Will any of the top TV brands release a 4K projector for $3,000 or less by summer of 2014? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 21 Old 04-14-2013, 10:28 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
BestInTheWorld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 338
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Looking at some of the prices of televisions debuting 4K is very scary, and makes me sad this will likely be the successor of Blu-ray eek.gif

I don't know if 4K is all that or not, but I have read a Meridian 4K projector review last year, and it got amazing reviews for its 1080p playback, saying it looks better than a great 1080p projector, somehow. I don't know how, since no detail is added, and it's only uspcaled.

That Meridian goes for $10,000!

If 2014 summer is year two of the 4K format, will we see any entry level 4K projectors going for $3,000 or $3,500 at the very most??
BestInTheWorld is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 21 Old 04-16-2013, 11:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Florida and West Virginia, USA
Posts: 5,742
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestInTheWorld View Post

Looking at some of the prices of televisions debuting 4K is very scary, and makes me sad this will likely be the successor of Blu-ray eek.gif

I don't know if 4K is all that or not, but I have read a Meridian 4K projector review last year, and it got amazing reviews for its 1080p playback, saying it looks better than a great 1080p projector, somehow. I don't know how, since no detail is added, and it's only uspcaled.

That Meridian goes for $10,000!

If 2014 summer is year two of the 4K format, will we see any entry level 4K projectors going for $3,000 or $3,500 at the very most??

The Meridian model 810 4K projector sells for $185,000 (I have no idea where your $10K price came from). Currently the only consumer native 4K resolution projector is the Sony VPL-VW1000ES which has a list price of $25,000. Prices by mid-2014 for a native 4K projector may come down to perhaps $10K to $12K, but I would NOT expect to see prices drop to sub $5K for several more years.

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is offline  
post #3 of 21 Old 04-16-2013, 02:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
ratpacker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 767
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
I'm more concerned about when and where the native 4K content is going to come from.

XBL GT: deathpallie
ratpacker is offline  
post #4 of 21 Old 04-16-2013, 07:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Florida and West Virginia, USA
Posts: 5,742
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratpacker View Post

I'm more concerned about when and where the native 4K content is going to come from.

Sony 4K distribution network coming this fall and perhaps Blu-ray 4K within the next 2 years. Also Netfilix streaming 4K coming in two years and Directv 4K channels within 3 years.. Finally some network TV shows are now being shot with 4K camera and the ATSC has recently starting working on plans for the next generation broadcast TV system with it being Ultra HD either in the 4K or the 8K format (but probably at least 2020 before we see over the air broadcast UHD implemented in the USA).

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is offline  
post #5 of 21 Old 04-16-2013, 07:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Merillville, IN 46410
Posts: 3,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestInTheWorld View Post

Looking at some of the prices of televisions debuting 4K is very scary, and makes me sad this will likely be the successor of Blu-ray eek.gif

I don't know if 4K is all that or not, but I have read a Meridian 4K projector review last year, and it got amazing reviews for its 1080p playback, saying it looks better than a great 1080p projector, somehow. I don't know how, since no detail is added, and it's only uspcaled.

That Meridian goes for $10,000!

If 2014 summer is year two of the 4K format, will we see any entry level 4K projectors going for $3,000 or $3,500 at the very most??
I think 4K requires a good lens that will cost about $3k. Don't know if its true or not.
blee0120 is online now  
post #6 of 21 Old 04-17-2013, 11:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
RPS13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 29
There are a dozen things I'd want better than the current crop of <$3k projectors tend to do before I'd want to go from 1080P to 4k resolution.

I know people are obsessed with resolution because it's an easy number to quantify, but at some point other things like contrast, color reproduction, brightness, motion handling etc. all become more important than throwing more pixels at a screen.


