What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Has anyone seen/bought a 4K (2160P) HDTV? (1 Viewer)

Last edited by a moderator:

jon_mx

Footballguy
By the time the content catches up to it, you could buy the TV for a fraction of the current cost and it would perform better. Never good to rush into the latest thing.

 
By the time the content catches up to it, you could buy the TV for a fraction of the current cost and it would perform better. Never good to rush into the latest thing.
Counter argument:

My current TV (SONY 46" kdl-46xbr2) was purchased 7 years ago, anything I buy today to upgrade this will be near worthless by the time content catches up to 4K but the price will be as much or more for today's high-end equivalent (price compared to the Seiki $1500 price tag)

For comparison with today's standards (1080p)

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/samsung-pn51f8500/4505-6482_7-35731512.html]Samsung PNF8500

I just took the first result from a search for: Plasma TV from CNet, there are probably better quality options out there (at higher prices).

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Drunken Cowboy

Footballguy
I would say your screen size would need to be at least 90 inches for there to be any visual difference and even then you would probably need to sit fairly near the screen to be able to notice anything.

Lots of HD TV is still 720p.

 

jon_mx

Footballguy
By the time the content catches up to it, you could buy the TV for a fraction of the current cost and it would perform better. Never good to rush into the latest thing.
Counter argument:

My current TV (SONY 46" kdl-46xbr2) was purchased 7 years ago, anything I buy today to upgrade this will be near worthless by the time content catches up to 4K but the price will be as much or more for today's high-end equivalent (price compared to the Seiki $1500 price tag)

For comparison with today's standards (1080p)

Samsung PNF8500

I just took the first result from a search for: Plasma TV from CNet, there are probably better quality options out there (at higher prices).
Let's say you settle on a 50 inch version. You can buy a Seiko 50" 1080p for $500, or a Seiko 50" 2160p for $1400. You could buy the 1080p TV today, and with the money you saved buy the 2160 version two to three years from now and it would have all the latest interfaces and technology improvements. And that 1080p TV will be far from worthless.

 

mr roboto

Footballguy
Please don't laugh, but we have never had a flat screen. We still have a 32 inch Panasonic regular set.

Having said that, we are looking into a large flat screen. But I haven't been following the trends and developments. So things like 3D, this 4K stuff, worry me.

Basically, what type of tech should I purchase in a TV if we but in the next 6 months and not want to repurchase in 3 years?

 
By the time the content catches up to it, you could buy the TV for a fraction of the current cost and it would perform better. Never good to rush into the latest thing.
Counter argument:

My current TV (SONY 46" kdl-46xbr2) was purchased 7 years ago, anything I buy today to upgrade this will be near worthless by the time content catches up to 4K but the price will be as much or more for today's high-end equivalent (price compared to the Seiki $1500 price tag)

For comparison with today's standards (1080p)

Samsung PNF8500

I just took the first result from a search for: Plasma TV from CNet, there are probably better quality options out there (at higher prices).
Let's say you settle on a 50 inch version. You can buy a Seiko 50" 1080p for $500, or a Seiko 50" 2160p for $1400. You could buy the 1080p TV today, and with the money you saved buy the 2160 version two to three years from now and it would have all the latest interfaces and technology improvements. And that 1080p TV will be far from worthless.
I don't think anyone needs a watch that large.

 

jon_mx

Footballguy
By the time the content catches up to it, you could buy the TV for a fraction of the current cost and it would perform better. Never good to rush into the latest thing.
Counter argument:

My current TV (SONY 46" kdl-46xbr2) was purchased 7 years ago, anything I buy today to upgrade this will be near worthless by the time content catches up to 4K but the price will be as much or more for today's high-end equivalent (price compared to the Seiki $1500 price tag)

For comparison with today's standards (1080p)

Samsung PNF8500

I just took the first result from a search for: Plasma TV from CNet, there are probably better quality options out there (at higher prices).
Let's say you settle on a 50 inch version. You can buy a Seiko 50" 1080p for $500, or a Seiko 50" 2160p for $1400. You could buy the 1080p TV today, and with the money you saved buy the 2160 version two to three years from now and it would have all the latest interfaces and technology improvements. And that 1080p TV will be far from worthless.
I don't think anyone needs a watch that large.
I really don't want to get bifocals. :shrug:

 
On a more serious note, your $500 price point is not accurate.

If I were to upgrade today I would want a Plasma, I never had one and always wanted one but back when I bought my Sony the cost was prohibitive.

