|
$7000 TVAnyone willing to shell out $7,000 for a 4K TV? Most people have a higher debt than that now. | |
|
| |
Re: $7000 TVsaid by brianiscool:Anyone willing to shell out $7,000 for a 4K TV? Most people have a higher debt than that now. Sure. Put them in the stores and people will buy them. | |
|
| | |
Re: $7000 TVEarly 480p 42" flatscreen TVs cost about $15k in the late 90s. In the late 60s early 70s Sony VCRs were around $7k. So $7k isn't too far out of line for the early adopter tax. | |
|
| | | |
Re: $7000 TVthe first plasmas were over $40,000 due to the developing mfg process, then dropped to $20,000 by 1999. | |
|
| tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
to brianiscool
The LCD manufacturing process continues to rapidly evolve, the actual cost of 4k sets will soon be a very small premium over current sets. The real costs will be in delivering/dedicating that bandwidth to a video stream, and THE PRODUCTION of content. Already with current large screen you can easily see defects in TV shows and movies that makeup and set design can't coverup. does ever thing need even more detail? this is like putting four layers of chrome on your car bumper when 1 or 2 are just as shiny, after all it's just a bumper.
Most would prefer less/better compression on current shows rather then seeing 4k artifacts. | |
|
| | Kamus join:2011-01-27 El Paso, TX |
Kamus
Member
2013-Jun-16 3:01 pm
Re: $7000 TVsaid by tshirt:The LCD manufacturing process continues to rapidly evolve, the actual cost of 4k sets will soon be a very small premium over current sets. The real costs will be in delivering/dedicating that bandwidth to a video stream, and THE PRODUCTION of content. Already with current large screen you can easily see defects in TV shows and movies that makeup and set design can't coverup. does ever thing need even more detail? this is like putting four layers of chrome on your car bumper when 1 or 2 are just as shiny, after all it's just a bumper.
Most would prefer less/better compression on current shows rather then seeing 4k artifacts. If any premium at all... That Check out that Seiki TV on amazon right now... it's UNDER 1000! Granted, it's not the best TV set in the world. But it is a proof of concept: There's no reason for 4k TV's to be any more expensive than their current 1080p counterparts. So as soon as every manufacturer gets on the QHD bandwagon we can expect very attractive pricing on these sets. The compression will be a moot point if h.265 becomes the norm for it. You can expect a 20-30GB full featured movie to look incredible once the encoders mature. with h.265 file sizes can go down 50% to maintain the same quality. (i think this is using reference encoders, it might take a while for it to get that sort of benefits against the likes of x264) | |
|
| ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to brianiscool
If you don't consider my mortgage, I don't. | |
|
| 34764170 (banned) join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON |
to brianiscool
said by brianiscool:Anyone willing to shell out $7,000 for a 4K TV? Most people have a higher debt than that now. 2 years from now those TVs will be $1,500 or less. | |
|
| | skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2013-Jun-13 2:52 pm
Re: $7000 TV | |
|
| | | |
Re: $7000 TV120Hz is too low for 4K HD. | |
|
| | | | skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2013-Jun-13 5:33 pm
Re: $7000 TVNot unless someone rolls out 120Hz content. Movies are still shot at 24Hz. The bigger problem for any current set is HDMI 1.4 won't drive 4K at higher refresh rates. | |
|
| | | 34764170 (banned) join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON |
to skeechan
That thing is a piece of junk. I mean something that is decent. | |
|
| | | tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
to skeechan
given the GOOD review says "They were all kind of blurry and would not have worked to program all day on" and the brand (seiki=bicycle parts and (apparently) amazingly cheap electronics.) I think I'll find another way to go blind. | |
|
| | | dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
to skeechan
no they aren't[if you actually want a brand you've heard of.] | |
|
| | | | skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2013-Jun-14 10:16 am
Re: $7000 TVYou could add qualifiers to any TV. Fact remains, they aren't $7K any more. | |
|
| | | | | 34764170 (banned) join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON |
34764170 (banned)
Member
2013-Jun-14 12:25 pm
Re: $7000 TVsaid by skeechan:Fact remains, they aren't $7K any more. Fact is, that is a gimmick at best. | |
|
| | | | | | skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2013-Jun-14 5:24 pm
Re: $7000 TVHardly. | |
|
| | | dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
to skeechan
no they aren't[if you actually want a brand you've heard of.] | |
|
| | |
| |
to brianiscool
said by brianiscool:Anyone willing to shell out $7,000 for a 4K TV? Most people have a higher debt than that now. Rent a center Or Aaron's will rent them out at $30 a week. | |
|
| Kamus join:2011-01-27 El Paso, TX |
to brianiscool
said by brianiscool:Anyone willing to shell out $7,000 for a 4K TV? Most people have a higher debt than that now. I assume this means you are not aware you can buy one right now for about $1,200? | |
|
| JohkalCool Cat MVM join:2002-11-13 Pennsyltucky |
to brianiscool
$7000? That's nothing! I'm looking at Sony's XBR-84X900 84" 4k for $24999.99. Oh yeah!!!!!! | |
|
| | |
Re: $7000 TVThat is a perfect example why Sony is going out of business. They cost more and do not provide top notch technology. Where LG you get so much more for your money and the technology is more advanced. | |
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2013-Jun-13 1:07 pm
where's my 4k 3d 9.1 channel...... ads? | |
|
baineschile2600 ways to live Premium Member join:2008-05-10 Sterling Heights, MI |
I was thereI was fortunate enough to see a demo of 4k TV. I consider myself of having a keen eye, and to be honest, I didnt see a difference in the least.
