AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it? - Page 6

post #151 of 385
1/7/13 at 9:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoPotatoNacho View Post

...
1080p is pretty bad on 100", a friend of mine had a Sony projector (was bloody expensive, forgot the model but cost him what 10K) and the picture still wasn't really there in terms of quality.
...

It must not have been calibrated properly. I've has 1080p projectors since the JVC RS1 came out and have been satisfied, but only "satisfied". But then, with my RS20, I got equipment just a few months ago to do 21 point gamma/grayscale and 125 color cube calibration. The results are stunning. Everyone agrees... my wife, my friends, my dog. I had no idea how good a projector could look. Probably a good 2.2 gamma curve adds the most depth and realism with good colors a close second. My point is that projected 1080p has a lot of legs left. I'm not sure what the price point would have to be for me to consider 4k equipment. Watching Harry Potter sitting 10' from a 10' wide calibrated image is an incredible experience.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #152 of 385
1/8/13 at 4:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrimnir View Post

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.

100% correct.
Reply
Reply
post #153 of 385
1/8/13 at 5:14am
Do we need 4K? No. I think 1080p is more then good enough. To see the advantages of 4K your gonna need a pretty big tv or projector to see the difference in picture quality, anything smaller forget it. I think the industry is jumping the gun on this one and it wont amount to much.......not for a long time at least. Alot of people are happy with 1080p including myself and thats the way it's gonna be for me now and in the future. 4K: To much money and way to soon.
Reply
Reply
post #154 of 385
1/8/13 at 6:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

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.

If that's what you think of my posts, either re-read them or have someone help you out as to their comprehension/meaning.

It's not about what "I" want at all...it's about a "need" or problem that doesn't exist for 99% of the populace...and still doesn't a few years into 70+" displays being available for quite reasonable expenditures.

The idea that a decent number of Americans are going to gravitate (read: purchase) LARGE displays anytime soon simply is not taking form. And I could care less about "significant jumps in large display sales" touted by Sharp. The fact of the matter is that they have grown from unbelievably insignificant to fantastically insignificant...the vast majority still do not want gigantic tv's in their living room, never mind paying thousands for them

Until TWO things change: a sea change in the public's "acceptability" of 70, 80, 90, and 100" televisions in their living rooms, and a MARKED reduction in their cost, 4k will be precisely what it is: market-speak to sell tvs.

It's not about raging against "tech" that's coming anyway, it's about gauging the nature/degree of its validity/prospective use...precisely as the title of the THREAD reads. Or if you choose to imply/state that it IS a need to some, at the very least recognize that figure is fantastically small right now and will likely continue to grow at a snails pace until both of the above parameters change dramatically.

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 1/8/13 at 6:52am
Reply
Reply
post #155 of 385
1/8/13 at 6:39am
I need to have a couple of questions answered before I can make up my mind about this...

Will falling confetti or strobe lights look better on a 4KTV than in 1080p?

And how about the blurry spots wink.gif during Survivor, will those be any clearer? biggrin.gif
Reply
Reply
post #156 of 385
1/8/13 at 6:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog750 View Post

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.

Precisely. But unlike huge panels that people already won't/don't buy- per your example- they're going to be putting this "tech" in displays where its inclusion is virtually meaningless, while driving up costs. More panels people won't be buying...until of course price comes down dramatically, which I believe will be the case with 4k at break-neck speed.

By the way: Sharps 60" 4K tv for 2013: $31,000.

That's not a typo.

James
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 385
1/8/13 at 7:27am
As for the literal meaning of the thread and it's title, no, we don't need 2160p. We don't need any of this stuff on AVS forums. But I think the OP is just trying to generate some interesting discussion about 2160p.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

If that's what you think of my posts, either re-read them or have someone help you out as to their comprehension/meaning.

In that case you might consider whether or not you're effectively expressing the nuances of your opinions in your posts. To be sure I reread your posts here, but still I'm mainly looking at this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

I would again implore CEMs to improve contrast, black/white levels, color, off angle, motion, etc to REALLY up PQ but we all know none of the aforementioned will sell new TVs like "super" "ultra" and "mega-magnificent" HD.