Here's a listing of the 8 Plasma's offered by J&R Computer World:

http://www.jr.com/category/video-tv/tv/flat-panel-plasma-tv/

The only two in your $500 price bracket are 720P :loco: not only that but the two that are $500 or less are smaller than my 46"

 

cstu

Footballguy
Please don't laugh, but we have never had a flat screen. We still have a 32 inch Panasonic regular set.Having said that, we are looking into a large flat screen. But I haven't been following the trends and developments. So things like 3D, this 4K stuff, worry me.Basically, what type of tech should I purchase in a TV if we but in the next 6 months and not want to repurchase in 3 years?
You want a 1080p, either LCD or plasma, and you will be fine. At prices today I'd go with a 65" but if price is an issue then a 50" is fine for the viewing distance in most homes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

cstu

Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
I would say your screen size would need to be at least 90 inches for there to be any visual difference and even then you would probably need to sit fairly near the screen to be able to notice anything.

Lots of HD TV is still 720p.
:goodposting:

Waste of money.
Yep. According to this chart you get a benefit from 4k if your TV is 80"+ and you sit 10 feet away.
...or 50" and 7 feet which is not that unusual, plus I believe that chart is generalized for people with normal vision

 
Saw the Sony 4K TV today at BestBuy (~$5k), it was showing 4k content and it looked ridiculously good. To all of those that put faith in the no noticeable difference between 720p and 4K, they really need to see a 4K TV firsthand. It won't change the lack of content available right now, but that won't stop gamers or people using these for other computer uses from taking advantage of it until more 4k content comes into the mainstream.

 

NutterButter

Footballguy
I would say your screen size would need to be at least 90 inches for there to be any visual difference and even then you would probably need to sit fairly near the screen to be able to notice anything.

Lots of HD TV is still 720p.

Waste of money.
Yep. According to this chart you get a benefit from 4k if your TV is 80"+ and you sit 10 feet away.
...or 50" and 7 feet which is not that unusual, plus I believe that chart is generalized for people with normal vision
According to that chart, with a 50 inch screen, 4K just becomes noticeable at 5ft; the tip of the purple rectangle. To get the full benefit, you'd need to be sitting 3 feet away; the purple line.

 
NutterButter, on 08 Jun 2013 - 08:59, said:

According to that chart, with a 50 inch screen, 4K just becomes noticeable at 5ft; the tip of the purple rectangle. To get the full benefit, you'd need to be sitting 3 feet away; the purple line.
That chart is garbage, it's overly generalized and assumes everyone has 20/20 vision, it gets passed around as gospel, go to a store and view it, your eyes don't lie - it was unlike anything I had ever seen. Also the Sony is either a 55 or 65" set depending on what you can afford, the 55" lists at $5k.Regardless, will probably go with a 60" Samsung Plasma Here is the 64" version. Better value (compared to the Sony), probably better for sports. As far as Plamas go Pioneer's KURO is still the standard all Plasmas are measured against. Panasonic is coming out with the ZT60 which may challenge the KURO's black levels but that too comes with a hefty price tag.

I was also looking at the Sony ES Projectors (VPL-HW50ES), but I don't think my room is big enough to project a ~100" picture and the price adds up when you add in the cost of a screen, blackout shades and lamp replacements (easily over $5k after a few years).

 
Last edited by a moderator:

stbugs

Footballguy
5 digit know nothing, on 08 Jun 2013 - 10:01, said:

NutterButter, on 08 Jun 2013 - 08:59, said:

NutterButter, on 08 Jun 2013 - 08:59, said:

According to that chart, with a 50 inch screen, 4K just becomes noticeable at 5ft; the tip of the purple rectangle. To get the full benefit, you'd need to be sitting 3 feet away; the purple line.
That chart is garbage, it's overly generalized and assumes everyone has 20/20 vision, it gets passed around as gospel, go to a store and view it, your eyes don't lie - it was unlike anything I had ever seen. Also the Sony is either a 55 or 65" set depending on what you can afford, the 55" lists at $5k.Regardless, will probably go with a 60" Samsung Plasma Here is the 64" version. Better value (compared to the Sony), probably better for sports.

