Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

anyone going to buy a 4k tv


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-11-2013, 15:13
ste1969
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: cumbria
Posts: 729

i will be looking to buy one in a couple of years when the price comes down and also they only seem to be available in large sizes of 55 inch and above which is a bit too big for my living room,
currys have a samsung 85 inch one for 35,000
ste1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 07-11-2013, 15:53
SnrDev
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,338
They're starting to appear at sensible prices now, 1200 and upwards. I've no idea of quality though.

Have a look at Redshark.

No connection btw, but I do find Redshark an interesting source of 4K and other pro-video information.
SnrDev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 17:41
call100
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,227
Prices will begin to tumble now that the major manufacturers have got the production lines going. 4K will filter down to smaller TV's as this happens and yes, the difference will be noticeable even on smaller sets....
Have a read of this..11 reasons for 4K
call100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 19:26
skinj
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In my own little world!
Posts: 1,428
No intention as of yet. The broadcasters don't even bother giving us the best quality they can on SD or HD at the moment so why pay oodles of money for a TV that is going to be under driven 98% of time.
skinj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 19:41
ste1969
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: cumbria
Posts: 729
No intention as of yet. The broadcasters don't even bother giving us the best quality they can on SD or HD at the moment so why pay oodles of money for a TV that is going to be under driven 98% of time.
true thats why i am in no hurry especially with the current prices.
i remember going into a tv shop in 2000 to buy my first dvd player and they had a plasma tv on the wall for 7000 and that was long before HD came out.
ste1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 20:21
zx50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Next to Consett.
Posts: 61,009
i will be looking to buy one in a couple of years when the price comes down and also they only seem to be available in large sizes of 55 inch and above which is a bit too big for my living room,
currys have a samsung 85 inch one for 35,000
I suspect only the very wealthy will be buying them at that price. I can't see them selling many of them with that price tag. To be honest, I doubt you'd be able to have one in the average sized sitting room. It must be bloody massive! I think only people with big sitting rooms will be able to get these TVs.
zx50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 20:25
technologist
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 5,619
Or a watch of this from SMPTE at IBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPrNh...re=c4-overview
- which explains why you should not buy a Greater than HD TV now ..
And read their issues https://www.smpte.org/uhdtv-report
technologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 20:35
trayhop123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 536
hmm , its chicken and egg time again i suppose ,,,,, why should we upgrade with little to no content available ? and why should studios invest in providing content if nobody owns one ?

im sure in time like all tech the prices will fall drastically and the content will be common place , but i certainly cant afford to be an early adopter

im in when the 22inch ultra hd oled model can be picked up from argos for sub 300 squids
trayhop123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 21:11
xp95
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: At the bottom of the staircase
Posts: 2,412
i will be looking to buy one in a couple of years when the price comes down and also they only seem to be available in large sizes of 55 inch and above which is a bit too big for my living room,
currys have a samsung 85 inch one for 35,000
Me too.
xp95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 22:48
call100
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,227
Or a watch of this from SMPTE at IBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPrNh...re=c4-overview
- which explains why you should not buy a Greater than HD TV now ..
And read their issues https://www.smpte.org/uhdtv-report
I agree that broadcasting may be a little way off, but, as people bought HD to view BD's the same should happen with UHD.
Either way, there is no denying that the sets are in production and those I've seen are amazing and very noticeably so.
I was in Japan a short while ago and viewing the available sets and content there was a real eye opener as to what can be achieved. I suppose it also helps that NHK (Japanese National TV) have already transmitted in 8K. I think the issue is about broadcasters making money from UHD as they made nothing extra from their HD investment. Therefore there isn't the will (money) to develop broadcasts rapidly from the TV companies. Maybe that will change over the next 12 months , we will have to wait and see. The upscaling of standard HD pictures will make it worthwhile upgrading when considering buying a new set, once the prices fall to the tipping point (IMO). By the time the sets hit the right price point (different for everyone, I guess) there will be plenty of content out there filmed in 4K.
Personally, I'm being 'pot half full' about the whole thing, others can take whatever stance they would like. No one is ever forced to buy into anything....are they?
call100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 08:12
alanwarwic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 22,940
Depending on that sort of distribution deals Sony has got, the new Play Station 4 launching next week might big up 4K.
alanwarwic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 08:33
David (2)
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Wiltshire
Posts: 15,641
aside from cost, which will remain high for a few years yet, for me, there needs to be some 4k content - either a new disc format or free tv via freeview or satellite (freesat). Think I have a long wait....

