Considering a 4K Ultra-HD TV
- Thread starter Neutron
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 44
- Views 5K
Unlike 3D that I have always maintained is a gimmick more than it is a feature people want, I think 4K can be viable. But in no way shape or form now or in the next few years. Things still have to shake out. I think because the cost is not really a factor in the production of the TV, as that becomes the standard or at least when more of them are available it will be no different than buying a 1080P TV now, but with theoretically a better picture. Though I still don't think people are going to buy one to replace a perfectly good 1080P, they will want one when they do buy (Unlike 3d) and perhaps will hasten the purchase if the economy ever improves.
If money isn't the issue or if/when the cost is about that of a 1080P TV, then nothing below really matters in will be a better TV, except for the last point. But for now, it can be a better picture, but;
1. There is no indication from any manufacturer that there is going to be an avalanche of 4K material available to buy, rent or stream. Think trickle each year. Streaming would seem to be the the method that will offer it sooner and have more of it.
2. Even if you have the download stream available to you that can handle 4K or handle it reliably, (VERY few do in the U.S. - it's hard enough to stream 1080P for most U.S. Internet subscribers) unless a miracle happens with Neutrality issues, be prepared to pay a premium price for streaming in 4K.
3. Blu Ray player sales have never taken off even to this day they are not in the majority of homes, people who watch discs still use the DVD player more often. (About 1/3 of homes have it, over 1/2 of homes have a DVD player) The ramification of that is most manufacturers may not be so quick to manufacture 4K players for awhile so the the cost could be very high for that that do exist, to play the little available material.
4. Then there's the same thing some people don't believe, think they have better eyes than everyone, or just don't know about as with viewing today, and that is viewing distance. Right now people think they are seeing 1080I or maybe 1080P but they are not. They sit too far from the screen. In some instances you may see a the jagged edges that can happen with 1080I or perhaps see movement not as fluid as with 720P (And why some say 720P for most is actually the better resolution if 1080P is not available) But you are not seeing the better resolution you are seeing the differences in how the picture is delivered. Most people sit 10 feet or farther from their TV.
To see 1080P you need to have at least a 75" screen at 10 feet. For 4K? 165" !!! If you are willing to sit 5ft away, then for 4K you need an 85" screen.
http://www.cnet.com/news/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/ With calculator.
5. Finally and don't overlook this, as pointed out in other posts, conformity is an issue and one you don't want to overlook. Buying now can mean literally in a few months or a year it is not going to be able to do what sets built in the very near future will be able to do, or not do it as well, or need converters/adaptors to do it. I know first hand about that with my then expensive Mitsubishi rear projection TV I bought. It had promises of meeting the standards and it never did. " Mitsubishi also promises to upgrade its HDTVs for compatibility with any near-future digital-video format for a reasonable fee." They never did, and as just one example it would not display properly a signal from a then Direct TV RCA HD receiver.
In the past none of that may have deterred me from buying the newest technology. But as the economy has worsened and my income does not increase but costs do, and maybe because I am older, now I wait till I know it is ready for prime time.
If money isn't the issue or if/when the cost is about that of a 1080P TV, then nothing below really matters in will be a better TV, except for the last point. But for now, it can be a better picture, but;
1. There is no indication from any manufacturer that there is going to be an avalanche of 4K material available to buy, rent or stream. Think trickle each year. Streaming would seem to be the the method that will offer it sooner and have more of it.
2. Even if you have the download stream available to you that can handle 4K or handle it reliably, (VERY few do in the U.S. - it's hard enough to stream 1080P for most U.S. Internet subscribers) unless a miracle happens with Neutrality issues, be prepared to pay a premium price for streaming in 4K.
3. Blu Ray player sales have never taken off even to this day they are not in the majority of homes, people who watch discs still use the DVD player more often. (About 1/3 of homes have it, over 1/2 of homes have a DVD player) The ramification of that is most manufacturers may not be so quick to manufacture 4K players for awhile so the the cost could be very high for that that do exist, to play the little available material.
4. Then there's the same thing some people don't believe, think they have better eyes than everyone, or just don't know about as with viewing today, and that is viewing distance. Right now people think they are seeing 1080I or maybe 1080P but they are not. They sit too far from the screen. In some instances you may see a the jagged edges that can happen with 1080I or perhaps see movement not as fluid as with 720P (And why some say 720P for most is actually the better resolution if 1080P is not available) But you are not seeing the better resolution you are seeing the differences in how the picture is delivered. Most people sit 10 feet or farther from their TV.
