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

I have read on previous "4k" threads that a significant impediment to the technology for movies is that the make-up artist unions are fighting it tooth and nail.

I am certain that this is a legitimate complaint of the technology and they wield no small amount of influence in Hollywood.

You can already see the clear botox effect on middle aged actresses in 1080p sources now. For instance check out "Playing for Keeps" and see what I mean.

Now to most reasonable grown-ups, you're probably all saying "So what? These women are past their prime, no sense trying to hide that? I want my 10' diagonal home theater screen in 4k HD!! USA! USA!"

But imagine being a movie producer and working with megalomaniacs like Barbra Streisand, Julia Roberts or Jennifer Lopez and trying to sell them on 4k blu-rays releases on their upcoming movies?!?!?!? In other words, there is only so much vasoline they can put on the lens.

Several months ago when a discussion of 8K was going on, I generated the picture below.



This is a great way for everybody to decide for themselves whether or not they can benefit from a 4K or 8K display.

In order to do the test, click the image to assure you are viewing it full size. Ideally you should be using a 1920x1080 (2K) display. Now, measure the width of your display. Mine is 18.5" wide. Now, you need to figure out how many screen widths away from your primary viewing device you normally sit. In my theater room, I normally sit about 1 screen width away from my 100" screen.

Now, in order to simulate what a 4K (or even 8K) display would look like, you need to multiply your viewing distance by 4. For example, my computer monitor is 18.5" wide (horizontally, not diagonally). So I need to sit 74" back in order to simulate looking at an 8K display from one screen width away. At that distance, the picture on the left is what 2K looks like at one screen width. The one in the middle is what 4K looks like at one screen width. The one on the right is what 8K looks like. at one screen width.

For me, the one in the middle does look better than the one on the left. But the picture on the right looks the same as the picture in the middle. So I would benefit from 4K in my situation. However, I would not benefit from 8K unless I wanted to move my sofa up to just .5 screen widths away.

For me who started out with a Sharp SD projector in the mid-nineties and what at the time was strange was a 16:9 screen. Now I currently have a Sony projector with an anamorphic cinemascope setup along with multichannel audio. One thing to keep in mind is whether watching a DVD or BD on a 108" wide screen is generally the cinematographer focuses only on the subject with the background very soft. Sometimes I forget I am watching a DVD until the credits show on the screen. Sure more resolution is better but 2K is sufficient for a screen my size. I personally would like to see more color resolution. I didn't realize that the DVD and BD have about the same relative resolution compared the luminance channel. It is 4:1 or the color has one forth the resolution of luminance channel. I would prefer an improvement in that area first. I can understand for those who have a 20' screen but for a 9 or 10' wide screen 2K will do.

From reading the media impressions all year long i was expecting revelation. But i already knew the difference wasn't going to be big like DVD to BD. I just had to see for myself. Not saying there's no benefit to 4K. There is. The difference is there in clarity, detail etc. It's just not that noticeable.

As for things to improve other than resolution. I would hope we are getting Rec 2020 with 4K-

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2020


There's plenty of other things that can make a picture better than pixels. Is it a wonder pioneer's 5 year old kuro technology still craps (or to be more polite, can stand up to) all over displays till this day?

NO!

HD is a technology that is tripping all over itself and in the process, ripping the soul out of the art of film making. It is becoming a world where the only thing that matters to people is 'clarity' of the picture... how clear the picture is, how 'sharp' every single tiny little aspect of the picture is at all times, and where people are losing care for the art aspect and the actual content contained within and how well the material is crafted. I see people talking all over the internet about how they feel that the more clear every single thing is on a tv at all times, the more 'lifelike' and 'real' everything looks, which is a misconception. This misconception has become so overblown that manufacturers of tvs are now adding more and more technology to their tvs that hinder and completely destroy the original vision of the art of whatever is shown on them. Sure, things in real life are 'clear' and sharp to people with 20/20 vision or with the proper eyeglass prescription or contacts etc... BUT not EVERY thing at all times in real life is one zillion percent clear and in super ultra focus at all times under every single perceivable circumstance. I will attempt to explain what I mean by that...

