dslreports logo
 story category
70% of Consumers Haven't Heard of 4K TV

70% of consumers have never heard of the 4K high definition TV standard, according to a new study by Leichtman Research Group. Of the 30% who have heard of the higher-resolution standard, only about a third of those has actually seen a 4K set. That said, expectation and awareness changes quickly, and awareness and ownership of 4K sets should rise dramatically as prices begin to fall in line with more traditional high-definition televisions.

"Nearly 60% of TV sets used in US households are now HD sets, up from less than 20% just five years ago," notes Bruce Leichtman. Other notable bits from the study:

•88% with annual household incomes over $50,000 have an HDTV -- compared to 68% with household incomes under $50,000

•Among those getting HD programming from a cable, satellite, or Telco provider, the perceived mean number of channels of HD programming is 82 -- up from 42 five years ago

•28% of those who have seen a 4K Ultra HDTV are very interested in getting it, while 15% of all who have heard of 4K HDTV are very interested in getting it

•14% of households have a Smart TV set that is connected to the Internet, including 3% of households that have more than one connected Smart TV set -- connected Smart TVs account for about 7% of all television sets used in US households

•22% of all households purchased a TV set in the past 12 months -- an annual level that has been fairly consistent for the past decade.
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next

Camelot One
MVM
join:2001-11-21
Bloomington, IN

Camelot One

MVM

Very few will care about 4k......

Even if you launched a massive advertising campaign to let these 70% know about 4k, very few are going to care until there is readily available 4k content. And for those who are a bit oldschool, that is going to mean 4k content on some sort of media they can buy/collect/hold in their hands, not just streaming from a website.

Kasoah
join:2013-08-20
Merced, CA

2 recommendations

Kasoah

Member

Re: Very few will care about 4k......

the exact same could have been said for 1080p/720p
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

1 recommendation

InvalidError

Member

Re: Very few will care about 4k......

Going from 480i to 1080p is a very noticeable step up. From 1080p to 2160p on the other hand is a whole lot more subtle unless you sit unusually close to the screen or have a large one. At 6' from a 40" TV, most people won't really be able to tell 1080p from 2160p.

Unless/until 4k drops close to 1080p's price and becomes a "why not" item, I do not expect much of that "28% very interested" to convert into actual sales.

MovieLover76
join:2009-09-11
Cherry Hill, NJ
(Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66

MovieLover76

Member

Re: Very few will care about 4k......

Agreed, while I have a faint curiosity in 4k, it's not something that I'm itching to upgrade to. If my 1080p display were to die and I could get a 4k tv for only a little more than 1080p of similar quality I miight grab one, but right now I have no plans to upgrade just to get 4k.

Besides so much content that's called HD these days is over compressed, and doesn't hold up against blu-ray and I seriously doubt a successor to blu-ray is going to have much success as people migrate to streaming. Why buy 4k to get an even more compressed 4k stream and still can't match a good blu-ray.
zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC

zod5000 to InvalidError

Member

to InvalidError
I complete agree. I still run into a great number people that have HD screens and only use SD content on them.

I was all over 1080p came out. It sort of went hand in hand with buying a new flatscreen TV (it's timing was right.. new format for new tv's.. the tube to to flatscreen transition).

4k needs large tv's (unless you sit unusually close to the TV) to have an advantage. For most people it's around 80".

I don't think we're close as a society to having an average tv size of 80" in the living room.

I would agree that as 4k tv prices come down, it'll probably come standard in all tv's. I'm not sure how much the demand for content would be.

Most cable companies don't even do 1080p yet. Streaming/Online services still highly compress their HD feeds.

I don't think the world is ready for 4k yet. A small percentage is, but I don't think that's going to cause it take off.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError

Member

Re: Very few will care about 4k......

said by zod5000:

Most cable companies don't even do 1080p yet.

That is largely due to earlier generations of digital SD/HD STBs still used the same MPEG2 compression used on DVDs because h264 decoding was too expensive at the time. Most shipping STBs today have 1080p/h264 decode built in for practically free by virtue of practically all SoCs having h264 built into their IGP.