It's pretty clear you have very little interest in 2160p, if not a bit of a bone to pick.

As far as the usefulness of 2160p to the vast majority of viewers, believe me, we're on the same page. I also share you skepticism about a large amount of people adopting very large screens (though it will surely grow some amount, as it has been). But I don't understand the obsession with percentages. What about the consumers out there who want a screen big enough for 2160p and want to sit close enough to benefit from it? Should they be denied it until the masses get your acceptable threshhold (whatever that is) of contrast, black/white levels, color, etc at the price you approve of? Even though certain manufacturers already demonstrated they can do 2160p? Even though they find an opportunity to compete on resolution when they can't on contrast? Etc etc. I appreciate your populism but that's not how this market works, and you know it, considering how many times you've said 2160p is inevitably coming. You even say they'll become very cheap fast. So what's the point other than picking bones? Education? I think others here have already done a good job of that without funneling it through a type A, hedgehog personality.
Reply
Reply
post #158 of 385
1/8/13 at 7:39am
Surely, display tech won't stopo at 1080p. For the people arguing that the benefit of 4K isn't apparent to most people comparing to 1080p, I would argue the same can be said about 720p vs 1080p. And yet,1080p is the norm now. If you build it, people will make use of it. Program delivery infrustracture problem will be conquered. People are watching 1080p movies on the cellphone nowadays, those same people will demand better when they switch to watching TV.
Reply
Reply
post #159 of 385
1/8/13 at 8:03am
Where can you watch 1080p movies on cellphone? Unless you are talking about pirated MKV files...
Reply
Reply
post #160 of 385
1/8/13 at 8:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

It must not have been calibrated properly. I've has 1080p projectors since the JVC RS1 came out and have been satisfied, but only "satisfied". But then, with my RS20, I got equipment just a few months ago to do 21 point gamma/grayscale and 125 color cube calibration. The results are stunning. Everyone agrees... my wife, my friends, my dog. I had no idea how good a projector could look. Probably a good 2.2 gamma curve adds the most depth and realism with good colors a close second. My point is that projected 1080p has a lot of legs left. I'm not sure what the price point would have to be for me to consider 4k equipment. Watching Harry Potter sitting 10' from a 10' wide calibrated image is an incredible experience.

Exactly! Resolution is just one factor. Personally I think if HD would have been labeled 2K which it essentially is I don't think people would be as easily swayed. 2K Digital Cinema projectors were the standard once on large cinema screens. Sure those screens needed 4K to look more natural, but 2K in the home environment even on projectors is more than adequate. This is nothing more than viral campaign by the CE companies looking to get people to upgrade. The last three years it was 3D and OLED. Now the buzzword is 4K.

4K+ has a place... in large screen commercial venues. In the home its pretty much a waste of time when you consider no native content to justify the expense of cutting edge hardware.
Reply
Reply
post #161 of 385
1/8/13 at 8:22am
Only companies and extremely rich people will be buying 84" 4K TV's that cost $17,000, the average consumer is buying 40-50" TV's for <$1000. There won't be any 4K content in the foreseeable future so it's a novelty item right now. It's like HDMI standards that support Deep Color, where's the content?
Reply
Reply
post #162 of 385
1/8/13 at 8:26am
Having seen the Sony 84" 4k overseas, color me unimpressed. Sure, I love the screen size but at 10 feet, it looked the same as 1080p. You need a really big screen to see a significant difference. I would say at least 100 inches. Other than trying to increase their profits, I really see no point.
Reply
Reply
post #163 of 385
1/8/13 at 8:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita View Post

Exactly! Resolution is just one factor.
...

Quote:
Originally Posted by moviegeek View Post

Only companies and extremely rich people will be buying 84" 4K TV's that cost $17,000, the average consumer is buying 40-50" TV's for <$1000. There won't be any 4K content in the foreseeable future so it's a novelty item right now. It's like HDMI standards that support Deep Color, where's the content?