As for streaming 4k channels - the current 1080P stuff looks pretty horrible since they compress it down to about 4.5 Mbps, which is about a third of what even decent 1080P needs. OTA broadcasts are about 4-5 times this with LESS resolution. So we're quickly getting to a point where quality would probably IMPROVE at the same bitrate by reducing resolution. But people love to click 1080P and watch on their tiny 50" TVs from 15' away and think it's a great picture with macroblocking and poor motion handling galore.
musicalfox likes this.
RPS13 is offline  
post #7 of 21 Old 04-18-2013, 08:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Florida and West Virginia, USA
Posts: 5,742
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPS13 View Post

There are a dozen things I'd want better than the current crop of <$3k projectors tend to do before I'd want to go from 1080P to 4k resolution.

I know people are obsessed with resolution because it's an easy number to quantify, but at some point other things like contrast, color reproduction, brightness, motion handling etc. all become more important than throwing more pixels at a screen.


As for streaming 4k channels - the current 1080P stuff looks pretty horrible since they compress it down to about 4.5 Mbps, which is about a third of what even decent 1080P needs. OTA broadcasts are about 4-5 times this with LESS resolution. So we're quickly getting to a point where quality would probably IMPROVE at the same bitrate by reducing resolution. But people love to click 1080P and watch on their tiny 50" TVs from 15' away and think it's a great picture with macroblocking and poor motion handling galore.

I agreed that we cannot have high expectations for a 4K video streaming service, since it will almost certainly be overly compressed. However, a 4K download service is certainly possible as long as you have a reasonably high speed internet service without overly restrictive monthly data limits. I appears that using the latest 4K codecs, it should be possible to get the typical 4K movie (i.e., at 24 Hz) compressed down to under 50 GB with high quality video (or perhaps well under 50 GB with the best codecs and depending on the nature of the video material). For example, Red Digital Cinema with their Redray player and using their propritary 4K codec claims to be able to achieve very high quality results at an average data rate of just 20 Mbps which would require under 20 GB of storage for a typical movie encoded in 4K.


.

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is offline  
post #8 of 21 Old 04-18-2013, 02:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Merillville, IN 46410
Posts: 3,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPS13 View Post

There are a dozen things I'd want better than the current crop of <$3k projectors tend to do before I'd want to go from 1080P to 4k resolution.

I know people are obsessed with resolution because it's an easy number to quantify, but at some point other things like contrast, color reproduction, brightness, motion handling etc. all become more important than throwing more pixels at a screen.


As for streaming 4k channels - the current 1080P stuff looks pretty horrible since they compress it down to about 4.5 Mbps, which is about a third of what even decent 1080P needs. OTA broadcasts are about 4-5 times this with LESS resolution. So we're quickly getting to a point where quality would probably IMPROVE at the same bitrate by reducing resolution. But people love to click 1080P and watch on their tiny 50" TVs from 15' away and think it's a great picture with macroblocking and poor motion handling galore.
To be honest, I have no idea how 4k resolution will look and if it would look much better than 1080p. I'm more focused on PQ. If a 4k projector allows us to have a better picture with 1080p sources, I'm all in. I don't even care if there are not 4k material to watch. If it upscale the picture to enhance it, ill buy one. If I'm solely waiting for 4k movies or games to use 4k, ill be waiting awhile until it can easily obtained.
blee0120 is online now  
post #9 of 21 Old 04-18-2013, 02:41 PM
Member
 
Psythik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
As far as games are concerned, PCs are already ready to accept 4k; I'm sure that dozens of rich enthusiasts already game at that resolution. When it comes to consoles, current ones can barely run games in 720p as is, and judging by the specs we've seen on the PS4 so far, it won't be able to handle more than 1080p. And if the next console generation lasts as long as this one did, we definitely won't be seeing 4K console games until well into the 2020s.
Psythik is offline  
post #10 of 21 Old 04-18-2013, 06:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
ratpacker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 767
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Wouldn't you need a really big screen to tell the difference between 1080p and 4k? I would imagine that 4k brings with it other advantages such as more/better colors, etc., but I would think that increased resolution would be the least discernible thing on real world home theater screens. I am off base here?

XBL GT: deathpallie
ratpacker is offline  
post #11 of 21 Old 04-20-2013, 04:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Florida and West Virginia, USA
Posts: 5,742
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratpacker View Post

Wouldn't you need a really big screen to tell the difference between 1080p and 4k? I would imagine that 4k brings with it other advantages such as more/better colors, etc., but I would think that increased resolution would be the least discernible thing on real world home theater screens. I am off base here?

