dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
54
share rss forum feed


trparky
Apple... YUM
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2

I don't see the need...

I don't see the need for 4K televisions. My current 1080p 60Hz Samsung television from five years ago still works just fine and looks exactly the way it did when I bought it.

Tell me, why do I need 4K? I see 4K as the next "3D" in the sense that it's just another ploy to make people buy new TVs.
--
Tom
Tom's Tech Blog


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
"Tell me, why do I need 4K?"

How many millions asked the same question about HD?


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO
reply to trparky
At 65" or less I see no current need either. If I had a mcmansion and a room that could sport something larger I might be more interested.

I see 4k like SACD / DVD-Audio. It'll be great for some purists, but not really practical or needed for the mainstream. In the audio world, I think trying to improve beyond CD quality audio yielded minimal returns. After all, you only have two ears capable of hearing a certain range of frequencies. People were more interested in the conveniences gained by compressing the audio (quantity/convenience over minor gains in quality. )

There are similar limitations to eyeballs, you can only see so much clarity for a given amount of surface area from a typical viewing distance. HD was badly needed for screens larger than 32". With flat screens, even for people in small living spaces could enjoy bigger screens.

That said, I support the industry pushing 4K forward. Home theater gear evolves very slowly, I bought my first HD-ready TV in 1998. 16 years later and we still don't have a pure HD lineup. Might as well be ready for future advances.


Jon Snow

@comcast.net

3 recommendations

reply to trparky
said by trparky:

Tell me, why do I need 4K?

How big is your screen and how far do you sit from it? I have both a 55" telly and a 120" projector screen. In both cases I sit far enough away from the screen, for simple comfort and optimum viewing angle, that I would NOT benefit from 4k video. I doubt you'd benefit from it either, albeit you probably would benefit from 1080p.

There's a handy-dandy graph a helpful person has crafted, based on human eye's visual acuity, here: »cdn.avsforum.com/a/a2/a2ff0203_v···ance.png (lifted from »carltonbale.com)

At optimum viewing angles (»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HD···distance), 1080p is about the optimum resolution. Older television material was recorded for much-narrower-than-optimum viewing angle, so the rules are different, but that's material that isn't even available in 1080p, let alone 4k...


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO
reply to battleop
HD was badly needed, and an obvious quality leap for common screen sizes when it made its debut. Big, blurry rear projection TVs were pretty common in the late 90's. The clarity couldn't really be improved, because the source wasn't good enough.

In contrast, I've yet to see a picture in someone's home where I thought 1920x1080 resolution was the limiting factor. Just recently I went to a friend's house in Malibu to watch the oscars, where he had his FiOS HD picture projected full size onto his large living room wall. Even at that size, the picture was still beautifully crisp. 4K probably would have made a small incremental improvement, but not the same magnitude that SD to HD was to more practical common viewing scenarios.


YDC

join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY
reply to djrobx
On that CD note... I don't know if you are aware of it, but records (vinyl) had much more frequency range and a natural bass range than a CD ever will. That did not have to be amplified to hear bass as does with a CD. The original format specification for the critter also included a directory. It was nixed as were most other things that made sense. The space it would have been located on remains open to this day.

Did you know that the Sony BetaMax had a DIGITAL recording format and was lost to the inferior VCR. Money won again.

You should know that our corporate overseers have no intention of letting you have good quality for less. They had this stuff in Japan YEARS AGO! It was also cheap. We live in a controlled environment where features get our way to squeeze a buck here and there. It has been retired in Japan by the time we get it, and our corporate veeps pay pennies for what they sell as new cool tech.

Just an FYI.. -Al


Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
reply to battleop
I'm one of those ones. We still have a 32 inch standard definition set in the living room and won't buy an HD set until our old standard definition one dies. We have an HD set in the bedroom, but that's only because our bedroom's standard definition set died and the only sets available were HD ones.
--
-Jason Levine


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15
reply to djrobx
Besides the increase in resolution going from SD to HD, another improvement was that HDTVs also provided a wider "view" (screen), going from SDTV's 4:3 aspect ratio to HDTV's 16:9 one. That was also a major selling point for me.

4K UHDTVs still have the same aspect ratio as HDTVs though, so there's no improvement there.


why60loss

join:2012-09-20
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Wireless..
reply to Jon Snow
said by Jon Snow :

said by trparky:

Tell me, why do I need 4K?

How big is your screen and how far do you sit from it? I have both a 55" telly and a 120" projector screen. In both cases I sit far enough away from the screen, for simple comfort and optimum viewing angle, that I would NOT benefit from 4k video. I doubt you'd benefit from it either, albeit you probably would benefit from 1080p.

There's a handy-dandy graph a helpful person has crafted, based on human eye's visual acuity, here: »cdn.avsforum.com/a/a2/a2ff0203_v···ance.png (lifted from »carltonbale.com)

At optimum viewing angles (»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HD···distance), 1080p is about the optimum resolution. Older television material was recorded for much-narrower-than-optimum viewing angle, so the rules are different, but that's material that isn't even available in 1080p, let alone 4k...

At 8ft or less and 55in and over I will say 4k is something you will see make an impact. (Or at lest it seemed to for me)

Not every one has 10+FT rooms to use tv yet could fit a bigger tv and could pay for a high end screen.

I will how ever be waiting for content and lower tv cost before hopping on the 4k bandwagon.

RST fiber plans to do uncompressed upto 4k TV service so I hope to use that with also 4k movies via disk or 1gbs internet.