Toknowshita understands my point. That said, I remember seeing Sony's first 1080p projector for the home on display in a large jewel case up in 'Vegas back in 2004. It was $29,000. Now, 8 years later, we have superior projectors for 1/10th of that and Sony's new 4k projector is already selling for substantially less than $29k. I fully expect that to happen with 4k. And, remember also that there was a time when we had no HD content at all. Everything comes along. It's just a matter of time. So, when 4k media and equipment reach current 2k prices, why not?
Reply
Reply
post #164 of 385
1/8/13 at 8:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita View Post

This is nothing more than viral campaign by the CE companies looking to get people to upgrade. The last three years it was 3D and OLED. Now the buzzword is 4K.
4K+ has a place... in large screen commercial venues. In the home its pretty much a waste of time when you consider no native content to justify the expense of cutting edge hardware.

For decades TV market was relatively stagnant where new purchases were mostly attrition-based. Then we had the transition from analog to digital HD TV which resulted in a massive buying splurge by the general public, which TV manufacturers want to maintain. They tried 3D, it is a a niche, 4K is yet another attempt to repeat the massive buying splurge of the analog->digital conversion period.

Personally I see the TV market returning to attrition-based growth for the next 10 years or so, I just do not see an average buyer replacing their 1-2 year old 1080p set. Moreover, I do not see myself replacing my 1080p set and I buy tech stuff a lot more often than an average person.
Reply
Reply
post #165 of 385
1/8/13 at 8:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

I fully expect that to happen with 4k. And, remember also that there was a time when we had no HD content at all. Everything comes along. It's just a matter of time. So, when 4k media and equipment reach current 2k prices, why not?

So, when will I be able to watch my HBO in 1080p? So far I can't. I have FIOS and all I get is 1080i with very visible compression artifacts.
Reply
Reply
post #166 of 385
1/8/13 at 8:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWhip View Post

Having seen the Sony 84" 4k overseas, color me unimpressed. Sure, I love the screen size but at 10 feet, it looked the same as 1080p. You need a really big screen to see a significant difference. I would say at least 100 inches. Other than trying to increase their profits, I really see no point.

Screen size is just half the equation. I usually sit 6 feet from my 90" projection screen. It looks good with my 720p projector, great in with my 1080p projector, and should be better in 2160p. You're probably not used to sitting so close to a screen, and that's just fine. 2160p isn't for you.

I like the last few posts here. For one, the huge premium for 2160p will certainly come down. I support the technology here but I won't buy it until the price has dropped to a tenth. I also don't see 2160 spurring sales of TVs. It's just an incremental improvement. Nothing to get too excited or too threatened by.
Reply
Reply
post #167 of 385
1/8/13 at 8:51am
Some of you need to remember that most consumers don't have the space for a 80-100" screen(I am one of them), even if I could buy a 84" 4K TV for $1000 I wouldn't want it in my living room. Consumers are buying 40-50" TV's because the size is perfect for their room.
Reply
Reply
post #168 of 385
1/8/13 at 8:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by moviegeek View Post

Some of you need to remember that most consumers don't have the space for a 80-100" screen(I am one of them), even if I could buy a 84" 4K TV for $1000 I wouldn't want it in my living room.

I strongly agree with this. But some do have room for a 80-100" screen and that's whom 2160p is for.
Reply
Reply
post #169 of 385
1/8/13 at 8:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by durack View Post

So, when will I be able to watch my HBO in 1080p? So far I can't. I have FIOS and all I get is 1080i with very visible compression artifacts.

True. The fact is that there are a lot of enthusiasts here that want the latest and greatest, but the reality is that infrastructure for delivering/streaming 4K or even 1080p over a cable to get a BD type experience isn't there. Or the suits have decided that what they deliver is good enough for the masses and if thats the case does anyone really believe 4K is going to be anymore outside of niche than Laserdisc. I am sure there are some enthusiasts willing to go back to LD type prices to get a 'superior' product. But looking back on LD twenty years ago to where we are today with 1080p and lossless audio on a 5-in disc, I have to say I'm content even viewing on a 100-in 1080p 3D SXRD projector. The way some of the enthusiasts carry on about 4K they would have you believe that 1080p is unwatchable on even a modest sized projector which is simply BS. Again 1080p is essentially 2K and it is more than adequate for the vast majority of home projector systems.

