4k tvs, anyone actually seen one?

[brainhulk]

So will they have to create a higher bandwidth hdmi cable for 4k?

 

[Railgun]

No

 

[purbeast0]

i could see myself getting a 4k projector down the road whenever they become main stream. i wouldn't pay anymore than $3k for one though, and that would have to be when there is A LOT of content in 4k as well as consoles outputting in 4k. i don't expect any of that for at least a decade though.

going to suck to have to run new wires in the wall whenever that does happen, as i'm assuming current hdmi cables won't be compatible.

 

[JackBurton]

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

Again, these sets were considered "big" back then. They aren't now. Just about any Joe has a 50" set now.

As for the rest of your comments, I'm not going to go quote by quote, instead I'll answer them all in one post. Whether you want to face it or not, people ARE looking for larger sets. One of the biggest questions that comes out of the plasma camp is, "when are we going to get a 70" plasma?" Currently Panasonic and Samsung offer the largest plasmas (practically speaking) coming in at 65" and 64". They sell VERY well, and you're going to tell me people wouldn't be interested in a display just 5" larger with a much better resolution? You either are just speaking for yourself, or you are seriously underestimating the market.

As for BD battles, yes they were geeks battles, but outside of that, the general public didn't even know what BD was, let alone care enough to spend big money to overhaul their existing setup. But like with any new tech, the early adopters pave the way for the average Joe Blow, as will be the case with 4K. The videophile early adopters will get the latest and greatest first, while others pretend it is no big deal until they can afford it. Then it becomes the best thing since slice bread.

And in regards to DVD vs BD, DVD was in a different era than BD. DVD didn't have to compete with streaming content, torrents, and didn't require a different TV. That being said, just because DVD sold more in the past, doesn't mean Blu-ray is not a success. It definitely is a success, but it could have been better.

But let's get back to 4K. For me, if they can get a 70"+ 4K set out for under $10K before 2015, I'll jump all over it. And if they can offer an 80"+ 4K for under $10K, I'd be ecstatic! Everyone else can sit on the sidelines and pretend 1080p is good enough.

 

[JackBurton]

So will they have to create a higher bandwidth hdmi cable for 4k?

That's the problem. The answer is most likely, yes. HDMI 1.4 will most likely NOT be the standard for 4K. The is one of the MAIN problems with buying a 4K set now. They haven't really agreed on a standard yet, and that goes for the connector AND media.

 

[Eug]

Again, these sets were considered "big" back then. They aren't now. Just about any Joe has a 50" set now.

The SMALLEST rear projection set you could get back then was 40".

For rear projection, 50" was a normal set, and 60" sets were quite common.

But let's get back to 4K. For me, if they can get a 70"+ 4K set out for under $10K before 2015, I'll jump all over it. And if they can offer an 80"+ 4K for under $10K, I'd be ecstatic! Everyone else can sit on the sidelines and pretend 1080p is good enough.

You are in the 0.001%, at least in terms of TV purchases then. Not a good recipe for TV tech adoption to depend on the 0.001%.

 

[JackBurton]

The SMALLEST rear projection set you could get back then was 40".

60" sets were quite common.

CRT tubes were "common" back then, not 50" or 60" projection TVs. Were there quite a few rear projection TV's sold? Yes. Did the majority of the people have them? No. Again, if you had a 50"+ set (rear projection or otherwise) it was considered a "big screen TV" back then. Now, not so big.

 

[Railgun]

That's the problem. The answer is most likely, yes. HDMI 1.4 will most likely NOT be the standard for 4K. The is one of the MAIN problems with buying a 4K set now. They haven't really agreed on a standard yet, and that goes for the connector AND media.

No. It's already supported.

http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/4K.aspx

 

[JackBurton]

You are in the 0.001%, at least in terms of TV purchases then. Not a good recipe for TV tech adoption to depend on the 0.001%.

I acknowledge that. However, when it comes to 70"+ sets, I think there is quite a big demand for them. As for the tech (4K), your arguments against 4K are the same as with 1080p vs 720p in the past. Initially 1080p came at a premium, now it's common. There was always a WANT for 1080p, some just couldn't afford or justify it. But once you had it, you couldn't go back. The same will be with 4K. Early adopter will pay the price to have it first, while others will have to wait.

I wouldn't consider myself an early adopter though. I'll wait until everything is settled, and then I'll jump in. I can't see investing big money on a format that doesn't have a standard yet. Once a standard is reached though, I'm all over it.

 

[JackBurton]

No. It's already supported.

http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/4K.aspx

Oh, it's supported, but they haven't agreed that will be the standard for 4K media. HDMI 1.4 is what component was back when HD was made available. Technically it could handle the HD bandwidth, but you see how well that worked out. HDMI became the standard despite component being supported early on.

 

[Railgun]

Oh, it's supported, but they haven't agreed that will be the standard for 4K media.

Why woudn't it be? There's no need to change it.

HDMI 1.4 is what component was back when HD was made available.