Also, I guess that if you have a 4k screen, putting current HD on it and even more so, SD, would look worse than on a current native HD screen (due to the much greater upscaling involved).

If the content is missing, it could end up going the same way as 3D, SACD, and DVD-A.
David (2) is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 08:38
davor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,149
Just got a blu-ray player not long ago, so no. Sammy ES8000 + Sammy bd player enough for me right now.
davor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 12:12
Deacon1972
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 6,288
aside from cost, which will remain high for a few years yet, for me, there needs to be some 4k content - either a new disc format or free tv via freeview or satellite (freesat). Think I have a long wait....

Also, I guess that if you have a 4k screen, putting current HD on it and even more so, SD, would look worse than on a current native HD screen (due to the much greater upscaling involved).

If the content is missing, it could end up going the same way as 3D, SACD, and DVD-A.
Prices have started to fall already and retailers have said prices will fall by up to 50% within the next year. Sales so far have exceeded their expectations.

Netflix have said they want to bring 4k to it's platform as early as next year, I'm sure this will force others to bring their release dates forward.

HD looks remarkable upscaled to 4k, basically because you have a very good source to begin with, SD is still very much watchable, but I doubt anyone who watches a lot of SD programming will be looking at these sets at this moment in time, enthusiasts/early adopters yes, basically because the smallest screen size is 55".
Deacon1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 14:50
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 19,092
i will be looking to buy one in a couple of years when the price comes down and also they only seem to be available in large sizes of 55 inch and above which is a bit too big for my living room,
currys have a samsung 85 inch one for 35,000
Absolutely not, but I am about to buy a 50 inch 1K television. An HD ready Panasonic plasma for 399 to replace an old 42 inch HD ready plasma that cost 720 and which, methinks, will be considerably better value for money than any 4K set for its lifetime!
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 15:36
anthony david
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 291
The 4K demo on a 55inch Sony at my local JL was very impressive but their is one huge snag. To appreciate the improvement in quality you need to be about 3ft from the screen otherwise it looks just like HD. OK for you wealthy bachelors out there but useless for family viewing as all you will hear is "I can't see the screen, all I can see is the back of your ******* head!". The JL is close to the wealthiest area of Cheshire where footballers can afford one for every room, maybe every eye, so they will sell them. They also have a 65inch OLED Samsung for a mere 6999 if you are interested but the pictures on the Sony were much more natural.
anthony david is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 16:11
alanwarwic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 22,940
Amazing.

The 55" has a lowly 80 pixels per inch yet half decent eyesight maybe needs 900ppi to fully non discern.
You must be getting old!
alanwarwic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 16:18
wakey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,490
Prices will begin to tumble now that the major manufacturers have got the production lines going. 4K will filter down to smaller TV's as this happens and yes, the difference will be noticeable even on smaller sets....
Have a read of this..11 reasons for 4K
No it won't really be noticeable on smaller sets. On the whole people don't even sit close enough to fully appreciate 1080p on a TV under 60inch let alone notice the improvement of 4k. So for 4k you are really going to need 60inch or greater in most rooms because its only then we are inside the optimal distance

When it comes to 4k we are more likely to appreciate it on smaller screens on computers and tablets where the viewing distance is close enough to justify it
wakey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 17:04
xp95
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: At the bottom of the staircase
Posts: 2,412
aside from cost, which will remain high for a few years yet, for me, there needs to be some 4k content - either a new disc format or free tv via freeview or satellite (freesat). Think I have a long wait....

