OT: 4K TVs are getting cheap fast.

John_Cline wrote on 4/13/2013, 8:37 AM
Seiki 50" Class 2160p 120Hz LED HDTV
3840 x 2160, 16:9, 120Hz
5000:1 Native, 6.5ms
3x HDMI, VGA

$1,299 with free shipping

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=7674736

Still. Spending over a grand on a no-name TV brand when you don't really need a 4K TV yet is not unlike putting your rent money on green in Roulette. The thrill might be worth the spin but it's probably not worth the stress.

Comments

musicvid10 wrote on 4/13/2013, 9:07 AM
Watch for Sony to broadcast parts of FIFA World Cup in 4K in Japan in 2014.
ritsmer wrote on 4/14/2013, 1:51 AM
Wonder what they will cost in a year.

Think that my idea - editing on a single pane 50" 4K (Ultra HD) monitor - might be possible soon...
Imagine such a long time line with still a great resolution.

(will have to tinker a special desk for it, probably)
Laurence wrote on 4/14/2013, 6:24 AM
I bought an HD TV really early in the game. It was a pre-HDMI 4:3 CRT that I ended up giving away. I also bought two of the early HD-DVD players (one of which I still own in it's original packaging). Bleeding edge consumers are extremely important to the development of any new technology, but I've decided not to be one anymore.
JJKizak wrote on 4/14/2013, 7:14 AM
So what kind of a codec are they going to use to broadcast 4K over the broadcast system?
JJK
musicvid10 wrote on 4/14/2013, 8:53 AM
They're talking about HEVC, but I'm thinking it will be h264 for the time being.
Hulk wrote on 4/14/2013, 9:06 AM
I am all for the steady march of technology but as we all know there is a lot more to a display beyond resolution. Contrast, color and brightness uniformity, colorspace, etc...

Generally the initial models of a new generation are weak in the areas mentioned above and "sell" based on resolution alone. In response manufacturers usually tweak the lower models, in this case 1080p, to the nth degree.

I'm going to wait for these sets to mature and more importantly for some good reviews.
mx1497 wrote on 4/14/2013, 4:29 PM
If you haven't seen this yet; a good read on why 4K TVs are not necessary:

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/#![/link
Chienworks wrote on 4/14/2013, 7:54 PM
Maybe by the time 4K has gotten so cheap that the stores are giving out the last of their 1080 HD TV stock as free gifts to clear off the shelves, i'll finally upgrade to an HD TV.

Maybe.
Hulk wrote on 4/14/2013, 8:13 PM
The move from SD to 1080p was enormous. No doubt about that. 1080p to 4k is going to be a much harder sell for all of the reasons in the article linked above. It's just that at normal viewing distances, even with fairly large screens, we're reaching the limits of human visual acuity.

We'll produced 1080p, even on an 80" screen from 8 feet away looks amazing today and it will next year as well.

Like I wrote above, it's gonna be a hard sell.
Geoff_Wood wrote on 4/14/2013, 10:35 PM
..... especially given that even Blu-ray is a hard sell over DVD.

geoff
John_Cline wrote on 4/14/2013, 10:43 PM
Kelly, just curious, what is your resistance to getting an HDTV?
ushere wrote on 4/14/2013, 11:41 PM
i'm with jc, kelly. why not hd tv?

i mean i was the last among my 'pro' friends/associates to get one, but as soon as i started delivering even 720p to the net i realised i need something other than a pc to view it on ;-)

as for 4k, well, they have to keep the wheels of commerce turning don't they - and considering how 3d came and went so quickly, they need SOMETHING we ALL NEED, NOW!

frankly, my 1080 sony 42" is more than adequate give the room size. dvd's look spectacular, as do most things,and i certainly can't envisage any need for 4k in the average living room....

now, holographic tv......
Serena wrote on 4/15/2013, 12:09 AM
Has 3D gone? It hasn't come to our house but they're still churning out 3D movies and the BBC makes its nature docos in 3D. Guess I'm surprised that DVDs look fantastic on your 42" because I see they're none too sharp on our Sony Bravia 40". I much prefer Blu-Ray for projection and never buy DVDs unless there is no alternative. Presently our politicians are debating necessary domestic internet bandwidth, with the conservatives believing that 6Mb/s is enough for streaming an HD movie. Guess this is a case where definitely you don't want an over 50 year non-nerd defining our future technology needs.
ushere wrote on 4/15/2013, 12:37 AM
i think tony's still dl'ing dirty pics on his dial-up connection ;-)

i have yet to meet anyone with a 3d tv. mind you, i don't know anybody in the western suburbs... all my friends have media players and not a one a blu-ray player.

i think they'll push 3d sets as there's nothing else 'new' to market at present.
_Lenny_ wrote on 4/15/2013, 2:06 AM
I have a 32" HDTV, and can't say that terrestrial HD transmissions strike me as significantly better than SD transmissions. Here int he UK there are just 4 terrestrial HD channels.