In attempting to explain, I will start off with The 'soap opera look' that you see on all the tvs on display at the stores nowadays. Some people try to defend as being really lifelike because of how clear every aspect of everything on the screen is at all times but in actuality is VERY unnatural, extremely FAKE and so UN-lifelike that it just feels creepy. They put this technology on tvs because they figure that people care first and foremost about clarity and sharpness right along with 'brightness and vivid colors' of the picture over everything else. In other words 'more HD'. They have even added a feature that blocks out and gets rid of all the macro in all movies, new or old. It's sometimes called 'macro-blocking'. Macro photography in movies is when the background is blurred out when it is meant for you to be focusing your attention on a certain character or object on the screen. In movies you may have noticed in a lot of scenes that he person's face in the foreground is in complete focus while the background is slightly or maybe even completely out of focus and then suddenly it reverses and the persons face suddenly goes out of focus while the background suddenly comes to complete focus revealing whatever is in the distance. This is one example of a macro shot. Macro photography in movies isn't there just to 'look fancy' or 'artsy fartsy' it is actually there for a very logical reason, a very sound, very important reason. It's there because this is how we see in real life. For example: just take an object and hold it in your hand a foot or two from your face and look at it until it is in focus... focus on it... keep looking at it.... Do you notice how while you are focusing on the object in your hand that the background is not is focus and is and not all sharp in detail? ... OK now, after focusing on the object in your hand, now try to make the background focus so it is sharp in detail. When you do that, you will notice how the object in your hand is now all out of focus and all blurry. This is macro, this is how we see in real life. This is why macro photography is so essential in a movie and one of the reasons why movies feel so natural, and the macro blocking 'soap opera effect' that you see on tvs on display at stores seem 'off' or 'weird'. It's because they digitally remove all macro from all movies, new or old... thus destroying the art of every movie ever made.

Here is another reason the 'soap opera effect' on the new tvs feels unnatural and off. Call it by any name you want, 'Motion flow' 'true motion' 'clear movements' sharp fluid motion... whatever you call it, and even if you think to yourself that 'hey, this must be more life like because it's so clear and sharp', but you will probably feel in your bones that it seems cheap and weird and 'off', and that is because it is again, in actuality extremely un-natural and and creepily un-lifelike. Reason why: They are making the tvs remove natural motion movements and making them artificial with sharp edges to everything at all times no matter how fast is is moving on the screen. Again, for those people who claim the sharper everything is on a tv at all times in all situations is more 'lifelike' they couldn't be more wrong. In real life we don't see fast motion in complete focus with sharp edges around things as they move fast in front of us... in real life, fast motion appears out of focus. Just wave your hand in front of your face, or pick up an object and wave it back and forth fast in front of you... do you see sharp edges on the object frame by frame while it is moving fast back and forth? I think not. This is why 'motion flow' or sharp edges on fast moving objects seems off or even creepy. It is something you feel in your bones... it is creepy and extremely un-natural and extremely artificial.

I was in the store the other day and they were playing the original 1984 movie The Karate Kid on all the tvs, and all of the tvs had the 'macro blocking' and 'motion flow' thing going on. Different brands call it by different names but it is all the same thing... it blocks and remove all macro from all images that have any kind of macro photography and make movements seem very un-natural by what they call 'fixing' the natural blur of fast moving motion by artificially and synthetically reconditioning the image so that all objects that move fast are in super extreme focus with really sharp defining edges to them at every frame throughout the motions. It was at the end of the movie where The Karate kid was at the tournament fighting. The way the movie was filmed, it is supposed to have the fighters in the foreground in focus while the crown in the bleachers in the background are slightly out of focus as it would be in real life if you were there watching the fight... if you were watching the fight, the crowd on the other side of the fighters would be out of focus because you are focusing on the fighters. Well, the macro on all the tvs was blocked out and removed so that EVERYTHING on the screen at all times was in complete un-natural focus..the fighters AND the background at the same time... not only that but when they were fighting, all of the movements had no kind of natural blur like you would get in real life. It looked fake as fake could be....

A lot of people say it makes expensive movies look like they were shot on a cheap camcorder, and one of the reasons for that is that cheap camcorders don't have very good macro photography capabilities if any at all. When you shoot something on a cheap camcorder everything is in focus, the foreground and the background, and there is no real way of doing proper macro photography with them. On more expensive 24p cameras and with the proper lenses you can do macro photography... the more expensive the lens you have for your higher end cameras the better the macro photography that can be produced.


