4k tvs, anyone actually seen one?

[Eug]

What I would really like to see H.265 used for is to give us much better 720p/1080i encodes. Current cable TV channels in most markets have way too many compression artifacts, whether it's with MPEG2 or H.264. However, I don't expect they'll do that either, except perhaps for certain specific shows, like big sports events and stuff like that.

What I expect is that they've already determined that consumers are generally happy with this level of quality for TV, and they'll use H.265 to provide channels of similar quality or at best small improvements, but they'll just provide more channels.

 

[Midwayman]

What I would really like to see H.265 used for is to give us much better 720p/1080i encodes. Current cable TV channels in most markets have way too many compression artifacts, whether it's with MPEG2 or H.264. However, I don't expect they'll do that either, except perhaps for certain specific shows, like big sports events and stuff like that.

What I expect is that they've already determined that consumers are generally happy with this level of quality for TV, and they'll use H.265 to provide channels of similar quality or at best small improvements, but they'll just provide more channels.

Yup. More useless reality TV channels that I don't need instead of giving me quality signal. Its a real tragedy that most people are satisfied with such a crappy picture.

 

[Eug]

By the way, for those pining for huge TVs: Those compression artifacts get increasingly noticeable as the image size goes up. That may be obvious, but it bears reiterating as some people don't realize just how noticeable they get.

On my 42" screen I notice compression artifacts but they don't bother me that much. The same stream on a 90" screen, might be really hard to watch. In fact, sometimes it looks so bad, I'd rather have a 480p DVD of the content with no artifacts instead of a 720p stream with those compression artifacts.

If you notice compression artifacts now on your 50" TV and it bothers you, you'll absolutely hate them when you go to your 75" TV.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Maybe if we ignore the HDMI group long enough, they'll just go away and we can focus on getting a standard with a better connector and cable, like HDbaseT.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I'm looking forward to affordable 4k. Hopefully in the next 3-4 years I'll be able to replace my 1080p DLP projector with a 4K projector (also hopefully we'll have better black levels and contrast.)

It's true that there's not much content in terms of video content, but, Gaming on 4K would be nice

 

[mavere]

By the way, for those pining for huge TVs: Those compression artifacts get increasingly noticeable as the image size goes up. That may be obvious, but it bears reiterating as some people don't realize just how noticeable they get.

One of the benefits of HEVC is actually supposed to be a decreased amount of motive distortions relative to still-picture quality. It's something something about better inter-prediction and motion vectors.

I forgot exactly where I read that, but there's been some clips on the Doom9 forums about it. Basically, HEVC, even in its reference form, handles stress a bit more gracefully than past formats.

 

[velillen]

I saw the Sony (i think it) was 84" 4k tv when i was in San Diego. Im sure it was a special uncompressed source but it looked amazing. Super clear and picture quality was great. Course the price tag of 25k instantly turned me away.

As others have said content would be a big issue. Even now most of my viewing is just 720p ish tv. Unless the content gets there i wont be upgrading my tv for years. It does everything i could ask it to now.

Another thing for me is at some point size and what the eye can see comes into effect. I have a 60" right now and dont think i would want to go any bigger for my living room. Maybe in the future in a dedicated room but not in this house. And i only sit ~10 feet away or so so in the same size tv would i *really* see/notice a difference that wasnt just the set's better coloring things. And by really notice a difference im referring to me since i dont have the best eyesight anyways.

 

[Baked]

84" is too small. Next TV I'll buy has to be at least 100".

 

[giantpandaman2]

4k seems like it'll only be noticeably better if you have a 84" screen or better. Most living rooms aren't designed to have a tv that large within it. 4k, unlike HDTV, will probably be a niche product. Similar to how 3d is becoming a niche product.

That said, I'd pick up a 4k projector if it drops to the $2000 range. Projectors and their ability to project immense sizes (my screen is 100") for relatively cheap are the perfect fit for something like 4k.

 

[Railgun]

I was a little...conservative...in previous price guesses/time frames.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/15/seiki-offcially-prices-its-50-inch-4k-tv-at-1500-for-late-april/

 

[JackBurton]

4k seems like it'll only be noticeably better if you have a 84" screen or better. Most living rooms aren't designed to have a tv that large within it. 4k, unlike HDTV, will probably be a niche product. Similar to how 3d is becoming a niche product.

That said, I'd pick up a 4k projector if it drops to the $2000 range. Projectors and their ability to project immense sizes (my screen is 100") for relatively cheap are the perfect fit for something like 4k.

84" 4K TV for the living room, and a 4K projector for the dedicated theater room with the 200" screen.

 

[purbeast0]

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...736&CatId=4717

so what can you actually watch that is 4k content on that tv?

 

[A5]

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...736&CatId=4717

so what can you actually watch that is 4k content on that tv?

Nothing that I know of at the moment besides a few Youtube videos. Sony is going to start selling some kind of 4K source thing this Summer for $700, though.

 

[Railgun]

Sony is going to start selling some kind of 4K source thing this Summer for $700, though.

Which brings up what I can see as the next PITA for consumers.

With RED coming up with their own, my hope is that it's simply slight variations in quality, not availability of content between the two.

Format wars for the non-physical media generation. I really hope it's not the case.

 

[pandemonium]

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.

3D with glasses is, and always will be, a gimmick IMHO. (That's not akin to saying 3D via holographic projection is gimmicky. Now that really is awesome.) 4K, or more properly known as 2160p (or UHD), truly is breathtaking and doesn't require any gimmicky attachments. All it requires is the content availibility. Tons of media are already filmed on 2160p cameras and downconverted to 1080p (with RED).

