4k TV is exactly four times the number of pixels as full HD.
Cheers,
David.
It can also be 4096 x 2160 which is not exactly four times the number of pixels as full HD.
That is one of the 4k cinema variants, not TV.
I think I know what White-Knight meant
4K doubles the number of consecutive pixels in any linear direction.
I also knew what he meant, but it wasn't what he said.
Given that a 8M pixel camera has twice as many pixels as a 4M pixel camera, but a 4k TV has four times as many pixels as a 2k (HD) TV, I think we should always try to be clear and accurate.
"Television (TV) is a telecommunication medium for transmitting and receiving moving images that can be monochrome (black-and-white) or colored, with or without accompanying sound. "Television" may also refer specifically to a television set, television programming, or television transmission."
An aberration (outside of cinema). The clue being that it's not 16x9. There were quite a few non-16x9 flat panels around when they were first introduced, and when HD was first introduced. Manufacturers do silly things to grab early adopters.
I contributed to this thread to clear a factor of two up (which is barely on topic in itself). What's your excuse?
would have to pay a Sky+ subscription of around £10.25 a month just to be able to use catch-up tv, whereas I can just plug my freesat box into my BB network and watch iPlayer when I wish, for free.
£10.25 is WAY too much to have access to your own HDD! I am more than happy with my Foxsat HDR (with Raydon's custom firmware) and my smart TV which are both SD streaming only. Should I really need to stream HD content I also have a PS3 which has just about the most user friendly implementation of the iPlayer I have yet seen.
The Foxsat HDR is fine for us. We dumped Sky around 16 months ago when I realised we watched around 90-95% FTA content. My HDR came from Humax direct and I immediately installed the 1TB disk that had been working in my Sky+HD box. In under 6 months I was in profit compared to my old Sky sub and the energy hungry nature of my old Sky+ HD box.
It can also be 4096 x 2160 which is not exactly four times the number of pixels as full HD.
I think I know what White-Knight meant
4K doubles the number of consecutive pixels in any linear direction.
Yes. Posted quickly and didn't really register with the brain was I was saying.
As you both said 4K is 4x the picture count of full HD.
The point I was trying to make of course is that on an allegedly bandwidth starved medium platform that allegedly has no more room for even a conventional HD channel, how are they going to fit 4K broadcasts on it without either massively dropping quality or removing other channels?
Freesat doesn't suffer from that problem as the new sats have huge amounts of spare capacity.
So on the question of Freetime I guess what I would be asking myself is whether or not this feature is worth the future problems allegedly faced by Freeview with fast evolving technologies when making the choice between Freeview and Freesat platforms.
Comments
I also knew what he meant, but it wasn't what he said.
Given that a 8M pixel camera has twice as many pixels as a 4M pixel camera, but a 4k TV has four times as many pixels as a 2k (HD) TV, I think we should always try to be clear and accurate.
Cheers,
David.
White-Knight said and you quoted.
"4K doubles the pixel count"
So regarding counting pixels some 4K TV's will have more pixels than others.
If you have a problem with 4096 x 2160 Pixel TV's being called TV's or 4K TV's then please take it up with the relevant manufactures.
I agree, always try to be clear and accurate so if you were only referring to 4K TV broadcasts you really should of said.
"Television (TV) is a telecommunication medium for transmitting and receiving moving images that can be monochrome (black-and-white) or colored, with or without accompanying sound. "Television" may also refer specifically to a television set, television programming, or television transmission."
I guess you know what a pixel is.
I contributed to this thread to clear a factor of two up (which is barely on topic in itself). What's your excuse?
David.
£10.25 is WAY too much to have access to your own HDD! I am more than happy with my Foxsat HDR (with Raydon's custom firmware) and my smart TV which are both SD streaming only. Should I really need to stream HD content I also have a PS3 which has just about the most user friendly implementation of the iPlayer I have yet seen.
The Foxsat HDR is fine for us. We dumped Sky around 16 months ago when I realised we watched around 90-95% FTA content. My HDR came from Humax direct and I immediately installed the 1TB disk that had been working in my Sky+HD box. In under 6 months I was in profit compared to my old Sky sub and the energy hungry nature of my old Sky+ HD box.
Sorry no excuse, I didn't know I needed one.
Yes Thanks, my bad.
Yes. Posted quickly and didn't really register with the brain was I was saying.
As you both said 4K is 4x the picture count of full HD.
The point I was trying to make of course is that on an allegedly bandwidth starved medium platform that allegedly has no more room for even a conventional HD channel, how are they going to fit 4K broadcasts on it without either massively dropping quality or removing other channels?
Freesat doesn't suffer from that problem as the new sats have huge amounts of spare capacity.
So on the question of Freetime I guess what I would be asking myself is whether or not this feature is worth the future problems allegedly faced by Freeview with fast evolving technologies when making the choice between Freeview and Freesat platforms.