or Connect
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 8

post #211 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

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.

When I can buy a gigantic (read 80+") 2160 screen for ~$4,000, I'll swipe.

Till then, forget it. That said, I think it's extremely difficult to gage WHEN that will occur, but I expect it to be much quicker than the wait we went through for a great, non-stratospherically priced 60" 1080 panel.

Who knows where Sharp will be in 2-3 years (how bout their newly introduced $31,000 60" 4k display? rolleyes.gif), but if they're around- seeing in two years their reasonably-priced huge 1080 sets will be 5-6 years in- they'll prolly have to do something "almost" affordable with 2160 by then.

James
post #212 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog750 View Post

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.

And as I said earlier 1080p/2K is pretty damn good for the majority of projector setups out there. I have a hard time believing some of the claims how much better 1080p/2K looks upscaled to 4K. It reminds me too much of the BS that was flying around when HD DVD failed and some supporters refused to go Blu because their HD DVD players could make DVD look like they were HD.

The reality is that you can't magically make accurate data from something that wasn't in the encode to begin with. I have a feeling most of these so called improvements are coming from other processing that is not related to the actual scaling of the image. Its probably the addition of Sony's Reality Creation processing when the upscale algorithm is on. There are cheaper alternatives if you are interested in applying some image processing to increase the 'perception of a resolution improvement.' See the Darby Darblet. People running the HW30 claim the image looks sharper when going through the Darblet.

Here's the simple reality people: 1080p/2K has essentially 2M pixels. UHD/4K has 8M pixels. There is no way a mathematical algorithm is going improve upon the original data especially considering 2K has a quarter of the total resolution 4K. As I said they are doing other things during the upscaling to give the perception of resolution increase. Those same algorithms could be applied to 1080p/2K displays for a fraction of the cost of upgrading to 4K.

Look I am not against 4K. But enthusiasts need to realize the difference between marketing and reality.

Many of the people singing the praises of Sony's 4K unit are dealers or have strong ties to them. IOW, they are part of the marketing machine.
post #213 of 451
Yesterday while wandering CES, I saw MANY side-by-side comparisons of 1080p and UHD (4K) in flat screens from 55-inch to 85-inch diagonal (and even one 8K rez screen!) While the difference was visible (occasionally aided by a little corporate misadjustment of the 1080p display), I concluded that the quadrupled resolution for screens of that size to be gratuitous overkill.

For larger screens, it's a different story. After seeing Sony's $25K UHD projector running native 4K footage of "Skyfall" at 170-inch diagonal, I wanted to make sweet, sweet love to it.
post #214 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by boblinds View Post

For larger screens, it's a different story. After seeing Sony's $25K UHD projector running native 4K footage of "Skyfall" at 170-inch diagonal, I wanted to make sweet, sweet love to it.

And how many HT enthusiats have the space for a 170-in screen. This just proves my point. 4K and above should be for the commerical theaters. That's what drove 4K and 8K development. It is actually a solution in that environment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boblinds View Post

While the difference was visible (occasionally aided by a little corporate misadjustment of the 1080p display), I concluded that the quadrupled resolution for screens of that size to be gratuitous overkill.

Was it as blatant as Monster cable showing the benefits of Monster HDMI when compared to a composite video cable at some CE retailers several years ago?
post #215 of 451
When 84" and larger 4K flat panels and/or 4K projectors become available at a price point this is only twice what 1080P gear is selling for presently, than 4K will definitely be purchased by a great number of home video lovers. The same thing happened with the advent of flat panel TV, 1080P resolution, Blu-ray, and eventually 3D. All were a pipe dream that are now mainstream. 4K - 8K resolution and larger than life TV will eventually be in a majority of homes.
post #216 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devedander View Post

...
I'm watching 1080p on Netflix right now.
...
Good Lord. That is still unwatchable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita View Post

...
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.
...
Well said!
post #217 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by boblinds View Post

Yesterday while wandering CES, I saw MANY side-by-side comparisons of 1080p and UHD (4K) in flat screens from 55-inch to 85-inch diagonal (and even one 8K rez screen!) While the difference was visible (occasionally aided by a little corporate misadjustment of the 1080p display), I concluded that the quadrupled resolution for screens of that size to be gratuitous overkill.