I think the next proressive step would be to the 360hz refresh rate, as opposed to just more pixels on the screen.
Of course, this is still a few years away before it becomes viable, and TV sets come to a reasonable price. | |
|
| |
Re: I was thereThe problem is that the higher resolution of 4K Ultra-HD cannot be fully appreciated for screen sizes less than 60 inches or so.
HDTVs took off relatively quickly (especially after their prices dropped after a while) not only because of it's higher resolution than that of large screen SDTVs, but mostly because of their wider screens (16:9 vs. 4:3 aspect ratio) and that most were also thin-panel LCD/Plasma TVs (vs. the heavy/bulky CRT SDTVs) that they could easily hang on a wall.
Most people have already replaced most of their older CRT TVs by now with new HDTVs, and see no major differences with these newer U-HDTVs. | |
|
| | GlennLouEarl3 brothers, 1 gone Premium Member join:2002-11-17 Richmond, VA |
Re: I was thereSo true. Now, I realize that the "life-size" immersion potential of 4k is a first step towards a holodeck... but I don't really need that. I'm happy with the "small scale" that I have now with 1080p. | |
|
| | | GuspazGuspaz MVM join:2001-11-05 Montreal, QC |
Guspaz
MVM
2013-Jun-13 4:17 pm
Re: I was thereTVs aren't a path to immersion. The Oculus Rift on the other hand, has a far better shot at leading to a holodeck-like experience than any at-a-distance screen ever could. | |
|
| djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV |
to baineschile
said by baineschile:I was fortunate enough to see a demo of 4k TV. I consider myself of having a keen eye, and to be honest, I didnt see a difference in the least. You could probably see a difference if you walked up to the set. For my home viewing on my 60" set from the couch, I don't expect to see a difference. I can't go much larger than 60" without buying a new house to go with it, so I'm not excited about 4K at all. People with media rooms with 120"+ projection TVs might have something to look forward to. I just don't understand why content delivery companies like Comcast or DirecTV would bother with 4K when they're delivering such highly compressed HD. Why not try just improving the bitrate of their HD streams? Let's get the most out of current HDTV before moving on to even higher resolutions. We did this with standard def to HD transition, too. DVDs didn't look bad at all, even on HDTVs. SD from most cable and satellite providers looked like dog vomit. We had to endure crap quality while we waited for them to find room for HD. They could have at least improved SD bitrates in the interim. At least we won't have the widescreen/4:3 problem again. | |
|
ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
lolIf it develops? | |
|
|
DOAIn order to see the difference you would need a huge screen viewed at short distances. This DOA just like 3D. | |
|
| •••••••• |
|
frenchfry
Anon
2013-Jun-13 2:16 pm
degrade signalI wonder how much Comcast will degrade the picture to save bandwidth. I our town the Comcast HD channels look horrible in order for them to save bandwidth. | |
|
| ••• |
|
DubiousLook here Comcast-ians,
I have a high quality video processor that detects source signal specifications and where I live in Houston TX on HDNet I'm showing you still averaging only about 860 compressed lines of a 1080p signal. So please... before you start touting that you are ready for 4k, how about pushing a true 1080i / 1080p signal first?
Don't get me wrong though. I'm a fan, I like your service, I pay for your business class product. But I would really like you to start pushing a full signal before you start claiming you are ready for 4k. | |
|
| |
Re: Dubioussaid by axiomatic:Look here Comcast-ians,
I have a high quality video processor that detects source signal specifications and where I live in Houston TX on HDNet I'm showing you still averaging only about 860 compressed lines of a 1080p signal. So please... before you start touting that you are ready for 4k, how about pushing a true 1080i / 1080p signal first?
