Interesting article even though it's almost 2 years old.
- Thread starter RickDee
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 21
- Views 2K
That's like telling an audiophile that their McIntosh turntable with marble or acrylic platter isn't audibly better than the Technics or Dual that it replaced.
The recognition that the contrast and chroma improvements are by no means guaranteed is also lost on many.
ps: the article is coming up on three years old come CES 2015 and they still haven't altered the laws of physics
The recognition that the contrast and chroma improvements are by no means guaranteed is also lost on many.
ps: the article is coming up on three years old come CES 2015 and they still haven't altered the laws of physics
So no diff between 720p and 1080p. People can see no difference between the two. I think it is in your head. You see it is 1080p and you think you are getting more picture than say 720p or even 1080i. Goes back to when 480i was the standard and dvd players came out with 480p and we all thought the picture was so much better,but it was simply progressive instead of interlaced. Same psychology goes into 4k. People will think that they are getting a better picture because 4k is more than 1080p. But truthfully, the person won't see a difference, unless they sit extremely close or get a tv screen that is 6o" or bigger. Neither will happen in most cases. So 4k will not move tvs any better than 3D did. But in total irony, the article says 4k would work well for 3D screens, better than what we have today and people would see it.
I am sure this is especially true for phones, laptops and tablets since they have much smaller screens.
Interesting you mentioned 3D. If you throw out those expensive active glasses, you have to do 3D with passive techniques, i.e. polarized glasses. This means that each eye sees the whole screen all the time. So, the other side (the TV) has to put polarizers over all its pixels, to present each eye with a different picture. This means your screen resolution (for each eye) is half what it "really" is for the screen as a whole. So, if you started with a 4K set, you're back (approximately) to a regular 1920 TV.
This is why I say that 3D and 4K may save each other.
Would be nice if they could do this ,but I think that the majority of tv makers have sailed on past 3D now and gone full force into 4k. But I do seem to remember seeing a 4k-3d tv the other day in the Conn's advertisement. Of course it was at an astronomical price that not many will pay to buy it.
I think that 3D did not go over was two things 1. having to wear those stupid glasses 2. NO 3D programming. That is the same thing wrong with4K no broadcaster is using 108P much less 4K.
Harshness is right, 4K is different, it should be more compared to the advent of HD. Programming can easily be broadcast on a 4K TV, perhaps even technically improved some. Though again, will most be able to actually see the difference is more the question. Where HD had the real advantage is it really was a noticeable improvement that most can easily see over SD.
I'm all for skipping 4K and just moving towards 8K or even higher. Then that would be worth the investment in upgrading not only the HDTV, but the AV Receivers, as well. It would also relieve us of the "Future Shock" I experience just after adopting the latest standard. Also, I think OLED will have the far more dramatic difference in PQ that will likely really impress people. OLED's inky blacks and enhanced colors, etc. will be far more impressive to the masses than 4K, and one needn't be seated a few inches away to appreciate it.
The article pointed out that you needed 77 inches. Screens are getting that big now. They are not common, but in a few years 80+ inch screen market will probably be quite popular once the price drops below $3k. This could make a case for 4k, but I do not see any case any time soon for 8k which would need 160 inch screens and 10 foot viewing distance.
I have a 3-d tv that I bought on sale about two years ago at a reduced price and because there was not much else to buy, but 3-d tvs. We have watched ONE 3-d movie and it was the first Capt. America. It looked great . I have also watched a few shows upconverted to 3-d. The glasses hurt my ears and my eyes after a while. Plus you have to sit almost in front of it to get the full affect. I can't get any Netflix 3-D movies to play and I have a 3-d blu-ray player going to my 3-d A/v receiver and from that to my 3-d tv using the lastest hdmi that is supposed to work with 3-d. I really don't see much reason to use it anymore. To me 3-d was always a gimmick that is recycled every 30 years or so. It came in the 50s ,returned in the 80s for a short while and then back in this decade for another run. Unless they can come up with good passive 3-d tvs that you can watch without glasses at a reasonable price , I don't see it coming back in to vogue for another 30 years and by then we will probably be watching hologram tvs that make the actors look like they are in the room with you.
Since higher resolutions could be a harder sell due to not being able to tell the difference then I wonder what the next revolution for the tv will be? I think it will be to make it super thin, roll it out to carry with you, flexible.
Remember the tvs in the last Hunger Games Movie? It projected up to a wall from a small device. THey could do this, but with Holograms.
I really don't think the screen size will change all that much, yes, different sizes will come out, but, only so many homes can fit an 80" or larger set in them, 70" sets have the same issue.
Yes, if you have a basement or a room designated for such that will be fine, but for the most part I think your sets will continue to be dominated by the 40-60" variety.
Similar threads
