AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › 4K/UHD TVs at CES 2013
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

4K/UHD TVs at CES 2013

post #1 of 64
1/11/13 at 12:11pm
Thread Starter 

 

 

As I'm sure you've read many times by now, 4K/UHD was the big TV news at CES 2013. Why do I call it "4K/UHD"? Because there are two flavors of 4K—digital-cinema 4K has a pixel resolution of 4096x2160, while consumer 4K is 3840x2160, exactly twice the horizontal and vertical resolution of HD at 1920x1080. Unfortunately, the terms 4K and Ultra HD (UHD) are used interchangeably by manufacturers when referring to the consumer version, adding confusion to an already confusing world.

 

Many manufacturers showed 4K/UHD displays at the show, ranging in size from 50 inches to a whopping 110 inches. No fewer than four companies showed the largest monsters, including Samsung and TCL, a Chinese company that is unfamiliar to most Americans, though not for long if the size of its booth is any indication. TCL's 110-incher is seen above with Iron Man to promote the sets appearance in the upcoming Iron Man 3. (Apparently, it's Tony Stark's TV of choice in the movie.)

 

 

 

 

Another Chinese company that we're going to hear a lot about in the coming years is Hisense, whose 110-inch UHD set is seen here with product demonstrator Michael Pierce. I was told unofficially that the company's 65-incher will be $6000, the 58-inch model will be $4000, and the 50-incher will be $2000, but I was unable to get an official confirmation of these prices.

 

 

 

 

Westinghouse had its 110-inch UHD set in a hotel suite (seen here with Marketing Communication Manager Brett Hunt); how they got it in there I have no idea. Whereas the other companies would not even speculate on how much a 110-inch UHD TV would cost, Westinghouse said its set would be in the neighborhood of $300,000! Prices for Westinghouse's smaller UHD offerings will be much more down-to-earth—$4000 for the 65-incher, $3000 for the 55-inch model, and $2500 for the 50-inch version.

Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2 of 64
1/12/13 at 8:11am
$300,000 for the 110 inch. $4000 for the 65 inch? If thats not the biggest price differential I've ever seen I dont know what is. So for people like me who can not fit a tv bigger than 65" in my apartment, is it even worth a UHD/4k set?
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 64
1/12/13 at 10:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenTonBass View Post

So for people like me who can not fit a tv bigger than 65" in my apartment, is it even worth a UHD/4k set?

Depending on who you ask, my answer is yes. Do you need 1080p on a 5" cell phone? The answer is no but people will be getting 1080p 5" cell phone very soon. Almost every time new tech was introduced, SDTV vs WS SDTV, SDTV vs EDTV, EDTV vs 720p, 720p vs 1080p, this same type of questions had been asked (I wasn't old enough to experience the transition from B&W to color TV or I'll have included it in here too).

Technology will progress pass 1080p that's a given. The right question for me is if the added cost of 4K justify the performance difference.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 64
1/12/13 at 2:04pm
$300,000 for a 110 inch? Jesus Christ... I can buy me a Lambo for that much... I'll just buy a 4k projector.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 64
1/13/13 at 3:29am
Why do they all max out at exactly 110"?
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 64
1/13/13 at 5:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

Why do they all max out at exactly 110"?

At some point you won't be able to even get the TV through the door, much less turn a corner with it in a hallway.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 64
1/14/13 at 11:46am
110" is likely is just a helo product the manaufacture never intends to move too many units.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 64
1/14/13 at 12:09pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

Why do they all max out at exactly 110"?

According to a very reliable source, the glass used in all the 110-inch UHD sets at CES is sourced from the same fabrication facility (fab) in China, which is why they are all the same size. My source also says it's VA (vertical alignment) glass, which produces better black levels but worse viewing angles than IPS (in-plane switching) glass. Similarly, the 84-inch UHD glass used by LG, Toshiba, JVC, and Sony is sourced from LG Display; in that case, it's IPS.

Reply
Reply
post #9 of 64
1/14/13 at 12:10pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog750 View Post


At some point you won't be able to even get the TV through the door, much less turn a corner with it in a hallway.

