Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it? - Page 7

So because alot of people are too cheap to get anything but integrated graphics we should just write this all off? Currently there are lots of people who run eyefinity and multi monitor setups with high resolutions 3 x 1080p screen. Giving us 4k will allow use to produce similar quality with out bezels interfering. A forum where people spend 10s of thousands of dollars on audio and video equipment and we have someone whining about spending $1000 on a gpu? Also one of the great things about ultra high resolutions is that you can often remove anti aliasing, higher resolution with no AA looks better than lower resolution with AA.

There are currently no 4k displays that a normal person can afford for monitors, but ironically many of us already have GPUs capable of pushing that many or more pixels.

I am not sure why you wrote your reply.

What I was saying is that next gen consoles will not be able to run any decent game at 4K resolutions because they will be vastly underpowered in relation to what is needed to effectively run graphically intensive games at this resolution.

And actually Crysis will still bring down every current video card at 4K resolution, you will have to wait IMHO for 2 generations of video cards to be able to run games at 4K without frame drops.

I would simply ignore you if you simply continued to misunderstand, but you're misrepresenting my position/opinion, which is irksome at best, and at worst, patently dishonest.

There are variables unique to this scenario that I've already noted...basically, why I am/would be opposed to the inclusion of 4k into "traditionally sized" televisions and why those reasons possess merit. I have covered the 2160 angle from a large screen/PJ POV more than sufficiently by simply stating that it's viable and welcomed.

This is a forum, sir. People are open (and in this case, invited) to supply their opinion...and even more so when its (opinion) substantiated with fact or at least, reasonable conjecture. That said, you're welcome to refute it, of course. But straw-manning, and misrepresentation is- at the very least- in poor taste.

If it's easiest, just ignore my posts and spare everyone else anymore of this nonsense.

thanks in advance.

James

No, again. It's clear this dialog has included at least a dozen members on the thread whose feelings very much mirror my own. I also happen to feel the inclusion of 4k on many mid-sized displays will hamper the advancement of PQ on "lowly" 1080 sets for john q public and his "higher-end" neighbor.

Here:

4k on screen 70" or less: all-but worthless

4k on projectors and screens 70+": yes, their is merit for their inclusion.

Happy? Don't answer that.

I do not wish to debate this further and frankly, don't see any worthwhile dialog coming out of it, so, here: you win.

whatever that means.

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 1/8/13 at 10:48am

Yes, one of the main flaws in current generation(LCD) TV's is how they reproduce motion from a low frame rate source. Upping frame rate on blu-rays to at least 30fps would make a big improvement.

Since we are being asked our opinion. . . .

No. And I doubt it will every go mainstream either. Given WHAT we watch most of the time, the resolution and expense just isn't necessary.

Purely my opinion, no flames please.

I saw an 80" LED in Costco and the picture was eww...1080p i think looks SD on that big screen.So yes that TV needs a higher resolution. I'd like to get one in the future so 4K res on it would be great plus lower price. I think 4K will take sometime unless the price is right then everyone with 1080 will jump on it.

Costco?? Is that your demo provider? Who knows what they were putting into it or how it was set. Don't depend on Costco to make decisions. I have to say again, properly done, 1080p at 1sw is spectacular.

It's important to keep in mind that 4K was not the manufacturers first choice. OLED was the intended "next tech" for new TV's. Only because the manufacturing process proved to be much more problematic than anticipated did the two largest companies selling TV's abandon it for 4K. This final major shift was made less than a month ago according to several articles I've read. And it's not that they think 4K will be a close second to OLED tech, it's that they need to have the next big thing to push to keep the industry from going stagnant.

as already stated, using Costco probably isn't the best environment to view a set's potential. I guarentee you it was either the TV or how it was set that was giving it a bad picture. My Epson 8700UB projector puts out an out of this world picture quality on a 120" screen just 10 fee away for 1080P. Every bit as good as my 70" Sharp Elite.

80" screen from what was likely 8 feet or closer?

I don't doubt that (especially considering the "other" qualities of that particular set ). No problem with 4k on those sets at all.

James

Given that LG announced at yesterday's press conference they will start selling their 55" OLED TV in the USA in March for about $12K, then OLED is not dead, just delayed and expensive. Samsung was also showing their OLED but no specific availabiilty date or price was mentioned (but probably sometime this year). Sony and Panasonic have 4K OLED prototypes at CES, but these appear to be perhaps a couple of years away from production units.

It might have partly been an issue due to LCD having visible grid lines when close to the set. That's why I dumped my LCD projector in favor of SXRD. The grid lines are much less visible between pixels. I also think it is one reason some claim SXRD is a 'softer' image. LCD units have a much more digital look when sharply focused. You can easily see individual pixels within a few feet of the screen whereas with SXRD/LCOS the individual pixels are harder to see due to the smaller grid lines. It's the main reason Panasonic HT units have 'smooth-screen' technology. You don't need it with SXRD/LCOS due to nearly invisible grid lines.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/8/3852094/sony-ceo-kaz-hirai-wants-4k-standard-disc-format-unlikely-but-not-out/in/3615037

Ugh.

