4k tvs, anyone actually seen one?

[Koing]

3D failed, so they're trying something else, and that's 4K. I predict that will fail too.

1080p is the end of the line for the foreseeable future folks. Hell, as mentioned, we still don't even have 1080p broadcast TV.

Why would companies go H.265 and 4K? They'd be better off going H.265 and 1080p. As for RED, they're pretty much irrelevant on the broadcast distribution side too, and just about nobody except the uber-AV geeks will buy a RED player. I certainly won't, and I'm the biggest AV geek I know.

This is why the industry needs to settle on a 4k disc standard. I'm not holding my breath on 4k broadcast. Admittedly a lot of channels are in decent enough 720p/ 1080i on Sky in England. All of the main channels have HD channels. Blu Ray is better on my 50" 1080p display but it isn't a night and day thing for me. Maybe less compression than the US channels?

I think it's a bit out there to say 1080p is end of the line for the foreseeable future imo. The tvs are coming in the next few years.

Next years World Cup a broadcaster in Japan is going to broadcast in 4k. I think within the next 3-5yrs we will have more 4k content and the tvs will only get cheaper.

Why not H.265? Beacause my box doesn't do it and unless they fancy releasing another box it won't happen. Too many old boxes out there that won't be able to handle the new H.265.

When a good 84" 4k tv is out there for 3k I'm going to get one , so 3-5yrs?

Koing

 

[Koing]

I just saw a 90" LCD at PC Richards ($9,000 btw) and wasn't super impressed. A projector would do a better job imo, unless you need daytime viewing. I could definitely see how 4K would look better than 1080p at that size!

It's about content and compression. 4K was stunning on the 84" imo. Just such an impact at watching something that big at that resolution. Literally like staring at a high res image but nearly life size.

Koing

 

[Gintaras]

It's about content and compression. 4K was stunning on the 84" imo. Just such an impact at watching something that big at that resolution. Literally like staring at a high res image but nearly life size.

Koing

So...you'll see everything better on TV in "nearly life size" than you can see in Real life in Life Size?

"One Flew Over Cuckoos Nest Part 2"....

 

[Anteaus]

Content will def be there. Studios wanted to future proof as much as possible when they started prepping releases for bluray. Most early bluray films were scanned at 4k and downconverted to 1080P for bluray release, so it's just a matter of distribution. Also, many movies such as Gone With The Wind and Wizard of Oz were scanned at 8K and as time goes scan resolution will go up as technology allows.

Scanning films takse a long time, so it's in their best interest to get every ounce of quality out of them before the film falls apart. What sucks is that there are many movies that for whatever reason the masters were destroyed or lost, so they are having to resort to scanning whatever source they can find which can really hurt things.

The weird part is that as scan resolution goes up older films will continue to look better and better than their digital only counterparts. Many early films were shot at native 1080P, so what you have now is as good as they will ever get.

 

[Koing]

So...you'll see everything better on TV in "nearly life size" than you can see in Real life in Life Size?

"One Flew Over Cuckoos Nest Part 2"....

I can't go in to outer space, deep under water or to a million other places that I have seen on tv or in movies.

84" 4k looks better than the 65" 1080p tvs I saw. But it was at least 6-8x more expensive at the current pricing levels.

 

[Koing]

Content will def be there. Studios wanted to future proof as much as possible when they started prepping releases for bluray. Most early bluray films were scanned at 4k and downconverted to 1080P for bluray release, so it's just a matter of distribution. Also, many movies such as Gone With The Wind and Wizard of Oz were scanned at 8K and as time goes scan resolution will go up as technology allows.

Scanning films takse a long time, so it's in their best interest to get every ounce of quality out of them before the film falls apart. What sucks is that there are many movies that for whatever reason the masters were destroyed or lost, so they are having to resort to scanning whatever source they can find which can really hurt things.

The weird part is that as scan resolution goes up older films will continue to look better and better than their digital only counterparts. Many early films were shot at native 1080P, so what you have now is as good as they will ever get.

Indeed.

Star Wars with jar jar binks was shot on 1080p digital. FAIL for 4k release.

Koing

 

[Eug]

Content will def be there. Studios wanted to future proof as much as possible when they started prepping releases for bluray. Most early bluray films were scanned at 4k and downconverted to 1080P for bluray release, so it's just a matter of distribution. Also, many movies such as Gone With The Wind and Wizard of Oz were scanned at 8K and as time goes scan resolution will go up as technology allows.