I couldn't see how Westinghouse got the 110-inch into its hotel suite! It must have been through the door, but it couldn't have been easy.

Reply
Reply
post #10 of 64
1/14/13 at 2:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bravia3D View Post

$300,000 for a 110 inch? Jesus Christ... I can buy me a Lambo for that much... I'll just buy a 4k projector.

At these outrageous prices, even he would be contemplating the same thing. biggrin.gif
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 64
1/15/13 at 5:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenTonBass View Post

$300,000 for the 110 inch. $4000 for the 65 inch? If thats not the biggest price differential I've ever seen I dont know what is. So for people like me who can not fit a tv bigger than 65" in my apartment, is it even worth a UHD/4k set?

It is really all about the number of degrees of vision that the image requires, 20/20 vision can see detail as sharp as an arc-minute or 60 pixels per degree. This allows a 1920x1080 resolution to occupy 32 degrees of vision. If the screen size / viewing distance creates an image larger than 32 degrees you will see the pixels and if the field of vision is smaller you won't see as much detail. That is where we are with 1080p.

4K allows the field of view to increase to 64 degrees. That is a very large image for your eyes. It will be very immersive, but you may find your eyes constantly darting back and forth or worse, your head moving to track the action. It is like sitting in the first few rows of a movie theater.

So if you want a large effective image 4K is for you.

Now, choosing screen size has more to do with the room you are putting it in and the typical viewing distance. If you are already sitting 8' away from a 61" screen showing 1080p you can replace your HDTV with a 122" display and see the same level of sharpness from 8', except now the image is twice the height/width.

So the easiest way to decide if you really want 4K is to decide how many degrees of your vision that you are comfortable viewing. If you prefer less than 40 degrees you might want to skip 4K. It isn't for everyone.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 64
1/15/13 at 8:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnabney View Post

It is really all about the number of degrees of vision that the image requires, 20/20 vision...
Why are you even mentioning 20/20? Shouldn't you be mentioning average acuity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnabney View Post

20/20 vision can see detail as sharp as an arc-minute or 60 pixels per degree.
"20/20" is a result of a measurement done by Snellen chart. About Snellen chart:
Snellen chart was created for different purpose altogether
Many times (I have experienced this myself), when you go to your doctor and successfully read all the letters on 20/20 line of the Snellen chart, your doctor will end your examination concluding further testing isn’t needed since 20/20 is perfectly healthy and his / her job is to spot when something is wrong, not to measure just how great your vision is. No difference between 20/20 and 20/6.3 in eyes of a doctor – both are perfectly healthy thus once you reach 20/20, examination is usually ended. By the way, this may make many peopoe think their “Snellen acuity” is 20/20 when in fact, most of the time it is much better.

Snellen chart is not precise enough
Every row of letters subtends different angle. Difference between those is not fine and gradual, it is very sudden.

Testing conditions very different from what’s important for electronic displays
In order to successfully pass every line on Snellen chart, you have to be able to correctly identify a letter in question. You can see that there are slits on a letter (on a display, this would allow you to successfully tell the difference between lower res. and higher res. display) but you won’t pass unless you can correctly identify the letter. More differences between the two here, written by Darrel Hopper, Air Fore Research Laboratory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnabney View Post

This allows a 1920x1080 resolution to occupy 32 degrees of vision
No. Basic logic and math. This (dividing resolution in one direction by "eye resolution" expressed by number of pixels per degree) would work only if you had a display that was a dome and you were positioned in the center of it. With flat display, every part of display is at different length from your viewpoint. Also, flat display can never occupy 180 degrees of your field of view. Therefore, with flat display in question, you have to convert ppd value to center-to-center pixel spacing value (expressed in arcminutes; 1/ppd) and calculate number of degrees by making sure closest part of display has needed pixel spacing.

Just to show you how your system (resolution / number of pixels per degree = number of degrees) breaks down with flat displays, here's an exaggerated example. All info is correct, though:

John is sitting 3 meters from center of his display. Display is occupying 179 degrees of John's horizontal FOV (field of fiew). In order to occupy 179 degrees of John's FOV, display has to be (and is) 687 meters wide. Yeah, I know, just read on, will you? If human eye has a resolution of "60 pixels per degree", how many pixels this display would have to have horizontally to match that resolution?