But it will probably take another 7-10 years for most MPEG2 STBs to die so cablecos can pull the plug on that and go all-h264/h265.
firedrakes
join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL

firedrakes to InvalidError

Member

to InvalidError
yes. i seen 4k and 8k set ups correctly but their for big ass screens. more then 100 inches
betam4x
join:2002-10-12
Nashville, TN

betam4x to InvalidError

Member

to InvalidError
I disagree. I have 2x 1080p monitors. I can easily see the pixels on both. On my macbook retina display however...now that's a damn display. My eyes orgasm looking at that display.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError

Member

Re: Very few will care about 4k......

said by betam4x:

I disagree. I have 2x 1080p monitors. I can easily see the pixels on both.

At what distance? 18"?

Normal people don't sit at 18" from their 40" living room TV.

Also, the average "Resting Point of Vergeance" (the distance at which people's eyes tend to focus when completely relaxed) is around 36" so average people will not feel comfortable staring at anything much closer than that for extended periods.

MovieLover76
join:2009-09-11
Cherry Hill, NJ
(Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66

1 recommendation

MovieLover76 to Kasoah

Member

to Kasoah
I think your wrong, people can tell the difference, even non technical people like my fiance. She called me one day and said their was something wrong with the tv, she said it was fuzzy. when I got home it turns out she was on one of the SD channels on FiOS instead of the HD version and she has no idea what 480p, 720p or 1080p mean.

4K however will be much less noticeable, unless you have an enormous tv and you sit really close. Just take a look at any of the guides that tell you how far you have to sit to notice quality differences at different resolutions.

anon_anon
@comcast.net

anon_anon to Kasoah

Anon

to Kasoah
Ever hear of the Super Audio CD, or DVD-Audio? Consumers didn't care and those formats forever remain niche except for audiophiles. Unless you are talking about an absurdly large screen, paying for 4K is a waste of money. Even the DLP projectors in cinema's are just 2K. If there is any place where 4K may have a perceptible benefit, it would be in a commercial movie theater.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError

Member

Re: Very few will care about 4k......

I think you are getting 2k and 2160p mixed up here... 2k/4k/8k are approximate horizontal resolution (1920-2048 / 3840-4096 / 7680-8192) not vertical resolutions as most people have been used to see so much fussing about during the HD (1080i/p) transition.

When the industry says 4k, they mean resolutions in the neighborhood of 3840-4096 x 2048-2160p.

I wonder how the digital video industry picked those oddball resolutions. Digital algorithms are usually simpler and more efficient when everything is neatly aligned on power-of-two boundaries.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman

Premium Member

Re: Very few will care about 4k......

The movie guys want to be different than the TV guys. Otherwise why go to the movies. Notice how many movies are made in ratios too wide for most 16:9 HDTV screens. You end up with black bars at the top and bottom, if you show those movies in the correct aspect ratio. The digital movie cameras had to be different in order to duplicate the way old technology film cameras could produce very wide aspect ratios. If the new digital equipment could not do that, existing movie directors would not have been persuaded to use them. For television directors, matching the 16:9 ratio was good enough for the cameras they use.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Re: Very few will care about 4k......

movie theater screens also are setup for the wider format which would mean altering them too. Theaters have enough issues affording the 4k and 8k cinema projectors.(keep in mind theater projectors are miles above the crap sold for homes)
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman

Premium Member

Re: Very few will care about 4k......

Yes, it is odd when people say DLP is dead. I tell them it is dead for RPTV for home use, but has lived on in many front projector systems, including those used in movie theaters, such as the Christie systems which use 3 DLP chips.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned) to davidhoffman

Member

to davidhoffman
Which is why we now have these terrible resolution monitors like the 21:9 2560x1080...

The move people are assholes, they went 16:9 first and TV followed, but when TV followed they decided they had to make up arbitrary aspect ratios every movie because they know the theater can just adjust the curtains and the projector to fit whatever crap they come up with.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

1 recommendation

davidhoffman

Premium Member

Re: Very few will care about 4k......

Exactly. I think it was Jack Nicholson who said that the Academy Awards were a private party that allowed the TV cameras and reporters in as guests to be tolerated. If the TV guests did not like the way the party was run they were free to leave. The TV guys had their own awards show, The Emmy's, and could run that in as much of a family friendly and TV commercial friendly manner as they wanted. The two sides of Hollywood barely get along. Each regards the other as producing overpriced junk using lousy actors, actresses, scripts, and directors, among many other gripes. Nope, HBO does not count as movie making to the movie guys. The aspect ratio games are just one of many tit for tat conflicts between the two. The movie guys will tell you they cannot stand for people to watch movies on television sets. Movies are not designed to be watched on television sets. You are supposed to buy a projector, a screen, motorized curtains, a theater surround sound system, and proper movie watching seats. You should install them in the proper manner in a proper movie room. That is where and how you are to enjoy movies. Adjusting screen ratios by adjusting the curtains would be just another part of movie watching preparation for a family. Expense? How can you talk of expense when discussing viewing our continuous stream of epic visual stories? That is the movie guys talking, not me. I think some of them are ridiculous. Home theater projector systems have not grown in use much due to the expense and hassle of setting them up. The younger generation is used to today's HDTV aspect ratios being used for very popular content viewing from cable television content producers. They can use similar low cost technology to get started in the creation of their own content. The future feature films at the big screen theaters may end up all being in 16:9 format.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned)

