Why buy 4K now? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 10:01 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
al210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 51
I'm looking to get a new TV for our new family room 65 or 70 inch.

What would be the advantages to get a 4K vs 1080P set without any 4K content to display.

Sammy 4k UN65HU9000 CURVED - Calman5 Calibrated" ------------- Oppo 103D for Blu Ray & SACD & DVD-A
Denon X4000 Audio Video Receiver
B&W 602 S3 & B&W HTM62 Center with Axiom QS4 surrounds ---------- SVS PB-1000 SUBWOOFER
al210 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 10:23 AM
Senior Member
 
thebignewt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
The advantage is that by the time you need a new TV to replace this one there will be a lot of 4K content to show on it. And some people think that the current content looks better on a 4K. I doubt there will be any TV stations showing it but new movie discs may get it, sort of like 3D discs now.

Samsung ES8000 65", Evo Kit installed, Yamaha AVR with Paradigm speakers, iMac, iPad, Apple TV and HTC One phone.
thebignewt is offline  
post #3 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 10:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gatti-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: austin texas
Posts: 1,012
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 43
I'm struggling with this very notion. I love movies and 4k is the future. Even now we have 4k movie content and it is trickling out. If you wait a year you will for sure get more for your money but that's the same thing every year.
gatti-man is offline  
post #4 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 10:55 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
al210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 51
So are we saying without any 4K content a 4K display wont do anything better than a 1080P display would.

A 1080P blu-ray won't look better on a 4K display vs a high end 1080P TV?

I thought I might have read somewhere that it does 3D twice as fast?

Sammy 4k UN65HU9000 CURVED - Calman5 Calibrated" ------------- Oppo 103D for Blu Ray & SACD & DVD-A
Denon X4000 Audio Video Receiver
B&W 602 S3 & B&W HTM62 Center with Axiom QS4 surrounds ---------- SVS PB-1000 SUBWOOFER
al210 is offline  
post #5 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 10:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Personally, I'd wait till at least next year to see how this year's 4k tv's deliver. Content availability aside, 4k is a bit of a misnomer. Is it truly 4k ( 4096 x 2160) or UHD ( 3840 x 2160), or does either resolution really matter because the 4k term is used a bit loosely? The same is true with HDMI 2.0 (which is being advertised with some 4k sets). Is it fully compliant HDMI 2.0 (very doubtful) or is it HDMI with some of the new 2.0 features?
Otto Pylot is online now  
post #6 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 11:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gatti-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: austin texas
Posts: 1,012
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Uhd is 4k for all intents and purposes. It's not like next year real 4k will come out. Also a set advertising 2.0 hdmi is fully 2.0 compliant.
gatti-man is offline  
post #7 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 11:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Maybe I need to brush up on my math but 3840 does not equal 4096. But , if there is no discernible difference, then I guess it doesn't matter. As far as HDMI 2.0 goes, that is not true. The problem that HDMI.org is having is that some mfrs are displaying the HDMI 2.0 logo when in fact their sets do not fully comply with the complete 2.0 specs. What HDMI.org wants the mfrs' to do is list which HDMI 2.0 features their devices have instead of just advertising HDMI 2.0. The HDMI chipsets that are capable of 4:2:2, 8, 10, or 12-bit, 17.82 Gbps aren't available yet (as far as I know of) in the 2014 tv's. Sony has a HDMI 2.0 upgrade for their tv's this year but that's only at about 8.91Gbps which is certainly part of HDMI 2.0 but does not mean full compliance. What about CEC Extensions, Dual-view, multi-stream audio, 21:9 aspect, dynamic auto lip-sync? It's a marketing game that the mfrs are doing to lure folks in which, imo, is a bit deceptive. This is one of the few things that I agree with HDMI.org about. The mfrs should list which features that their "HDMI 2.0" tv's have. CEC Extensions alone is worth knowing about if your tv has it for sure or not.
Otto Pylot is online now  
post #8 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 11:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gatti-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: austin texas
Posts: 1,012
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 43
That makes no sense. If you say your set is 2.0 hdmi then it must be 2.0 otherwise that's false advertising. It's odd their isn't a bigger deal being made of this.
gatti-man is offline  
post #9 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 12:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 239
There is a big deal about this from HDMI.org because if a mfr says HDMI 2.0, and they do in fact meet some of the HDMI 2.0 specs, they can say HDMI 2.0, at least that's my understanding. I don't know of a mfr that is stating "Full HDMI 2.0 Compliance". But it is confusing a lot of consumers just like the labeling of HDMI cables did a few years ago. HDMI.org finally got the mfrs to drop the "HDMI 1.4 Cable" from their marketing and got most of them to indicate high speed instead of 1.4 (which is the hardware spec). For me, until I see a device that is labeled as full HDMI 2.0 compliance, or which specific HDMI 2.0 specs they have, I'll wait. Besides, all of your devices have to be HDMI 2.0 to really take advantage of if and if they don't all have the same specs.......
Otto Pylot is online now  
post #10 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 12:37 PM
Member
 