Also, I guess that if you have a 4k screen, putting current HD on it and even more so, SD, would look worse than on a current native HD screen (due to the much greater upscaling involved).

If the content is missing, it could end up going the same way as 3D, SACD, and DVD-A.
I know that this might seem obvious, but when you said DVD-A, do you mean as in DVD-Audio?
xp95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 18:07
technologist
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 5,619
No it won't really be noticeable on smaller sets. On the whole people don't even sit close enough to fully appreciate 1080p on a TV under 60inch let alone notice the improvement of 4k. So for 4k you are really going to need 60inch or greater in most rooms because its only then we are inside the optimal distance

When it comes to 4k we are more likely to appreciate it on smaller screens on computers and tablets where the viewing distance is close enough to justify it
I refer you to the video in post # 7 .....
HFR HDR and Gamut are far more noticeable than static resolution
technologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 19:21
David (2)
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Wiltshire
Posts: 15,641
I know that this might seem obvious, but when you said DVD-A, do you mean as in DVD-Audio?
Yes, DVD-A was a version of dvd just for high quality audio-a possible replacement for regular cd. It didn't catch on with high costs & limited content. Regular cd out lasted it.

SACD was another attempt to replace regular cd, with an upgraded disc with improved quality. But like DVD-A it had limited sucsess and it died out leaving the regular, cheaper, older, lower quality cd as the only surviving audio disc.
David (2) is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 19:26
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 19,092
like DVD-A it had limited sucsess and it died out leaving the regular, cheaper, older, lower quality cd as the only surviving audio disc.
Because hardly anyone could tell the difference and most who could, didn't care!

A bit like 3D really, and how 4K is likely to end up.
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 19:26
xp95
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: At the bottom of the staircase
Posts: 2,412
Yes, DVD-A was a version of dvd just for high quality audio-a possible replacement for regular cd. It didn't catch on with high costs & limited content. Regular cd out lasted it.

SACD was another attempt to replace regular cd, with an upgraded disc with improved quality. But like DVD-A it had limited sucsess and it died out leaving the regular, cheaper, older, lower quality cd as the only surviving audio disc.
How sad.
xp95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 19:31
David (2)
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Wiltshire
Posts: 15,641
Prices have started to fall already and retailers have said prices will fall by up to 50% within the next year. Sales so far have exceeded their expectations.

Netflix have said they want to bring 4k to it's platform as early as next year, I'm sure this will force others to bring their release dates forward.

HD looks remarkable upscaled to 4k, basically because you have a very good source to begin with, SD is still very much watchable, but I doubt anyone who watches a lot of SD programming will be looking at these sets at this moment in time, enthusiasts/early adopters yes, basically because the smallest screen size is 55".
Trouble with.that is, most of my viewing is Still SD due to using freesat + freeview. Very little HD out there for free.
If UHD is going to tie in with 4k online content then every one is going to need a min of a 40mb fibre connection, and even that doesn't leave much headroom Eg for other uses running on the same connection at the same time.
I wouldn't spend a lot more money to get a 4k screen if I had no 4k source + little chance of getting a source for a few years.
8k is ready in development, my theory is that 8k is being held back til most people have just bought a new 4k, then make them old hat overnight with releasing 8k.
David (2) is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 19:41
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 19,092
8k is ready in development, my theory is that 8k is being held back til most people have just bought a new 4k, then make them old hat overnight with releasing 8k.
8K is pointlessly ridiculous for domestic television - 4K is bad enough!

You do realise that 8K is about 33 megapixels? That's nearly as much as the best professional full frame DSLR still cameras and medium format still cameras, and more than all APS-C DSLRs. People don't even look at or print their stills at full resolution never mind watching TV at it.

4K and especially 8K are/will be specialised for commercial use or pointless status symbols for the very rich or video-heads.
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:36.