dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7156
share rss forum feed

fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA

Ultra HD at CES

Thought people who had not seen this might be interested since it was unveilied today:

»www.ultrahdtv.net/what-is-ultra-hdtv/
--
People who don't get good service on average tell 10 others while people who do get good service on average tell 1.


mikev
Premium
join:2002-05-04
Leesburg, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS
·Callcentric

Lots of companies announcing 4k UHD TVs at CES... Popular sizes seem to be 55, 65, 70 and 84 inches. LG, Samsung, Toshiba, Panasonic, Vizio, and Sony have all announced models available this year. Sharp didn't make any announcements, but apparently had a 32" low-power 4k UHD set on display.

Many of the announced models include 3D (Vizio even demoed Glasses-free 3D; no price or availability given), and Panasonic and Sony announced ultra-thin OLED 4k UHD TVs, though no price or availability were given for them.

Sony is including (via no-cost lease) a digital media server with native 4k content if you buy one of their 84" UHD sets now ($24,999). Don't know if that offer will extend to the smaller sizes.



Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to fishacura

Gimmick.


PhoenixOne

join:2009-12-16
Old Bethpage, NY
reply to fishacura

I wonder if our human eyes can really see a noticeable difference between 1080p and 4K. I guess if you are a movie enthusiast and rent/buy movies a lot and are interested in higher resolution, this will be great. I am quite happy with what I have. Also, seeing these '99-'04 prices kinda sways my position. I'll admit, I most certainly wouldn't mind having one of these 4K/OLED sets but yeah,...can't afford them at those prices.


fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA
reply to fishacura

re: gimmick....I don't see why. PQ comes out time after time as the thing people care about most. If (not sure as I have not seen it) the PQ is that much better, I don't see why people wouldn't pursue it.

re: whether the human eye can see a difference...not sure. I don't know if you need the 8k version, but if you walk up to a HD set, you can still see the pixels in a normal HD set...imagine what PQ would look like if you couldn't see them even at close range? I have to believe there is something better than HD. Maybe not 8k but to limit ourselves to HD as it stands today is tatamount to people who said "why would we ever need a car when we have horses".
--
People who don't get good service on average tell 10 others while people who do get good service on average tell 1.


PhoenixOne

join:2009-12-16
Old Bethpage, NY

Not a bad point. But why would you need to walk up to a HD set where you would be able to see pixels? That's darn close no? But yes, I wouldn't mind having one of these. One interesting thing though. Cable providers max resolution is 1080i (correct me if I am wrong). DirectTV offers 1080p movies on demand and there are no broadcast channels that are 1080p. So the only content for 4K would be Blu-ray movies. Strictly speaking for myself, I can't bring myself to pay current/offering prices just for Blu-rays. If I was rolling in $$$, yeah,...I'll admit, I would buy one. :-P


MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to PhoenixOne

said by PhoenixOne:

I wonder if our human eyes can really see a noticeable difference between 1080p and 4K.

They can.

4K doesn't even come close to approaching the limits of human vision.

said by PhoenixOne:

Cable providers max resolution is 1080i (correct me if I am wrong). DirectTV offers 1080p movies on demand and there are no broadcast channels that are 1080p. So the only content for 4K would be Blu-ray movies.

There was a time when cable providers' max resolution was 480i.

If you build it, they will come.

Right now a typical DVB-S transponder and a single QAM256 channel have enough bandwidth to provide decent quality 4K with the H.265/HEVC codec. 38 Mbps should suffice.

Verizon and Google Fiber could easily handle 4k channels via IPTV. Google Fiber is all IPTV so they are ready already.

Right now Verizon offers 300 Mbps Internet packages. That is ten times the amount of bandwidth that a 4K UHDTV channel would require.

You could stream ten 4k channels simultaneously on Verizon's 300 Mbps tier.

The bandwidth is there to deliver 4k via satellite, fiber, and cable; it's all just a matter of competence, which we know all these companies tend to lack. The only provider in trouble with this is AT&T. Their pathetic U-verse product doesn't come close to having enough bandwidth to deliver 4k.


Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to fishacura

Like 3D it's a gimmick to sell more TV's. Moreover, there is still almost zero TV content which is 1080P. Selling the TV's and players is the easy part. Live TV is another. They've spent millions on HD cameras and equipment, there's no chance more money will be spent on UHD anytime soon. Movie theaters will give pause to that as well. Not only that, on a 42" TV the difference between 1080i, 1080P and 4K will not be sufficiently noticeable. It's just not. Perhaps when you start getting over 50 inches, but the # of those TV's out there is small compared to the smaller models.


fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA

said by Greg2600:

Like 3D it's a gimmick to sell more TV's. Moreover, there is still almost zero TV content which is 1080P. Selling the TV's and players is the easy part. Live TV is another. They've spent millions on HD cameras and equipment, there's no chance more money will be spent on UHD anytime soon. Movie theaters will give pause to that as well. Not only that, on a 42" TV the difference between 1080i, 1080P and 4K will not be sufficiently noticeable. It's just not. Perhaps when you start getting over 50 inches, but the # of those TV's out there is small compared to the smaller models.

Could not disagree more.

1. It's absolutely detectable to the human eye at 42" Walk up to a 42" TV and tell me you cannot see pixels and I'll tell you that you need glasses.
2. I struggled to find a decent TV under 40" when I needed one last year. Fact is, the average size is growing and 42" is now the small end of many decent models.
3. PQ is NOT a gimick. I'll give you 3d or any other "feature" but PQ is core to the TV. That's like saying more horsepower in a car is a gimic as opposed to self-parking.
4. People who start the argument with "bandwith limitations" or "no content" have VERY short memories. Here's what I know for a fact. 10 years ago nobody knew what a smartphone or tablet was and 20 years ago nobody knew what the internet was. We were all dialing into BBS systems via phone lines and spending 2 hours downloading the latest crappy 500kb game. That's the early 90s. Now I can use my set top box, and have a full feature available to me immediately. It's a fact of life...it will happen, it's just a matter of when.
--
People who don't get good service on average tell 10 others while people who do get good service on average tell 1.


Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to fishacura

Yes I could discern PQ if I walked up to the screen. People aren't watching that closely like they would on a computer screen. They are 10 feet away. At that distance the PQ difference is far less. The more important measure is true bandwidth of the video. I'd rather have regular HD which is uncompressed and free of macroblocking, stuttering, pixelation, etc. UHD will only confound that, because the bandwidth is not there. Even Verizon IP - VOD - stutters and pixelates.

PQ is not a gimmick; however, I agree. But to an extent. We still have tons of SD-only programming on FIOS, the supposed HD leader. There's barely any 3D channels. Now you expect to transition to UHD??? Don't be insulted when I chuckle. Not towards you, but towards Verizon and other providers. You mention wireless, I have a 4G phone through VZ, and watching Youtube is not good with their bandwidth, unless I'm at home on the router. To assume that bandwidth is limitless is not right, because it is. FIOS roll out has stopped. Nobody wants to spend the money here.

PS: Horse Power is somewhat of a gimmick, because these days cars have far more than you need. People care more about the gas mileage.


MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to Greg2600

said by Greg2600:

Like 3D it's a gimmick to sell more TV's.

You're right. It is a gimmick.

Just like high definition was a gimmick to sell more TV's back in the '90s and 2000's and color was back in the 1960's.

Like those other gimmicks, it's a damn good gimmick and an important evolution in display technology.


Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to fishacura

Color TV vs. Black and white, and SD vs. HD were massive visual improvements. Massive. 4K just simply is not. And definitely not for the money that will have to be spent to get there. I believe it will someday, just not anytime soon.


MURICA

join:2013-01-03

Surely you jest. 4K is four times the resolution of 1080p.

It is a greater leap in visual fidelity than 480p to 720p was. 480p went from 300,000 pixels to around 900,000. 1080p to 4K is going to go from around 2,000,000 pixels to over 8,000,000.

I have some 4k videos. Even downscaled from 4k to 1080p they look better than any 1080p video I have ever seen, and I own a lot of Blu-rays.

This is big, and it is an important stepping stone to 8k, just like 720p was an important stepping stone to 1080p.

At over 33 million pixels, 8k represents the limitation of human eye sight. That resolution should be our ultimate goal.


fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA
reply to Greg2600

said by Greg2600:

To assume that bandwidth is limitless is not right,

Really? Look at the IBM PS2 which was thought to have more computing power than an individual would ever need.

said by Greg2600:

And definitely not for the money that will have to be spent to get there

VCR in 1980 - $1200
VCR in 1990 - $99
VCR now - Obsolete

Not only will we get there, prices will fall and something ELSE will come along. Always happens, always will. Just a matter of time.