HD_OCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Midwest
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
FWIW - Most consumer TV's will likely be adhering to the CEA's minimum definition for "Ultra High-Definition" or "Ultra HD"...
---
The Consumer Electronics Association announced on October 17, 2012, that "Ultra High-Definition", or "Ultra HD", would be used for displays that have an aspect ratio of at least 16:9 and at least one digital input capable of carrying and presenting native video at a minimum resolution of 3,840×2,160 pixels.
---
HD_OCD is offline  
post #11 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 12:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by al210 View Post

So are we saying without any 4K content a 4K display wont do anything better than a 1080P display would.

A 1080P blu-ray won't look better on a 4K display vs a high end 1080P TV?

I thought I might have read somewhere that it does 3D twice as fast?

Not twice as fast, but 4K TV can deliver passive 3D in full 1080p resolution (twice as detailed).

Passive 3D steers every other line into the left or right eye (example: all even lines into right eye, all odd lines into left eye) so the resulting image is only 540p instead of 1080p.

With a 4K set, there are 1080 lines to steer into the right eye and another 1080 lines to steer into the left eye, so the resulting 3D is full 1080p.

Their are not may 4K TVs offering passive 3D, but the CNET review of the LG9700 said that while the set had problems, the passive 3D was the best 3D they had ever seen.

The Toshiba L9400U may support full 1080p passive 3D - not clear yet.
fafrd is online now  
post #12 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 12:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bull3964's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 59
True 4k content is going to continue to be scarce for a long while and there's a lot of stuff that will never be 4k. Most movie workflows are still done at 2k even if the final output they send to the theaters is 4k. Ever since we moved to predominately digital workflows in the early 2000s, 2k has been the standard. For any of those films to get a true 4k release, they would need to be completely re-edited and have all the post (including SFX) work redone. 4k workflows are starting to become a little more common now, but expect a lot of post work to be done in 2k for a while still since it's cheaper (especially when heavy SFX are involved.)

For example, The Hobbit could never have a true 4k release unless they went back and redid ALL the SFX and post work. It was a 2k workflow, so 2k is all it will ever be unless they basically want to redo the movie. This isn't like the switch from SD to HD for home theater. There were nearly always higher than SD resolution assets available even if it just involved scanning the 35mm print. Nowadays, the 35mm print (when there even is one) is usually created from a 2k digital master so scanning it at 4k after the fact is going to make no difference. IF the movie was shot in 35mm or 4k digital and IF the studio wanted to re-edit it and redo all the post and special effects work, THEN it will get a true 4k release. Pre-2000 movies will fare better as there will likely be an edited film master that they can go back to and scan. However, unless you are dealing with 70mm, there are going to be some pretty sharp diminishing returns in image quality by doing so.

Upscaling is going to be a LOT more common in 4k than it ever was for HD. Don't shy away from a 4k TV if it has other qualities you want, but 4k should never be high on the list of buying features right now. It's going to be 5-10 years before 4k content is more than an occasional demo reel you pull out to wow guests so you'll likely be ready to upgrade displays by that point anyways.
peschiNL likes this.
bull3964 is offline  
post #13 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 01:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD_OCD View Post

FWIW - Most consumer TV's will likely be adhering to the CEA's minimum definition for "Ultra High-Definition" or "Ultra HD"...
---
The Consumer Electronics Association announced on October 17, 2012, that "Ultra High-Definition", or "Ultra HD", would be used for displays that have an aspect ratio of at least 16:9 and at least one digital input capable of carrying and presenting native video at a minimum resolution of 3,840×2,160 pixels.
---