I actually like Sony - I have been buying Sony TVs for a long time and I have been buying Sony cameras for a long time (NEX5n is great) and I like my PS3 (although they fumbled it) and I do not want them to go away.

Yes, I want it.
Anybody who has seen Doug Trumbull's original ShowScan knows how good this could look.

Yes, happy! And let's bring it down a notch.

We're basically in agreement, though I would add that even smaller sizes could be useful if viewers intend to sit closer.

Let me ask you, is 2160p for you? Do you hope to get a large 2160p panel the next time you upgrade, once the price comes down? You've implied things but haven't cleary stated where 2160p comes down for you. Not trying to prove anything, just curious.

I love Sony dont get me wrong. But after reading what you posted on here it seem's that they (Sony) are trying to push this 4K thing down the consumers throats. And if that's what they are trying then they better get ready for the negative backlash. Dont get me wrong I am all for new technology but I look at it as too much to soon. 4K is gonna be great for those who buy really big screen tv's or projectors but as I said before anything smaller then forget it there will be no visable difference. But as the old saying goes you want it buy it and if you dont want it dont buy it. Me? 1080p is good for now and into the foreseeable future.

The way I see it...

4K is a solution to a problem that consumers don't have


[FLAME SUIT = ON]


Do they really think they can deliver true 4K content through the pipes? Isn't the average ISP connection speed in the US still under 12Mbits?

The sad hard fact for those hoping for real content is that it is going bitstarved heavily filtered '4K' content that you get over the pipes. Sounds a lot like most of the standard 'HD' streaming services to me.

Physical is the only real option for true high quality content, but they don't want to go that route. Instead they don't want a physical format because it will be much easier for the studios to have control over the content when it is only available in the cloud. The inventors of Circuit City's failed DIVX format are finally going to feel vindicated. They get paid everytime you hit play. How does that make those feel that hated DIVX with a passion?

No thanks. I'll stick with my 1080p/2K blu-ray discs that I don't have to pay for every time I throw them in the player.
Edited by Toknowshita - 1/8/13 at 4:00pm

My 2 Blu-Ray players (Oppo and Sony) don't support it, my 1 year old Yamaha Receiver don't support it, my local cable and Pay TV provider don't support it, my FHD 1080p Camcorder don't support it and my FHD 1080p DSLR don't support it either, why do I need a 4K TV? Oh yes, they want you to upgrade everything. Sorry I'm quite happy with my 1080p devices.

Ah come on, Sony doesn't have enough industry clout to get the broadcast and cable companies to all switch over to 4k. Sony can put these out on the market but it is not going to be forced on anyone.

What a lame discussion...Did we just lose ourselves AVS? 4K? NO! What happened to 8K? Thats the future! When will this discussion move toward the "next" which is suppose to be 8K? Tech is moving so fast, much faster than 480p or 1080p. So this year 4K? In 3 years 8K will be a standard. They could do it but why would they? they would just be shooting themselves in the foot. They could bring 8K but no one except us would care. Joe 6 pack at best buy and costco doesnt care about 4K or 8K much less broadcast 1080p...broadcast 4K is a HUGE joke please...

My impression after reading that article is "have they completely lost their minds???" This is why I said that I like Sony and don't want them to go bust.

Go back 4 years and same talk of delivering 1080p.

I'm watching 1080p on Netflix right now.

Pretty sure the ,main draw of eyefinity is 48:10 aspect ratio which 4k sets won't have.

Most people posting here doesn't seem to be much updated on what is happening in the "UHD TV World".
We have a section here on AVS that monitor almost all developments around UHD. Flat Panel General & New FP Tech, and some goes in the Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP and Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) sections.

To recap some of the latest; (more news arriving daily from CES).

Sony UHD TV 84" MSRP $25000, (panels made by LG.)

LG UHD TV 84" MSPR $19999, Real Price Now when the TV just reached the Shops $12,829.00 - $16,999.00. Imagine what the price will be in 6 months.

Westinghouse (panels by CMI) > (to show where the real pricepoint starts for 4K TVs)
50", with a $2,500 USD MSRP,
55"> $3,000,
65"> $4,000,
110"> $300,000 ( made to order).

Both Hisense and Haier (also panels by CMI) will have the same sizes (not the 110") and probably the same prices which will fast drop to equal to the price these are being sold in China already.

Sharp has a 32" 4K resolution IGZO PC-monitor at $5000. At 137.68 PPI, that is much lower screen PPI than many people have on their mobile phones and tablets.
Expect that someone will release a non-IGZO monitor for much lower price later this year.

4K CONTENT:
Sony tried to claim to be the first one with a 4K content distribution system at CES. Reality is that they didn't really have anything.

First 4K content player; RedRay 4K Cinema player by RED Digital shipping about now for $1,450.
Content delivery of 4K movies downloaded from Internet from distribution network ODEMAX, which will be formally launched at Sundance filmfestival and start to operate from March.

