4K/UHD TVs at CES 2013 - Page 2

I'm not too concerned about this. Obviously they are going to make a big deal in the press, etc., about 4k+, but look how long blu-rays took to become widely adopted. As dvds are STILL around and blurays are STILL growing, I would say that adoption isn't even complete yet. Look at all the major movies still missing from blu-ray...

I think the technology may become available in the next few years (let's say 3), but then it will be a few more years (lets say 3) before anyone even releases a reasonable library of 4k+ movies. And THEN you will have the Blu-Ray phase out period (lets say 3). My math puts that at around 9 years left for Blu-Ray. Worst case scenario, you may find those numbers closer to 2 years each which would put us around 6 years left. However, Blu-Ray might end up being like the CD market and lasting another 15 years, because people don't want to make the transition. 4k+ might be like SACD, which was clearly better than CD in every way, but failed horribly. Yes they still make very few SACDs, but the format is dead to the general public and not widely available.

You could argue that dvds will be around for the next few years. So, even then, when Blu-Rays are phased out, they may be like dvds now and linger together with 4k+ format discs for years to come in two-disc combo packages. Basically, I think we still have some time. But technology does progress and that must be expected. Whether it's general desire for improvement or driven by a greedy market system, things will continue to evolve. That should come as no surprise, and it may even increase in rate in decades to come.

I think things will become more digital/streamed/downloaded not too far in the future. While I personally prefer discs, this might be good for the general "upgrading" aspect of media technology. Once internet speeds and storage costs improve dramatically, we could theoretically have a threefold upgrade in picture quality and only need to upgrade our visual display system (TV). Everything else would be set to go. :-) We wouldn't own anything, but rather lease the content as many don't realize they do now. And we won't have our own personal backups or physical artwork or keepsakes, but what are we to do? :-P

I've been waiting for a LED TV that's bigger than 90" for a long time.... Unfortunately, the current available and affordable TV (Sony's 90") I'm told has poor picture quality.... We sit 18" from the current 60" TV, which looks small considering that we used to sit 10" and 12" from a 55" in the old house... 60" was the biggest size at the time and we never thought that we'd end up with a bigger living room (it's really long at 24").

So I'd gladly pay for a bigger TV, but $300K is a little much. Can't wait until the 4K/UHD technology is affordable for the average consumer.

FYI - I don't want a projector and screen in that room because of kids, pets, toys, etc... You don't need to worry as much with a TV.... Plus the TV is facing a wall of windows (and the reason why I wouldn't get another plasma... and opt for LED)

Not me, I'm wallowing in poverty right now, when things were better around '05-'06, before the '08 crash, it was enough $$ to get from NTSC to ATSC and I download to get the pay-tv
stuff, so an .mkv file at 720 or 1080 is good enough for me, as I sit in my hovel, am I going to have to change tuner-types again?
Stick your arm out..that's approximately how far I sit now from my 23-27 inch monitors for broadcast TV and downloads and I'm content.
Edited by browncoat - 1/17/13 at 4:03pm

The problem is, most everyone I know is "fine" with HD. I practically had to buy all my family bluray players because they didn't see the need for it even though most have a 42"-50" hdtv now. Even having bought them bluray players, I still see them buying dvd's half the time. And for the life of me I can't convince anyone to get HD cable or satellite. We're not talking cheapskates here, they spent the money on a 50" tv but just don't seem to care that everything they watch is stretched sd.

We just shouldn't expect 4k+ to ever hit "mainstream" like HD has, at least not until the older generation is gone.
Given that, I really am kinda pissed that the manufacturers aren't focusing on the theater enthusiasts by taking this opportunity to move to 2.35 or 21:9 or whatever they want to call it. If I'm getting a 4k set or projector, I'm absolutely wanting to watch mostly movies, of which the vast majority of my favorites are 2.35.
In fact, I promise I will hold off purchasing until a) we get a bluray 2.0 spec with support for 4k (please don't screw it up with black bars again, give us anamorphic full resolution) and b) I can get a "21:9" set of 70+ inches

You must have amazing vision, or I have really poor vision. As I said on another thread, I got to see Sony's 84" 4K running their demo at the Sony store. I had to get closer than normal viewing distance to even tell it wasn't 1080P and I did confirm with them that it was 4K uncompressed and not 1080P upconvert. It was nice, but I doubt many people would be able to tell the difference at normal viewing distances.