Not to say you are wrong but 1080p is overkill in some instances when 720p will do. But people stil buy 1080p because it's a higher number than 720p. Average Joes don't buy things because of decernible benefits but because mostly of marketing hype. Like buying an $80K SUV to do grocery, it's not because they absolutely needed that over a sedan. Just like people don't buy LCD over plasma because they can tell that LCD is better than plasma. But because LCD has 240hz and plasma only has 60hz.

When the price is right, people will buy 4K.
post #218 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalgaryJames View Post

Not to say you are wrong but 1080p is overkill in some instances when 720p will do. ...

Yep. Completely agree. I bought a 32" LCD for the bedroom. I was able to get it for less than $300 because I only wanted 720p.
post #219 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

Yep. Completely agree. I bought a 32" LCD for the bedroom. I was able to get it for less than $300 because I only wanted 720p.

I just did the same. The Panasonic 32" 1080p with the IPS panel was close to $500 when I bought. The 720p version with the IPS panel was under $300. Doubt I would be able to tell the difference between 32-in 1080p and 720p sets from 9-10ft. Happy so far with the purchase.
post #220 of 451
Some paranoid thoughts...wonder if the studios want to kill off physical disk format because of piracy and use the 4K excuse to move to streaming and/or purchased and stored in the cloud movies.
post #221 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by durack View Post

Some paranoid thoughts...wonder if the studios want to kill off physical disk format because of piracy and use the 4K excuse to move to streaming and/or purchased and stored in the cloud movies.

They'd have to do a lot more work on the streaming quality/bitrate than the physical media quality/bitrate. At this point there is no streaming source of 1080p that I find worth viewing in my home theater while almost every Blu-ray is.
post #222 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

At this point there is no streaming source of 1080p that I find worth viewing in my home theater while almost every Blu-ray is.

I disagree with that. I am very pleased with the 1080p streaming I get from Netflix, on my 106" diagonal screen. Are you using a 1080p streaming device?
post #223 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdg4vfx View Post

It's a big plus for Passive 3D. But don't expect a lot of "native" 4K content anytime soon. (More down below on that.)

•Indeed, sdg4vfx.
And I don't think the amount and quality of 3d currently available means this upgrade is worthwhile.
But you all may disagree... we all have different priorities. I have not jumped to 1080 yet.
Edited by howietawny - 1/9/13 at 5:18pm
post #224 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita View Post

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.

Yeah, its kind of like apple's retina display concept. The pixel density required is based on how close you are to the screen and how big the screen is. There isn't much point in having a display that is higher resolution then the human eye. For your average living room I'm not sure that going from 1080p to 4k on your average sized screen(42"-55") is noticeable.
post #225 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by durack View Post

Some paranoid thoughts...wonder if the studios want to kill off physical disk format because of piracy and use the 4K excuse to move to streaming and/or purchased and stored in the cloud movies.

I don't get their fear of piracy. Unlike the music industry the movie industry is making more money than they ever have and by a huge margin.
post #226 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

They'd have to do a lot more work on the streaming quality/bitrate than the physical media quality/bitrate. At this point there is no streaming source of 1080p that I find worth viewing in my home theater while almost every Blu-ray is.

OTA HD streaming while not as good as most BDs should be worth viewing. At least one LOTR OTA kicked the TE BD's ass pq wise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffkro View Post

Yeah, its kind of like apple's retina display concept. The pixel density required is based on how close you are to the screen and how big the screen is. There isn't much point in having a display that is higher resolution then the human eye. For your average living room I'm not sure that going from 1080p to 4k on your average sized screen(42"-55") is noticeable.

1. Apple's 'retina display' is marketing bs. 2. A non-defective human eye can see greater then 1080p and it does not need a 'big' area to do so. You are making the sight unseen 'scaled up dvd looks just as good as 1080p' argument.
post #227 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

...
1. Apple's 'retina display' is marketing bs. 2. A non-defective human eye can see greater then 1080p and it does not need a 'big' area to do so. You are making the sight unseen 'scaled up dvd looks just as good as 1080p' argument.

20/20 is the visual acuity needed to discriminate two points separated by 1 arc minute—about 1/16 of an inch at 20 feet. This is not a "scaled up dvd looks just as good as 1080p" argument. This is quantitative fact.