Not saying I would never want it, but the major point is this:
It is not worth the money considering the lack of true content.
Edited by Toknowshita - 1/8/13 at 9:12am
Reply
Reply
post #170 of 385
1/8/13 at 8:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

As for the literal meaning of the thread and it's title, no, we don't need 2160p. We don't need any of this stuff on AVS forums. But I think the OP is just trying to generate some interesting discussion about 2160p.
In that case you might consider whether or not you're effectively expressing the nuances of your opinions in your posts. To be sure I reread your posts here, but still I'm mainly looking at this:
It's pretty clear you have very little interest in 2160p, if not a bit of a bone to pick.
As far as the usefulness of 2160p to the vast majority of viewers, believe me, we're on the same page. I also share you skepticism about a large amount of people adopting very large screens (though it will surely grow some amount, as it has been). But I don't understand the obsession with percentages. What about the consumers out there who want a screen big enough for 2160p and want to sit close enough to benefit from it? Should they be denied it until the masses get your acceptable threshhold (whatever that is) of contrast, black/white levels, color, etc at the price you approve of? Even though certain manufacturers already demonstrated they can do 2160p? Even though they find an opportunity to compete on resolution when they can't on contrast? Etc etc. I appreciate your populism but that's not how this market works, and you know it, considering how many times you've said 2160p is inevitably coming. You even say they'll become very cheap fast. So what's the point other than picking bones? Education? I think others here have already done a good job of that without funneling it through a type A, hedgehog personality.

Again. It's not about MY interest in 2160 at ALL. Zero. Not in the slightest.

"obsession with the percentages"? Ummm yeah, it's ALL about the percentages (demand/need based)...they define the market(s) for the viability of a product or service, coupled with price.

I'm not mandating this market (or any other for that matter) operates on a glorified popularity contest. Not even remotely. What I'm saying/complaining about is that "we" ("we" being the super, super majority) will suffer with stagnated tech (yes, you can again rest assure that the best advances in PQ will be reserved for the 4k sets) and artificially inflated prices until this entirely goofy pricing and "technology" comes (rightly) crashing down, and yes, I believe it will be swift- that's about the only good news here: that the vast, vast, vast majority will refuse to pay this absurd premium for 4k and it will- faster than any "tech" in recent memory, in my opinion- become the new "standard def" much, much, quicker than 1080 over 720.

Then, we'll all be happy. Right?

James
Reply
Reply
post #171 of 385
1/8/13 at 9:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

Screen size is just half the equation. I usually sit 6 feet from my 90" projection screen. It looks good with my 720p projector, great in with my 1080p projector, and should be better in 2160p. You're probably not used to sitting so close to a screen, and that's just fine. 2160p isn't for you.
I like the last few posts here. For one, the huge premium for 2160p will certainly come down. I support the technology here but I won't buy it until the price has dropped to a tenth. I also don't see 2160 spurring sales of TVs. It's just an incremental improvement. Nothing to get too excited or too threatened by.

6 feet from a 7 1/2 foot screen.

Pretty much all you need to know.

James
Reply
Reply
post #172 of 385
1/8/13 at 9:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

I strongly agree with this. But some do have room for a 80-100" screen and that's whom 2160p is for.

Who's denying this?

No one last time I checked. Sure 2160 80-100" TVs should show up immediately as they would actually fill a NEED- objectively and subjectively from a reasonable (I know, what's reasonable, sigh) seating and human visual acuity standpoint.

The inner dialog is clearly orbiting around televisions 60" or less and the need THERE for 2160 rez.

James
Reply
Reply
post #173 of 385
1/8/13 at 9:09am
I was reading an an article on Forbes.com a few minutes ago, it starts like this, and they nailed it.

"The TV industry has a problem. Many of us already have high definition TVs and we’re so happy with the picture quality that we have no desire to upgrade to a newer model."

2160p could be dead on arrival. Also, it's not the best time to introduce such an expensive piece of hardware to a global economy still recovering from financial disaster.

The 2160p naming convention makes sense but it's a mouthful. I prefer 4K for efficiently sake. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #174 of 385
1/8/13 at 9:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Again. It's not about MY interest in 2160 at ALL. Zero. Not in the slightest.

