or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › Samsung Launching 55-inch and 65-inch UHDTVs In June
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung Launching 55-inch and 65-inch UHDTVs In June - Page 2

post #31 of 89
Point - if you're mostly Inputing 1080P/24 to the TV, and it's upconverting to 2160/60 Internally, then there's no need for HDMI 2.0, except in the case of actually having a 4K Video to Input.
And, in the case of a SmartTV that's pulling it's 4K info off the Internet, again, HDMI 2.0 not required.
But is it Upconverting to the 60?
post #32 of 89
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by p5browne View Post

Point - if you're mostly Inputing 1080P/24 to the TV, and it's upconverting to 2160/60 Internally, then there's no need for HDMI 2.0, except in the case of actually having a 4K Video to Input.
And, in the case of a SmartTV that's pulling it's 4K info off the Internet, again, HDMI 2.0 not required.
But is it Upconverting to the 60?

HDMI 1.4 already supports up to 2160/30p video, including 2160/24p. HDMI 2.0 would only be needed for full-resolution 2160p 3D.
post #33 of 89
I hear what you are saying... Component was fine for 1080p until they started using HDCP over HDMI and not allowing up-conversion over component cables... I will not be surprised if/when history repeats itself and you find that you can't feed your UHDTV the "full" 2160p whenever that becomes available.

Also remember when people bought 720p HDTVs... then 1080i HDTVs... and so forth.

IF you are in the market and need a TV, I'd still recommend spending far less money on a nice HDTV and wait for UHDTV to not only stabilize in terms of connectors and protocols BUT also for more source material to become available. I see no need to run out and buy an UHDTV now when there is little to no source available to feed it for a while.... by which time there may also be new connectors and such required for some source material too.
post #34 of 89
If you've A/B the uscaled 2k vs 4k on the Sony 4K displays and projector, you won't feel the need for native 4K. The upscaling quality is THAT good! better than any brand I've tested so far (including Samsung, LG, Seiki and the upcoming Sharp Purios 4K TV)
post #35 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark the Red View Post

Not to go off topic, but I've never had any reliability issues with numerous products of theirs. In fact, their phones are the most bomb proof ones me and my family have owned over the years.
YMMV. I had a TV of theirs notable for crap caps, but I have their S3 (phone) now, which seems to be rock solid. They're inconsistent. Knocking on wood, I do have to admit to having a more favorable than negative experience as far as reliability. Also have a washer and dryer that are holding up rather well (to albeit limited use).
post #36 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by yelnatsch517 View Post

I've never had issues with Samsung products. In fact, the reason I buy them is their reliability. Has that changed in the last 3 years?

Edit:
Did a bit of research and only found issues with blown caps. Not sure how that is their fault as caps have a rated lifespan, not to mention they are an easy replacement.
Replace them with some Rubycon, Chemicon, Nichicon caps and they're good for another 5 years or so.
They took responsibility in the class action brought against them. Clearly, the caps they used were of questionable quality given their short lifespans. They are not the only CEM who has gone skimpy on caps, though, no doubt (Asus, I'm looking atchu').
post #37 of 89
They All appear to have 10V Caps on, what is it, a 12V Circuit board?
post #38 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post

I hear what you are saying... Component was fine for 1080p until they started using HDCP over HDMI and not allowing up-conversion over component cables... I will not be surprised if/when history repeats itself and you find that you can't feed your UHDTV the "full" 2160p whenever that becomes available.

Also remember when people bought 720p HDTVs... then 1080i HDTVs... and so forth.

IF you are in the market and need a TV, I'd still recommend spending far less money on a nice HDTV and wait for UHDTV to not only stabilize in terms of connectors and protocols BUT also for more source material to become available. I see no need to run out and buy an UHDTV now when there is little to no source available to feed it for a while.... by which time there may also be new connectors and such required for some source material too.

Plus, by the time 4k broadcasts become reality, OLED displays will be on the market at normal prices. It isn't like 4K is going to take the world by fire. Blu ray discs can't hold 4K movies on them unless Red Ray becomes consumer friendly and internet streaming services are not going to be streaming in 4K. Those are going to stay 1080p for quite some time still. Yes, Netflix did show off 4K streaming at CES, but it looked awful and was merely a point of proof that it could be done. Video game consoles will do 4K video, but that's it. No video game will ever go over 1080p and this next console generation will probably last around 7 years and guess what, those consoles will have HDMI 1.4b their entire lifespan.
post #39 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaxick View Post

Plus, by the time 4k broadcasts become reality, OLED displays will be on the market at normal prices. It isn't like 4K is going to take the world by fire. Blu ray discs can't hold 4K movies on them unless Red Ray becomes consumer friendly and internet streaming services are not going to be streaming in 4K. Those are going to stay 1080p for quite some time still. Yes, Netflix did show off 4K streaming at CES, but it looked awful and was merely a point of proof that it could be done. Video game consoles will do 4K video, but that's it. No video game will ever go over 1080p and this next console generation will probably last around 7 years and guess what, those consoles will have HDMI 1.4b their entire lifespan.