I addressed this in a recent blog - HERE

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is offline  
post #12 of 21 Old 04-22-2013, 12:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
RPS13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post

I agreed that we cannot have high expectations for a 4K video streaming service, since it will almost certainly be overly compressed. However, a 4K download service is certainly possible as long as you have a reasonably high speed internet service without overly restrictive monthly data limits. I appears that using the latest 4K codecs, it should be possible to get the typical 4K movie (i.e., at 24 Hz) compressed down to under 50 GB with high quality video (or perhaps well under 50 GB with the best codecs and depending on the nature of the video material). For example, Red Digital Cinema with their Redray player and using their propritary 4K codec claims to be able to achieve very high quality results at an average data rate of just 20 Mbps which would require under 20 GB of storage for a typical movie encoded in 4K.


.

Sure, you can probably get a compressed 4k movie to fit in 20 GB with acceptable quality. And I'd say probably more like 30 GB is a more realistic target for anything with much action and a "next generation codec", and current h264 is going to need more like 40 GB minimum for a very compressed 4k movie.

But most streaming services offer file sizes WELL below an acceptable limit. iTunes, Netflix, Vudu etc. all offer excessively compressed streams IMO. To them, bandwidth is a cost that takes away from their bottom line. And honestly, it's hard to tell how poor the quality is on the usual ~46" LCD or so, so they get away with it. They usually offer around 4.5 Mbps for 1080P, and their 3 Mbps 720P streams frequently look better because of the higher bitrate/pixel ratio when it comes to anything with any sort of motion.

So again, 4k streaming is entirely feasible with our current technology, but the reality of the situation is that upon implementation it will probably look subjectively close to the current over compressed 1080P streams due to the lowering of the bitrate/pixel ratio in all likelyhood.
RPS13 is offline  
post #13 of 21 Old 04-22-2013, 05:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Florida and West Virginia, USA
Posts: 5,742
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPS13 View Post

Sure, you can probably get a compressed 4k movie to fit in 20 GB with acceptable quality. And I'd say probably more like 30 GB is a more realistic target for anything with much action and a "next generation codec", and current h264 is going to need more like 40 GB minimum for a very compressed 4k movie.

But most streaming services offer file sizes WELL below an acceptable limit. iTunes, Netflix, Vudu etc. all offer excessively compressed streams IMO. To them, bandwidth is a cost that takes away from their bottom line. And honestly, it's hard to tell how poor the quality is on the usual ~46" LCD or so, so they get away with it. They usually offer around 4.5 Mbps for 1080P, and their 3 Mbps 720P streams frequently look better because of the higher bitrate/pixel ratio when it comes to anything with any sort of motion.

So again, 4k streaming is entirely feasible with our current technology, but the reality of the situation is that upon implementation it will probably look subjectively close to the current over compressed 1080P streams due to the lowering of the bitrate/pixel ratio in all likelyhood.

How much compression you can use depends on just how efficient the codec is. For example 1080p using AVC-HD codec defined by h.264 is capable of compressing video to about 1/3 to 1/2 the data rate (and file size) for the same quality as you would get when using the less efficient MPEG 2 codec (as used for broadcast HDTV, DVDs and a few older Blu-rays). The new HEVC codec defined by the recently released h.265 standard is said to be about 50% more effecient than h.264. With the new HEVC codec you will probably need data rates of on the order of 40 to 60 Mbps to achieve really high quality coding of 2D 4K video at 24 Hz, or just a little higher than the highest data rate used with h.264 for encoding the highest quality possible with 1080p at 24Hz for Blu-ray discs. My mention of Red in my earlier post was just to note that Red Digitial Cinema claims they have a highly efficient, but propritary, 4K codec that is used with the Redray 4K media player. A few companies having been using the Rayray player to showcase their 4K flat panel TVs at recent trade shows. I cannot say how good it really is for handling fast motion without displaying digital artifacts. In any case Red is not talking about streaming video, rather they are talking about downloading the 4K video files onto the player's hard drive. I agree that a 4K streaming service, such as that announced by Netflix, will likely not be very good quality (as is the case for their current HD video streaming service which is much lower quality than the typical Blu-ray).