Member

Re: Very few will care about 4k......

And is it any wonder why people see the movie types as overly pretentious douchebags?

I had a conversation with a guy that went to film school about how Tarintino hated movies shot using digital methods even when those methods produced video of far higher quality, even if you where going for the gritty look ad feel. Theres tons of tricks that can be used to achieve that same look and feel without having to track down what is now a far more expensive the digital 24FPS film camera and dozens of reels of filmstock.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

1 recommendation

davidhoffman

Premium Member

Re: Very few will care about 4k......

What is interesting is that some in the movie side of Hollywood are pushing for the use of what is called High Frame Rate movie making. You shoot in 48fps .

24fps was based on what the film sound recorders of the time would produce in the way of sound clarity and quality.

From Wikipedia: "Criticisms of the format include assertions that the "cinematic look" is lost with the use of high frame rates. Film critics have complained that 3D HFR looks like video games, HDTV, live theater or a cheap home movie."

Note that nothing satisfies the film people. Not real theater, which was and is part of the origin of their industry. Video games, or digital animation, are dismissed. I wonder what Pixar thinks of that. HDTV; par for the course with the movie people. Home movies; insulting your future camera operators must be forward thinking to them.

The film people are going to face an entire generation that will create content using rugged SSDs with excellent digital cameras at much higher frame rates than traditional film cameras. Post production reviews being very rapidly available will be the new normal. Not the next day, but in less than 10 minutes. Digital editing will be the normal, not cutting and splicing film stock. Showing on a 16:9 screen will probably be standard, as you will want distribution to be an easy transition from the movie theater
to the television set or tablet at home, if we even have movie theaters by then. No more statements prior to the TV showing, that the film has been edited to fit a television set's screen dimensions.

Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

Corehhi to anon_anon

Member

to anon_anon
Actually 4K is noticeable in theme parks like Universal Orlando, they have been upgrading to 4K projectors. Of course that involves huge screens and movement not what you will have in your living room.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned) to anon_anon

Member

to anon_anon
said by anon_anon :

Ever hear of the Super Audio CD, or DVD-Audio? Consumers didn't care and those formats forever remain niche except for audiophiles. Unless you are talking about an absurdly large screen, paying for 4K is a waste of money. Even the DLP projectors in cinema's are just 2K. If there is any place where 4K may have a perceptible benefit, it would be in a commercial movie theater.

Thats because most devices couldn't play the damn things. I loved DVD audio discs, but could only play them on my surround sound setup, no car I ever looked at could play them and IIRC no consumer MP3 ripping software supported it properly either.

With CDs it was universal, with MP3 you could get a car stereo with an aux in, a cd player that could read mp3s or use a tape deck and a line out tape so you had options.

Because of this convenience won out over quality.

Hell, I wish MiniDisc had won out, I'd prefer to have all of my discs in their own built in cases, but Sony where douches about licensing as per their usual and the format died due to convenience.

Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

Corehhi

Member

Re: Very few will care about 4k......

I had a CL Acura that played DVD audio. 2001.
46436203 (banned)
join:2013-01-03

46436203 (banned) to Camelot One

Member

to Camelot One
There is a shitload of available 4K content already.

How about every PC game ever? How about most console games ever via the power of emulation?

Movies and TV shows are far from being the only form of media available.

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

Don't care for it

As long as I get my Fox News and WWLP local newscasts and a few other shows, I'm fine. I don't even think DirecTV even broadcasts any networks in 4K.

I still have an SD set in my living room. Older gaming consoles don't work on HD sets, especially with the light guns.
betam4x
join:2002-10-12
Nashville, TN

betam4x

Member

Re: Don't care for it

You lost me at fox news

Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

Corehhi to IowaCowboy

Member

to IowaCowboy
said by IowaCowboy:

As long as I get my Fox News and WWLP local newscasts and a few other shows, I'm fine. I don't even think DirecTV even broadcasts any networks in 4K.

