Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it? - Page 5

The fact of the matter is that even after we start seeing 4k 50 and 60" displays appearing more widely, we should have an opportunity to compare them (4k sets) with comparably equipped (read: other similar PQ tech, outside of rez) 1080 units from the same CEMs who just may make the mistake of employing the same technology on 1080 and 4k sets and we're going to find out just how pointless it all is..but we'll still have a % that swears they see more detail at 12 feet, or sit 4 feet away from their 50" tv.

There were more than a few of these done with 720 vs 1080...and most here already know or can guess how they turned out.

You can count on it. It's simply the way this works.

James

Yes, 4K is what we're gonna get and video game consoles will be the 'core' of many of these systems so the timing is good. We all know how the adoption of new standards goes.

That's certainly why I run a HTPC, but consoles are going to offer it anyhow. There are some genres where it'll work, others where the performance hit will be too much. Programmers have a way of working around obstacles. PC gaming will remain ahead of consoles in terms of graphical quality, thanks to high-end video cards but the fact is those games will be designed with textures and graphics that allow 4K capability and I don't see the consoles sitting that out.

You typed the above. Video games won't rescue 4k any more than they did 1080. Your purported "gamers can't get enough resolution" represents a fantastically small number of the hundred million plus in the US alone that play video games. More detail (again, not really for 99% of the screens and viewing distance scenarios, but, whatever) won't change how fast someone sees the enemy on the screen either, but that's for another forum.

4K is coming and will stay if video games were eradicated forever tomorrow.

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 1/7/13 at 10:20am

I stand by what I said. Video games already outsell music and movies and the market is growing. The future is about interactivity and 4K is a boon for it. I think you'll end up being wrong about this. Surely you don't think video games are going away, their importance is huge, just look at how much space they are given by retailers vs. other electronic entertainment. PC games are not even relevant, consoles get an isle per platform. If you are streaming content at home, a PS4 will be the 'top of the line' way to do it, a perfect match for the new 4K set - no matter how much interactivity they build into the TV itself.

Stand by it all you wish...doesn't make it any less invalid.

Imperatively of course, it doesn't matter what outsells what (comparing the sales of video games played for days/weeks/months vs movies that most watch a single time for 90 minutes is fantastically archaic and non-linear anyway). I believe nearly 100 movies are rented for every sold, now. Regardless, the latter has has nothing to do with the contention that video games will "rescue" 4k. Nothing I said or implied infers that video games are anything but hugely popular and will continue to be...that of course has nothing to do with them saving 4k.

And when 4k tv eventually proliferates the market (which it surely will) it won't be because a % of gamers who demand they own the highest resolution screen available. I'd love to know how many "gamers" are playing on 32" 720 $299 Emersons as it lays right now...I'd guess DOZENS of times more than those on $3500 1080 60" displays.

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 1/7/13 at 10:48am

Sony's next system development kit runs on an AMD A-10 APU. This thing will DIE at 4K resolutions. It will be a slide show, literally.

Yes we need it. When has a better display not been needed? If we don't need 4k then why did we ever progress from the first black and white tv's? Progress is good.

Not as a platform for streaming for 4K movies. It should be the leading platform for that, just like the PS3 is today for Netflix in the living room. Besides, children will not cease to exist and they are not as picky. To them, 4K can look jagged and it's okay - so long as it's an improvement on the Jagged 1080p of the current generation.

LG will be releasing their 55" OLED HDTV for $12,000 and a 84" 4K HDTV for $17,000.

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/gadgetbox/lg-bringing-oled-tv-us-march-12-000-1B7862178

http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-84LM9600-led-tv

I will pass on these thank you...
Edited by moviegeek - 1/7/13 at 10:52am

If the price were no more than 1080p then fine. But a higher price? Forget it.

Sidenote: Panny says next to nothing about their 2013 PDP's at CES.

Disappointing.

James

To be honest, I do not understand what you are trying to say.

Of note, hardly any current console games run at 1080p, most current gen games run at 720p natively. Next gen consoles will certainly not run at 4K resolution, they will barely be able to push consistent 1080p/60.

Yep. Amongst other important variables.

James

My guess is, does 4K show that much better than 1080p? {3D is a separate subject}

People buy pretty pictures- then “ it looks good enough”. And wouldn’t even care about spending $ for a good calibration. Can I get a = PQ through good calibration versus just counting Pixels.

You see it every where- look at any Costco store;

65”/85” for ~$1463. Size and $$$.

 Brand & PQ doesn’t really matter much.

 I’ll replace my NEC 50” plasma [2004] in 2013/14.

It will come down to PQ [Plasma/LED]- size- $$$. If I can’t see a deserting difference between the 2 formats. I’ll stick to current technology. Because the price will be lower and most likely not get into a 4K for another 8 years out. Also, content to make these 4K standout, wouldn’t be readably available for ~? 5yrs out. Forget streaming.

I would love it, but really I'd love to see HD broadcast quality be improved to have zero pixelation/macroblocking and see sports at 1080p120. Watching football this past week-end the fine detail, while obviously better in HD than the SD broadcast, is really sorely lacking. 1080p120 with Blu-ray detail quality would be awesome.

