Options
4K tv - set to be a massive flop?
Ray_Smith
Posts: 1,372 Forum Member
✭✭✭
At the $999 level for a 4K TV only 10.5% say they are “slightly likely to purchase”, 8.9% “moderately likely” to purchase, and 3.4% “definitely” would purchase. Moving up in price puts even further pressure. At $1,999, only 4% would be slightly likely to purchase, 1.9% moderately, and 1.3% definitely would purchase.
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/230330/4kultra-hd-tv-sets-sport-high-tech-but-low-publi.html
1.3% definitely would purchase
That's really gonna be a success then!
Oh well, I'll have to put my 4k tv in the shed along with my now obsolete 3D tv (with glasses), 3D tv without glasses, my anti-grav lawnmower, my Sony Time Machine (never worked and Argos refused to give me a replacement), and my Samsung Sex Femme Robot which was a lesbian. I got the wrong model. I wanted the heterosexual female version but Amazon sent me the wrong one.
0
Comments
When prices come down to more mainstream pricing then I expect more people to want them.
Maybe like sales of projectors, for enthusiasts only?
You will certainly see the difference between and HD and a UHD1 ph2 which is what the broadcasters are wanting/ and working towards ...
But HD to "4K" - not much difference
Same argument for HDTV's, there was no HD, the TV's still sold.
Netflix started streaming 4k in April.
I don't think the wait was as long for 4k content to start arriving as it was for HD - Netflix have streamed 4k since April, the TV's capable of showing this content only went on sale this year.
I'm ready to upgrade, current set showing signs of letting go, it's not used for main viewing but would still consider 4k so long as the standards have been finalised - I'm more interested in 4k projection.
They sold like hot cakes mainly because the introduction of HD TV broadcasts broadly coincided with the introduction of large slim flat panel HD TVs, and the demise of SD TVs.
But for that lucky coincidence, take-up of HD TVs would have been much slower, as will the take-up of 4K (probably even slower).
No 'lucky coincidence', HD TV's sold simply because all TV's became HD, SD sets rapidly disappeared from sale. The same will happen with 4K, panel production will gradually shift towards 4K, and 1080 panels will be discontinued - it makes sod all difference if 4K transmissions ever happen or not, you won't be able to buy a set that isn't 4K (or higher).
Pioneer had HD ready plasma selling in Jan 2005, pretty sure others were available before that, that's roughly 18months before HD started with Sky.
I got my first HDTV in Dec 2005, Sky didn't launch HD until May 06, I waited 6months - the only content I could watch was on the internet, as far as I can remember there was no indication this early on Sky was showing any signs HD was on the way.
Pioneer had an elite model out in 2003, but it didn't have the HD ready label and cost £12,000 - a 3yr wait if you bought this.
The percentage is obviously going to be lower for TVs that are double the price of the $999 price tag.
Of course HD TV's had the big advantage of the Xbox 360 and PS3 launches - 4k gaming is but a pipe dream for the vast majority. Having said that resolution will always win in the end and the very same arguments with 720p vs 1080p seem a distant memory - you don't see too many 720p TV's on the market.
Personally I will be sitting tight until 4K OLED comes about and things like HFR, HDR and WCG are sorted out. We could be getting a whole lot more out of the 1080p resolution right now but the move to 4K has to include all these advances or it simply won't do it justice.
A very small minority look no better when viewed with the correct size TV for the viewing distance, most of the time blu-ray is quite a lot better though nowhere near the improvement from VHS to DVD.
But it is unlikly that they will be to uhd1ph2 specs that the broadcasters are working towards ....
A screen with BT709 spec except fir pixel numbers does look much different from HD
It's no different to HD. When HD sets 1st came out, 42" cost more than £5k.
Prices come down with economies of scale so the more sold, the cheaper they become.
As for 4K being a flop, that could be likely but its more likely to happen because European broadcasters haven't agreed standards than because of tv prices. Same with 8K.
BTW 1.3% of the population of the UK (63 Million) is 819,000. That's still a significant number of potential set sales even at that price.
All the more reason why the position of native SD and minimum broadcasting standards generally need to be reviewed on Freesat / Sky.
Freeview is different because there's more SD boxes / users and bandwidth issues that may restrict the possible bit rates that could be used.
You really need to give it a rest
Why this crazy obsession with trying to stop SD broadcasts?, there's decades of SD only programming out there, it's not going to simply 'disappear' - they even still show B&W programming.
http://www.daserste.de/service/kontakt-und-service/das-erste-hd/faqs/faqs-100.html
HD only seems to be available via satellite and cable, DTT seems to be SD only.
You would have thought that wouldn't you - but seeing SD upscaled to 4k on a PJ screen a few times now and it holds up better than you think. I can't comment on the particular channel you mention, but the BBC channels and a couple of Sky channels certainly look no worse than they did upscaled to1920x1080.
As long as you're watching from a suitable SD viewing distance then they should look fine, that's the whole point of viewing distance - if you view ANY resolution too close (although it's difficult to get too close for HD, and even less likely for 4K) then you will see defects.
Going back MANY, MANY years we took a lady a new 23 inch set to replace her 19 inch one (pre-colour), and she complained the picture wasn't as good - the reason was viewing distance, the increase in size (modest though it is in todays terms) had made the 405 lines that made up the picture visible to her.