Apple's "retina display", surprisingly, is not marketing bs. All they need to do is keep the angle of view between pixels to less than 1 arc minute at normal viewing distances and they've done it. This is all very quantifiable.
Edited by erkq - 1/9/13 at 8:11pm
post #228 of 451
I have 20/10 vision and I am not alone. I appreciate every bit of extra resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

20/20 is the visual acuity needed to discriminate two points separated by 1 arc minute—about 1/16 of an inch at 20 feet. This is not a "scaled up dvd looks just as good as 1080p" argument. This is quantitative fact.

Apple's "retina display", surprisingly, is not marketing bs. All they need to do is keep the angle of view between pixels to less than 1 arc minute at normal viewing distances and they've done it. This is all very quantifiable.
post #229 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

I have 20/10 vision and I am not alone. I appreciate every bit of extra resolution.

Yup, me too!
post #230 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by boblinds View Post


For larger screens, it's a different story. After seeing Sony's $25K UHD projector running native 4K footage of "Skyfall" at 170-inch diagonal, I wanted to make sweet, sweet love to it.
Skyfall was shot on what is basically a 2K camera, but they used the 3.2K RAW (5MP) recording from a separate RAW recorder output for editing and up-converted this to 4K (8MP). So it was not Native 4K footage.
To have have native 4K footage the camera must have a minimum 4K sensor. The best cameras has 5K to 6K (14Mp - 20MP) sensor and is sub-sampled in post for 4K native.
The largest hurdle for 4K native movies today is the VFX/CGI which is very expensive to render in 4K.

We will see a lot of "true native 4K" claims which is often questionably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

When I can buy a gigantic (read 80+") 2160 screen for ~$4,000, I'll swipe.

Till then, forget it. That said, I think it's extremely difficult to gage WHEN that will occur, but I expect it to be much quicker than the wait we went through for a great, non-stratospherically priced 60" 1080 panel.

Who knows where Sharp will be in 2-3 years (how bout their newly introduced $31,000 60" 4k display? rolleyes.gif), but if they're around- seeing in two years their reasonably-priced huge 1080 sets will be 5-6 years in- they'll prolly have to do something "almost" affordable with 2160 by then.

James
Just quoting you as an example of many posts with the same speculations.

The manufacturing difference between a HD 1080 LCD screen and a 4K UHD LCD screen is small.
The real manufacturing cost difference comes with size. A 50" is very much cheaper to make than a 84" regardless of resolution.

The TV manufacturers will of course try to earn back some R&D for the 4K screens and maybe also try to increase the overall price of TVs from the "too low" price of TVs the recent years that has nearly bankrupted several Japanese TV manufacturers.

Problem for the Japanese (and the Koreans) manufacturers; Several very big Chinese TV manufacturers wants to capture the US and EU TV markets, and they will do that with low priced 4K UHD TVs.

When we normally have be talking about Chinese TV panel manufacturers, they are mostly made in Taiwan like CMI and AUE.
The first Chinese mainland TV panel manufacturer TCL was in full production for the first time 2012, and with brand subsidiary Skyworth (largest TV brand in mainland China) and Westinghouse. TCL is also the manufacturer of the world largest LCD TV, the 110" 4K UHD TV.

So we have to get familiar with brands like Hisense, Haier, Westinghouse and Skyworth.

Hisense occupies the previouse prestigiouse Microsoft stand at CES 2013. Hisense just started Construction on the World's Largest R&D Base in Laoshan, China and Hisense aims to be a top-three TV brand worldwide by 2015.

4K UHD will in very short time cost (almost) the same as the best HD TVs at the same sizes cost today.

Just as an indication of price development of 4K UHD TVs. Here are the prices Skyworth UHD TVs cost in mainland China just after these TVs where introduced there some months ago.

84" model# Skyworth E99UD ~ CNY - 99600.00 - 89999.00 = 15,990.17 USD - 14,449.30 USD
65" model# Skyworth E810U ~ CNY - 36999.00 - 31988.00 = 5,939.424 USD - 5,135.012 USD
50" model# Skyworth E780U ~ CNY - 9499.00 - 8498.00 = 1,525.01 USD 1,364.30 USD

I don't know how many 80" HD TVs are available in the US for $4000 except from the nearly banckrupt Sharp, so 84" UHD TVs for $4000 might take some time and maybe they wont reach that price before the 8K TVs is introduced when NHK starts regular 8K Broadcasts within the next 3-5 years.