To see 1080P you need to have at least a 75" screen at 10 feet. For 4K? 165" !!! If you are willing to sit 5ft away, then for 4K you need an 85" screen.
http://www.cnet.com/news/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/ With calculator.
5. Finally and don't overlook this, as pointed out in other posts, conformity is an issue and one you don't want to overlook. Buying now can mean literally in a few months or a year it is not going to be able to do what sets built in the very near future will be able to do, or not do it as well, or need converters/adaptors to do it. I know first hand about that with my then expensive Mitsubishi rear projection TV I bought. It had promises of meeting the standards and it never did. " Mitsubishi also promises to upgrade its HDTVs for compatibility with any near-future digital-video format for a reasonable fee." They never did, and as just one example it would not display properly a signal from a then Direct TV RCA HD receiver.
In the past none of that may have deterred me from buying the newest technology. But as the economy has worsened and my income does not increase but costs do, and maybe because I am older, now I wait till I know it is ready for prime time.
We ended up getting the LG. I would have bought a larger TV but the price point was a lot higher. To go larger than 55" would have cost me an additional $1000.
The PQ is amazing! I like how it up converts everything to 4K. It looks better than when we first got our DLP and it uncoverted from SD to HD.
I tried telling my wife that we needed a wall mount. She didn't listen so now we are on our way back to get a wall mount. The only spot we can mount it is exactly 48.5" between our built in bookcase and the window.
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
The PQ is amazing! I like how it up converts everything to 4K. It looks better than when we first got our DLP and it uncoverted from SD to HD.
I tried telling my wife that we needed a wall mount. She didn't listen so now we are on our way back to get a wall mount. The only spot we can mount it is exactly 48.5" between our built in bookcase and the window.
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Thank you! Finally got it mounted in the wall and the av equipment organized. We got a couple of 3d Blu-ray discs. I picked up The Universe 3D and it was awesome! Our PS3 does a good job with 3D. I was expecting the same experience as in the theater but what was strange was the 3D effect was in the other direction. It didn't pop out rather it was inside the TV instead. Not sure if it was the program or if that's normal. Still looked awesome! So far very happy with this TV.
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
My rule number 1-
Never buy promise of tomorrow's technology with today's dollars. That is, place no value in converters and upgrades unless currently available.
#2-
Buy the best you can afford and keep it until the next new technology makes a big improvement.
#3-
Don't waste your money on 3D if you can't see 3D. If you have two good eyes, and live in a 3D world, do not waste your money on a 2D TV today. 3D is here to stay and while it is, indeed, a gimmick, it is better defined as added entertainment. And face it, entertainment is what this stuff is all about. If you get sick watching 3D with today's Passive TV's then you fall in that category of having defective vision and should not buy 3D. Same as if you get sick riding a roller coaster, don't spend your money on riding a roller coaster. Buying a 2D TV today, because you just love flat pictures, is like buying a 2 channel stereo amp because you just don't like surround sound.
#4
Buying a small size 4K screen for long view distance is a waste of money too. Most people will sit no closer than 8 ft from a TV screen. In 4K I see the advantage only on 65" and larger screens. When the time is right I may go for a 65" set. Or if waiting, will get the projector for a 92" wide screen in 4K. front row seating for me will be 8 ft. But, with passive screens one has to consider the passive film on the screen has a resolution reduction factor of 50% for 3D. For active shutter screens it is 0%.
For future 4K content, I see downloaded content to a server as the new direction obsoleting optical media on 4K Blu Ray disk. I will be shocked if we ever see 4K optical players and boxed movies on the retail shelves. I will not wait for 4K optical media, as 4K hard drive servers and downloading content are now being sold.
Never buy promise of tomorrow's technology with today's dollars. That is, place no value in converters and upgrades unless currently available.
#2-
Buy the best you can afford and keep it until the next new technology makes a big improvement.
