. I'll get back to the drawing board later, I think I understand and can better illustrate the problem.

 

[destrekor]

This post up sums up most of my first reactions to this thread.

I'm also unclear as to why response time is a consideration when you are (presumably) only displaying STILL images...?

More generally, you might have more luck taking this question to https://www.avforums.com

You are correct in that AV Forums or AVS Forum would be better places to ask this.

However, to clear something up, I think only I mentioned response times in terms of the panel quality. I believe the OP only mentioned "response time" as it relates to warranty and service, and not at all in relation to pixel or panel response.



Regarding this zooming, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how you guys aren't understanding.

I imagine these images are somewhere around 7680 x 4320 or larger. Displaying that on a 1080p TV means it is fine, but once you get to the actual pixel size (you are zooming in from a zoomed out view to a 100% view that is cropped and you must pan around), as wire trace is likely the size of a pixel.

One pixel on a 1080p 70" TV is pretty damn large, and so any angled traces or transistors or other components are going to look pixelated, which is something I imagine to be not ideal when viewing electronic diagrams.

This is assuming the resolution of the files are large enough that they are merely zooming in to 1:1 to view the details, and are not trying to upscale and digitally zoom.


From a couch viewing distance, this might appear smooth. But as they are viewing wiring diagrams, I feel safe to go ahead and assume that they might be standing much closer than suggested viewing distances.

If they wish to continue that, they need a higher resolution, higher PPI display.

Earlier, I mentioned pixel response times and input lag as potential concerns and how such professional displays often have better specs in those departments. I feel that may not be an issue whatsoever for the OP regarding this specific use case, but I don't know if they have any other plans aside from wire diagrams.

If not, a consumer-level UHD 4K display might be fine.

I think the issue is, the product needs to be bought through a business account with a specific dealer. It being a consumer-level product shouldn't be a worry, as when, say, a Dell monitor is bought through a business account, warranty and support is leagues ahead of what it would be if a consumer bought that same monitor.

I don't know if such accounts exist for any large format displays outside of those that are truly the professional-level products. Perhaps certain dealers would offer that level of service.

 

[Headfoot]

PPI is a function of resolution. The only way to get "higher PPI" on 1080p is to get a smaller TV. What you need it higher resolution in the same size. So get a 4K TV. There are going to be 4 pixels for 4k in the same space a single pixel would take on 1080p, size remaining constant.

If you need up-time, nothing is faster than having a replacement on hand. Faster than even business support. Get 2 consumer 4K TVs. The likelihood of them both failing is very low. This is the same idea behind RAID (redundant array of inexpensive disks). The way IT companies provide 99.999% availability is by having many redundant instances so that if one fails the others can immediately take its place. This principle works for all hardware prone to failure, TV's included

 

[KingFatty]

I imagine these images are somewhere around 7680 x 4320 or larger. Displaying that on a 1080p TV means it is fine, but once you get to the actual pixel size (you are zooming in from a zoomed out view to a 100% view that is cropped and you must pan around), as wire trace is likely the size of a pixel.

One pixel on a 1080p 70" TV is pretty damn large, and so any angled traces or transistors or other components are going to look pixelated, which is something I imagine to be not ideal when viewing electronic diagrams.

This may sound crazy, but perhaps you need a *lower* resolution display to blend or blur the actual pixels of the image? I can't tell whether the problem is the traces are displayed "too" accurately and so you reveal the inherent pixilation of the true image pixels as you zoom in? or is it that the TV is not smoothing out the true image pixels, so it "lies" to you and conceals the inherent pixels of the image, and instead gives you a smoothed out view of them?

When you say a wire trace is the size of a pixel, that's really great because you get accurate representation. But if being accurate is bad, because you see the pixels inherently contained in the image, then that's a different problem to solve.

Also, increasing the number of pixels in the display should still reveal the inherent pixels of the source image as you zoom in. I can't help but think that zooming in on any display, 4K or even higher, you'd still see the original image pixels in all their glory as you zoom in.

Even looking above back to EliteRetard's post with the 3 images at different zoom/crop levels, you still see the original pixels in each size. It's just that the first image is so tiny, it "lies" to you can blurs out some of the inherent pixels of the image. You just notice those inherent pixels more as you zoom in, but they get crisper and crisper so you get a more accurate understanding of where an image pixel begins and ends.