But the Chines will certainly try to capture the market, and the best incentive is to price 4K UHD TVs comparable to today's HD TV prices.

TV size comparison;


Edited by coolscan - 1/10/13 at 4:38am
post #231 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

Yup, me too!

Yup, me too...and 4k is still all-but worthless on screens 60" and smaller for me.

I swear 50% of the populace on AVS has 20/15 or 20/10 vision.

Go figure.

James
post #232 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Skyfall was shot on what is basically a 2K camera, but they used the 3.2K RAW (5MP) recording from a separate RAW recorder output for editing and up-converted this to 4K (8MP). So it was not Native 4K footage.
To have have native 4K footage the camera must have a minimum 4K sensor. The best cameras has 5K to 6K (14Mp - 20MP) sensor and is sub-sampled in post for 4K native.
The largest hurdle for 4K native movies today is the VFX/CGI which is very expensive to render in 4K.

We will see a lot of "true native 4K" claims which is often questionably.
Just quoting you as an example of many posts with the same speculations.

The manufacturing difference between a HD 1080 LCD screen and a 4K UHD LCD screen is small.
The real manufacturing cost difference comes with size. A 50" is very much cheaper to make than a 84" regardless of resolution.

The TV manufacturers will of course try to earn back some R&D for the 4K screens and maybe also try to increase the overall price of TVs from the "too low" price of TVs the recent years that has nearly bankrupted several Japanese TV manufacturers.

Problem for the Japanese (and the Koreans) manufacturers; Several very big Chinese TV manufacturers wants to capture the US and EU TV markets, and they will do that with low priced 4K UHD TVs.

When we normally have be talking about Chinese TV panel manufacturers, they are mostly made in Taiwan like CMI and AUE.
The first Chinese mainland TV panel manufacturer TCL was in full production for the first time 2012, and with brand subsidiary Skyworth (largest TV brand in mainland China) and Westinghouse. TCL is also the manufacturer of the world largest LCD TV, the 110" 4K UHD TV.

So we have to get familiar with brands like Hisense, Haier, Westinghouse and Skyworth.

Hisense occupies the previouse prestigiouse Microsoft stand at CES 2013. Hisense just started Construction on the World's Largest R&D Base in Laoshan, China and Hisense aims to be a top-three TV brand worldwide by 2015.

4K UHD will in very short time cost (almost) the same as the best HD TVs at the same sizes cost today.

Just as an indication of price development of 4K UHD TVs. Here are the prices Skyworth UHD TVs cost in mainland China just after these TVs where introduced there some months ago.

84" model# Skyworth E99UD ~ CNY - 99600.00 - 89999.00 = 15,990.17 USD - 14,449.30 USD
65" model# Skyworth E810U ~ CNY - 36999.00 - 31988.00 = 5,939.424 USD - 5,135.012 USD
50" model# Skyworth E780U ~ CNY - 9499.00 - 8498.00 = 1,525.01 USD 1,364.30 USD

I don't know how many 80" HD TVs are available in the US for $4000 except from the nearly banckrupt Sharp, so 84" UHD TVs for $4000 might take some time and maybe they wont reach that price before the 8K TVs is introduced when NHK starts regular 8K Broadcasts within the next 3-5 years.

But the Chines will certainly try to capture the market, and the best incentive is to price 4K UHD TVs comparable to today's HD TV prices.

TV size comparison;



Precisely. I completely anticipate 4k prices to fall very quickly- especially in the smaller screen sizes. My real hope is of course that the BIG screens will follow sooner than later.

If you can start purchasing somewhat sanely priced 80-110" panels in the next 2-5 years, you really gotta start questioning the longevity of the home PJ market.

James
post #233 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

20/20 is the visual acuity needed to discriminate two points separated by 1 arc minute—about 1/16 of an inch at 20 feet. This is not a "scaled up dvd looks just as good as 1080p" argument. This is quantitative fact.

Apple's "retina display", surprisingly, is not marketing bs. All they need to do is keep the angle of view between pixels to less than 1 arc minute at normal viewing distances and they've done it. This is all very quantifiable.

Just out of curiosity what does that translate to for a 55" TV? At what distance does it become a retina display?
post #234 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Yup, me too...and 4k is still all-but worthless on screens 60" and smaller for me.