Since the Xbox 360 was re-released several times including adding HDMI, I would be willing to wager that in a year or two when the dust settles on HDMI2.0 that we will se the next gen consoles re-released with it.
post #40 of 89

any smaller
"4k" t.v.'s out there?. O_O nice t.v., but wish i had the space for one :D

post #41 of 89
^Do you plan on sitting closer than 4 feet to such a TV? Can't see the point unless you're using it as a monitor.
post #42 of 89
I was about to write the same thing. At 55", I need to sit from 7ft away to see the 4K advantage and I'm already sitting much closer than most people in their houses.
post #43 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Samsung is ready to roll out new 55-inch and 65-inch UHDTVs featuring 2160p resolution. ...

Great! All we will now need to do to reap the full benefits of that extra resolution is to sit 3-feet away from the 55-inch model or 4-feet away from the 65-inch model. rolleyes.gif
post #44 of 89
Good luck trying to charge more than Sony.... 5,500 for a 55 inch TV? Are you f(*&king kidding me?

4k is a mis direction tactic that Samsung and Sony are using to make consumers forget about the OLED sets they both said would be released this year.

There is no way the cost on a panel with double the resolution is that high... these days LED panels are a dime a dozen... if Seiki can sell a 4k panel for 1300 bucks where is the logic that Sony's should cost 5 times that?
post #45 of 89
$10,000 for a TV is outrageous. Who the hell can afford that? My guess is they won't be selling very many of these TV's at that price. It's ironic really because the girl in the photo can't even afford the TV on her modeling salary.
post #46 of 89
Price is irrelevant in this discussion. Do you think the models used by Lamborghini, Ferrari, etc can afford those cars either? rolleyes.gif
post #47 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

Price is irrelevant in this discussion. Do you think the models used by Lamborghini, Ferrari, etc can afford those cars either? rolleyes.gif


Really David price is relevant because who in their right minds would spend as much as they are asking for for 4K tv's? In my opinion its a joke that these tv's are going for as much as they are. $5500.00 for a 55inch tv is just crazy. Dont get me wrong Sony and other manufacturers are not forcing anyone to buy them but for 4K to survive in struggleing economy's they better drop the prices or 4K will be a thing of the past. I'm sorry but alot of people just dont have that kind of money these days to spend on a tv.....especially on a tv where you cant see that much of a difference unless your sitting up close to it.
post #48 of 89
Crazy to you maybe, but I know two stores that sells between one to two 65" Sony 4K TV at $8K+tax in Toronto. I've calibrated 3 65" 4K TV and 5 Sony VPL-1000 projector ($25K+tax) this year alone.

And as far as the 4K experience, it's clear from your post that you haven't witnessed it yourself.
post #49 of 89
PS: I don't see Lamborghini, Bugatti, Ferrari, Tesla, Pagani, and all other high-end car manufacturers dropping their prices and yet they thrive regardless of the economy.

It's a different product for a different target demographic. Just because you are not part of it doesn't mean a product will fail.
post #50 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

PS: I don't see Lamborghini, Bugatti, Ferrari, Tesla, Pagani, and all other high-end car manufacturers dropping their prices and yet they thrive regardless of the economy.

It's a different product for a different target demographic. Just because you are not part of it doesn't mean a product will fail.

Last time I checked Samsung and Sony were not Luxury brands... your comparison is off the mark.

Again please explain to me why a TV with double the pixel capacity should cost four times as much? I can see a larger display like 65 inch plus charging maybe a grand or two more but that pricing is just stupid.

It's quite obvious that for Samsung to jump into the game at this point there must be good profits to be made.
post #51 of 89
Wrong, last time I checked, during Sony and Samsung launch parties, they ARE now targeting the Ferrari / Lamborghini crowd.
post #52 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by digimat View Post

Last time I checked Samsung and Sony were not Luxury brands... your comparison is off the mark.

Again please explain to me why a TV with double the pixel capacity should cost four times as much? I can see a larger display like 65 inch plus charging maybe a grand or two more but that pricing is just stupid.

It's quite obvious that for Samsung to jump into the game at this point there must be good profits to be made.

1. Because it's NOT double pixel cacity, it's LITERALLY 4x pixel density
2. The upscaling engine do cost 6x more than their regular HDtV upscaling engine
3. It's a new techology. Just like spending $2K for a BD player when they first came out.
post #53 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

Wrong, last time I checked, during Sony and Samsung launch parties, they ARE now targeting the Ferrari / Lamborghini crowd.

Really so you can tell by a launch party what type of crowd they are targeting? Please...

Can you share your source for the upscaling engine costing 6x more... other than a Samsung or Sony press release?