Scanning films takse a long time, so it's in their best interest to get every ounce of quality out of them before the film falls apart. What sucks is that there are many movies that for whatever reason the masters were destroyed or lost, so they are having to resort to scanning whatever source they can find which can really hurt things.

The weird part is that as scan resolution goes up older films will continue to look better and better than their digital only counterparts. Many early films were shot at native 1080P, so what you have now is as good as they will ever get.

The problem with this argument is nobody actually cares enough to buy into that. Well, I do to a certain extent, but not that much really, and I actually have 4 HDTVs in the house and an HD projector, complete with Paradigm Reference speakers and an SVS PB-13 Ultra subwoofer. And that's not even counting the several HD monitors I have in the house between laptops, tablets, and desktops... which is important because I actually watch way more content on my computers and my 42" plasma with 3 speakers (no surrounds) than I do on my projector in my dedicated home theatre room.

Media companies were having a hard enough time convincing people to switch from DVD to Blu-ray, and it's been nearly impossible to get real buy-in for home technologies like 3D. 4K is even less interesting to the buying public, myself included. In fact I see more people watching Gangnam Style at 480p on YouTube than I do buying the latest remastering of Hans-shoots-second Star Wars on Blu-ray. Media consumption has fundamentally changed, and 4K is a technology that smacks of a few geeks trying to hang onto the yesteryears of media consumption habits.

Once you get to a certain point in quality, people just stop caring.

There is no question that 4K content sources are available and will continue to be available. It only makes sense for production to use the best that can be used. The issue is getting the public buy in. 4K and higher will remain a back end technology, with only technology demos on the consumer side, and a few niche geeks buying into it. The rest of us will be watching on our 50" 1080p TVs, or on our 10" iPads.

 

[StrangerGuy]

The problem with this argument is nobody actually cares enough to buy into that. Well, I do to a certain extent, but not that much really, and I actually have 4 HDTVs in the house and an HD projector, complete with Paradigm Reference speakers and an SVS PB-13 Ultra subwoofer. And that's not even counting the several HD monitors I have in the house between laptops, tablets, and desktops... which is important because I actually watch way more content on my computers and my 42" plasma with 3 speakers (no surrounds) than I do on my projector in my dedicated home theatre room.

Media companies were having a hard enough time convincing people to switch from DVD to Blu-ray, and it's been nearly impossible to get real buy-in for home technologies like 3D. 4K is even less interesting to the buying public, myself included. In fact I see more people watching Gangnam Style at 480p on YouTube than I do buying the latest remastering of Hans-shoots-second Star Wars on Blu-ray. Media consumption has fundamentally changed, and 4K is a technology that smacks of a few geeks trying to hang onto the yesteryears of media consumption habits.

Once you get to a certain point in quality, people just stop caring.

There is no question that 4K content sources are available and will continue to be available. It only makes sense for production to use the best that can be used. The issue is getting the public buy in. 4K and higher will remain a back end technology, with only technology demos on the consumer side, and a few niche geeks buying into it. The rest of us will be watching on our 50" 1080p TVs, or on our 10" iPads.

Forget even 1080p. The masses with their 720p TVs are gonna use them till they break, TV makers know this but are still in denial. With the pixel density wars ending for tablets and phones H.265 is also another thing that is dead in the water, too.

 

[Anteaus]

The problem with this argument is nobody actually cares enough to buy into that. Well, I do to a certain extent, but not that much really, and I actually have 4 HDTVs in the house and an HD projector, complete with Paradigm Reference speakers and an SVS PB-13 Ultra subwoofer. And that's not even counting the several HD monitors I have in the house between laptops, tablets, and desktops... which is important because I actually watch way more content on my computers and my 42" plasma with 3 speakers (no surrounds) than I do on my projector in my dedicated home theatre room.

Media companies were having a hard enough time convincing people to switch from DVD to Blu-ray, and it's been nearly impossible to get real buy-in for home technologies like 3D. 4K is even less interesting to the buying public, myself included. In fact I see more people watching Gangnam Style at 480p on YouTube than I do buying the latest remastering of Hans-shoots-second Star Wars on Blu-ray. Media consumption has fundamentally changed, and 4K is a technology that smacks of a few geeks trying to hang onto the yesteryears of media consumption habits.

Once you get to a certain point in quality, people just stop caring.