Let's take your approach. 179 degrees * 60 pixels per degree = 10740 pixels horizontally.

That's 6.4 centimeters per pixel. When looking ahead, John would be looking at literal blocks size of a walnut. From 3 meters away. Yeah, that's not gonna work. Instead of having 60 pixels per degree evenly all across the display, you have ~1 pixel per degree in the center and more than 60 pixels per degree at the edges.

I really, really hope you understand me.
Edited by Randomoneh - 1/16/13 at 5:46am
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 64
1/17/13 at 12:20pm
Why would I even consider 4K when my current HD broadcasted by DTV isn't even HD? That is DTV, Comcast, etc. already bit starve the hell of the data stream to cram more "HD" channels in to their limited bandwidth. There is no way any of the providers are going to broadcast any of this 4K as they don't have the bandwidth and they don't care about picture quality.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 64
1/17/13 at 12:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenTonBass View Post

$300,000 for the 110 inch. $4000 for the 65 inch? If thats not the biggest price differential I've ever seen I dont know what is. So for people like me who can not fit a tv bigger than 65" in my apartment, is it even worth a UHD/4k set?

Not that outrageous when you consider supply and demand. Unless you are a millionaire with a very large home theatr room yuo don't have room for it anyway. how many people really fit this profile?
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 64
1/17/13 at 12:39pm
$300,000 for a TV. Now that's insane! This home theater thing is really getting out of control. Every time you turn around there's a new product which cost more dollars. i know someone will eventually buy it! Lol!
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 64
1/17/13 at 12:49pm
say.. can any of these UHD units show 4 1080p contents in 2x2 grid?
If it can do that, the 110" UHD will be like 4 55" HD grid cool.gif
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 64
1/17/13 at 12:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post

As I'm sure you've read many times by now, 4K/UHD was the big TV news at CES 2013. Why do I call it "4K/UHD"? Because there are two flavors of 4K—digital-cinema 4K has a pixel resolution of 4096x2160, while consumer 4K is 3840x2160, exactly twice the horizontal and vertical resolution of HD at 1920x1080. Unfortunately, the terms 4K and Ultra HD (UHD) are used interchangeably by manufacturers when referring to the consumer version, adding confusion to an already confusing world.

Yes, full frame 4K digital Cinema is 4096x2160, (AR 1.896:1) but it's almost never projected that way.
1.85 movies are projected at 3996 x 2160
2.39 movies are projected at 4096 x 1716

In the Sony 4K projector, there's an option to blow the 2.39 image up in the projector to the full 4096x2160 and then use a 1.25x anamorphic lens, but almost no one does that because the theatres don't want to change the lens and because the lens is very expensive.

A 2.39 movie presented in 4K at home would be 3840 x 1607 pixels.

Personally, I would have wished that when moving to UHD for the home, they would have moved to a 2.0:1 AR so the sets would have been either 4320 x 2160 (unlikely) or 3840 x 1920. 1.78 (16:9) never really made sense and even though the difference is only 42 vertical pixels, I can't stand when BD or TV changes 1.85 films to 16:9.

1.85 movies would have been 3996 x 2160 with the former and 3552 x 1920 with the latter.
2.39 movies would have been 4320 x 1808 with the former and 3840 x 1606 with the latter.
16:9 TV would have been 3840 x 2160 with the former and 3413 x 1920 with the latter.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 64
1/17/13 at 1:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnabney View Post

So if you want a large effective image 4K is for you.

While technically true, it's also about a cripser image with more resolution too. I'm 10' from a 63" screen. I show images to my clients on that screen. I can see individual pixels EXTREMELY easily.

My 2560x1600 Nexus 10" screen is more pixels (2x the amount) on a MUCH smaller screen -- a dpi considerably higher than all this theoretical hubub on arc minutes and such. It's way way way better than normal "HD" resolution at the roughly same size.

The whole point is you DON'T want to be able to see individual pixels. You want the pixels smaller than you can discern.