I'll rightfully admit 2160p will be pointless for TVs below 50", and more likely below 60", unless you're a gamer sitting 3' away from the screen running a high(er)-end PC attached to it. That said, the format probably won't be abundant in every household and more oriented for videophiles and the wealthy; AKA <10% of the market. At first. Then everyone will readjust their budgets and pile on more debt just to be "that guy" on the block with the UHD TV; same as it was with HD. Then everyone will be buying them because of Sam's Club and Costco cheap-o panels. It took about 10 years for HD to become common place. It's not unreasonable to assume around the same amount of time for UHD to be widely adopted. Of course, technology is advancing faster than society can keep up with, so UHD may simply be usurped by the next greatest thing.

I would prefer that the market was more inclined to focus on a broader gamut than higher resolution, but I'll blame that on the general public probably not really being able to see the difference (or simply being oblivious to color accuracy and depth).

 

[Gintaras]

I don't even know what kind of TV I want....prolly doesn't even exist...maybe 16K or 32K Projector - 20,000" screen ...and a screen could be a cloud over my house - the whole town could stare at that cloud and watch the same movie....

However...a 4" screen on iPod does sometimes The Job.....waiting for the new 32" iphone...with microwave build-in and a freezer - that would be a THING....

JESUS CHRIST...why China can't make the things I don't even know they could exist? Or do I need those?

 

[purbeast0]

3D with glasses is, and always will be, a gimmick IMHO. (That's not akin to saying 3D via holographic projection is gimmicky. Now that really is awesome.) 4K, or more properly known as 2160p (or UHD), truly is breathtaking and doesn't require any gimmicky attachments. All it requires is the content availibility. Tons of media are already filmed on 2160p cameras and downconverted to 1080p (with RED).

I'll rightfully admit 2160p will be pointless for TVs below 50", and more likely below 60", unless you're a gamer sitting 3' away from the screen running a high(er)-end PC attached to it. That said, the format probably won't be abundant in every household and more oriented for videophiles and the wealthy; AKA <10% of the market. At first. Then everyone will readjust their budgets and pile on more debt just to be "that guy" on the block with the UHD TV; same as it was with HD. Then everyone will be buying them because of Sam's Club and Costco cheap-o panels. It took about 10 years for HD to become common place. It's not unreasonable to assume around the same amount of time for UHD to be widely adopted. Of course, technology is advancing faster than society can keep up with, so UHD may simply be usurped by the next greatest thing.

I would prefer that the market was more inclined to focus on a broader gamut than higher resolution, but I'll blame that on the general public probably not really being able to see the difference (or simply being oblivious to color accuracy and depth).

just because 3d is somewhat gimmicky does not mean it is a failure by any means. the best 3d is the 3d that you don't really notice is there. that is when it really adds the extra dimension that we're used to but it just feels natural.

 

[Anubis]

unboxing and such of the seiki

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uXBu9nxLN78

 

[Peppered]

You can pre order one at best buy.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...&id=1218884668430&ref=39&CJPID=3332167&loc=01

 

[Matt1970]

What I would really like to see H.265 used for is to give us much better 720p/1080i encodes. Current cable TV channels in most markets have way too many compression artifacts, whether it's with MPEG2 or H.264. However, I don't expect they'll do that either, except perhaps for certain specific shows, like big sports events and stuff like that.

What I expect is that they've already determined that consumers are generally happy with this level of quality for TV, and they'll use H.265 to provide channels of similar quality or at best small improvements, but they'll just provide more channels.

I think that has a lot to do with signal quality. The cable at my house rarely has much artifacts but at my dad's house out in the country a little more he has almost horrible picture quality.

 

[mmntech]

Haven't seen them for myself yet. My coworker got sent to the NAB convention earlier this month, which has all that stuff on display. She was quite impressed by the 4K TVs, saying that they almost looked too real. Going to be rough on TV presenters. I really got to weasel my way into going next year. I'd be like a kid in a candy store.

 

[cmdrdredd]

When Sony's solution to delivering 4k content was giving every adoptor of the 84" 4k set a PC with content loaded to it and they would send you blu-rays or have a tech come out and update your content, I thought it was a joke. Unfortunately the bandwidth of most cable and satellite providers will be spent on four standard HD signals rather than one channel of 4k. I think adopters will end up with a TV that can't be used except by a PC. At least right now.

 

[Anubis]

When Sony's solution to delivering 4k content was giving every adoptor of the 84" 4k set a PC with content loaded to it and they would send you blu-rays or have a tech come out and update your content, I thought it was a joke. Unfortunately the bandwidth of most cable and satellite providers will be spent on four standard HD signals rather than one channel of 4k. I think adopters will end up with a TV that can't be used except by a PC. At least right now.

it will be like that for years,. even standard 1080p HD over cable is crap when compared to a BR

actually id bet the first 4k cable channels will look worse than an upscaled BR on a 4k TV

 

[darkswordsman17]

A little note for the people interested in that Seiki set, it can only do 4K at 30fps. That's really not that bad, especially considering the price, but for people wanting to get it for a monitor or something, you're not really going to want it for that.

 

[Redshirt 24]

FWIW: Sony is supposed to be unveiling a 4K video distribution service of its own late in the year, but there are no real specifics on that yet. And the 4K media player they're introducing soonish (not the one bundled with their 84" flagship UHDTV--this is a newer one), which is supposed to work with it, is supposed to only work with Sony UHDTVs.