There is no question that 4K content sources are available and will continue to be available. It only makes sense for production to use the best that can be used. The issue is getting the public buy in. 4K and higher will remain a back end technology, with only technology demos on the consumer side, and a few niche geeks buying into it. The rest of us will be watching on our 50" 1080p TVs, or on our 10" iPads.

I see your point, but this isn't about replacing bluray or getting people to buy yet another version of a movie they own. It's about the future of media and it's relation to technology.

The entire situation has shifted. In order for blu-ray to take hold, Sony had to get people to buy players and movies and hope that enough people bought into it to make it profitable. In the end, they were selling a DRM platform that happened to play 1920X1080 video.

The future is about services like Netflix, not optical media. 1080P took so long to catch on because there wasn't any point if you didn't have any source content to play on it. Same with blu-ray. The players aren't going to sell fast if it costs $25-40 per movie.

Once services like Netflix start streaming 4K and the TVs become affordable, it won't be about some of your media...it will be about ALL of your media. With virtually every bluray movie originating from at minimum a 4K source, pretty much the entire 1080P catalog will be available as 4K within months...not years. All they need to do is encode an internet friendly 4K file and get it online and suddenly 4K tvs are flying off the shelves, with no additional cost in players or physical media.

Obviously the 4K TV prices will need to be much lower before widespread adoption occurs but I expect that once subscription services start pushing 4K, adoption will be quite rapid compared to 1080P.

 

[Eug]

Forget even 1080p. The masses with their 720p TVs are gonna use them till they break, TV makers know this but are still in denial. With the pixel density wars ending for tablets and phones H.265 is also another thing that is dead in the water, too.

Actually, both my 42" plasma and 42" LCD TV are 720p, as are my two smaller LCD TVs. (Well 768p actually.) My projector is also 720p. I will upgrade when they break, but not before. There just isn't any need.

As for H.265 I do not think that is dead in the water though. Streaming video companies will like it because it will provide equivalent quality at lower bandwidth. IOW it's not about maintaining bandwidth usage and increasing quality, it's about lowering bandwidth usage and maintaining quality (or perhaps increasing it somewhat) at up to 1080p, and decreasing cost. The same goes for traditional TV delivery. The reason that some companies went with H.264 is the same reason that some companies will shift to H.265 (from MPEG2). It's about saving money on bandwidth, and also about cramming more channels into that bandwidth. It is most decidedly not about delivering 4K. Remember, delivering 4K on H.265 would actually require more bandwidth than delivering 1080p on H.264... which defeats the point of H.265.

I see your point, but this isn't about replacing bluray or getting people to buy yet another version of a movie they own. It's about the future of media and it's relation to technology.

I agree.

The entire situation has shifted. In order for blu-ray to take hold, Sony had to get people to buy players and movies and hope that enough people bought into it to make it profitable. In the end, they were selling a DRM platform that happened to play 1920X1080 video.

The future is about services like Netflix, not optical media. 1080P took so long to catch on because there wasn't any point if you didn't have any source content to play on it. Same with blu-ray. The players aren't going to sell fast if it costs $25-40 per movie.

Once services like Netflix start streaming 4K and the TVs become affordable, it won't be about some of your media...it will be about ALL of your media. With virtually every bluray movie originating from at minimum a 4K source, pretty much the entire 1080P catalog will be available as 4K within months...not years. All they need to do is encode an internet friendly 4K file and get it online and suddenly 4K tvs are flying off the shelves, with no additional cost in players or physical media.

Obviously the 4K TV prices will need to be much lower before widespread adoption occurs but I expect that once subscription services start pushing 4K, adoption will be quite rapid compared to 1080P.

Except the main point is nobody cares about 4K. You talk about having an "internet friendly 4K file" but that doesn't even really make sense. 4K is inherently internet unfriendly, even with H.265, at least for the time being. And considering nobody cares about it, there's no incentive to push it later on either.

People simply aren't clamouring for 4K for their Gangnam or failblog videos. They aren't clamouring for 3D either for their Gangnam or failblog videos. There is just no demand for it. Some companies are trying to force the issue again with consumer 4K, just as they tried with 3D, but all know how well that went.

 

[mavere]

[...]but then you have to ask why is it compressed to begin with? If compression is really all that great, why not natively shoot, post, and release in that format and not worry about compression after the fact? The answer is simply the codec can only do so much.