As far as horsepower, gas mileage, it's the tomAto, tomato argument.....whatever the variable, clearly PQ is critical.
--
People who don't get good service on average tell 10 others while people who do get good service on average tell 1.


Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to fishacura

I am not saying it's not better, I'm talking about the practicality and feasibility of moving from HDTV to UHDTV. You all are acting like this is right around the corner. I'm saying mainstream acceptance could be 10 years away, maybe more.



bohratom
Jersey Shore is back again.

join:2011-07-07
Red Bank NJ
reply to fishacura

I think the most interesting point of this thread is that the size of TV screens will probably double for the average consumer once UHD is the norm (~5 years). My guess people will only notice the visual difference when the screen size is 40"+. I would venture to say that 55"+ screens will be the average for most homes.



bull3964

@verizon.net
reply to fishacura

Higher resolution does not necessarily mean the picture will be higher quality.

TVs still have a lot of faults. On the LCD side, you have panel uniformity issues and black levels. On the plasma side, you have image retention and brightness. 4k solves none of these problems, but it is a marketable feature (which is why we're seeing it.)

We can't even get TV networks to put out a quality 1080i image, we're a long way from being able to really use a 4k display.



bohratom
Jersey Shore is back again.

join:2011-07-07
Red Bank NJ

said by bull3964 :

Higher resolution does not necessarily mean the picture will be higher quality.

True but lets be honest, does anyone with a 13 inch screen TV see a large difference between SD and HD?

Main point is that the pricing for larger screens continues to drop and someone today, that might buy a 32" for $199, will in 5 years spend the same on a 55".

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to bull3964

said by bull3964 :

Higher resolution does not necessarily mean the picture will be higher quality.

Yes it does. Resolution is the single most important factor in determining picture quality, followed immediately by bitrate.

There are very few 1080i channels which look worse than the 720p networks no matter how bitrate-starved they are.

Disney and News Corporation and all their 720p channels are firmly at the bottom of the barrel in the picture quality department.

I will take a "shitty" TV with 8 million pixels over a "good" TV with only 2 million pixels any day.

Even the worst 4k TV will be better than the best 1080p TV.

dmodert66

join:2007-04-02
Ontario, CA
reply to fishacura

Just talked to my friend who is at CES. Says the 4k sets have phenomenal picture at native resolution (like RED footage). He said up-scaled content was hit or miss, some looked better than 1080p, some most certainly did not. The native though, he was very impressed (and it's hard to impress this guy, he's somewhat of a grumpy, picky guy).


Bytezboy

join:2001-05-17
New York, NY
reply to fishacura

I witnessed 4K in the theater for the first time with The Hobbit. The difference was quite noticeable.
--
75/35 Fios, Triple Play Extreme.


Wag

join:2009-05-05
Natick, MA

Was The Hobbit off a 4K source or was it upscalled from a 1080p source?

I'd really be interested in one of those 65" 4k TVs, but I really can't afford it. I bet the prices will be somewhere in the $15k+ range.


kes601

join:2007-04-14
Virginia Beach, VA
kudos:2

It was shot at 4k in 48fps.


UnnDunn
Premium
join:2005-12-21
Brooklyn, NY
reply to fishacura

As someone who owns and is spoiled by a 15" MacBook Pro with Retina Display (which I'm going to colloquially call a "3K" display), 1080p is no-longer enough. Bring on the 4K displays!



bull3964

@stargate.net
reply to MURICA

said by MURICA:

Even the worst 4k TV will be better than the best 1080p TV.

So you would take a panel with 50% higher minimum black level or apparent clouding just because it's 4k over a 1080p TV that doesn't?

Yeah, that's all well and good for you, but I'll take the one with better contrast and a more uniform picture.

The 4k displays that are seen right now are not representative of the quality we'll see when these are consumer level displays. You can afford to take a bit more time on QC on a $12k display that's a limited production run. When Samsung starts churning out $3k UHD panels for their mainstream line, corners will have to be cut elsewhere to make the economically feasible and you could very well end up with an objectively worse display than a 1080p display at the same price.

I do not think we'll see average TV size double again. Many people have already bought a TV that's constrained by the physical space in their viewing area. For me, that was 55", for my parents, that was 37". Neither one of use will ever buy a larger TV unless we move as the viewing area does not allow for a larger display no matter how thin and light it is.