When it comes to HD, I think as a society we need to chill out. The tv manufacturers only hear people screaming about how sharp the picture is, how bright the picture is, how vivid the colors are, how smooth the picture moves... so they figure that those are the things that matter the most to people so they sacrifice all other aspects. By only caring how sharp and how 'clear' how 'HD' everything is at all times while watching movies and even some of the movie like newer tv shows, you are denying yourself the privilege of being able to see things presented to you the they way they were meant to be seen when they were created. And once they take it away that option, and it's gone, it may be gone for good and lost forever... If we don't fight for it, we may no longer ever have that privilege again.

You may be able to turn off the 'motion flow' or the macro blocking features on some tvs now, but if the manufacturers keep hearing people screaming for more clarity, more pixels, more sharp images, more HD, then I'm betting they are going to start thinking that we are all fine with the macro blocking 'motion flow' 'soap opera look' to everything, and that all we as consumers care about is more "HD' and before too long they will keep pushing higher and higher HD on us until one day you will find that you can't turn off the macro blocking and motion flow on your tvs at all... and everything will look all fakey and artificial from now on...and never again on any format will we be able to see any movie that has ever been made, the way it was meant to be seen...it will soon enough be force fed to us synthetically. Even when you go to the movie theater to watch a movie in the near future, don't be surprised if you start seeing more and more movies that have this fakey type of motion flow and macro blocking 'soap opera effect' thing going on, where even at the movie theaters, things will start looking more and more like cheap HD camcorders filmed everything. In fact, they are starting to test it now in theaters and are going to start pushing for it soon. In theaters they are going to call it HFR...which mean 'high frame rate' or 48p which has the same effect where motion with have no blur, macro will be removed. There is a reason why movies have continued to be shot on 24p since the early days of film... it may have started off for specific logistical reasons, but it has lasted for so long because it is the best frame rate for macro photography and it gives everything a more subtle feel and takes the edge off, and things are not so frantic and synthetic looking. That is another thing that kills the feel of movies... the more HD is being pushed for the higher the frame rate gets pushed for.... all in all... more HD is just going to equal out to being more artificial and more synthetic look to everything. In other words, technology is trying to come out so fast that it is tripping on itself. Imagine, never being able to see any movie that has ever been made in the entire history of movies and film the way it was meant to be seen ever again EVER...

The thought of it makes me very scared and very angry,,, and very depressed,

SUPER HD 2160?? Everything is already too sharp. to the point where people are starting to look almost like animation, and fakey wax figurines... When will 'sharp' be 'sharp' enough? I mean why 2160 HD, why not 29999909089809808708708708740874870 HD MAX???

I say no! but I know it's gonna come regardless and further destroy a whole art form.
This will turn out to be quite the saddest decade in history if we become known as The decade that destroyed and murdered the art of film making.
"The Soap Opera Effect Decade"....YUCK!!!!!!

We need to be careful where we tread... if we don't, there may be no options in the future for us to make our own decisions on how art is presented to us...
it will be force fed to us one way and one way only.... and if you don't like it, you will just have to go completely without anything. There will be no "but I like how
things were before, I don't like this new technology" because there will be no available option for viewing anything 'the way it was before', at home or in the theater....
Whatever the new technology they force feeds us.. it will be "if you don't like it, then go without anything at all."
What a sad world this will be.

I think you got it. a 65" 4K display is a complete waste of money, not needed at all. I'd be anyone would be hard press to see a real difference between 4k and 1080P when sitting 9 to 12 feet away from a 65" screen. 4K is for wall size displays, a 16' x 9' display you would definitely see the difference then. That's what 4K is for - and that's when I'll buy it (of course it woud need to be affordable)

One thing to be certain, if 4K sets become a reality soon, half of the people will have them hooked up via composite and will be watching stretched 480i

I saw the Hobbit in 48FPS HFR 3D and Dolby Atmos...it was quite an experience but 3D is not one I'd ever use at home. I have a 1080P DLP pj and will not upgrade until 2160P pjs get below $5K.