I'm a bit confused as to what you're concerned with, as production usually involve intermediate formats that, from a compression standpoint, are inherently inferior to H.265 and sometimes even H.264. People don't native shoot and post in consumer formats because the designs of those formats don't accommodate editing very well (inter prediction just slows things down), not because they are supporting whatever statement you are trying to make.

Beyond that, lossless video will need to wait until both bandwidth and storage space grow a couple magnitude or so to accomodate 1-2GB* for a minute of lossless 1080p.

*as determined by x264 Predictive Lossless on a 4:2:0 clip I had on hand, so those figures are likely an underestimation

 

[Eug]

To summarize, it's the law of diminishing returns here.

240p: Grandma says it is watchable but kinda blurry. Hard to make out details.
360p: Better but still not great, esp on her 22" computer screen.
480p: Much better. You can make out lots of detail. Pretty good.
720p: Wow, that's really nice.
1080p: Totally amazing! We can see the blemishes and makeup on Ellen's face!
4K: Those pores are even clearer now.

 

[StrangerGuy]

To summarize, it's the law of diminishing returns here.

240p: Grandma says it is watchable but kinda blurry. Hard to make out details.
360p: Better but still not great, esp on her 22" computer screen.
480p: Much better. You can make out lots of detail. Pretty good.
720p: Wow, that's really nice.
1080p: Totally amazing! We can see the blemishes and makeup on Ellen's face!
4K: Those pores are even clearer now.

My dad has been watching TV with cable decrypter box (heh, don't ask) that has only composite output on a 720p Samsung LCD for years and not once he complained about the image quality. If people like those are entirely satisfied with that, let alone those who view actual HD content (not to mention most HD OTA/cable content has subpar compression) how are TV makers gonna even sell their 4K wares at high 4-digit prices?

 

[Mushkins]

Actually, both my 42" plasma and 42" LCD TV are 720p, as are my two smaller LCD TVs. (Well 768p actually.) My projector is also 720p. I will upgrade when they break, but not before. There just isn't any need.

As for H.265 I do not think that is dead in the water though. Streaming video companies will like it because it will provide equivalent quality at lower bandwidth. IOW it's not about maintaining bandwidth usage and increasing quality, it's about lowering bandwidth usage and maintaining quality (or perhaps increasing it somewhat) at up to 1080p, and decreasing cost. The same goes for traditional TV delivery. The reason that some companies went with H.264 is the same reason that some companies will shift to H.265 (from MPEG2). It's about saving money on bandwidth, and also about cramming more channels into that bandwidth. It is most decidedly not about delivering 4K. Remember, delivering 4K on H.265 would actually require more bandwidth than delivering 1080p on H.264... which defeats the point of H.265.


I agree.


Except the main point is nobody cares about 4K. You talk about having an "internet friendly 4K file" but that doesn't even really make sense. 4K is inherently internet unfriendly, even with H.265, at least for the time being. And considering nobody cares about it, there's no incentive to push it later on either.

People simply aren't clamouring for 4K for their Gangnam or failblog videos. They aren't clamouring for 3D either for their Gangnam or failblog videos. There is just no demand for it. Some companies are trying to force the issue again with consumer 4K, just as they tried with 3D, but all know how well that went.

Even the free streaming sites are struggling to catch up to true 1080p adoption, as a lot of content carriers are still upscaling 720p to 1080p to save on bandwidth and space. I remember a lot of network content (USA, CBS, etc) on Hulu's free section being notorious for this. The "HD" version is just the same upscaled, compressed garbage they shoot out to your cable box.

If you're expecting 4k to magically take off because of streaming services alone, you're smoking moonbeams and fairydust. The US doesn't have the network infrastructure to support widespread 1080p streaming, much less 4k, better codec or no. Hell, the suburban basic cable internet offerings in our most populated areas is only barely enough to handle one stream of what we're getting now before that 2Mbps you're actually getting out of that advertised 15Mbps is choking.

In order for 4k streaming to take off, the whole countries infrastructure needs to actually hit sustainable high speed internet for the masses, the endpoint devices (your Xboxes, Rokus, WDLives, Tablets, and Smartphones) must be able to encode/decode the latest codecs efficiently, the content providers must release and support the content in that format, *AND* the 4k TVs and monitors need to be priced at the point the average consumer is willing to buy into it over what they already have (considering they mostly don't understand any of the technology to begin with).