That is very true. But I think a lot of consumers don't take the time to research what UHD/4k really means and may be upset if they find out that their 4k tv really only has a 3840 x 2160 native resolution. I just think that the marketing should be made clearer as far as labeling goes. As I've said, it may not make any perceptible difference to most but once true 4k content becomes more readily available, maybe the difference will be noticeable, unless the conversion algorithms remove that difference.
Otto Pylot is online now  
post #14 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 01:27 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
al210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by bull3964 View Post

True 4k content is going to continue to be scarce for a long while and there's a lot of stuff that will never be 4k. Most movie workflows are still done at 2k even if the final output they send to the theaters is 4k. Ever since we moved to predominately digital workflows in the early 2000s, 2k has been the standard. For any of those films to get a true 4k release, they would need to be completely re-edited and have all the post (including SFX) work redone. 4k workflows are starting to become a little more common now, but expect a lot of post work to be done in 2k for a while still since it's cheaper (especially when heavy SFX are involved.)

For example, The Hobbit could never have a true 4k release unless they went back and redid ALL the SFX and post work. It was a 2k workflow, so 2k is all it will ever be unless they basically want to redo the movie. This isn't like the switch from SD to HD for home theater. There were nearly always higher than SD resolution assets available even if it just involved scanning the 35mm print. Nowadays, the 35mm print (when there even is one) is usually created from a 2k digital master so scanning it at 4k after the fact is going to make no difference. IF the movie was shot in 35mm or 4k digital and IF the studio wanted to re-edit it and redo all the post and special effects work, THEN it will get a true 4k release. Pre-2000 movies will fare better as there will likely be an edited film master that they can go back to and scan. However, unless you are dealing with 70mm, there are going to be some pretty sharp diminishing returns in image quality by doing so.

Upscaling is going to be a LOT more common in 4k than it ever was for HD. Don't shy away from a 4k TV if it has other qualities you want, but 4k should never be high on the list of buying features right now. It's going to be 5-10 years before 4k content is more than an occasional demo reel you pull out to wow guests so you'll likely be ready to upgrade displays by that point anyways.

Are you saying that that 4K video service that Sony offers is still really only 2K because the originals were shot that way? confused.gif

Sammy 4k UN65HU9000 CURVED - Calman5 Calibrated" ------------- Oppo 103D for Blu Ray & SACD & DVD-A
Denon X4000 Audio Video Receiver
B&W 602 S3 & B&W HTM62 Center with Axiom QS4 surrounds ---------- SVS PB-1000 SUBWOOFER
al210 is offline  
post #15 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 01:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bull3964's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by al210 View Post

Are you saying that that 4K video service that Sony offers is still really only 2K because the originals were shot that way? confused.gif

Depends completely on the movie. I do know that Sony is not above 'fudging' the lines when it comes to advertising on this point.

They used the Raimi Spiderman moves to push 4k in theaters. While it may have been mastered in 4k and had principle photography in 4k, all of the CGI was rendered in 2k. Sit back and think about how much of Spiderman did NOT involve CGI and you tell me as to whether or not that was a true 4k movie.

Edit:

Here's a prime example. They have Total Recall 2012 on their 4k movie list.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1386703/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec
Quote:
Cinematographic Process:

Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)
Panavision (anamorphic) (source format)
Super 35 (source format) (some shots)

So, unless they went back and redid all the post for that movie (extremely unlikely due to the box office returns), it's simply an upscale. The same goes with all the episodes of Breaking Bad they have. Breaking Bad was done with a 2k DI so it's very unlikely they went back to the source film, re-scanned at 4k, and then redid all the post work.

On the other hand, I would love to see their 4k version of Ghostbusters on their top of the line TV. That would be true 4k. The newer stuff like Captain Philips and Elysium were done with a 4k DI so they should be better than most. However, that does not guarantee that all the assets USED would be 4k. I would bet that most of the CGI in Elysium was done at a lower resolution because there's so much motion blur it won't matter.
peschiNL likes this.
bull3964 is offline  
post #16 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 01:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
indept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Deptford,Nj.
Posts: 695
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Isn't this the same argument we've had about720 vs 1080? Basically you won't see any difference unless you sit 2 feet from your 80" tv, of course then you have to worry about whiplash trying to see everything.
indept is offline  
post #17 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 01:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by indept View Post

Isn't this the same argument we've had about720 vs 1080? Basically you won't see any difference unless you sit 2 feet from your 80" tv, of course then you have to worry about whiplash trying to see everything.