I still have an SD set in my living room. Older gaming consoles don't work on HD sets, especially with the light guns.

How far back??? I can and have run my original Play Station and Super Nintendo on a 1080P flat screen.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

I'm interested but I'm not running out to buy one.

When it comes place to replace my current TV I use for watching TV I'll probably go with a 4K as a replacement. I'm more likely to buy 4K monitors for my desk than I am to buy them for the Theater TV right now.

Maybe what I know about this is now outdated but isn't there still a battle on the standardization of 4K vs Ultra HD?
catnapped
join:2010-11-22
Elizabethtown, PA

catnapped

Member

Re: I'm interested but I'm not running out to buy one.

"Nearly 60% of TV sets used in US households are now HD sets, up from less than 20% just five years ago," notes Bruce Leichtman

Wouldn't have anything to do with SD sets pretty much being extinct at retail, would it?

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: I'm interested but I'm not running out to buy one.

"Wouldn't have anything to do with SD sets pretty much being extinct at retail, would it?"

SHHHHHHH!!!!! That messes with the anti-early adopter crowd.

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

karlmarx to battleop

Member

to battleop
I would love to get a 4K TV as a replacement 4096 x 2160 monitor. BUT, until HDMI 2.0 comes out, you can't really use the TV at more than 24Hz, which is fine for TV shows, but does NOT look good on a computer monitor. You need at least 50Hz to get a great looking monitor, and HDMI 1.4 just doesn't provide that.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536

Premium Member

Re: I'm interested but I'm not running out to buy one.

uhmmm. isn't hdmi 3.0 already out?

•••

Kilroy
MVM
join:2002-11-21
Saint Paul, MN

Kilroy

MVM

Now if the cable companies would not charge extra

I find it amazing that content is now all HD and the cable companies want to charge us extra for what is now standard. I love that I get a better picture streaming from the Internet than what my cable company (Comcast) will give me through their box.

•••

mark72
@sbcglobal.net

mark72

Anon

4k=2160p

4k is just a term that is misleading to general public. What they call 4k is REALLY 2k resolution...480p, 720p, 1080p, 2160p... This is why some reefer to it as UHD/ultra high definition. 4k is measured vertical not horizontal 4096 x 2160.
betam4x
join:2002-10-12
Nashville, TN

betam4x

Member

Re: 4k=2160p

Actually, despite what you may read on wikipedia or elsewhere, that's not what 4k means. 2k was actually meant to be '2x SD'. 4k was meant to be '2x HD or 4x SD'. Just throwing it out there...

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536

Premium Member

4K tv.

the 3d tv fad of '14
dvd536

dvd536

Premium Member

Re: 4K tv.

the chinese / japs will do it right. in america it'll be sooooooooooo bitstarved it'll be unwatchable
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman to dvd536

Premium Member

to dvd536
3D failed because of the glasses. The people who could really afford 3D were wise enough to know the expensive glasses would get lost and broken, just like some TV remotes do. Many of those people got headaches from watching 3D. Watching in 3D required the viewer to view from a limited number of locations in front of the TV set. I remember an interview with a Samsung person when their RPTV LED DLP set was first being sold. It had future 3D capability designed into the set. The Samsung representative said that they viewed 3D as mainly being used by future hardcore gamers who would wear special helmets or headsets with special glasses.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

1 recommendation

dvd536

Premium Member

smart tv

no thanks, if you're gonna track what i watch you gotta kick a little scratch back to me.

cableties
Premium Member
join:2005-01-27

cableties

Premium Member

Just like 1080P was...

...it will matter when content and advertising takes advantage of the higher resolution.

Your main home display will be HiDef enough as a computer display.
You can have 3D without glasses (though 3D is niche).
More information can be displayed (think Robocop, bladerunner, total recall...)

I think I would get one if:
-80% of content was for 4K (ultraHD)
-pricepoint of a 55"-70" on par with today's pricing
-if my eyes still function by then :P
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Lees Summit, MO

me1212

Member

Don't care about the tvs.

I just want it, and the hardware needed t run it, to be affordable for my gaming pc.