Omega
Displaced Ohioan
Premium
join:2002-07-30
Denver, CO
reply to Jason Levine
said by Jason Levine:

I'm one of those ones. We still have a 32 inch standard definition set in the living room and won't buy an HD set until our old standard definition one dies. We have an HD set in the bedroom, but that's only because our bedroom's standard definition set died and the only sets available were HD ones.

And the picture quality on the HD set isn't giving you the need to replace your TV?

Though are you even getting HD feeds?
--
What smells like blue?

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to trparky
TV standards are primarily dictated by what is considered good enough for the vast majority of people while reasonably achievable with current technology and costs. That's how analog TV ended up lasting roughly 70 years.

With the costs of moving to 4k and little if any benefit for most people, I would not expect the TV industry to be in any hurry to upgrade so soon after going through the digital/HD transition.

I can't imagine 4k becoming significant within the next 10-15 years.


Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
reply to Omega
The picture quality is better (and we are getting HD feeds), but money is tight. Spending money to replace a TV that is still working - even if only in standard definition - isn't a priority. When that TV dies, we'll replace it. Until then, we'll remain on SD.
--
-Jason Levine


Jon Snow

@comcast.net
reply to why60loss
Point being that there's method to the madness

Going by THX recommendation, the screen should occupy anywhere from 28° to 40° of your field of vision. In case of a 55" screen that means you need to sit between 8' and 5.5' away from the screen. Going for full-on on the immersion, i.e. the screen occupying 40° of your field of vision, you do start to see the benefits of 4k video. If you're like me, though, and watch the telly from ~7' away, 1080p is almost the perfect resolution.

As an aside, I've noticed that movies are often better with more immersion, i.e. the screen occupying a larger segment of your field of vision, while TV shows and news are often better when they're not quite as immersive -- few exceptions notwithstanding.

tabernak

join:2013-08-10
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
reply to trparky
There isn't much need yet, but it's growing. My next computer monitor later this year will be 4k, which is a more realistic use case. I could see a future where 80-100" sets become affordable and in many cases people would then benefit from 4k.

Having said that, I bought a 60" Vizio black Friday special last year to bridge me over. I tend to be a bit of an early adopter on tech, but I don't see any TV use cases for me for a few years yet and I also expect to have to buy an 80"+ TV to appreciate it.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to djrobx
You don't know anything about vision. There's far more to visual acuity than simply being able to resolve pixels on a screen.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03

1 recommendation

reply to trparky
I don't see the need for horseless carriages. My current Stallion purebred from five years ago still works just fine and transports me exactly the way it did when I bought it.

Tell me, why do I need a horseless carriage? I see horseless carriages as the next "mobile telephone" in the sense that it's just another ploy to make people buy new forms of transport/communication.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to djrobx
>FiOS TV
>Watching the Oscars (a program broadcast on ABC, a 720p television network - not even 1920x1080!)
>In addition to being low resolution, it is also bitrate starved MPEG-2
>Thinks that fewer than one million pixels being projected on a full size screen is "beautifully crisp."

Son, I have bad news for you. You need to get your eyes checked.

You are like a starving African who just got handed a McDonald's cheeseburger by an aid worker and now thinks he has just experienced the finest cuisine in the world.


dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
reply to trparky
BINGO! just another fad to get you to buy new hardware.
how many 1080P channels are there? ZERO!
--
Despises any post with strings.


anon_anon

@comcastbusiness.net
reply to YDC
No, Betamax was analog. Sony created an add on called the PCM-F1 to allow digital audio recording, but it did not allow video recording because the device used a video signal to encode the audio. The device was also compatible with VHS recorders.

As far as vinyl being superior to CD. It's pure BS and has been debunked time and time again by double blind studies.

A better example of the a technologically superior product from the 80's being a commercial flop was laserdisk. But even during 80's when people had more spending money even VHS was a huge expense to the average family.

During the 1980's there were repeated allegations that Japan dumped their electronics in the USA at below cost with the full cooperation of the Japanese government. The japanese paid more for their products, hence the accusations of dumping. Of course they got the new products first in the same way American movies get released in the USA before they are released internationally. Japan was a country of technophiles during the 80's. Japanese electronics manufacturers are going to test market in their own country first before ramping up production for the international market. Just as there were many successful products that were released in japan first, there were also products that never left japan because they were market failures. Chalk that up to an evil corporate conspiracy all you want.

BTW thumb through an old catalog and be astounded how much those wonderful 80's vintage electronics cost.

mikesco8

join:2006-02-17
Ludlow, MA
reply to Jon Snow
Probably the most important feature of the 4k Standard is the improved color palette. However most people will not miss what they don't know they are missing. Also, even thought these charts may be accurate in some sense, you will still see some difference beyond what the charts show, especially if you have vision better than 20/20. The problem with 4k is not that it is not a worthy technology, it is just that it is happening way too soon at too large of a premium. It will eventually become cheap enough that the difference in price will be minimal from 1080p, and if you have to replace your old set you might as well go with the 4k, but it will be another 10 years before we hit that point.


trparky
Apple... YUM
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2
I don't have 20/20 vision, I wear glasses and they are a hell of a strong set of lenses.
--
Tom
Tom's Tech Blog


Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
reply to Jon Snow
Thanks for posting that graph. I just looked at it and measured the distance to my 32" TV in my living room. (Still a SD set until it dies and we replace it with an HD one.) It's 9 feet from where I sit to the screen.

According to that graph, I'd need a 60" set for 1080p to be noticeable and a 90" set for 4K to be noticeable. Of course, my living room is too small to fit either size TV so I don't think I'll rush into 4K TVs when they start being sold.
--
-Jason Levine