#3-
Don't waste your money on 3D if you can't see 3D. If you have two good eyes, and live in a 3D world, do not waste your money on a 2D TV today. 3D is here to stay and while it is, indeed, a gimmick, it is better defined as added entertainment. And face it, entertainment is what this stuff is all about. If you get sick watching 3D with today's Passive TV's then you fall in that category of having defective vision and should not buy 3D. Same as if you get sick riding a roller coaster, don't spend your money on riding a roller coaster. Buying a 2D TV today, because you just love flat pictures, is like buying a 2 channel stereo amp because you just don't like surround sound.
#4
Buying a small size 4K screen for long view distance is a waste of money too. Most people will sit no closer than 8 ft from a TV screen. In 4K I see the advantage only on 65" and larger screens. When the time is right I may go for a 65" set. Or if waiting, will get the projector for a 92" wide screen in 4K. front row seating for me will be 8 ft. But, with passive screens one has to consider the passive film on the screen has a resolution reduction factor of 50% for 3D. For active shutter screens it is 0%.
For future 4K content, I see downloaded content to a server as the new direction obsoleting optical media on 4K Blu Ray disk. I will be shocked if we ever see 4K optical players and boxed movies on the retail shelves. I will not wait for 4K optical media, as 4K hard drive servers and downloading content are now being sold.
Does that not really depend on the display technology used? Passive does not have to reduce resolution 50%.
Nice post, I learned something. But I disagree with the last paragraph. Standards are under development now. I think it will see the light of day, whatever they name it. How well it sells is a different matter.
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App using an iPhone.
Yes, I'd like to learn more about this.
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App using an iPhone.
I know of only one passive technology that qualifies your statement. This would be a dual projector 3D polarized system with a metal screen to preserve the passive polar properties. These are very rare in Home theaters since they are highly specialized for 3D viewing and very difficult to set up and operate. There have been a few mfg's single passive projector packages but these are very expensive $30k and most are commercial movie theater system costing in excess of $100,000. The lower cost ones, I've seen are poor washed out quality.
Most people would consider the more common Film Pattern Retarder screens laminated to the LCD display panels ( most LED back lighted) which by their nature take any 2D screen resolution and in 3D cut it in half. You can actually see this if you look closely, especially on the larger than 40" diagonal screen sizes. It appears as horizontal black ( no picture information) lines that reduce the vertical resolution to 50%. There has been a debate on this by a few manufacturers' marketing teams that wearing the passive 3D glasses both eyes will total the original 2D resolution but engineers don't agree. The Film Pattern retarding properties is fixed and does not alternate as claimed by the marketing people. Kind of like looking out a window with window screen absent the vertical wires in the window screen. The main advantage of having a UHD or 4K 3D passive FPR technology it you get the advantage of passive glasses, but preserve the full vertical resolution of Blu Ray 1080p when the 3D is upconverted to 4K, EVEN if the 3D program is not 4K native. It really is the best of the 3D technology in my opinion.
Having said that the downside is the panel, weight, and cost as the size gets larger. I'm used to a 92" width screen in my HT. the closest I can do in a panel is 84" for under $20K and I won't spend that much. So, it looks like the compromise right now would be a Sony active glasses 4K projector which is currently selling street for about $10,000. I love the quality of my current Sony SXRD VW90ES and jumping to a 600ES keeps my screen size to what I'm used to and it is in my budget range. If I bought a passive 4K panel, I would probably go no larger than 65" and would not pay more than $3500. So, I'm not in the market at this time. Waiting also has the advantage that the technology will shake out too as the standard is finalized. I agree with Navy on this.
Any disadvantages to Active, other than cost, weight and power?
And am I correct that current active 3D glasses will work with 4K 3D?
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App using an iPhone.
And am I correct that current active 3D glasses will work with 4K 3D?
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App using an iPhone.
Just to touch on the standards issue: I read this week that the UHD standard was updated this past week (might even be finalized, not sure). The point of the article was that most current 4K TVs don't meet all the standards, but anything produced this fall and after will be good to go.
Found it: www.engadget.com/2014/06/28/what-ultra-hd-really-means/#comments
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Found it: www.engadget.com/2014/06/28/what-ultra-hd-really-means/#comments
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
REALITY strikes again, defeating hopes and wishful thinking!
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App using an iPhone.
I think that everyone that has remotely researched the new TVs knew that the standards were still subject to change. One of the perils of being an early adopter.
That said, I'm glad I wasn't in a position to need to buy a new TV the past six months to a year.
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