The technology is not new, retina displays have been out for over 3 years now... like I said I understand the cost is higher but it doesn't correspond with the pricing they are charging, people are paying that premium because there is no other competition at this time, another reason why Samsung wants in


Again if the cost of the hardware is so much more, software and upscaling aside, tell me why the Seiki is priced as much as regular LED then?
post #54 of 89
If you came off your high horse and do a bit of reading, Seiki only use pixel quadrupling for the upscaling, that method is actually cheaper than regular SD to HD upscaling.

Seiki does not use IPS

Seiki does not use 6-core engine. (Sony use a 6-core engine just for upscaling plus a dual core for the rest of the regular TV activities)

Sony uses QD-vision display which a gram of QD raw material costs more than gold (kindly check with QD vision yourself)

Sony and Samsung actually say that they are now targeting the ultra high-end market.

Btw, next time try to be more courteous with other member as opposed being rude like your posts.
post #55 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

If you came off your high horse and do a bit of reading, Seiki only use pixel quadrupling for the upscaling, that method is actually cheaper than regular SD to HD upscaling.

Seiki does not use IPS

Seiki does not use 6-core engine. (Sony use a 6-core engine just for upscaling plus a dual core for the rest of the regular TV activities)

Sony uses QD-vision display which a gram of QD raw material costs more than gold (kindly check with QD vision yourself)

Sony and Samsung actually say that they are now targeting the ultra high-end market.

Btw, next time try to be more courteous with other member as opposed being rude like your posts.

Seiki does not use IPS

Are you claiming IPS is more expensive?

Seiki does not use 6-core engine. (Sony use a 6-core engine just for upscaling plus a dual core for the rest of the regular TV activities)

I can't find any literature claiming it's 6 core. Even asked an online Rep and they say it's 4 core.

Sony uses QD-vision display which a gram of QD raw material costs more than gold (kindly check with QD vision yourself)

Do they not use Quantum Dot in all their higher end sets?

Btw, next time try to be more courteous with other member as opposed being rude like your posts.

How am I being rude? by challenging your opinion? In fact if you read the thread it's you that come off as being arrogant and ignorant to other peoples opinions
post #56 of 89
Yes, IPS is a lot more $$ than regular screen.

Sony and Samsung video processors for their 4K TV either use 3x dual-core chips (for their 80-inchers) or a single 6-core chip for their 55" and 65", it's in their whitepapers.

Full implementation of QD is only reserved for their 4KTV and one non-4K TV (which price is not much different than their 55" 4KTV)

What I state are facts, what you state are opinions which you treat as facts. That's arrogance.
Edited by David Susilo - 6/4/13 at 7:26pm
post #57 of 89
Usual rule of thumb is: divide by 8 to get the actual cost. ie: $800 set cost $100 to make. To that add shipping, advertising, profit between various importers, distributors and retailers, and there's the warranty factor as well. Now, because everyone wants it for next to nothing, electronics people are going out of business! In Canada, BB is selling Baby Goods, local independent audio/video retailer is now into appliances, and recently added bedding. Into this local profit mix, add people who think nothing of getting a big screen TV for the Major Sporting Events, then returning after, getting their monies back. Somewhere, sometime, something is going to have to give. Me, I'm lucky, retiring just in time and can collect pension! Feel sorry for 20 and 30 year olds just getting into the business. And for the calibration people, isn't the word out, future TVs will be self calibrating?
post #58 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1971 View Post

Really David price is relevant because who in their right minds would spend as much as they are asking for for 4K tv's?

I'm buying one...and as far as I know my sanity is not in doubt. Different people have different tastes, preferences, budgets. Clearly the lack of generally available 4K content may seem like a reason to wait (along with higher prices), but that's true for mainstream buyers. Enthusiasts, like myself, enjoy living on the cutting/bleeding edge. My interest is to view my digital photos on a large display at high quality, and the Sony 65" 4K is perfect for that. Also, my wedding video was filmed in 4K (actually 5K and edited in UHD) and I'm looking forward to enjoying that with my family. Heck, now that I think about it...my wedding album cost more than the TV (photography plus printing)!
post #59 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyg View Post

I'm buying one...and as far as I know my sanity is not in doubt. Different people have different tastes, preferences, budgets. Clearly the lack of generally available 4K content may seem like a reason to wait (along with higher prices), but that's true for mainstream buyers. Enthusiasts, like myself, enjoy living on the cutting/bleeding edge. My interest is to view my digital photos on a large display at high quality, and the Sony 65" 4K is perfect for that. Also, my wedding video was filmed in 4K (actually 5K and edited in UHD) and I'm looking forward to enjoying that with my family. Heck, now that I think about it...my wedding album cost more than the TV (photography plus printing)!

Then there's `Keeping the wife, and her `Plan A' happy, or the Divorce will cost even more!'
post #60 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by p5browne View Post


Then there's `Keeping the wife, and her `Plan A' happy, or the Divorce will cost even more!'

Get a good lawyer or she will get the 4k TV!eek.gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Latest Industry News
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › Samsung Launching 55-inch and 65-inch UHDTVs In June