Don't get me wrong though. I'm a fan, I like your service, I pay for your business class product. But I would really like you to start pushing a full signal before you start claiming you are ready for 4k. You are never going to see a full resolution, full raster signal, they will always be compressed, there is no viable way around that presently. | |
|
EUSKill cancer Premium Member join:2002-09-10 canada
1 recommendation |
EUS
Premium Member
2013-Jun-13 3:57 pm
Whoa 4K?You mean I can watch all that shitty programming, and ever-increasing commercials in even higher def? | |
|
|
Some people dont just watch tv land rerunsSure if you are watching reruns of Archie Bunker you will not notice a difference. but some people may want to use as a monitor. We run 65" Sharps at my hospital for OR schedules, and sometimes it isn't sharp enough to read easily. Never stop improving. | |
|
| djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV |
djrobx
Premium Member
2013-Jun-14 12:38 pm
Re: Some people dont just watch tv land rerunssaid by hillyard:Sure if you are watching reruns of Archie Bunker you will not notice a difference. but some people may want to use as a monitor. We run 65" Sharps at my hospital for OR schedules, and sometimes it isn't sharp enough to read easily. Never stop improving. They must not be very ... sharp. I can read the tiniest print on my 60" Samsung in 1080p mode. Your hospital is probably feeding in an analog VGA signal to the displays which causes them to be blurry, especially if there's a long cable run. You should never see unintentional blur on a digital display | |
|
| | |
Re: Some people dont just watch tv land rerunsWhat he said. It is probably an analog signal going to the tv. | |
|
Kamus join:2011-01-27 El Paso, TX |
Kamus
Member
2013-Jun-13 5:00 pm
The transition to 4k will be faster than it even needs to beThe reason for this is simple. Even if most users won't use it as a 4k monitor (which is the easiest way to benefit from high PPI, like you would on an iPad for example) It will still be a very smooth/fast transition. Why? Because pretty soon it will make very little sense to keep making 1080p HDTV's when they can make 4k panels at the same price (assuming they stay with the same sizes). The evidence for this is already available. How much did you have to pay extra for the Retina iPad over the iPad 2? Nothing... The same will be true for television sets very soon. And in the case of Chinese manufactures they are there already: » www.amazon.com/Seiki-Dig ··· 0BXF7I9M(it can be found for 100 less if you look around) 4K will replace 1080p even in situations where the difference between 4k and 1080p is moot (people using the set at a distance where the pixel count is irrelevant) just because that's the only way they'll be able to buy them. And with no premium what so ever on price, why buy anything less? People that would use the set in ways to take advantage of the high PPI will be glad they can buy a set like this, and people that will set up the TV in ways that don't take advantage of the pixel count will be just as happy (and might even see a subtle PQ advantage). So i say, bring it on... it's not like it's going to cost us extra. All streaming companies like netflix and youtube have to do is offer a new resolution (provided proper content of course) and processing power is well above the needs of 4k as of today. Bring on the TV's with invisible pixels, nothing wrong with that. And pave the way for the end-game in pixel count (IMAX film resolution, around 16k i think) By then we'll either need HUGE curved screens or, more realistically head mounted displays to take advantage for the pixel count. | |
|
| |
Re: The transition to 4k will be faster than it even needs to besaid by Kamus:The reason for this is simple. Even if most users won't use it as a 4k monitor (which is the easiest way to benefit from high PPI, like you would on an iPad for example) It will still be a very smooth/fast transition. Why? Because pretty soon it will make very little sense to keep making 1080p HDTV's when they can make 4k panels at the same price (assuming they stay with the same sizes).
The evidence for this is already available. How much did you have to pay extra for the Retina iPad over the iPad 2? Nothing... The same will be true for television sets very soon. And in the case of Chinese manufactures they are there already:
»www.amazon.com/Seiki-Dig ··· 0BXF7I9M
(it can be found for 100 less if you look around)
4K will replace 1080p even in situations where the difference between 4k and 1080p is moot (people using the set at a distance where the pixel count is irrelevant) just because that's the only way they'll be able to buy them. And with no premium what so ever on price, why buy anything less?
People that would use the set in ways to take advantage of the high PPI will be glad they can buy a set like this, and people that will set up the TV in ways that don't take advantage of the pixel count will be just as happy (and might even see a subtle PQ advantage).
