Originally Posted by dsinger
4k is more marketing than a real benefit in many instances but producing 4k LCDs costs little more than 2k.
Regarding your previous comment on 1080p, 1080i deinterlaced properly has as good PQ as 1080p for a given bit rate. The difference is OTA, cable/sat are limited to around 19 mbit max and most is sent out at a lot less than that. 2k BD is around 45 mbit max.
I will agree with your marketing statement
If the market will be flooded with these 4K Tv's as you say...then that would mean they would need to be priced at( or below) where 2K sets are
.in a shrinking industry where they are trying to get something new and enticing, each year, to get the public to buy another TV....and charge more for
The only way they will move these 4K Tv's to the masses is price them at the same price as 2K
Something I don't think is a good thing for the TV industry
The other part is broadcasting..OTA...Cable..satellite
what cost is involved in their switching to higher resolution...and in the case of cable/satellite does 4K capability add more to your already crazy monthly bill?
So..if Direct Tv says it will cost $25.00 more a month to get 4K...and then you have to go out and buy a capable TV
Then arguably your eye cant perceive the difference if the screen is under 80 inches..or you are inches away from your screen
I dont know...a few hurdles there
especially when much of what see today is not even 1080P ...and that format has been around for years
Think about it....a good 720 plasma at 50" or under...is a very good Tv for 90% of viewing