I was also looking at the Sony ES Projectors (VPL-HW50ES), but I don't think my room is big enough to project a ~100" picture and the price adds up when you add in the cost of a screen and lamp replacements (easily over $5k after a few years).
Why is the chart garbage? Have you ever noticed that in a store you are much closer, which is where the chart shows that the higher resolutions are better? Why do you think they don't setup a living room setup where the couch is a normal seating distance away with all TVs? If they did that, you might be inclined to by the cheaper TV, which isn't the store's goal. Also, if you don't think they are going to do everything they can (content/location) to make the expensive TVs look brilliant, you are falling right in their trap.Wait, you are right, it is probably better to trust the guy who went to BestBuy and stood 2 feet from the screen than a chart that looks like it may have used some research and science. Time to go get a $5k 4k TV for my family room where we sit about 12 feet from the TV.

 
5 digit know nothing, on 08 Jun 2013 - 10:01, said:

NutterButter, on 08 Jun 2013 - 08:59, said:

NutterButter, on 08 Jun 2013 - 08:59, said:

According to that chart, with a 50 inch screen, 4K just becomes noticeable at 5ft; the tip of the purple rectangle. To get the full benefit, you'd need to be sitting 3 feet away; the purple line.
That chart is garbage, it's overly generalized and assumes everyone has 20/20 vision, it gets passed around as gospel, go to a store and view it, your eyes don't lie - it was unlike anything I had ever seen. Also the Sony is either a 55 or 65" set depending on what you can afford, the 55" lists at $5k.Regardless, will probably go with a 60" Samsung Plasma Here is the 64" version. Better value (compared to the Sony), probably better for sports.

I was also looking at the Sony ES Projectors (VPL-HW50ES), but I don't think my room is big enough to project a ~100" picture and the price adds up when you add in the cost of a screen and lamp replacements (easily over $5k after a few years).
Why is the chart garbage? Have you ever noticed that in a store you are much closer, which is where the chart shows that the higher resolutions are better? Why do you think they don't setup a living room setup where the couch is a normal seating distance away with all TVs? If they did that, you might be inclined to by the cheaper TV, which isn't the store's goal. Also, if you don't think they are going to do everything they can (content/location) to make the expensive TVs look brilliant, you are falling right in their trap.Wait, you are right, it is probably better to trust the guy who went to BestBuy and stood 2 feet from the screen than a chart that looks like it may have used some research and science. Time to go get a $5k 4k TV for my family room where we sit about 12 feet from the TV.
Have you been to a Best Buy Magnolia? They have a living room setup, and in this case it was setup for the top of the line TV on display the Sony 4K LCD. Where did I say I stood 2 feet from the screen? Go ahead keep believing everything you read on the internet as gospel, why would anyone recommend you actually go test view a screen before purchasing, if some anonymous person on the internet says this has a million to 1 contrast ratio and according to the specs there is nothing better, than absolutely plunk down a month's salary without going to the showroom to view it first.
 

renesauz

IBL Representative
Anyone who spends $5000 on a frigging television needs their head examined.

Just sayin........

 

jagbag

Footballguy
I have a 43" Samsung plasma 720p. I sit about 7' away and it's just fine for me. Less than a year old though.Paid about $380.00. Couldn't be happier.

It's better than my 42" panasonic plasma.The damn thing is having problems and it's not even 3 yrs old. Picture is still great but get a lot of static when changing channels and it takes a long time to do so..

 

Cliff Clavin

Footballguy
Please don't laugh, but we have never had a flat screen. We still have a 32 inch Panasonic regular set.Having said that, we are looking into a large flat screen. But I haven't been following the trends and developments. So things like 3D, this 4K stuff, worry me.Basically, what type of tech should I purchase in a TV if we but in the next 6 months and not want to repurchase in 3 years?
A whole lot depends on what other devices you have IMO. I just picked up a 51" 1080 plasma (Samsung) for $500ish to use as a bedroom TV. The reason it was so cheap was because it wasn't a "Smart" tv. No wifi or any apps on it. For me, I don't need that in my TV as I have a WDTV connected to it which achieves all the things a "Smart" tv does for a fraction of the price. Problem is that all TVs are heading that way. So if those things aren't important to you, shop around and find one quick.

I wouldn't concern yourself with either 3D or 4K. 3D sucks and most of the content isn't true 3D anyways. If you want your 3D fix, go to the theatre. 4K won't matter for a long, long time IMO. The only things that will be in 4K will be movies (on disc) and maybe video games. Cable isn't even being broadcast in 1080P yet because of bandwidth issues and that won't be changing for quite a while. 4K is at minimum, a decade away from being broadcast.

Unless your a videophile (which if you're still watching a 32" tube you're obviously not), then grab a decent 1080P TV and you'll be set for a long time.