"HD" at 63" and a 10' viewing distance is NOT "sharper than I can see". That's a load of bunk.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 64
1/17/13 at 1:04pm
Progress.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 64
1/17/13 at 1:04pm
That's why I bought my latest Mitsubishi DLP because I could get a large 92" screen for around 3k. Also, I'm not so worried about the 4k TV prices right now because they will go down eventually. I'm more worried about replacing all my Blu-rays with 4k movies. I'm just now finishing replacing my DVDs with BDs. frown.gif
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 64
1/17/13 at 1:05pm
Very much agreed. I was at the show and while I was glad to see these mfgs stopped pushing 3D down our throats, I snickered at these 4K sets. Market saturation will take years (5 minimum?) because everyone in the video chain will have to upgrade. The most important ones being the recording equipment and delivery technology.

Can the market really support further upgrades? The masses have finally upgraded from their analogs to 720p and 1080p. I don't see people parting with $3-5K in five years for another upgrade. On top of that, these mfgs are starting to test out 8K!
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 64
1/17/13 at 1:05pm
You geeks watch too much tv.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 64
1/17/13 at 1:11pm
sorry if off topic but do we know if the blu-ray format will upgrade to uhd and what it will be called yet?

ultra blu ray?

or will it be a new format called uhd?

also, will we suffer the hd dvd vs. blu-ray format wars all over again?

let's hope not.

sorry again for derail.

cool tvs!
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 64
1/17/13 at 1:12pm
Is this something that MOST people will benefit from ?

Is this something that the average person watching an average-sized TV (42" - 65") from NORMAL VIEWING DISTANCE will be able to notice ?

I can see how someone watching a 65" TV from 7' away or buying the new 110" TV from 12 feet might see an improvement. But I wonder if the difference to the average naked eye at normal viewing distances will be able to take advantage of the increased resolution.

I saw some early proponents saying the TV's looked 3-D'ish, they were that clear.

I know I saw a big improvement size-wise and resolution-wise when I went to my 42" HDTV (bedroom) and 50" HDTV (living room), each viewed from about 8-10' away.

I wonder if I'd see any improvement -- or if I did, if it's worth double or triple replacement cost -- to get the new technologies.

Certainly, in 5 years, when the prices fall by 50%, they'll be alot more compelling.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 64
1/17/13 at 1:42pm
Don't worry about upgrading DVD's to Bluray's or upgrading Blurays, the new format will be UltraViolet, everything will be kep in the 'Cloud' you won't have physical possession of it, but will be avilable by your 'Network Server' or Network Provider of choice.

Can we go back to BetaMax?eek.gif
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 64
1/17/13 at 1:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bravia3D View Post

$300,000 for a 110 inch? Jesus Christ... Joseph Smith... L. Ron Hubbard... Warren Jeffs... I can buy me a Lambo for that much... I'll just buy a 4k projector.
OK OK OK insert your own name, but it is still ridiculous. Heck You can buy a commercial PJ and play it on a super large screen for 300K. I hope every single pixel is covered for that price.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 64
1/17/13 at 1:48pm
I thought the 4K-OLED's stole the show. Of course it will be at least 3 years before they are in a price range that could even be considered reasonable. But the combination of the higher resolution, the stunning color and the incredible thinnest was captivating.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 64
1/17/13 at 1:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kherman View Post

Not that outrageous when you consider supply and demand. Unless you are a millionaire with a very large home theatr room yuo don't have room for it anyway. how many people really fit this profile?

I think that's the rep's way of saying "we don't plan to sell any of these" !!!
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 64
1/17/13 at 2:06pm
I'm waiting for a nice 60" UHD TV. People say its not work it under 65" but if your a 3d fan and don't like active glasses a passive UHD TV will give you full 1080p in each eye.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 64
1/17/13 at 3:05pm
Keep in mind that moving to the current generation of flat screen tvs was as much about form as picture. Now people have flat screens so I dont think adoption will be as great. This is going to be for true movie enthusiasts. At least for a while.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Latest Industry News

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › 4K/UHD TVs at CES 2013