I envy you we had no 48fps I saw the hobbit on our 3 story high "still film IMAX" in 3d and was put off by the motion judder....oh well it was still fun! FYI the henry ford IMAX at the headquarters of FORD in Dearborn, MI is still a good time I wish I knew what they use for their digi projector for non film IMAX movies is

No I dont believe we need 4k for a 60" screen as Im not buying this new bs... But I will upgrade my "old" 720p optoma PJ when the price is viable for 4k PJs... I will however upgrade my "old" 3 yr non 3d 50" sammy PDP to SAMOLED when the price is right those black levels will be ridiculous! I know they are on my spare "old" sammy galaxy S1 phone

This topic , like many on AVS, is interesting because it shows how differently we perceive films and reality. For example, we have people on AVS who are really concerned about good "black" levels, others with contrast, some with the "pop" of the projector and so on.
Above we have a serious post by cinemasoul in which he states: "...not only that but when they were fighting, all of the movements had no kind of natural blur like you would get in real life. It looked fake as fake could be.... "
Well, in real life such movements do not look at all blurry to me (and presumably to most other people) so that when they are shown as blurry, like 24fps film shows them, that is..." fake as fake could be.... ", for me.
To be honest, if I did see such movements as blurred I would believe I had something wrong with my vision, but who knows?
On the other hand, if I did see them as blurred then no doubt sharp, smooth motion would seem "fake"!
Anyway, it is interesting to see the great variations in how we perceive movies and real life.
And no doubt the same variations exist in our perception of resolution. For me there is a substantial difference between DVD and Blu-ray resolution, on my 120" home theatre screen or my friends 46" LED tv.
It seems clear from a number of the above posts that some people cannot tell the difference in such matters.
Hence, for them 4k2k will be meaningless !
Edited by catonic - 1/7/13 at 12:11am

Yes, of course we need it! The only issue is when we need it, personally I'm not interested until we can get 4k media streamed, on a disk, and over cable/broadcast. Also I will not be buying until prices fall into the current normal range for 1080p.

Yeah, for up to and including 55" tv's we would probably see more improvements by addressing some of the weaknesses of LCD TV's.
motion blur
black levels
color saturation

I think OLED TV's are suppose to be much better at these.

The ratio of the screen size to the viewing distance will determine whether a higher resolution image is beneficial. For example, put 2 42" TV's (1080p native res) side by side and feed one of them a 720p signal and the other a 1080p signal. Now, stand back 12' and you won't be able to tell the difference. Move back to about 18' and 480p would look just as good as 1080p. Thus, 4k displays are really only going to benefit the 80" + market. However, that won't stop a ton of people from spending a lot of money for a 55" 4K TV. For small-mid sized TV's I'd prefer that they continue to work on improved image quality (contrast, color accuracy and viewing angle mostly), energy consumption, low-profile designs and I'd love to start seeing some TV's with HDBaseT inputs that utilize remote power from an HDBaseT transmitter.

We do need 4k but we need it for all the WRONG reasons.

We need 4k because 1080p was wrecked by companies like the cable CO's claiming they had it when all they were sending us was 1080p so compressed it wasn't even DVD quality, basically the marketing butt heads have ruined everything good and so we need to come up with a better newer standard so they can use that to push sales. Think about it like maybe when we have 4k TVs, the cable CO's will advertise they can send us 4K, and maybe, just maybe then we will actually be getting 1080p quality.

We need it to push new display cables to provide more bandwidth so PC users can finally get display makers to catch up to what their graphics cards are already capable of. We need it to push the PPI on TVs and large monitors so we can do things like actually buy these bigger screens and have them look good up close, we need this so we can get essentially for bezeless eyefinity / surround.

And of course people with large displays have always needed it. At 10 feet I dont like 1080p on a 55 inch. I can tell it could get better even if the individual pixels are not clear. It could be clearer.

Its the same reason most PC gamers and users care about 3D, its not the 3D its the 120hz needed for it. Its a possibility that we might find a TV that can actually accept a 120hz signal. And this all stems back to the marketing butt heads who burned up 120hz advertising on TVs that did nothing interesting but have horrible input lag they called 120hz, this meant they could never call a true 120hz input 120hz because people thought they already had 120hz. So they gotta rename it to 3D.

SO the whole point is just like consoles which promise the world and deliver garbage all we can do is sit around and hope that the average quality of any technology will move up to N -1 each time they hype a new buzz word. But we are not looking for the tech itself, just the side effect.
Edited by PubFiction - 1/7/13 at 12:01am

I think it is necessary. Anything in a native format, I need to have. Only up until recently have we seen Lossless codecs coming with Blu-Ray. I think it will eventually peak (resolution wise) and we will begin to see a different type of system all together (???I dunno, Holagraphic imaging..???)

