Am I missing something here? - how does the evolution kit upgrade the screen resolution?.
No idea.....:D I was thinking of something else when I typed that!!!:o So. no, in this instance you are not missing anything..:rolleyes:
Whatever happens, one thing is for sure, once it's there for people to see/buy the forum will be full of pot half empty people. So there is plenty of time for the negatives.....In the lull between I will enjoy the prospect.
The job offer was there because you knew more about a Sony product than someone who works for Sony.
Not often that happens....But, I'll take a victory where I can..:D
Sony do seem to be embracing the new format every way they can, just hope their enthusiasm pays off.
Prices have surprised me, Sony's 65" and 55" appear to be cheaper than LG's.
With all the major players now in the game I'd hope that prices will begin to fall as production ramps up. Maybe by the Christmas market there will have been another large drop...
Or a 50 incher sat on a computer desk at arms length. I already have a 27 inch '2K' monitor on mine, fed by an HD tuner card in the PC... and there's room for that 50 incher. 4K monitor would be jolly handy too.
You cannot add it to a basket, though My TV is 42'' and a good HD signal looks great on it. I think 4K makes sense for much bigger screens that not everybody has a place to install. Having a 32'' or 40'' 4K TV does not make much sense to me. 4K is a luxury product to me.
Or a 50 incher sat on a computer desk at arms length. I already have a 27 inch '2K' monitor on mine, fed by an HD tuner card in the PC... and there's room for that 50 incher. 4K monitor would be jolly handy too.
One thing that surprised me when I saw the set (as I seem to be the only person to have actually seen one ) is that the 3D uses passive glasses - despite Sony (and their sales staff) previously trumpeting the 'superior' active system.
You wouldn't believe how little interest I have in 4K TV
How pointless can you get, no source in sight, and existing HD pictures are perfectly fine - and would be better still if they upped the bandwidth.
Surely in your line of work everything ever invented has nothing valuable to display or use on it. Even when TVs were first invented were there any broadcasters to use it? No. When electricity was first invented did anyone have light switches ready and waiting for it, no. Every single thing invented first has the hardware and then people can safely produce the product by using it. This comment baffles me hugely.
One thing that surprised me when I saw the set (as I seem to be the only person to have actually seen one ) is that the 3D uses passive glasses - despite Sony (and their sales staff) previously trumpeting the 'superior' active system.
I've no idea on the 4K set, but some of the 'normal' Sony sets now come with passive 3D glasses - one set I took out recently had 2 sets, another had 4 sets.
Surely in your line of work everything ever invented has nothing valuable to display or use on it.
My point is that using proper bandwidth with 1080 would produce exceptionally good results, and that people won't view from close enough for that, never mind sitting greatly closer still for 4K.
My point is that using proper bandwidth with 1080 would produce exceptionally good results, and that people won't view from close enough for that, never mind sitting greatly closer still for 4K.
You could use a similar argument for SD TV or HD Ready - and I often have. It's partly why there's not a huge difference between HD Ready and Full HD (if you aren't a nose to the TV kind of person).
One thing that surprised me when I saw the set (as I seem to be the only person to have actually seen one ) is that the 3D uses passive glasses - despite Sony (and their sales staff) previously trumpeting the 'superior' active system.
Possibly because Passive 3D on a 4K screen allows 1080p 3D for both eyes which wasn't possible on a "normal" Passive 3DTV. Only Active was capable of that.
So, while Active was arguably the superior 3D format for HD, the advantage is lost on a 4K screen.
Why buy a toy, the Sony SRX-R320 will give excellent pictures on screens up to 17 meters, they probably use them at your local multiplex. Although it is 4K, nearly all current films are 2K, most cinemas don't have 4K servers yet either.
Why buy a toy, the Sony SRX-R320 will give excellent pictures on screens up to 17 meters, they probably use them at your local multiplex. Although it is 4K, nearly all current films are 2K, most cinemas don't have 4K servers yet either.
I'm sure it would give excellent pictures, but it's not what you call home cinema friendly is it, you'd need a mini cinema room to house the thing.
Possibly because Passive 3D on a 4K screen allows 1080p 3D for both eyes which wasn't possible on a "normal" Passive 3DTV. Only Active was capable of that.
So, while Active was arguably the superior 3D format for HD, the advantage is lost on a 4K screen.
That makes sense, those active glasses are a pita.
Comments
No idea.....:D I was thinking of something else when I typed that!!!:o So. no, in this instance you are not missing anything..:rolleyes:
Whatever happens, one thing is for sure, once it's there for people to see/buy the forum will be full of pot half empty people. So there is plenty of time for the negatives.....In the lull between I will enjoy the prospect.
The job offer was there because you knew more about a Sony product than someone who works for Sony.
Sony do seem to be embracing the new format every way they can, just hope their enthusiasm pays off.
Prices have surprised me, Sony's 65" and 55" appear to be cheaper than LG's.
With all the major players now in the game I'd hope that prices will begin to fall as production ramps up. Maybe by the Christmas market there will have been another large drop...
(I dont want to think of going bigger)
Or a 50 incher sat on a computer desk at arms length. I already have a 27 inch '2K' monitor on mine, fed by an HD tuner card in the PC... and there's room for that 50 incher. 4K monitor would be jolly handy too.
You cannot add it to a basket, though
These look pretty good on my 27" 2K monitor
4K Sample
4K Sample 2
Just remember to put the resolution to 'Original'.
The Sony 4k projector (VPL VW 1000es) will project a 300" image for a fraction of the cost.
http://www.projectorpoint.co.uk/projectors/Sony_VPL-VW1000ES
Surely in your line of work everything ever invented has nothing valuable to display or use on it. Even when TVs were first invented were there any broadcasters to use it? No. When electricity was first invented did anyone have light switches ready and waiting for it, no. Every single thing invented first has the hardware and then people can safely produce the product by using it. This comment baffles me hugely.
I've no idea on the 4K set, but some of the 'normal' Sony sets now come with passive 3D glasses - one set I took out recently had 2 sets, another had 4 sets.
My point is that using proper bandwidth with 1080 would produce exceptionally good results, and that people won't view from close enough for that, never mind sitting greatly closer still for 4K.
You could use a similar argument for SD TV or HD Ready - and I often have. It's partly why there's not a huge difference between HD Ready and Full HD (if you aren't a nose to the TV kind of person).
Possibly because Passive 3D on a 4K screen allows 1080p 3D for both eyes which wasn't possible on a "normal" Passive 3DTV. Only Active was capable of that.
So, while Active was arguably the superior 3D format for HD, the advantage is lost on a 4K screen.
Why buy a toy, the Sony SRX-R320 will give excellent pictures on screens up to 17 meters, they probably use them at your local multiplex. Although it is 4K, nearly all current films are 2K, most cinemas don't have 4K servers yet either.
I'm sure it would give excellent pictures, but it's not what you call home cinema friendly is it, you'd need a mini cinema room to house the thing.
That makes sense, those active glasses are a pita.
And I checked, the price isn't a misprint!
Any takers? lol
http://www.costco.co.uk/view/product/uk_catalog/cos_1,cos_1.1,cos_1.1.1/142976
Post #31...............;)
Sorry. Didn't click on the link. :-)