I don't follow. 1.4 was brought to standards in 2009, well after the official death of component connections.

 

[JackBurton]

Why woudn't it be? There's no need to change it.

HDMI 1.3 had the bandwidth to support 3D, but they changed it anyway.

I don't follow. 1.4 was brought to standards in 2009, well after the official death of component connections.

Component had the bandwidth to support HD 1080p video however they chose to use a different standard (HDMI). There were several reasons for the change, but bandwidth wasn't one of them. Same with HDMI 1.4. It has the bandwidth to support 4K, but that doesn't necessarily mean that will become the standard for 4K.

 

[Railgun]

Meh, it's still a cable. The spec is a bit of a minor issue.

And I know it's not bandwidth. It was HDCP. But kind of a moot point. HDMI came around in 2002. While I agree that component was good, it was still analog.

 

[Eug]

I still use component for some stuff, even with my projector and HDTV, but yeah, HDMI was a major step forward.

Ghosting is something we'll never have to deal with anymore... unless you're like me and still sometimes use component.

 

[JackBurton]

Meh, it's still a cable. The spec is a bit of a minor issue.

And I know it's not bandwidth. It was HDCP. But kind of a moot point. HDMI came around in 2002. While I agree that component was good, it was still analog.

Listen, I'm hoping they stick with HDMI 1.4a as I can't see a reason to move on to something else. But that is the big question looming over Sony's 84" 4K set which comes in at a hefty $25K. And until the powers that be finally announce that going forward all 4K players will use a 1.4a connection, early adopters run a big risk of being left out in the cold with a very expensive set.

 

[Railgun]

There's no other input on that tv so what else would it be? I think it's not a point worth arguing as its not going to change.

 

[JackBurton]

There's no other input on that tv so what else would it be? I think it's not a point worth arguing as its not going to change.

I think you are missing the point. The TV uses HDMI 1.4, however the industry hasn't agreed on a standard for 4K yet. If next year they decide HDMI 1.5 will be used for 4K players (let's say they decide on purple-ray as the next media format for 4K), you're screwed.

 

[purbeast0]

anyone remember hd-dvd's?

 

[sdifox]

anyone remember hd-dvd's?

I still have them :awe:

 

[JackBurton]

I still have them :awe:

Same here. I have 2 players. The cool thing is, I have some HD movies that still aren't available on BD.

 

[sdifox]

Same here. I have 2 players. The cool thing is, I have some HD movies that still aren't available on BD.

I ought to rip them.... I have like 60 hd-dvds. I think.

 

[JackBurton]

I aught to rip them.... I have like 60 hd-dvds. I think.

Yeah, I need to do that too. These things are taking up valuable HDMI ports. I've converted most to BD, but I still have a few left.

 

[Anteaus]

I think you are missing the point. The TV uses HDMI 1.4, however the industry hasn't agreed on a standard for 4K yet. If next year they decide HDMI 1.5 will be used for 4K players (let's say they decide on purple-ray as the next media format for 4K), you're screwed.

HDMI 2.0 was announced in January and expected to be released early this year. Myself, I'd avoid buying anything related to 4K until the interface is in the hardware.

Key features:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI

Based on HDMI Forum meetings it is expected that HDMI 2.0 will increase the maximum TMDS per channel throughput from 3.4 Gbit/s to 6 Gbit/s which would allow a maximum total TMDS throughput of 18 Gbit/s. This will allow HDMI 2.0 to support 4K resolution at 60 frames per second (fps).[154] Other features that are expected for HDMI 2.0 include support for 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, support for 25 fps 3D formats, improved 3D capability, support for more than 8 channels of audio, support for the HE-AAC and DRA audio standards, dynamic auto lip-sync, and additional CEC functions.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#cite_note-HDMI2ToBeReleasedSoon-154

 

[JackBurton]

HDMI 2.0 was announced in January and expected to be released early this year. Myself, I'd avoid buying anything related to 4K until the interface is in the hardware.

Key features:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI

Based on HDMI Forum meetings it is expected that HDMI 2.0 will increase the maximum TMDS per channel throughput from 3.4 Gbit/s to 6 Gbit/s which would allow a maximum total TMDS throughput of 18 Gbit/s. This will allow HDMI 2.0 to support 4K resolution at 60 frames per second (fps).[154] Other features that are expected for HDMI 2.0 include support for 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, support for 25 fps 3D formats, improved 3D capability, support for more than 8 channels of audio, support for the HE-AAC and DRA audio standards, dynamic auto lip-sync, and additional CEC functions.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#cite_note-HDMI2ToBeReleasedSoon-154

Bingo. Thanks Anteaus.

 

[A5]

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.

A 4K/H.265 stream would be able to fit inside the standard channel bandwidth (6MHz * X bps depending on the level of QAM encoding used) if they wanted it to. They won't, but they could.

I wouldn't be shocked to see someone like HBO try to launch a 4K channel during the back half of the decade, though. It's not like I think it's going to be fast, but it will happen eventually.