So i say, bring it on... it's not like it's going to cost us extra. All streaming companies like netflix and youtube have to do is offer a new resolution (provided proper content of course) and processing power is well above the needs of 4k as of today. Bring on the TV's with invisible pixels, nothing wrong with that. And pave the way for the end-game in pixel count (IMAX film resolution, around 16k i think)
By then we'll either need HUGE curved screens or, more realistically head mounted displays to take advantage for the pixel count. You're talking about at least 3 years away. | |
|
BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT ·Frontier FiberOp.. Asus RT-AC68
|
BiggA
Premium Member
2013-Jun-13 5:40 pm
Not scalableDelivering over IP in some weird hybrid isn't scalable to more than a couple of customers at a time on a node, if that. And on some systems, like here (650mhz), they just don't have the bandwidth to push more stuff on linear QAMs, although many systems (860mhz) do. | |
|
mech1164I'll Be Back join:2001-11-19 Lodi, NJ |
Not ready..will it ever be?The thing is for this to really take off is the compression standard and if it can be transmitted OTA properly. Both are problems in their own rights. The new compression standard mentioned here has promise and it could be delivered over say fiber. That is all great but even with the amount of Bandwidth the OTA broadcasters have with current HD there is just not the room. So unless there is an even better standard made most of this would be niche at best. | |
|
|
guest1
Anon
2013-Jun-13 9:26 pm
How about full 1080p first?We're still getting 720p/1080i from TV providers. | |
|
| Kamus join:2011-01-27 El Paso, TX |
Kamus
Member
2013-Jun-14 4:41 am
Re: How about full 1080p first?said by guest1 :We're still getting 720p/1080i from TV providers. Yes, and they also sometimes still use mpeg2 which has been obsolete for a while. The way things are looking, 4k will probably arrive on services like netflix sooner than with some broadcasters. | |
|
|
What about MPEG 4 first or even SDV?What about MPEG 4 first or even SDV? comcast is missing HD channels that other cable systems have use MPEG 4 and or SDV. | |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
dvd536
Premium Member
2013-Jun-14 8:16 am
now that the 3d fad is dead. . . . .NEXT!
nobody is even doing 1080P[yeah i know about the handful of PPV titles direct TV is offering]
how many "hd" channels are still broadcasting in stretch - o - vision? | |
|
| sk1939 Premium Member join:2010-10-23 Frederick, MD ARRIS SB8200 Ubiquiti UDM-Pro Juniper SRX320
|
sk1939
Premium Member
2013-Jun-15 12:19 am
Re: now that the 3d fad is dead. . . . .said by dvd536:NEXT!
nobody is even doing 1080P[yeah i know about the handful of PPV titles direct TV is offering]
how many "hd" channels are still broadcasting in stretch - o - vision? More than there should be. | |
|
|
Chinese 4K television for only $600 (catch: not 120 volts)There's a Chinese made 4K HDTV (Skyworth 39E780U) for only $600 for a 39" display. One North American bought one through a chinese broker and used a power converter (chinese power only, not U.S. voltage) to use it. The price is real. The 4K LCD's are only $425 each in factory quantities now in China, and this manufacturer has made a TV around these panels now. Review on Overclock.netArticle on BlurBusters.comIt will only take 2-3 years for cheap 4K to finally arrive in big brands in the North American market. | |
|
| mdrejhon |
Re: Chinese 4K television for only $600 (catch: not 120 volts)Another cheap 4K display is the SEIKI 4K HDTV at Amazon for $1399. Some places sell it for a bit cheaper. So cheap 4K is going to hit USA like a tidal wave within 2-3 years. It's just like Retina-izing TV panels. | |
|
mdrejhon |
4K looks better even on small TV's (THE 60" MYTH)Hello,
compression artifacts are bigger than a pixel. Very obviously, 4K compression artifacts at 20Mbps look much smaller and fainter than 1080p compression artifacts at 5Mbps. There are people who complain that Netflix and iTunes don't look as good as Blu-Ray. (Some look really close: e.g. "Hugo" on Netflix in SuperHD; that is an amazing Netflix compress, better than some of the worst Blu-Rays) But as a rule of thumb, 1080p at low bitrates won't look as good as 4K at higher bitrates -- even 10 feet away from a 50 inch TV. because of compression artifacts
4K is going to look better even on smaller TV's and farther view distances, because broadcasters will be forced to use higher bitrates for 4K to make it look better than 1080p.
Even downconverted 4K->1080p looks better than 1080p filmed natively. There's an inherent amount of pixel blur for cameras recording at native resolution (e.g. bayer pattern issues / demosiacing).
So, we should stop saying 4K is useless to 100% of people at screen sizes less than 60 inches. The story is more complex than that.
Yes, yes, some people won't notice a difference... But enough people will do, especially during the day 4K costs only fifty dollars more than 1080p -- then it's definitely worth it, as long as other image metrics don't degrade (e.g. contrast, etc).
Yes, yes, we should keep streaming only to higher bitrate 1080p, but content makers aren't likely to do that, without the dangling carrot of 4K. Some will treat 4K simply as a glorified image-quality-enhanced 1080p -- viewed at normal distances that 1080p is today viewed at -- because there's a lot of unnecessarily-quality-degraded 1080p out. The "4Kness" will preserve the 1080p clarity better. | |
|
|
|