I'm not getting any perceived screen door effect now with my TV at my viewing distance. Any increase in resolution is going to be a marginal change in perceived quality no matter how the numbers shake out. On top of that, I'm simply not going to go through the cycle of updating the resolution of my media again, so 4k sources are going to be few and far between.

It's simply not something I can get excited about and neither can most of the market. That's why they rebranded it from 4k to Ultra HD. No one cares about 4k pixels verses 1920, but the word "ultra" denotes a quality improvement without nailing down exactly how the quality is supposed to be improved. It also prevents people from asking the question of "do I need to re-buy all my movies again for this higher resolution."

Eventually everyone will have 4k just like eventually everyone will have 3d capability. It will eventually be a no-cost add feature due to economies of scale. 4k sources will continue to lag though and I doubt many people will go to the effort to seek them out. It was hard enough to convince people that they need to subscribe to HD service when they bought their HDTV. Telling them that they need something better than blu-ray is going to be a non-starter.


miataman

join:2010-10-27
Chelmsford, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

said by bull3964 :

Many people have already bought a TV that's constrained by the physical space in their viewing area. (None) of us will ever buy a larger TV unless we move as the viewing area does not allow for a larger display no matter how thin and light it is.

Well said. Most overlooked factor in marketing new sets. New "features" can always be had, with a new set same size as the current one.
--
"My hat, my cane, Jeeves".


danclan

join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

I'm not sure why I'm going to reply to this thread but I will. Yes you will eventually see 4K channels but not for a while as they sort out compression. No one expects UHD to feed raw uncompressed video, no one is getting raw uncompressed 720 or 1080 so why would anyone expect less for 4K. Expect it to be roughly 2X to 3X what a 1080 is today..once they finish all the work that still has to be done on the codecs.

Is is gimmick? Sure, the average home owner wont be seeing any 4K TV's in their home for 5+ years when they finally come down out of the stratosphere.

Finally you need a LARGE space for them to be of any benefit. Sure the eye can discern blah blah blah...but fact is...720p and 1080 are "good enough" Joe public doesnt give a crap. The name "UHD" is pure marketing that is all, the whole bigger is better.

»s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

From that chart....one of many I know..you need a min size of 50" and be sitting 5' away, that's pretty close. Most folks just don't have a need of or space for a 65" tv, which is what you need if you are the average 8' away from your TV.

I do expect 4K TV's to be norm and reasonable priced within 5 years. I also expect there to be OLED monster reasonable priced TV's within the next 3 years which the consumer will truly be gushing over given the huge contrast and picture improvement they represent. They are more than "good enough" and most who just dropped a few hundred to a few thousand (2k) aren't going to upgrade to UHD anytime in the next 10 years.

It's not DOA technology. It's time has just not yet arrived.

The British did closed circuit 4k and 8K broadcasts to massive screens around London during the Olympics. Those that got to see them first hand were in awe of the clarity and crispness. Think digital movie theater on the street the screens were roughly the same size as the small screens at your local megaplex.

end of rant...



danclan

join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

FYI all digital screens in theaters are 4K.

It's 48fps that's new and what is causing a stir.



bull3964

@stargate.net

said by danclan:

FYI all digital screens in theaters are 4K.

It's 48fps that's new and what is causing a stir.

I know, personally, I will never see another 48fps movie again. The whole thing just felt cheap.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to bull3964

said by bull3964 :

said by MURICA:

Even the worst 4k TV will be better than the best 1080p TV.

So you would take a panel with 50% higher minimum black level or apparent clouding just because it's 4k over a 1080p TV that doesn't?

Hell. Yes.

said by danclan:

FYI all digital screens in theaters are 4K.

It's 48fps that's new and what is causing a stir.

No they aren't.

The bulk of theaters still have crappy 2K screens - you know, the same resolution as your TV. And it's blown up to a giant screen.

This is why I refuse to see movies in theaters. They look like shit. My $1,500 46" LED 3DTV displays 2K and 3D better than the local movie theaters thanks to its higher pixel density.

There is a list of 4K movie theaters here. My closest 4K theater is 30 miles away. Not worth the drive when I can wait for the Blu-ray.

Once you've seen a 4K movie in a 4K theater you don't go back to 2K theaters.

In addition you can see all movies available in 4K here.

As you can see, The Hobbit is not among them. Unfortunately it is only a 2K title.