Talk about the stars aligning Maybe 10 or 15 years from now, but right now the masses are still barely biting on 1080p and 3D. Even the videophiles aren't running out to buy yet another TV at this point. Hell, try getting Blu-Ray sales to outpace DVD sales first before even thinking about widespread 4k content distribution.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

4K is clearly for folks wanting a large screen. And considering the average size of TV's sold has been increasingly steadily year over year, that market segment is growing. Nobody here is talking about 4K on some tiny ass 42" LCD.

Give me a 4K LED/laser illuminated projector for 2 grand please. Maybe some day.

 

[Mushkins]

Nobody here is talking about 4K on some tiny ass 42" LCD.

Ah, but that's exactly what we're talking about.

Yes, the average size of the TV in-home has been going up, but you also have to remember that just 15 years ago 19" was pretty much the standard size CRT sitting in peoples living rooms. Even 40" TVs were bigger than a refrigerator and cost thousands of dollars. We're also measuring in widescreen, which means you get a bigger number for comparable space restrictions. They don't even really sell TVs smaller than 23" anymore, and those are becoming more and more scarce as 32" becomes the new de-facto size for TVs. As grandma dies and her 19" color CRT gets tossed in the garbage, obviously it's going to start bringing those averages up, but there's a limit. Living rooms are only so big, and the average consumer doesn't care enough about their TV to want some 70" monstrosity dominating the room. There's a certain point where what they have is "good enough," just like that 19" CRT was.

That whole chain of things that need to support 4k, from content creators right on down to the stores willing to sell the displays, cares about one thing and one thing only: the average consumers willingness to buy into the technology.

They're not going to invest millions (or billions) into developing 4k if the only people willing to buy the tech are videophiles willing to spend $20,000 on an 84" TV. It's just not financially viable.

It might suck, but you're not the target demographic when it comes to deciding whether or not to adopt 4k.

 

[Koing]

Ah, but that's exactly what we're talking about.

Yes, the average size of the TV in-home has been going up, but you also have to remember that just 15 years ago 19" was pretty much the standard size CRT sitting in peoples living rooms. Even 40" TVs were bigger than a refrigerator and cost thousands of dollars. We're also measuring in widescreen, which means you get a bigger number for comparable space restrictions. They don't even really sell TVs smaller than 23" anymore, and those are becoming more and more scarce as 32" becomes the new de-facto size for TVs. As grandma dies and her 19" color CRT gets tossed in the garbage, obviously it's going to start bringing those averages up, but there's a limit. Living rooms are only so big, and the average consumer doesn't care enough about their TV to want some 70" monstrosity dominating the room. There's a certain point where what they have is "good enough," just like that 19" CRT was.

That whole chain of things that need to support 4k, from content creators right on down to the stores willing to sell the displays, cares about one thing and one thing only: the average consumers willingness to buy into the technology.

They're not going to invest millions (or billions) into developing 4k if the only people willing to buy the tech are videophiles willing to spend $20,000 on an 84" TV. It's just not financially viable.

It might suck, but you're not the target demographic when it comes to deciding whether or not to adopt 4k.

It'll happen and I'll be waiting money in hand ready to spend.

It'll be interesting to see how many 4K tvs hit consumer stores this year. Lots of buzz about it at CES but when will we see them for sale?!

Koing

 

[StrangerGuy]

4K is clearly for folks wanting a large screen. And considering the average size of TV's sold has been increasingly steadily year over year, that market segment is growing. Nobody here is talking about 4K on some tiny ass 42" LCD.

Give me a 4K LED/laser illuminated projector for 2 grand please. Maybe some day.

Just because people are buying bigger screens doesn't mean they actually want higher resolutions than 1080p, in fact I think it has everything to do with prices of them dropping. Besides like smartphones there are also practical limits to how big a screen can go.

 

[JackBurton]

Just because people are buying bigger screens doesn't mean they actually want higher resolutions than 1080p, in fact I think it has everything to do with prices of them dropping. Besides like smartphones there are also practical limits to how big a screen can go.

Anything 70" and larger is ideal for 4K. However, 4K's advantage over 2K (1920x1080) is not only the increased resolution but also the ability to go passive 3D with a full 1080p per eye. Gaming also benefits where players can now see two completely separate 1080p images using special glasses while playing a game. This comes in handy with 2 player games where you don't want your opponent to see your screen (Madden, FPS, etc.). And even with the lack of 4K content early on is not a deal breaker. 1080p BD movies look fantastic upscaled to 4K.

But as always, people will fight 4K just like they did BD saying it won't catch on. Well, it is inevitable, so quit your kicking and screaming, because it's coming whether you like it or not.