I've seen 4K res on a smaller type TV and it's quite remarkable actually. It almost looks 3 dimensional. Colors and resolution give it this sort of depth which is impressive. If 3D wasn't around, I think 4K would have been a success, not like 1080p, but still a success. Now consumers are figuring that their will be this new gimmick out called 4K and if they don't see the difference, then fat chance.

I feel 4K will be the same way as Blu-Ray, wasn't entirely like DVD in terms of success.

I don' t understand.

We already have high res monitors and in order to run games natively with all effects turned on you need a $1000 dollar card (or even better two $700 dollar cards in SLI) . Most people do not spend this kind of money on video cards.

What's "many" (who have larger than 60" screens and sit closer to them, to boot)?

I would guarantee that it's WELL under 1%.

I don't doubt (does anyone?) that overall PQ will continue to increase, but the idea that any time or money that's spent on resolution in spite of it is asinine to me.

Like anyone else, everything being equal, I of course would welcome increased resolution with open arms. The problem though is that it (increased "must have" rez) will undoubtedly drive up the price of the higher performing sets with meaningful updates to PQ.

Will those CEMs include those PQ increases in their "lowly" 1080 sets? LMAO, yeah, sure they will.

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 1/7/13 at 6:45am

Of course the eye can discern images at a resolution greater than 1080. But that's like saying humans can run faster than 20 miles per hour. Sure we can, but can we do it for an hour straight? Context is everything.

James

To me, part of the appeal of 4K/2160P is the ability to display home videos and still photos with stunning clarity. Photography's popularity is greater than ever. Apple demonstrated the appeal of an ultra-dense pixel array with retina, photos displayed on such a device really look like a transparency on a light-table, thanks to the human eye's inability to discern individual pixels.

With the continued – and remarkable - success of the DSLR there is an affordable way for individuals to produce footage that looks spectacular at this display resolution – 4 megapixels. I adopted professional photo digital gear in 2001, when 5.5 megapixels (Nikon D1x) cost $6000 – but a funny thing happened along the way. The pictures from that camera look almost as good as the pictures from today's 24 megapixel pro DSLRs. It turns out 4 megapixels is a lot of data.

There is a difference between a 2160P display vs. a 4 megapixel camera – each pixel on a display is capable of displaying any color, whereas cameras using a 'Bayer array' average the red, green and blue pixels from the camera's sensor. Half of what most digital cameras 'see' is the color green - Sigma's Foveon sensor being a notable exception. The end result? You have to combine the RGB pixels to get a 'true' image - with a 16mp camera, you end up with 4 megapixels of full-color data. A 2:1 reduction from 8 megapixels yields similar benefits in terms of increased clarity and color resolution. Coincidentally, these are the resolutions that camera makers settled upon as 'ideal' from a cost-benefit ratio, and the 'megapixel wars' died a quiet death. The point? The images people have already been capturing will look spectacular on the new TV sets, and that could be a major selling point, especially for someone who is really into their DSLR as a hobby. Take a look at the Polaroid 'Photo bar' concept and you can see the potential. Imagine a TV with that service built-in!

I use a 55” 3D TV as my primary monitor for my PC. It's both my work computer and my entertainment machine. I strongly prefer it to a computer monitor, I don't like desks and I don't like the eye-strain. I do wish for more pixels. 4K solves that issue, which is why I see myself as a potential 'pseudo early adopter'. Perhaps when the first generation of sets goes on clearance.
Edited by imagic - 1/7/13 at 8:00am

Well LG just announced their 55" OLED for $12,000.

They said they specifically engineered it for those with infinitely more money than sense.

Oops, mis-reported by verge, not 4k.

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 1/7/13 at 9:09am

It's not 4K.

I'm actually very surprised you saw a jump in PQ resolution on a smaller TV. I went to the Sony Store in Houston (3 hour drive) to specifically see 4K in action on the new 84" set. I was somewhat underwhelmed. In fact I thought it was initially running 1080P until I got about 4 feet away. I then saw the small details brought out by 4K. But keep in mind this was an uncompressed demo running scenes geared specifically to show off it's abilities by having small far off objects in the demo loop. When I stood back I didn't really notice it was any better than 1080P. It was very marginal even at that size. So to me, 84" would be the absolute minimum size needed to take some advantage of 4K. But just how many people even have room for an 84"+ TV in their living room? Not many I imagine.