I guess it's possible but I'd be shocked if reasonably priced OLED's came out in 3 years, much less 4K OLED's. Several articles have been released in December stating that Samsung and LG have all but abandoned OLED for now because of the 90% panel failure rate during production. The articles I read stated they were all mostly concentrating on 4K instead of OLED due to massive production problems. No one has been able to figure out yet how to economically produce oled large enough for big screen tv's. I know they had some at the show, but I think that is more for show and bragging rights. Sony's 4K demoed there had a Sony rep explain that their 4K OLED may very well not even make it to open market.

How much were they ? And how thin ?

And full 1080 passive 3D is exactly why I'll get a 4K display when my Kuro finally gives up the ghost. My 1st gen LG 3D LCD doesn't cut it for 3D viewing. I rarely watch 3D content on it, even though I have a number of blu rays and DirecTV 3D channels.

The local sports bar will probably be the first to buy. I have a 82" Mitsubishi that is more than enough for me. Can't see doing anything more.

I wish someone would make a 110" LCD built like the current TV's for under $10K. I love watching my 110" CRT PJ for everything not just movies, but sitting in the dark is getting OLD!

When they can make a 110" TV under 10K I might just dump Front Projection all together. I would love to see an OLEAD 2.39 screen at 120" under 10K and that would also be another easy sell. How long before that comes around 5 years?(I Hope Less) I still would sit in the dark, and lower the brightness on the TV.

Wouldn't you need 4 cable/satellite receivers in order to do that though?

Forget about those present prices - remember all the present HD TV's also used to cost a fortune. The reason the prices came down was because businesses bought most of the first ones.

How about $800,000 for an 201" Outdoor TV?

Will this have the better sound as blue rays have better sound over normal dvds?

That's what a lot of people said about HD when it first came out, even to this day. I have family members that used to say there was no difference between a SD video and an HD video. The first time they admitted that there was a big difference was when I showed them a football game in SD and then switched to the same football game in HD. They were amazed that they hadn't noticed the difference before. I guess we need to look at the two 1080p and 4k together to really notice a difference?

I'm interested to know what frame rates these TVs support at these high resolutions? Anything supporting 60 fps? This has been very quiet and from what I've heard, many top out at 24/30 fps.

a Lambo? I'd be looking into buying a house (or condo/townhome)

I'm waiting around to see how these next-generation UHD TV's develop, to the point, where a 65 inch could be maybe $1500.00 - $2000.00 .

Ive probably posted this in another thread, but a 95" display for under $20k and I'm in. I currently have a 92" rear projection that I sit 10 feet from. I think at that distance I could stand to have better resolution.

Personally, I was blown away when HD first came out. I thought the jump from SD to HD was huge (in my eyes at least). That's why I drove 3 hours to see the 4K set in demo. I was very excited to see the next jump in resolution but was very underwhelmed. I was expecting a lot more impact. But a few people said the other displays were very impressive in 4K so maybe it's just the sony's.

Now don't get me wrong, I would take a 4K set if they ever came down to say 50% above current 1080P prices. But if the analysts' prediction is true about 0.8% of the market in 2017 will be 4K tv's, that probably means there will be virtually zero source content in even 4 years. Studios aren't going to be pumping out 4K movie disks for that 0.8% of the market. And satellite and cable providers aren't going to start changing their channels to 4K for such a sall percentage of the market either.

I would hold out hope for OLED but even after all these years, they are no closer to figuring out how to manufacture large oled panels economically. The very few astronomically high OLED sets being released in smaller sizes isn't because of lower production (although thats a cause too). It's because the technology isn't there for them to manufacture the panels without a 90% failure rate.

I agree, I was blown away with HD but a lot of friends and family were not until I showed them the difference. I can even tell when I'm looking at a 720p movie as opposed to a 1080p movie but a lot of people would think I was lying. I have a 92" inch screen TV though so it's probably not as noticeable in a 55" or smaller set? I would probably buy a 4K TV too when prices are a lot lower but have to agree that there will not be a lot of content for a long time to come. I don't know anything about OLED since I've been buying DLPs for years and was very sad that Mitsubishi had decided not to make them anymore. Best size for the price of any TV on the market.