 

Zaxxon

Footballguy
The refresh rates for any of the Sony models for this year top out at a 120 Hz refresh rate. Go to a Best Buy and ask to see the demo they should have saved on their media servers. There is a pretty cool demo that shows how distinct the writing on a newspaper article looks between 1080p and 4K but I would guess that there is a niche market for that kind of detail. Additionally, they should have a soccer demo on that same media server that will likely talk you out of a purchase on the spot as it did for me. The ball seems to warp across the screen and I am guessing that the majority of the people here would be occasional viewers of sports at worst.

 
The refresh rates for any of the Sony models for this year top out at a 120 Hz refresh rate. Go to a Best Buy and ask to see the demo they should have saved on their media servers. There is a pretty cool demo that shows how distinct the writing on a newspaper article looks between 1080p and 4K but I would guess that there is a niche market for that kind of detail. Additionally, they should have a soccer demo on that same media server that will likely talk you out of a purchase on the spot as it did for me. The ball seems to warp across the screen and I am guessing that the majority of the people here would be occasional viewers of sports at worst.
I've ruled out 4K for now, it's just not worth the investment. If I did 4K I would want to go projector to take advantage of the +100" screen and there just isn't any options outside of the Sony for $25k.I'm looking at plasmas: Panny ZT60, VT60 and Sharp F8500 either 60 or 65" looks like I can get the ZT60 for about 3300 and the other two for 2800, I just need to compare them side-by-side.
 
The only things that will be in 4K will be movies (on disc) and maybe video games. Cable isn't even being broadcast in 1080P yet because of bandwidth issues and that won't be changing for quite a while. 4K is at minimum, a decade away from being broadcast.
I think you are wrong on both counts.DirectTV is broadcasting content in 1080p/24Sony compresses 4K stream significantlyIf I were to bet on it, I'd say a subscription company like Netflix would be the first to deliver 4K content. Digital Cinemas broadcast in 4K today so there is content out there, it is just a matter of making it available to the consumer market.Speak of the Devil
"Netflix Chief Product Officer: expect 4K streaming within a year or two" March 14, 2013
ETA: Sony 4K LCD panels use the 4K Ultra HD standard (3840 pixels × 2160 pixels), whereas the Sony 4K Home Theater ES Projector uses the Digital Cinema 4K standard (4096 × 2160).I actually might wait a year or two for a new set if this is true.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cliff Clavin

Footballguy
The only things that will be in 4K will be movies (on disc) and maybe video games. Cable isn't even being broadcast in 1080P yet because of bandwidth issues and that won't be changing for quite a while. 4K is at minimum, a decade away from being broadcast.
I think you are wrong on both counts.DirectTV is broadcasting content in 1080p/24Sony compresses 4K stream significantlyIf I were to bet on it, I'd say a subscription company like Netflix would be the first to deliver 4K content. Digital Cinemas broadcast in 4K today so there is content out there, it is just a matter of making it available to the consumer market.Speak of the Devil
"Netflix Chief Product Officer: expect 4K streaming within a year or two" March 14, 2013
ETA: Sony 4K LCD panels use the 4K Ultra HD standard (3840 pixels × 2160 pixels), whereas the Sony 4K Home Theater ES Projector uses the Digital Cinema 4K standard (4096 × 2160).I actually might wait a year or two for a new set if this is true.
DirectTV is satellite, not cable.

Netflix can't even stream bluray properly yet. They call it "HD" and "Bluray" but it isn't even close. You're getting a compressed, watered down version of the disc (no different from downloading a torrent file that is blurau rip). And 4K streaming? Sure, they'll offer it. But it won't be close to 4K.

 
The only things that will be in 4K will be movies (on disc) and maybe video games. Cable isn't even being broadcast in 1080P yet because of bandwidth issues and that won't be changing for quite a while. 4K is at minimum, a decade away from being broadcast.
I think you are wrong on both counts.DirectTV is broadcasting content in 1080p/24Sony compresses 4K stream significantlyIf I were to bet on it, I'd say a subscription company like Netflix would be the first to deliver 4K content. Digital Cinemas broadcast in 4K today so there is content out there, it is just a matter of making it available to the consumer market.Speak of the Devil
"Netflix Chief Product Officer: expect 4K streaming within a year or two" March 14, 2013
ETA: Sony 4K LCD panels use the 4K Ultra HD standard (3840 pixels × 2160 pixels), whereas the Sony 4K Home Theater ES Projector uses the Digital Cinema 4K standard (4096 × 2160).I actually might wait a year or two for a new set if this is true.
DirectTV is satellite, not cable. Netflix can't even stream bluray properly yet. They call it "HD" and "Bluray" but it isn't even close. You're getting a compressed, watered down version of the disc (no different from downloading a torrent file that is blurau rip). And 4K streaming? Sure, they'll offer it. But it won't be close to 4K.
:lmao:whatever dudeIt is not a content problem.All of the major cable companies -- and over-the-air broadcasters -- support 1080p24 broadcasts.It is not a bandwidth problem.Digital cable (at QAM256 at the typical symbol rate) has 38 Mbps available per 6 MHz channel, so it would in theory be possible to send even MPEG-2 at 1080p60 down a digital cable channel. Certainly by using MPEG-4 part 10 (aka H.264), it would be possible. But no major standard for consumer video has blessed 1080p60.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cliff Clavin