••••

EliteData
EliteData
Premium Member
join:2003-07-06
Philippines

EliteData

Premium Member

no mainstream content as of yet

which means i dont plan on getting one until there is.
biochemistry
Premium Member
join:2003-05-09
92361

biochemistry

Premium Member

Interesting

Gotta love all the experts on 4k here who are certain it's worthless except on a million foot screen even though I am betting 95% have never seen a 4k television and 100% have never seen high quality 4k on said screen. Even some of the early blu-rays were barely better than DVDs. I will reserve judgment until some reference quality 4k discs come out.

••••••••••••

TVPhile
@choopa.com

TVPhile

Anon

I am holding out...

For 16K TV's.

••••

atcotr
@wideopenwest.com

atcotr

Anon

"HD"

We still don't have true HD broadcasts. Thanks to MPEG-2 in OTA broadcasting and analog channels hogging bandwidth in CATV systems, channels are either 480i, 720p30, or 1080i60. Transitioning to a system with H.264/H.265, 1080p60, and ~20 Mbps bitrate would result in greatly improved visual fidelity especially for sports and complex scenery. 4K isn't even distinguishable unless you are sitting right up against the screen, and requires a very high bitrate to avoid the same bitstarving problem that plagues current video offerings (like Comcast's 4-in-1 crunched HD, or even mushier offerings like iTunes).
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

4K will need physical media

At least until US internet catches up with South Korea. But along with speed we will need a shift in business models as well, Low cap-High Overage will not promote adoption of 4K unless one can get the media on a physical format or at least get the media conglomerates to permit not only local caching but the use of home media servers. Right now their obsession with restrictive DRM is going to stand in the way of buying a movie download, caching to a home media server and streaming to any device on the home network without need for special(and usually extremely buggy and only functional for a few studios) software. no to make this happen it needs to be able to run in everything that can support 4K be it a PS4 or a media center PC running VLC on Linux.

Local caching could bypass caps by the ISPs having overnight hours between say midnight and 8am be cap free.

TheBionic
Funkier than a mohair disco ball.
Premium Member
join:2009-07-06
united state

TheBionic

Premium Member

I'll wait till a tv breaks...

I went out and bought a 1080p tv when nothing was wrong with our CRT, just for the upgrade in fidelity. I still have the CRT and use it with older game consoles. That said I'm not going to go buy a 4k tv unless I actually NEED another tv, and as I've bought 3 1080p tvs since 2008, I hope that doesn't happen soon. I just don't see the need.

why60loss
Premium Member
join:2012-09-20

why60loss

Premium Member

I want one but...........

1) There is next to no content.

2) 3000 dollars for a set that is just LED is kind of high.

3) No OLED 4k sets

So for now I am sitting it out. I hope in a few years I end up with a AD player, a 4k OLED tv and about at lest 20-30 movies I want to watch more than once. Is it very likely to happen, I don't know but as one man once said "I have a dream".
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

4k monitors vs. TVs

I think the 4K panel market will be dominated by the computer monitor form factor for at least a couple of years, until the content providers catch up. Very few people will want to drop $2k+ extra on a TV that you can't watch UHD content on.

Right now you can get 4K monitors in the $2500 range, expect that to drop fast in the next 18 months. UHD will be the new 1080p for monitors.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned)

Member

Re: 4k monitors vs. TVs

They have to get them to at least 60Hz first, else they aren't useful at all for gaming. Which is a damn shame. The higher res then 4K IBM T221 was capable of 24Hz max, and in the decade since it's release we have lowered the resolution and only gained 6Hz...

houkouonchi
join:2002-07-22
Ontario, CA

houkouonchi

Member

Re: 4k monitors vs. TVs

IBM T221 and variants were always 41Hz max (originally) and newer versions came out that were 48Hz. They never had a maximum of 24 Hz.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman

Premium Member

4K

I saw one of the 4K sets in a Best Buy. The picture looked very nice. One of those marketing looping videos. Not nice enough to run out and buy one to replace the existing 1080p I have. I can wait several years.
SilentMan
join:2002-07-15
New York, NY

SilentMan

Member

Not Surprised

70% probably don't know where New Jersey is located. Living in your own bubble and ignorance are the name of the game in these United States
stridr69
join:2003-05-19
San Luis Obispo, CA

stridr69

Member

Re: Not Surprised

LOL. Yours is the best take in this entire thread!
marctronixx
join:2003-09-08
Los Angeles, CA

marctronixx

Member

How many

of your favorite shows are shot in 4K?
page: 1 · 2 · next