Free to view satellite transmissions are another matter - to my eyes, both SD and HD transmissions look better (crisper) than their terrestrial equivalents. French transmissions in particular look superb.

I won't be buying a 4k television. Aside from cost, there isn't a great deal worth watching on television these days. I'm thinking of handing back my licence and doing all my viewing via the iPlayer.

As for Blu-Ray - utter rubbish. I sorely regret buying a player. Not a match on my old £20 Chinese DVD player. With the BR player, I have to wait an age before a disk (CD/DVD/BR) starts to play; with the Chinese one it was playing before the tray had even closed ;-)

3D was a damp squib.
Serena wrote on 4/15/2013, 2:45 AM
Ah, I remember radio licences. Don't think we ever had them for TV. Guess instant startup isn't on my list of essentials (and would fall way down against other requirements), but the first Blu-Ray players were slow to load.
i am erikd wrote on 4/15/2013, 5:27 AM
I've had a 3D TV by LG for nearly a year now and I would miss it if I went back to a TV with 2D only. The movie industry doesn't seem to be slowing down any with more and more releases of 3D movies either so I think it is here to stay in that field.

Erik
john_dennis wrote on 4/15/2013, 7:28 AM
I've been reading this thread, thinking 4k was inevitable. Then, in one of my more introspective moments, I took an inventory around the house. Of the four panels in the house, none are 1080.

[I]Small sample sizes don't reliably approximate the larger population.[/I]

I'm almost never representative of the larger population.

My main system:
Motherboard: Asus X99-AII
CPU: Intel i7-6850K
GPU: Sapphire Radeon RX480-8GB
RAM: Corsair Dominator (4 x 4 GB) DDR4 2400
Disk O/S & Programs: Intel SSD 750 (400 GB)
Disk Active Projects: 1TB & 2TB WD BLACK SN750 NVMe Internal PCI Express 3.0 x4 Solid State Drives
Disk Other: WD Ultrastar/Hitachi Hard Drives: WDBBUR0080BNC-WRSN, HGST HUH728080ALE600, 724040ALE640, HDS3020BLA642
Case: LIAN LI PC-90 Black Aluminum ATX Full Tower Case
CPU cooling: Corsair Hydro series H115i
Power supply: SeaSonic SS-750KM3 750W 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Active PFC Power Supply
Drive Bay: Kingwin KF-256-BK 2.5" and 3.5" Trayless Hot Swap Rack with USB 3
Sound card: Crystal Sound 3 on motherboard. Recording done on another system.
Primary Monitor: Asus ProArt PA248q (24" 1920 x 1200)
O/S: Windows 10 Pro 22H2, Build 19045.2130

Camera: Sony RX10 Model IV

https://www.youtube.com/user/thedennischannel

farss wrote on 4/15/2013, 7:45 AM
"If you haven't seen this yet; a good read on why 4K TVs are not necessary:"

Well I have seen a good 4K TV, Sony XBR X900A, mind blowing, so too is the price, $25,000.

"Sure screen sizes are going up, but how many of you are really going to put an 85-inch screen in your home, and sit close enough to it for 4K to matter?

ME if I could afford to :( Actually 84" does seem pretty small, I'd want something big enough to fill a wall.

Bob.
JJKizak wrote on 4/15/2013, 8:57 AM
Now if they would only change the aspect to 21 x 9 then I could simulate the 4' X 10' Cinemascope movie screen I used for 16mm projection.
JJK
Chienworks wrote on 4/15/2013, 12:13 PM
What's my objection? Simple: money.

Why spend money on an HDTV that i don't need?

I currently have three ways i watch video content:
- incoming SD TV or Netflix mostly in a window on one of my workstation's screens
- movies on DVD on the 1024x768 projector in the living room
- low res media files on my pocket mp3/media player when i'm on the road

What would an HD TV do for me other than cost me money for no gain?
Chienworks wrote on 4/15/2013, 12:28 PM
The projection screen in my living room is 80", and i wouldn't mind it being a bit bigger. However, the projector is only 1024x768, and i'm only feeding it SD material. So, yes, the pixels are visible, but only if you look for them. No one does. Everyone is too busy watching the video to pay attention to the pixels.
wwjd wrote on 4/15/2013, 1:48 PM
I probably won't get a 4K tv, since 8K is coming up fast. :) I can save more money for a 4k or 8k camera instead.
riredale wrote on 4/15/2013, 6:12 PM
I remember from my days sitting on HDTV committees in the late 1980s that 1920x1035 (later upped to 1080) was supposed to match human spatial acuity at a viewing distance of 3H.

So my assumption is that 4k means people will want to sit 1.5H from the screen? Really?

Not trying to be sarcastic, just want to understand.