Footballguy
The only things that will be in 4K will be movies (on disc) and maybe video games. Cable isn't even being broadcast in 1080P yet because of bandwidth issues and that won't be changing for quite a while. 4K is at minimum, a decade away from being broadcast.
I think you are wrong on both counts.DirectTV is broadcasting content in 1080p/24Sony compresses 4K stream significantlyIf I were to bet on it, I'd say a subscription company like Netflix would be the first to deliver 4K content. Digital Cinemas broadcast in 4K today so there is content out there, it is just a matter of making it available to the consumer market.Speak of the Devil
"Netflix Chief Product Officer: expect 4K streaming within a year or two" March 14, 2013
ETA: Sony 4K LCD panels use the 4K Ultra HD standard (3840 pixels × 2160 pixels), whereas the Sony 4K Home Theater ES Projector uses the Digital Cinema 4K standard (4096 × 2160).I actually might wait a year or two for a new set if this is true.
DirectTV is satellite, not cable. Netflix can't even stream bluray properly yet. They call it "HD" and "Bluray" but it isn't even close. You're getting a compressed, watered down version of the disc (no different from downloading a torrent file that is blurau rip). And 4K streaming? Sure, they'll offer it. But it won't be close to 4K.
:lmao:whatever dude
Great response.

 

Boulder Toads

Footballguy
The refresh rates for any of the Sony models for this year top out at a 120 Hz refresh rate. Go to a Best Buy and ask to see the demo they should have saved on their media servers. There is a pretty cool demo that shows how distinct the writing on a newspaper article looks between 1080p and 4K but I would guess that there is a niche market for that kind of detail. Additionally, they should have a soccer demo on that same media server that will likely talk you out of a purchase on the spot as it did for me. The ball seems to warp across the screen and I am guessing that the majority of the people here would be occasional viewers of sports at worst.
I've ruled out 4K for now, it's just not worth the investment. If I did 4K I would want to go projector to take advantage of the +100" screen and there just isn't any options outside of the Sony for $25k.I'm looking at plasmas: Panny ZT60, VT60 and Sharp F8500 either 60 or 65" looks like I can get the ZT60 for about 3300 and the other two for 2800, I just need to compare them side-by-side.
Also between the Panasonic VT60 and Samsung F8500, but wondering where you see those prices? I'm seeing $4100 for ZT60 and $3400 for VT60 / F8500. Did a side by side yesterday, leaning toward the VT60 but its close ...ETA: sorry, to clarify - I'm looking at 65", are your prices for 60"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The refresh rates for any of the Sony models for this year top out at a 120 Hz refresh rate. Go to a Best Buy and ask to see the demo they should have saved on their media servers. There is a pretty cool demo that shows how distinct the writing on a newspaper article looks between 1080p and 4K but I would guess that there is a niche market for that kind of detail. Additionally, they should have a soccer demo on that same media server that will likely talk you out of a purchase on the spot as it did for me. The ball seems to warp across the screen and I am guessing that the majority of the people here would be occasional viewers of sports at worst.
I've ruled out 4K for now, it's just not worth the investment. If I did 4K I would want to go projector to take advantage of the +100" screen and there just isn't any options outside of the Sony for $25k.I'm looking at plasmas: Panny ZT60, VT60 and Sharp F8500 either 60 or 65" looks like I can get the ZT60 for about 3300 and the other two for 2800, I just need to compare them side-by-side.
Also between the Panasonic VT60 and Samsung F8500, but wondering where you see those prices? I'm seeing $4100 for ZT60 and $3400 for VT60 / F8500. Did a side by side yesterday, leaning toward the VT60 but its close ...ETA: sorry, to clarify - I'm looking at 65", are your prices for 60"?
Prices are for 65", reportedly quoted to someone that negotiated with BestBuy. Markup on each set is at/over $1k. He ended up going with the VT60:
I chose the VT because at the end of the day you could BARELY see a difference between the two panels unless they turned back on their lighting, then the ZT took a slight edge due to glare. Bottom line is the ZT was not worth $550 more and I plan on using that money to get the VT professionally calibrated.
ETA: the biggest drawback for me with going with an LCD and 4K in particular has to do with the problems they exhibit when showing sports. No way in hell I am plunking down $5-6k if it can't even fluidly show sports.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Clifford