Possibly. I think it went a little to the left though when I brought up UHD vs 4k and HDMI 2.0 when it comes to what people are actually getting and how it's being marketed just to get those sales going.
Otto Pylot is online now  
post #18 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 02:02 PM
Member
 
HD_OCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Midwest
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
(+1) I think the comment below from 'bull' is spot-on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bull3964 View Post

(snip)
Upscaling is going to be a LOT more common in 4k than it ever was for HD. Don't shy away from a 4k TV if it has other qualities you want, but 4k should never be high on the list of buying features right now. It's going to be 5-10 years before 4k content is more than an occasional demo reel you pull out to wow guests so you'll likely be ready to upgrade displays by that point anyways.
HD_OCD is offline  
post #19 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 02:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 9,907
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 494 Post(s)
Liked: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by al210 View Post

What would be the advantages to get a 4K vs 1080P set without any 4K content to display.
They advantage is you'll get to pay more now, and buy another 4k TV later when more content is available because inevitably the 4K TV you buy now won't be compatible with whatever 4k video standard they eventually settle on.

Think of the poor TV makers and the salesmen. They're counting on you to buy early and buy twice!
Stereodude is offline  
post #20 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 02:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,431
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Liked: 216
bull is right, 2K is still the DI finish of choice, and 3D has played a big part in keeping it there because stereo means you need to finish two movies essentially, one for the left eye and one for the right. That's fine for 2K res, but scale it up by a factor of four for EACH eye (4K having four times as many pixels as 2K) and you can see why MGM baulked at finishing Hobbit at 4K, for example.

But while I agree that even the studios who do have proper 4K workflows use upscaled 2K VFX, I think bull's being a bit too harsh by saying that a movie with a lot of CG couldn't really be a 4K flick, as the studios usually integrate the expertly-upscaled CG into the live-action 4K elements - so there's still something of 4K there unless the shot is 100% digital.

As for UHD versus 'actual' 4K @ 4096x2160, I don't see it as an issue at all because the latter has an aspect ratio of about 1.89, which is not a good fit for the 16:9/1.78 frame which has shaped TV production for the last twenty years or so. Exactly the same thing applies to theatrical 2K versus consumer HD (2048x1080 down to 1920x1080) so it's a bit late to get overly concerned about it because Hollywood will just carry on doing what it's been doing: cropping those DCI-spec 4K/2K finishes to the appropriate UHD/HD resolution.
Geoff D is offline  
post #21 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 02:33 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,785
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 848 Post(s)
Liked: 913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post

Maybe I need to brush up on my math but 3840 does not equal 4096. But , if there is no discernible difference, then I guess it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter. Good luck trying to see the difference at those resolutions.

As for 'why', I now have a 4K camcorder and can produce my own 4K content. That's one good reason.

Second, there is currently 4K content or soon will be. If you have a Sony there are 4K movies that are available for download. There's quite a bit of 4K content on YouTube and soon, other streaming services. Those will be available to see on the upcoming 2014 UHD TVs.

And yes, some people do feel that upscaled HD looks better on the new UHD TVs. I haven't done that test, so I'll reserve judgment.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #22 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 02:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bull3964's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post


But while I agree that even the studios who do have proper 4K workflows use upscaled 2K VFX, I think bull's being a bit too harsh by saying that a movie with a lot of CG couldn't really be a 4K flick, as the studios usually integrate the expertly-upscaled CG into the live-action 4K elements - so there's still something of 4K there unless the shot is 100% digital.

True, your output is better there and you can see the advantages. It was mainly to point out that things are a lot more fluid than we are used to seeing them in the past. A lot of the time there ISN'T any advantage to rendering at a higher resolution because the temporal resolution of the end product is the limiting factor so I wasn't being fair in that assessment. Though, in general, it calls into the question the necessity of ubiquitous 4k in the first place at our current frame rates, but that's a whole other debate.
bull3964 is offline  
post #23 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 02:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

It doesn't matter. Good luck trying to see the difference at those resolutions.