So you want 2160p then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

artificially inflated prices until this entirely goofy pricing

And you just don't want to wait. You know these high end, limited time inflated prices for products which are not yet widely available is one of the limited number of things struggling companies like Sony or Sharp can do to differentiate themselves from cheap Chinese products. We don't have to buy their products, but why not cut them some understanding?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

6 feet from a 7 1/2 foot screen.
Pretty much all you need to know.

Yep, 2160p won't be to your liking. Pretty much all you need to know. Don't buy it, stop worrying about it, and we'll all be happy with the tech that's best suited to us.
Reply
Reply
post #175 of 385
1/8/13 at 9:20am
Everything was gravy for the CE manufacturers when the consumers were in the middle of a changing TV standards. As others have pointed out, a TV is still viewed as a 10-15 year device. The CE industry has trouble realizing it was a bubble. If anything I am just finishing replacing my old secondary SD TVs with newer low priced flat panels. I am not replacing my primary 46-in Sony LCD TV anytime soon considering I paid $1500 for it with a HTiB and BD player three years ago. By the time I replace that set hopefully I get a commodity type CE product... a 50-in 4K set for under $1k... and by that time maybe there will be afforable readily available content.
Edited by Toknowshita - 1/8/13 at 12:50pm
Reply
Reply
post #176 of 385
1/8/13 at 9:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by moviegeek View Post

Some of you need to remember that most consumers don't have the space for a 80-100" screen(I am one of them), even if I could buy a 84" 4K TV for $1000 I wouldn't want it in my living room. Consumers are buying 40-50" TV's because the size is perfect for their room.

This bears repeating. I have no idea how large the market segment for really big TVs is, but it's got to be relatively small. I do have the room, but only because I remodeled a room into a dedicated HT. At current prices, I'm in no hurry.tongue.gif

For any TV 65" and under, 4k is unnecessary, perhaps useless.
Reply
Reply
post #177 of 385
1/8/13 at 9:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

The inner dialog is clearly orbiting around televisions 60" or less and the need THERE for 2160 rez.

Your inner dialog, yes. I'm certainly not suggesting 2160p would be a good fit for 60" TVs. Are we just trying our darndest to argue while basically agreeing?
Reply
Reply
post #178 of 385
1/8/13 at 9:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by durack View Post

So, when will I be able to watch my HBO in 1080p? So far I can't. I have FIOS and all I get is 1080i with very visible compression artifacts.

Well, true. I, personally, have no interest in any video delivered over a cable connection. As you note, the video quality just stinks. I don't even have my theater hooked up to a cable TV feed. No Internet streaming for my theater either. I have no patience with the quality of cable provided video. Blu-ray has gotten consistently very good to excellent over the years and that's how I get my content. There were some stinkers early on, but BD providers have learned how to do transfers and they are really beautiful, for the most part.
Reply
Reply
post #179 of 385
1/8/13 at 9:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

It must not have been calibrated properly. I've has 1080p projectors since the JVC RS1 came out and have been satisfied, but only "satisfied". But then, with my RS20, I got equipment just a few months ago to do 21 point gamma/grayscale and 125 color cube calibration. The results are stunning. Everyone agrees... my wife, my friends, my dog. I had no idea how good a projector could look. Probably a good 2.2 gamma curve adds the most depth and realism with good colors a close second. My point is that projected 1080p has a lot of legs left. I'm not sure what the price point would have to be for me to consider 4k equipment. Watching Harry Potter sitting 10' from a 10' wide calibrated image is an incredible experience.

All true and I agree that I'd rather have effort placed on improving the image we get from 1080p before we go to ultra HD or spend effort on 3D but this simply isn't how they can sell lots of devices and that is what will drive this.

Art
Reply
Reply
post #180 of 385
1/8/13 at 10:09am
I have a 116 inch projector screen in my home.

If I won the lottery tomorrow the first thing I would buy is the new Sony 4K projector. Once Epson makes a 4k projector I will buy it to replace my Benq W5000 (That I love).

Even with 1080P content the 4k up-scaling looks awesome so why not?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Community News & Polls

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it?