720P games are output upscaled to 1080p and people buy it. 1080p games will be upscaled to 4K and people will buy it. I've played some native 1080P games on the PS3 and within certain limits it works - arcade games are a great example. With super stardust HD I was even able to enjoy 1080P 3D. There's every reason to think there will be 4K video games that look good. It seems premature to emphatically state what the platform and technology will or will not be capable of. The demise of the PS3 was predicted well before it came out, instead it cemented Blu-ray's credibility as a format and to this day it is the 'reference' for 1080p viewing at home. Couldn't something similar happen with 4K?

Edited by imagic - 1/7/13 at 11:43am

funny to fall into this subject.
I was just looking to upgrade my AVR and found the Sony ES model that
will upscale bluray to 4K output. made me look to avs and find out more.

Based on the development kit it is quite possible to predict what the final console will be capable of. Obviously we are not devs but we can at least estimate ballpark performance.

In any case I really do not understand your argument. First you are saying that gamers will help 4K adoption because they need quality visuals. Then it seems to me that you are saying that game companies will put out upscaled crappy games with big 4K stickers and stupid people will buy it because they don't know any better? So, are we talking about hardcore gamers who want quality visuals (and will know immediately whether they are quality or not) or kids who don't know any better?

OT, but I see you are from Providence. Having mis-spent my youth hanging out at Store 24 on Thayer feeding quarters to the Robotron machine and playing Zoo Keeper at IHOP, I know better than to argue with one of the fine citizens of that fine city.

In general my view of 4K - sure why not, but I just do not see it as a major jump. The TV industry needs 4K much more than I do (as opposed to old SD TVs vs new 1080p sets where the difference is night and day).

Speaking of gaming, by the way, I will always take lower resolution and consistent framerate over high resolution with drops in framerate.

I kind of agree with the author of this topic. It would be nice to have sure but at what point would you really see the benefit? Maybe when 4K content is more abundant and the price of 4K Sets is the same as where LCD/LED tv's are right now but that could take a while. Not to mention, I could only imagine how SD and pixelated tv broadcasts would look on a large 4K monitor.

What is the colorspace standard for 4K? Thats more important than just resolution..If we cant get native 1080p broadcast tv than i think we can forget broadcast 4k. I think in tokyo they experimented with 8k broadcast tv. Right now i would put my money on a nice OLED with amazing black levels and color than 4K.

I agree with you 100%. Would love a set like that, unfortunately you will not sell "black levels" to the general public.
Maybe we will get this as side benefit.

Those are early development kits. Not final. We know nothing about how powerful the PS4 will be because.......sony hasn't announced it yet. Anything else is just guesses and speculation.

Now my speculation is that seeing how the entire sony corporation lives in a 4K world right now, im betting the PS4 supports 4K in some type of way. Be it the OS like how PS3's OS is standard 1080p. The PS4's dashboard will be 4K. 4K BD's? I think so. Again, seeing how the company is all about 4K right now what better way to make 4K a success than having your gaming device play 4K movies? Just as PS3 helped bluray succeed, i'm expecting the same with PS4.

And games. I don't think the PS4 will have full blown native 4K AAA games, but i expect small downloadable PSN titles to be 4K.

Whatever the percentage is, it's growing and will continue to. But so what if only a small percentage of people will benefit from 2160p? It's good for them. If it's not good for you, don't buy it. Let people who want it have it and educate people whether they need it or not. Don't just whine that some people are getting something that doesn't interest you.

You'll get your picture quality improvements eventually at a reasonable price. Meanwhile manufacturers have to try to make profits in the way they think they can. Mostly I hear you complaining that the industry is putting effort into something which isn't the exact thing you want.

Sure, the 1% of us that upgrade might benefit. But the big question is how are the manufacturers looking at 4K? I think if they are betting big that a big percentage of the populace will start upgrading sooner to get 4K, they might be in for a big surprise. They bet big that 3D would push people into upgrading. This didn't pan out. Sharp bet big that people would flock to high end large panel TV's. They lost 5.6 billion dollars last year for that error. I just hope 4K is a low cost addition to manufacturers and a marketing gimmick instead of an all or nothing bet. I would hate for the big manufacturers to disappear (Sharp is already very close to going out) or stop making TV's while the super low end guys like Chinese manufacturer Hinise(sp?) take over.

I'm quite sure it's fairly low cost. You could tape 4 computer monitors to get 2160p. It's not a challenge to make the pixels small enough, especially if we're talking large flat panels. The very high prices for these new 2160p panels is mostly marketing, and the fact that they're made is small volumes. It was the same with 3D. The first 3D panels had very high prices, but the underlying technology wasn't fundamentally expensive, and that's why you don't have to pay much for 3D now.

If a company is on the brink, they'll go out of business despite 2160p, not because of it.

This might shed a little lite on what mfgs think.

The 4k thing literally only has merits with very large screen sizes, as many people have posted here. Yes, in a theater, 4k will be nice and make a huge difference. In just about any home application outside of a high end home theater with 10' + screens its going to make zero difference. Anybody who thinks they can see a difference on a 55" TV is the same type of person who can "hear" a difference when they use $600, 6' long silver speaker cables over a standard quality oxygen free copper 16 guage cable.

Its like arguing that drowning someone in 12' deep water is somehow better than drowning someone 6' water, they're still going to be drowned.

4K sets may actually hurt sales. It's possible many that were getting ready to purchase another set will now wait until 4K sets get more reasonable in price, which may not even happen due to very low production.