Even if all the cable and satellite affiliates switched over to 4K right now and there were cheap 4K blu ray players and TV's available at wal mart, I don't think there is anything outside of a niche market of enthusiasts for switching to 4K. The visual jump from 1080P to 4K is a lot smaller to the human eye than the jump from SD to HD. Unless the manufacturers do some really fancy hype advertising to convince the mass market that they need 4K, I don't see it happening. Now when you factor in reality, which is zero 4K content, a tech that requires bigger TV's than most people can make room for, Obscenely high prices for the sets, and no blu ray type players that can play this non existant content, I think you have a gimmick that will flop bigger than the 3D hype.

I was hoping the next push would be into OLED but that's not happening now because of manufacturing problems. So, since manufacturers need the next big thing to push, it has to be 4K whether the public wants it or not.

David,

You actually made me think of the bigger (no pun intended) picture for a while before I responded.

I think we have often had this conflict and it comes in different forms.

I remember in the early 1960s people were looking for larger TVs. They wanted 25 inches or larger. At the same time a “new” company Sony was promoting “Tummy” TVs, a portable set that was the size of a shoebox. Of course there were also a ton of portable TVs.

In the 1980s CD found their ways into most homes, but the portable units, the Walkman were also big successes.

And at the turn of this millennium SACD came out with better sound, but the big change was Ipads, smaller sets with smaller sound, but great portability and variety.

But there is always too much. New computer have huge hard drives, but we have reached a point where that is just not an issue. They are now stuffing so much into sets, internet use, Netflix, etc that most people won’t use most of them.

So there will always be companies pushing in both directions. But there comes a time, especially at the top ends when the improvements will seem minor and cost a lot more.

But I know one thing: Nothing is stagnant. We will always have change. I just don't know what it will look like.

 

Imagine what a 4K OLED 55" would cost !!!

I'm certainly not against new and improved technology. But we are entering a time where manufacturers are in a precarious situation and need a home run. Sharp lost 5.6 billion dollars last year betting on large high end TVs. Sony lost a ton too and they are losing market share to the cheap low end manufacturers in china and korea. I think them betting big on 4K might be a big mistake. It's my judgment that there isn't nearly enough difference for below 84" sets for anyone to make the jump to it, even if there were plentiful content which there isn't.

The next-gen video game consoles will ride to 4K's rescue. Gamers can't get enough resolution and often sit close enough to the TV to appreciate the details - oh so important to gain that final edge against their foes. If you see the enemy first, they are dead. The industry timing is actually really good.

Another question I have is: will 4K content down-scaled to 1080P look better than what is currently available for 1080P displays? My experience with photography inclines me to think 'yes'.

I have a 120" wide pj screen so the 4K will be a noticeble improvement especially with 4K source material.  But honestly, my current pj looks damn good on that screen and for me I'd be much more excited about and frothing at the mouth to get glasses free 3D, no cross talk, no glasses to wear over my glasses that really ruins immersion in the movie. But that technology seems much farther away than 4K and 4K bluray, so 4K will have to do if the upgrade bug bites.

nothing will "rescue" 4k.

It's going to happen, period. It's simply a matter of what the public will be willing to pay for it as a "premium" it the early stages. As that quadrant of the market is satiated (read: tapped for cash), the price will of course drop and it will become the de-facto standard for a new tv in the next 5 years.

James

Next gen consoles will be WOEFULLY underpowered to run games at 4K res (well, unless it is Tetris or something like that).

Look at the ultra-expensive GeForce 690, it is still underpowered to run Crysis at 4K resolutions. The upcoming next-gen consoles will not be even close to GeForce 690 or two GeForce 680 cards in SLI.
In order to run games at 4K resolutions you need a $1000 (or two $500) video cards and a top of the line PC and if you have this kind of hardware, you already have a computer monitor and really have little need for a 4K television set.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5805/nvidia-geforce-gtx-690-review-ultra-expensive-ultra-rare-ultra-fast/5

Not interested......yet! (5 years sounds just fine BTW)

I am very cynical so I am having this vision of an edge-lit 4K TV with horrible clouding and blooming...