Footballguy
Saw tons of them at CES. Brighter, sharper, better, but honestly I wouldn't pay more than $50 for the difference. Price tag on early adopters is going to be more like $1500, so IMO not worth it at all.

 

Sarnoff

Footballguy
its too early to delve into this technology due to lack of content available
Seriously.

Few have seen uncompressed 1080HD, I'd bet. True 1080 looks way better than the stuff you get via cable, blu-ray, streaming, etc. But no one has the bandwidth to deliver the content. Checking out a set that's playing a real source will obviously look impressive, but, how long will it be until that kind of source is available for viewing at home? Years? Decades?

 
its too early to delve into this technology due to lack of content available
Seriously.

Few have seen uncompressed 1080HD, I'd bet. True 1080 looks way better than the stuff you get via cable, blu-ray, streaming, etc. But no one has the bandwidth to deliver the content. Checking out a set that's playing a real source will obviously look impressive, but, how long will it be until that kind of source is available for viewing at home? Years? Decades?
months?

http://store.sony.com/p/4K-Media-Server/en/p/FMPX1

 

Sarnoff

Footballguy
its too early to delve into this technology due to lack of content available
Seriously.

Few have seen uncompressed 1080HD, I'd bet. True 1080 looks way better than the stuff you get via cable, blu-ray, streaming, etc. But no one has the bandwidth to deliver the content. Checking out a set that's playing a real source will obviously look impressive, but, how long will it be until that kind of source is available for viewing at home? Years? Decades?
months?

http://store.sony.com/p/4K-Media-Server/en/p/FMPX1
Still compressed video. Just like with your DVR/cable box/blu-ray, etc. Going to be lots of artifacts and terrible gradients, not really seeing the real picture.

 

Andy Dufresne

Footballguy
Still compressed video. Just like with your DVR/cable box/blu-ray, etc. Going to be lots of artifacts and terrible gradients, not really seeing the real picture.
But it'll still be superior to the 1080p compressed that we're seeing now. That's the apples/apples comparison, isn't it?

 
its too early to delve into this technology due to lack of content available
Seriously.

Few have seen uncompressed 1080HD, I'd bet. True 1080 looks way better than the stuff you get via cable, blu-ray, streaming, etc. But no one has the bandwidth to deliver the content. Checking out a set that's playing a real source will obviously look impressive, but, how long will it be until that kind of source is available for viewing at home? Years? Decades?
months?

http://store.sony.com/p/4K-Media-Server/en/p/FMPX1
Still compressed video. Just like with your DVR/cable box/blu-ray, etc. Going to be lots of artifacts and terrible gradients, not really seeing the real picture.
Yeah you mean, compared to all of that uncompressed goodness you see on your TV at home today?

 

BoltBacker

Footballguy
its too early to delve into this technology due to lack of content available
Seriously.

Few have seen uncompressed 1080HD, I'd bet. True 1080 looks way better than the stuff you get via cable, blu-ray, streaming, etc. But no one has the bandwidth to deliver the content. Checking out a set that's playing a real source will obviously look impressive, but, how long will it be until that kind of source is available for viewing at home? Years? Decades?
So what you are saying is nobody really needs a 1080p television... yet everyone I know has one. Just because people don't need and may not even be able to fully utilize 4k televisions doesn't mean the transition toward them won't happen sooner than you think. People will buy the tech because it will be bigger and better. The exact same reason people used to buy 30"-40" 1080p televisions when 720p would certainly suffice, as you pointed out.

The talk of "decades" is just silly imo. Maybe that was the time frame when the transition from B/W to color took place but no longer. I think you are greatly underestimating the willingness of Americans to spend almost any amount of money to watch TV and play with more fancy cell phones. Too many companies can make too much $ bringing 4k media into your living room for it to take even a decade. I'd definitely bet the "under" on that.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top