Red will also have two 4K laser projectors (one for HT (Redray) one for Cinema (Crimson) expected to launch later this year.

Eutelsat Launches Europe's First Dedicated Ultra HD (4K) Channel with first transmissions of content filmed in 4K to start on January 8.

This is just to inform people some of what is going on just at the start of making 4K UHD the next TV/Film standard.

One can deny the necessity of 4K/UHD as much as one want, but everybody here at AVS will have 4K display and playback products within the next 3-5 years.

What makes AVSF truely a great site for exploring the different aspects of our Audio/Video world is the diverse real world experiences many of the forum members have. Discussions such as this are informative as well as entertaining... (as long as you remember to wear your "Flame Suit" )

7 pages and 200+ posts make it clear... 4K/2160p/UHD will be headed our way. CEM's will be hoping for the "upgrade-itis" bug to hit, and are also hoping that it hits harder than it did with the advent of 3D just alittle over 2 years ago (which will not happen, since flat panel displays continue to be replaced when needed, just like their CRT predecessors). But make no mistake, it is in the works, and may become the defacto "standard" in the future (5 years, 10 years? Probably when content and delivery of that content comes to fruition most likely).

Do we need it? I certainly don't.... not considering the funds required, the lack of content (heard alot about that as a negative with the advent of 3D just recently), and most importantly, the size of my set I currently have (52 inches). Even an upgrade to a 60 inch model would undoubtedly show little benefit at the 8 ft. viewing distance I have.

I imagine eventually I will have one, when the costs are equivalent to sets today, and content has been made available... we probably will all have it then(presuming we live that long! ) And they will all be 3D/Smart sets to boot!

Why should anyone (including me) get excited about 4K? This "upgrade" may yield benefits for the consumer with improvements in black levels/contrast/color levels to name a few. There may be a new delivery system (OMG, now I gotta replace all my blu-rays, which replaced my DVD's, which replaced my VHS tapes, which replaced my Beta tapes! I can see it now... Rows of my 12" LP's just below rows of my 12" Blu-rays. Serious AV enthusiasts with the true "home theater" are gonna need even more space just to store their collections!). I say let the CEM's pursue this, so we all may gain any benefits developed. This makes it a win-win situation for all of us, regardless of how many have or do not have these sets in the near future.

You say everyone here at AVS will have a 4K display within the next 3-5 years? Not me.......that is unless the price drops to todays current set prices and if the idea of 4K is still around.

I honestly do not see any benefits for myself.

I will upgrade my TV for better input lag, uniform backlighting, LCD with plasma like blacks, etc. But you cannot sell this to the general consumer. You can sell MOAR MEGAPIXALS.

In fact worried that we may actually suffer because
a) First Blu-Ray, now we will have Red-Ray and more market fragmentation.
b) I am worried about scaling 1080p content, it certainly will introduce more input lag for video gaming.

It's an upgrade that the industry pushes on us because of more profits and little to no benefits, this is why many of us are upset.
If I were to buy a new projector, I will take one with a perfect lens with least aberrations and perfect focus uniformity over MOAR MEGAPIXALS every day.

1080p/2K was needed because the average sized set went from 32" to 50"+. C'mon everyone here old enough to live through the old SD RPTVs remember how bad SD looked on those sets.
Seriously? 1080p and Netflix should not even be used in the same sentence together. What you are watching is an overfiltered compressed bitstarved stream that Netflix flags for your display as 1080p. Sure it is better than SD, but in no way is it close to what you could get from Blu-ray or even broadcast/cable/satellite providers.


Until the average sized set hits well over 100-in or people decide to sit half a screen width away from their sets 4K is nothing more than hype.
Edited by Toknowshita - 1/9/13 at 7:16am

As far as ODEMAX and Red-ray, how many MAJOR studios have committed to releasing on the platform? Not that I have anything against independents but most of those films from independent studios aren't the type that cry out for 4K resolution.

Let's see the true street pricing and perfomance on these before we fall all over them. Red has made bold promises in the past only to falter.
I'll give you that 4K sets might be the norm at retail shops, but I am not so sure everyone here will have a true 4K content option that they can afford or want part in. If 4K goes to the control is all in the hands of the studios (i.e. the hated DIVX model from the early DVD days), then there might be a sizeable group opposed to it. For all the crying about DRM the pundits threw at Blu-ray, the current models that potential 4K providers are throwing around have the potential to be much much worse.
Edited by Toknowshita - 1/9/13 at 7:16am

Sure, if I'm in the market for a new TV and I roam down the isles of Best Buy and the 4K sets are the same price as the 1080P sets, I will buy 4K. Even though there is virtually no difference in resolution to the human eye at sizes below 80". But for the prices to be that low, there would have to be a massive market demand for 4K sets so production could crank up. But how is there going to be demand for something that people can't tell the difference from? How is there going to be demand when most people dont even have the space for a 84" TV? 4K being a solution to a non existent problem is very true. This reminds me of Sharps quatron yellow pixel addition. It's mostly a gimmick at this point. If there was a sudden great demand for 110" TV's, then this would be a solution.