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is offline  
post #14 of 21 Old 09-25-2013, 10:40 AM
Newbie
 
MikeBack9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

I have demoed the Sony $25,000 4K projector.  The picture is fantastic.  Looks like a giant high res TV and not a projector image.  I think the 4K image is particularly suited for projector enthusiasts as the 4K makes if possible to have a really large screen, say 150 inch.

MikeBack9 is offline  
post #15 of 21 Old 09-25-2013, 07:08 PM
Member
 
badshah2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 127
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post

but I would NOT expect to see prices drop to sub $5K for several more years.

My prediction: 4K projector for under $2000 by Christmas 2015. It may be a Black Firday deal, or a Boxing Day special, but that's what we'll be able to buy it for by that time.
Let's see.... smile.gif
badshah2000 is offline  
post #16 of 21 Old 09-26-2013, 09:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
PrimeTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower California
Posts: 1,729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 33
$2K by Xmas 2015? That's rather optimistic. Don't think the manufacturers will let go of the Early Adopter money that quickly, regardless of advances in fabrication. Plasmas took six years to drop that much.

I'd say more like $3K by Xmas 2016.
PrimeTime is offline  
post #17 of 21 Old 02-20-2014, 11:54 AM
Newbie
 
Alrey328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

I would have to agree, mass population have no need for this, 1080p is clear enough for the average consumer, besides who has an extra 5 grand to dish out just for maybe minimal improvement. The only person who want to purchase this is somebody who has the money, space and knowledge who wants a bigger "projector picture"

This won't do as well as they are expecting, I would buy one once the price falls around 2k. Which is going to happen or consumers won't take the bait. Just my 2 cents.

Alrey328 is offline  
post #18 of 21 Old 02-20-2014, 12:39 PM
Member
 
whiteoutreviews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

I know Polaroid (not top brand) was trying to release 50" 55" and 65" 4K resolution TV's for around $1,500 and below. They wanted the 55" to be under $1,000, but not sure of what actual pricing and specs will be. Vizio and some other brand names will be releasing consumer friendly prices on 4K TV's probably into the 3rd quarter. 

whiteoutreviews is offline  
post #19 of 21 Old 02-20-2014, 01:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolhand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,768
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I hold no hope for any significant widespread 4k content delivery in the next several years. I mean we aren't getting near HD quality from our HD now. You think files with significantly larger data sets are going to be easily distributed? Nevermind all new hardware will have to hit homes...
coolhand is offline  
post #20 of 21 Old 02-20-2014, 01:20 PM
Member
 
whiteoutreviews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

Going to need Google Fiber to stream all of that 4K UHD content... It will be quite some time before 4K is integrated into the consumer world. Good point coolhand, new hardware for homes too.

whiteoutreviews is offline  
post #21 of 21 Old 02-20-2014, 07:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 129
I see more 1080p quality going up via better contrast and brightness from lasers instead of bulbs, higher color depth and refresh rates, and possibly even stuff like HDR or variable refresh rates via Display Port 1.3 (that would be my dream, a 144hz 3D display that can go from 0hz to 144hz with very low lag added, smoothly).

Plenty of quality improvements in 1080p will happen before 4K will become available, and by that time, you'll see all those same goodies in 4K projectors. Don't wait for 4K though, I think better blacks, higher refresh rates and bit depths, longer bulb life, all those things are important to projectors, IMO more than 4K. Although I'd love to be able to afford a 4K PJ, I don't think they'll be affordable for another couple years, at least. And that's largely due to competition with UHD LCDs that will make the higher cost 4K projectors' prices come down.

Once BenQ gets into the 4K game, then it's all over. Or once rollable OLED comes out, then conversely, projectors are done for. Imagine a roll-down 2.35 : 1 OLED with perfect blacks and ultra high res, low power, all that good stuff.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
Reply Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP

Tags
Sony Vpl Vw1000es Projector
Gear in this thread

User Tag List

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