I swear 50% of the populace on AVS has 20/15 or 20/10 vision.

Go figure.

James

Yeah, my eyesight is something like 20/30 uncorrected so I have to wear glasses to tell the difference between blu-ray and dvd. I have a 22" 1080p computer monitor that I don't really notice pixels on with my head two feet away. I guess I won't pass judgement until I see one in person though, I'm just wondering if I will see a difference in the 55" range.
post #235 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffkro View Post

Yeah, my eyesight is something like 20/30 uncorrected so I have to wear glasses to tell the difference between blu-ray and dvd. I have a 22" 1080p computer monitor that I don't really notice pixels on with my head two feet away. I guess I won't pass judgement until I see one in person though, I'm just wondering if I will see a difference in the 55" range.

The key, unchanged, question is: sure there's a "difference" but at what distance is it discernible?

I'd be willing to be that NO ONE- all other picture quality "ingredients" being equal (good luck there, btw) could discern 4k from 1080 on a 55" panel at 7/8 feet or more.

James
post #236 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Precisely. I completely anticipate 4k prices to fall very quickly- especially in the smaller screen sizes. My real hope is of course that the BIG screens will follow sooner than later.

If you can start purchasing somewhat sanely priced 80-110" panels in the next 2-5 years, you really gotta start questioning the longevity of the home PJ market.

James

I think you are overestimating the demand for large panels. A panel that large is a logistics nightmare for shipping, delivering, mounting, and eventually removal. How do you have something like that serviced?

Not to mention most homes do not have a wall that size to accommodate a flat panel that large. I don't think I could get a panel that size into my basement. Projectors are not going away any time soon.
post #237 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita View Post

I think you are overestimating the demand for large panels. A panel that large is a logistics nightmare for shipping, delivering, mounting, and eventually removal. How do you have something like that serviced?

Not to mention most homes do not have a wall that size to accommodate a flat panel that large. I don't think I could get a panel that size into my basement. Projectors are not going away any time soon.

No way my friend, I'm right in your boat and agree with you. I'm more hoping against hope that I am UNDERestimating what's going to happen to how the vast, vast, majority have been watching tv for 60+ years.

By no means do I believe (foolishly, imo) that there's going to be some sea-change in this in the next "x" number of years thanks to 4k- as some seem to.

Still, a 100" screen is 7' 1/2" x 4' 1/2" x 10" in-carton ...very much still negotiable in many, many homes (a standard door is nearly 7 1/2 feet on the diagonal, alone). Mitsubishi haD been manufacturing MUCH more gigantic 93' rear projection sets for years and people were buying those.

Perhaps "longevity" was a poor choice, as I believe PJs will be around for a good while too...but almost certainly not in the figures by which they currently exist.

We'll see, of course.

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 1/10/13 at 7:50am
post #238 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffkro View Post

I guess I won't pass judgement until I see one in person though, I'm just wondering if I will see a difference in the 55" range.

Definitely not w/o true 4K content.

This whole push for 4K is just ticking me off. At least with 3D it offered a different type of viewing experience. I wouldn't want to watch everything in 3D, but at least it is a different experience. 4K is not going to be noticeable for the vast majority of users.
post #239 of 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita View Post

Definitely not w/o true 4K content.

This whole push for 4K is just ticking me off. At least with 3D it offered a different type of viewing experience. I wouldn't want to watch everything in 3D, but at least it is a different experience. 4K is not going to be noticeable for the vast majority of users.

Not so much visually, but you damn sure can count on the total cost to the consumer being noticeable when they start streaming and downloading 4k content. $/byte is gonna be a pass-through for sure regardless of how it's getting done. Hopefully the providers will offer 4k packages as an add-on or premium service and scale the costs accordingly but somehow my experience with marketing makes me think the suits will try to disperse the cost across the entire platform to lessen the sticker shock and cost of implementation. When's the last time you could buy a movie on DirecTV On-Demand that wasn't 1080p? The guy with a 42" HD LCD is paying for content he can't appreciate. I think the gap will only widen as 4k gets pushed onto the market in an attempt to differentiate services.
post #240 of 451
mastermaybe,

you may be right about the panels but I will say this if you buy one don't call me when you move wink.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Community News & Polls
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it?