As for 'why', I now have a 4K camcorder and can produce my own 4K content. That's one good reason.

Second, there is currently 4K content or soon will be. If you have a Sony there are 4K movies that are available for download. There's quite a bit of 4K content on YouTube and soon, other streaming services. Those will be available to see on the upcoming 2014 UHD TVs.

And yes, some people do feel that upscaled HD looks better on the new UHD TVs. I haven't done that test, so I'll reserve judgment.

Good points.
Otto Pylot is online now  
post #24 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 03:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,431
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Liked: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by bull3964 View Post

True, your output is better there and you can see the advantages. It was mainly to point out that things are a lot more fluid than we are used to seeing them in the past. A lot of the time there ISN'T any advantage to rendering at a higher resolution because the temporal resolution of the end product is the limiting factor so I wasn't being fair in that assessment. Though, in general, it calls into the question the necessity of ubiquitous 4k in the first place at our current frame rates, but that's a whole other debate.

True, true. 4K is the tip of the iceberg when we consider where the industry may be headed re: HFR/HDR/WCG, and any other acronyms that they can think of! smile.gif
Geoff D is offline  
post #25 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 03:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Ok then. To keep OT, is there any advantage then to buying 4k now (2014) as opposed to a year from now?
Otto Pylot is online now  
post #26 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 03:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 9,907
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 494 Post(s)
Liked: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post

Ok then. To keep OT, is there any advantage then to buying 4k now (2014) as opposed to a year from now?
Absolutely! You've got a higher chance of getting HD-DVD'd if you buy now before the dust settles. This keeps people employed. You want to do your part to help the economy and create jobs right?
Stereodude is offline  
post #27 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 03:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bull3964's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

True, true. 4K is the tip of the iceberg when we consider where the industry may be headed re: HFR/HDR/WCG, and any other acronyms that they can think of! smile.gif

Then you go HFR 3D (like hobbit) and then REALLY back away from 4k because holy crap that's a lot of data to work with.
bull3964 is offline  
post #28 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 03:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post

Ok then. To keep OT, is there any advantage then to buying 4k now (2014) as opposed to a year from now?

You may miss out on the first UHD episodes of House of Cards streamed by Netflix a the end of the year, but that is about it.

If you have the option to wait for a year, you will obviously be taking less risk of development of some standard that your 2014 4K TV cannot support.

Those that bought 4K in 2013 found themselves in exactly with the emergence of HDMI2.0.

The UHD standard is not officially finalized yet but is expected to be finalized before year end.

Waiting to see the final UHD spec issue and then comparing the requirements of the final UHD spec against the spec of 2014 4K TVs would obviously be the safer way to go in terms of committing to something too early and later regretting it.

I'm in pretty much the same situation as you 55" 1080p LED/LCD no looking for something 65-70" by the end of this year.

2014 seems to be a good year to see how the dust settles, so how soon do you need to get a new set?
fafrd is online now  
post #29 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 03:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by bull3964 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

True, true. 4K is the tip of the iceberg when we consider where the industry may be headed re: HFR/HDR/WCG, and any other acronyms that they can think of! smile.gif

Then you go HFR 3D (like hobbit) and then REALLY back away from 4k because holy crap that's a lot of data to work with.

I thought that 3D was typically only 1080p (or less), so full HFR WCG 1080p 3D should be no more data than HFR WCG 4K (non-3D), right?
fafrd is online now  
post #30 of 97 Old 03-28-2014, 03:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bull3964's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post

I thought that 3D was typically only 1080p (or less), so full HFR WCG 1080p 3D should be no more data than HFR WCG 4K (non-3D), right?

But in order to get a 4k 2D version of a 3d HFR movie, you'd have to do a DI of each eye at 4k at the high framerate. That is, if you even captured it in 4k to begin with. I believe the hobbit was actually only captured in 2k because capturing 4k stereo at 48fps would have been hugely expensive from a data storage perspective.
bull3964 is offline  
Reply LCD Flat Panel Displays
Gear in this thread - L7400U by PriceGrabber.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off