 

[Eug]

Anything 70" and larger is ideal for 4K.

Therein lies the problem.

70" TVs suck for most homes. They are monstrously big. Too big for most people's tastes for living rooms. They're OK for man caves, but most homes don't have man caves, and even when they do, most people don't want to spend big bux for that TV for a man cave.

But as always, people will fight 4K just like they did BD saying it won't catch on. Well, it is inevitable, so quit your kicking and screaming, because it's coming whether you like it or not.

Consumers didn't fight BD. They just didn't think paying $1000 or even $500 for a BD player was worth it. Now that they're $79.95 for the players, people definitely buy them, but it's not as if BD software sales are totally awesome now. They are increasing, but it should be noted that DVD sales are still 3X the amount of Blu-ray sales in dollar amount in North America, where people actually buy retail discs. That means that in terms of actual titles, the ratio is even larger, since DVD pricing per title is significantly less than Blu-ray pricing per title. In large swaths of Asia, it's a moot point, since the majority of disc sales are bootlegs.

Consumers won't fight 4K either. They just won't pay a lot for it. Sure if a nice TV has 4K and only costs $100 more, then great, but it's not as if it's a big selling feature.

And yes, it will look great at 70", but nobody cares. I betcha even by 2020, the number of homes in North America with 70" or larger TVs will be less than 1%, and even less in Europe where homes area smaller. And the percentage of of people with projectors will be even less.

BTW, people aren't fighting home 3D either. They're just letting it slowly die on its own. Or at best, it will continue to just serve that very small niche that actually wants it... sort of like what will likely happen with 4K.

 

[JackBurton]

Therein lies the problem.

70" TVs suck for most homes. They are monstrously big. Too big for most people's tastes for living rooms. They're OK for man caves, but most homes don't have man caves, and even when they do, most people don't want to spend big bux for that TV for a man cave.

I remember when people thought a 50" TV was big, and that wasn't all that long ago (~2008). 70" now, is the old 50"/60". People aren't buying 70" sets because they can't accommodate it in their homes, it's because they can't afford one. Trust me, once 70" sets come down in price, it will become the next standard in TV size.

Consumers didn't fight BD. They just didn't think paying $1000 or even $500 for a BD player was worth it. Now that they're $79.95 they definitely buy them, but it's not as if BD sales are awesome. They are increasing, but it should be noted that DVD sales are still 3X the amount of Blu-ray sales in dollar amount in North America, where people actually buy retail discs. That means that in terms of actual titles, the ratio is even larger, since DVD pricing per title is significantly less than Blu-ray pricing per title.

You must have a fuzzy memory. People back then proclaimed BD was a new gimmick the studios were trying to force on them. There were several discussions on how BD wouldn't be successful because "streaming media was the future" or that they couldn't see the difference between DVD and BD. Blah, blah, blah. Well, it was successful and the same will be for 4K. I think of 4K as the new 1080p. In the past it was 720p vs 1080p and if 1080p was really worth the extra cost. The same will be with 4K. Lower end sets will be 1080p, while the high end sets will be 4K. If consumers don't want to pony up for the extra quality that 4K provides, they can stick with the "older" 1080p sets. Me personally, I won't upgrade to a larger set (70"+) unless it is 4K.

Consumers won't fight 4K either. They just won't pay a lot for it. Sure if a nice TV has 4K and only costs $100 more, then great, but it's not as if it's a big selling feature.

Yes they will.

And yes, it will look great at 70", but nobody cares. I betcha even by 2020, the number of homes in North America with 70" or larger TVs will be less than 1%, and even less in Europe where homes area smaller. And the percentage of of people with projectors will be even less.

I can't speak for Europe, but in the US, bigger is better. And 70" sets are pretty easy sells if the price is right.

 

[Eug]

I remember when people thought a 50" TV was big, and that wasn't all that long ago (~2008).

Uh, 40" to 50" sets were common even a decade ago. They just sucked because they were rear projection sets.

70" now, is the old 50"/60". People aren't buying 70" sets because they can't accommodate it in their homes, it's because they can't afford one. Trust me, once 70" sets come down in price, it will become the next standard in TV size.

I won't buy ever a 70" set for my living room because I think they're monstrous and awkward. I'd consider buying a 90" set for my home theatre room if my projector dies, but I won't pay more than $2000 for it.