Isn't this kinda "putting the cart before the horse"? We all know how long it took for mere 1920x1080 HDTV to take off here in the US due to not enough people buying into the concept of HDTVs. So before there's any real support for 3840x2160 via broadcasts, players or movie discs in that res, we're going to have to overcome a rather large recession, and consumers are going to have to have not just faith in this industry, but jobs that actually pay well. At present it looks nothing more than an elitist's small market niche pipe dream for those with money to burn.
Edited by Hi Def Fan - 1/18/13 at 3:25pm

People are trying to compare how fast HD content showed up after HD TV's became widely available but that is not a valid comparison. All three major networks were forced into digital broadcasting away from analog though a government mandate. It's a very different situation now since market forces will determine the demand for 4K content.

It will be an extremely slow process because prices will come down only when they start selling a lot more 4K sets where cranking up production can be justified. But people won't start making the switch to more expensive 4K sets until there is a lot more 4K content so they can justify the change. But then, providers won't start producing more 4K content until there is a demand for it from a bigger percentage of the population who own 4K sets. It's a closed loop where every condition depends on the one next to it being fulfilled.

The only way I can see it catching on is they come up with some manufacturing process where producing a 4K set costs exactly the same as producing a 2K set. At that point of equal cost, the masses will buy a 4K set simply because 4 is greater than 2, so that must mean something good.

I don't know what the current status is, but a couple of years ago Panasonic had a 92" plasma available for 15k. There was also a 106" version for 30K.

It wasn't available through retailers. You had to go direct to Panasonic or through an installer.


UPDATE: Looks like this is what's currently available

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Professional-Full-HD-Display-TH-85PF12U/dp/B002RL8I0Y

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-103-in-Telly-TH103PF12U/dp/B004VW9QC6
Edited by crussader - 1/18/13 at 3:39pm

It has a lot more to do with than just consumers waiting for content to support it. A lot of you may not feel the crunch of it, but we're still in a global recession. While most consumers of course WOULD want the TV prices to be lower or equal to that of 1080p sets, it's unrealistic to think that would happen anytime soon given that the numbers produced dictates the cost per unit in the manufacturing process.

We're talking about a technology that is likely to be far slower to trickle into the market not just due to the recession, but also the fact that it is targeted for sets in the 50" and up range. That takes away a rather large percentage of the size of sets currently sold, and means that those without fairly large living rooms would not be served well by it.

I know some go ahead and buy large sets despite having small living rooms, but it's not only impractical, it's a bit of an eye sore. I have a neighbor that bought a 60" plasma, whom views it from across his 11'x18' space (about 8' actual viewing distance), but most of his friends and even he in the end admitted it's too big for the space it's in.
Edited by Hi Def Fan - 1/18/13 at 3:44pm

Only $18k for 85"? That's 7" smaller than my 92" DLP that I paid $3k for...

I see what you are saying but you have to remember that the people who are knowledgeable about audio/video like the AVS forum members probably account for less than 0.5% of the marketplace of those buying TV's. From what I saw of the Sony 4K set, 84" is almost marginal and the smallest size needed to take advantage of the benefits of 4K. But I can see the other 99.5% of the target market buying a 4K set in much smaller sizes just because 4k is greater than 2K, and not even knowing what that means. But that would be IF prices come down to just barely above 2K sets. And as you said, this is assuming we are out of a recessional environment.

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how 4K breaks out of a very niche market. Hell, 3D was widely available on new sets and people didn't take advantage of it even when the additional costs were negligible. There's not government mandate this time pushing everything to a new standard like there was when the analog channels were switched to digital. I would argue that without that action, in the U.S. CRT sets and low definition broadcasts would still be the standard today.

Hey crussader, when I mentioned that I would purchase a 95" set for $20k or less, I meant a 4k TV. I already have a 92" 1080p RP television that I feel works as wells as any flat panel of the same resolution. I am looking into a 4K set of the same size but I am not going to pay near $40,000 for it. As soon as one of these UHDTVs gets into my budget, I'm grabbing one.