You must have a fuzzy memory. People back then proclaimed BD was a new gimmick the studios were trying to force on them. There were several discussions on how BD wouldn't be successful because "streaming media was the future" or that they couldn't see the difference between DVD and BD.

These were geek discussions, not fighting from consumers. The point here is that consumers will buy if products are cheap and make sense. 3D makes no sense. 4K to target 70" TV is neither cheap nor does it make a huge amount sense any time time soon for many reasons, including smaller TVs (popular in most homes) not needing it at all, cost being too high for the big TVs (for the near and mid-term), and even stuff like network infrastructure concerns.

Meanwhile disc rental places are dying left and right. I can't even rent a Blu-ray disc locally anymore because online rentals are taking over. All my local movie rental shops have gone out of business.

Blah, blah, blah. Well, it was successful and the same will be for 4K.

You missed the part that DVD still dominates, and Blu-ray is much less popular. Players are popular because they are only $79.99, but people still use them mostly to play DVDs, or watch Netflix, or even to watch bootlegged MKVs.

I think of 4K as the new 1080p. In the past it was 720p vs 1080p and if 1080p was really worth the extra cost. The same will be with 4K. Lower end sets will be 1080p, while the high end sets will be 4K. If consumers don't want to pony up for the extra quality that 4K provides, they can stick with the "older" 1080p sets. Me personally, I won't upgrade to a larger set (70"+) unless it is 4K.

I think of 4K as "beyond 1080p". 480p was great for the time, but even then the detail was lacking enough for even common consumers to sometimes notice on those larger rear projection sets. Not so with 1080p and LCD/LED/plasma. People don't complain about video resolution any more. Yes 4K is better, but people aren't clamouring for it. I'm certainly not. I'd buy it if the price is right, but only if it was a mild price premium and my existing TV died.

I can't speak for Europe, but in the US, bigger is better. And 70" sets are pretty easy sells if the price is right.

If the price is right. As I said earlier, don't expect any meaningful 4K adoption in the near or even mid term. ie. 2020. After that all bets are off.

I do expect 4K to be eventually available in mainstream TVs, but I don't expect it to be major selling point for most people, just like 3D is not a major selling point for most people.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Jesus Christ, how the hell can we have this same argument every time a new technology standard comes out? 3D is a gimmick. It was never meant to replace anything.

If the price is right. As I said earlier, don't expect any meaningful 4K adoption in the near or even mid term. ie. 2020. After that all bets are off.

I do expect 4K to be eventually available in mainstream TVs, but I don't expect it to be major selling point for most people, just like 3D is not a major selling point for most people.

So we're in agreement, 4K will eventually, subjectively, become mainstream. Just some of us think it will happen sooner than later. Hell, it took 2-3 years before 1080 native sets became the norm -- even longer before it became truly affordable. I expect a similar timeframe for 4K.

 

[A5]

H.265 is also another thing that is dead in the water, too.

H.265 will be mainstream long before 4K content or displays are. The only question is how long the streaming providers (Netflix, Amazon, etc) are going to keep their "legacy" MPEG-4 streams online for people who don't want to replace their boxes. Being able to do a 720p HD stream on <4 Mbps is huge for mobile, too.

 

[Eug]

So we're in agreement, 4K will eventually, subjectively, become mainstream. Just some of us think it will happen sooner than later. Hell, it took 2-3 years before 1080 native sets became the norm -- even longer before it became truly affordable. I expect a similar timeframe for 4K.

Having 4K in mainstream TVs doesn't mean it will necessarily be a standard tech, or even necessary. 3D is in mainstream TVs too, but I consider 3D basically irrelevant.

That was my point. I do think 4K will show up in mainstream TVs, but the adoption will be slow, and it won't become a major selling point for most people.

There will be no 4K broadcast standard any time soon in North America, and in fact, that's not even on the radar. There is no 4K disc/cartridge standard. There is no 4K download standard. REDRAY is a pipe dream.

H.265 will be mainstream long before 4K content or displays are. The only question is how long the streaming providers (Netflix, Amazon, etc) are going to keep their "legacy" MPEG-4 streams online for people who don't want to replace their boxes. Being able to do a 720p HD stream on <4 Mbps is huge for mobile, too.

H.265 will enable TV providers to give us even more crappy channels, both SD and HD. There really isn't any incentive for them to use it to provide us 4K, because it still uses too much bandwidth, and the only people asking for it are a few geeks at AnandTech and stuff.