4K (and 8K) won't be a success?

Ray_Smith · 31-12-2013, 16:09

Quote:

From a current Digital Spy item:

"Realistically, the smallest display size that will exist in the short term for Ultra HD is 55 inches. This is because as the screen size starts to shrink beyond this, the benefits of having such a high pixel density start to diminish."

Unless you have a large enough room and enough distance within the room between the tv and the seating area, there's no practical reason to upgrade to 4k. In theory, this format - as fantastic as I'm sure it looks - may not succeed. Well, not for people of average earnings living in average size accommodation. It might be similar to 3D tvs. Most people don't have the sets and there's virtually zero 3D content out there to guarantee a viable future.

call100 · 31-12-2013, 16:26

If you say so.....The same was said of HD in the early days.
The discussion has already been done to death HERE.

trayhop123 · 31-12-2013, 17:18

wether in reality there's any noticeable difference in picture quality on smaller sets will largely be glossed over ,,,,,,why ???, because the manufacturer's will want a slice of the 40/32/ inch market share

even the 24/22/19 inch bedroom sets will eventually get in on the act

your eyeballs physically being able to see it or not doesn't really matter , its our willingness to open our wallet for the latest tech that counts ,,,,,

so all ends of the budget spectrum must be covered .

im personally just as much a sucker as the next guy ,,,,,,,,, most of us dont have 2grand spare for a new telly ,,,,,, but lots of us have sub 500 , the manufacturer's know this,,,,,,

my current full hd 22inch set is probably overkill already , ,,,,,(can i really see a difference on it between full hd and hd ready?? lol),

but as soon as the reviews start pouring in for 22inch ultra hd bedroom sets , and i read positive things , and argos/currys/richers start selling em for 300 quid , im in regardless lol

fool/money/parted

,,,,,,,,,,,, sorry for the cynical post , but deep down you know im right lol

solenoid · 31-12-2013, 17:21

If you want a 55'' TV but do not have the room I suggest waiting for a roll-up 4k TV in about 20 years time.

d'@ve · 31-12-2013, 17:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by solenoid

If you want a 55'' TV but do not have the room I suggest waiting for a roll-up 4k TV in about 20 years time.

But 55 inch 4K/8K screens will be far too small to see much improvement over HD, in living room viewing. But I see a more specialist use for large (96 inch+) 4K screens developing in a decade or two. For example, a fake window like some of the TV studios use (camera outside, solid wall, 4K fake window inside).

Then, if you don't like today's weather, feed it a recording of the last sunny day - and you shall have sunshine!

But we can forget it - and mainstream 4K/8K TV - for at least a decade because that's how far behind the technology is. Remember mobile "Brick" phones? A 96 inch 4K/8K TV using current plasma or LCD technology would remind me of them and would be just as massively impracticable for the masses... until your roll-up lightweight screens are produced at mass market prices, 4K projection TV takes off, 4K holographic TVs are produced, spray-on-the-wall TVs are invented, or 4K 'lightweight spectacle TVs" are produced.

Can't wait for the first discussion threads as they appear in Currys at £1,999.99 in about 2025...

<--- 4K spectacle TV

Orbitalzone · 31-12-2013, 17:50

TV manufacturers will push them heavily to get us to replace our existing Tv's - there's a constant battle to convince consumers to keep buying new equipment when there's nothing really wrong with their current one. The same with phones, tablets etc.

I dare say that in the next couple of years we'll be seeing Technika 42" 4K TV's in Tesco's for £399 or less, used with DVD players with scart leads etc.

But if I were to buy a new TV in the next couple of years and am willing to pay for a medium spec I bet there will be many 4K capable TV's to choose from regardless of whether there's much 4K sources to watch. Of course Netflix and the like will probably be a big supplier of 4K TV so we won't have to wait for the likes of Sky to bring out a 4K service with a new box etc.

It doesn't matter whether 4K is pointless on anything smaller than 55" because we already have full HD 22" TV's which many say is pointless....

solenoid · 31-12-2013, 17:50

There's also the physical limit of living room size which we Brits, of all tech lovers, will be the first to encounter.

tghe-retford · 31-12-2013, 18:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orbitalzone

It doesn't matter whether 4K is pointless on anything smaller than 55" because we already have full HD 22" TV's which many say is pointless....

I have a 22" full HD TV in my bedroom and the difference between SD and HD is like night and day to my eyes.

zx50 · 31-12-2013, 18:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by d'@ve

But 55 inch 4K/8K screens will be far too small to see much improvement over HD, in living room viewing. But I see a more specialist use for large (96 inch+) 4K screens developing in a decade or two. For example, a fake window like some of the TV studios use (camera outside, solid wall, 4K fake window inside).

Then, if you don't like today's weather, feed it a recording of the last sunny day - and you shall have sunshine!

But we can forget it - and mainstream 4K/8K TV - for at least a decade because that's how far behind the technology is. Remember mobile "Brick" phones? A 96 inch 4K/8K TV using current plasma or LCD technology would remind me of them and would be just as massively impracticable for the masses... until your roll-up lightweight screens are produced at mass market prices, 4K projection TV takes off, 4K holographic TVs are produced, spray-on-the-wall TVs are invented, or 4K 'lightweight spectacle TVs" are produced.

Can't wait for the first discussion threads as they appear in Currys at £1,999.99 in about 2025...

<--- 4K spectacle TV

I'm not sure I'd be at all convinced by a 4K TV showing yesterday's sunny weather. TV screens output a different light to what you see out of the window. I'd know it was a TV screen straight away, although, a probably very impressive one though.

zx50 · 31-12-2013, 18:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by tghe-retford

I have a 22" full HD TV in my bedroom and the difference between SD and HD is like night and day to my eyes.

I can imagine this being the case. The more pixels, the more detail that gets shown. I can't see anything more than UHD being able to fit in sitting rooms, mainly because of the increase in the screen size. Unless, of course, the pixels become smaller and smaller. If not, there just won't be the room for the gigantic screen sizes in the average sized home. If Apple can make the pixels on their iPads as tiny as hell, why can't the same be done for the pixels on TV screens as the resolution gets higher?

alanwarwic · 31-12-2013, 18:40

It might creates problems for the likes of Sky.

Obviously for stuff like the Olympics/World Cup big screens will want to be set to 4 X PIP.
And you can bet your life that people will start to use PIP to browse the web,check facebook and watch TV.

d'@ve · 31-12-2013, 18:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by zx50

I can imagine this being the case. The more pixels, the more detail that gets shown. I can't see anything more than UHD being able to fit in sitting rooms, mainly because of the increase in the screen size. Unless, of course, the pixels become smaller and smaller. If not, there just won't be the room for the gigantic screen sizes in the average sized home. If Apple can make the pixels on their iPads as tiny as hell, why can't the same be done for the pixels on TV screens as the resolution gets higher?

Well of course, they can. http://accessories.ap.dell.com/sna/p...n&sku=210-ACBW

32 inch 4K monitor there - a snip at around £2,200 - but who wants to sit in an armchair watching a TV that's 3 feet away so they can see all the detail? If you can even get that close in an armchair!

Using one as a computer monitor 30 inches from your eyes (as I'm doing now with my 27 inch HD monitor) is one thing... but watching TV on it in a living room?

No thanks! And therein lies the problem.

jonner101 · 31-12-2013, 19:37

I've seen 4k TV's demonstrated in John Lewis. The picture quality is pretty amazing. It's not a gimmick like 3D. You do need the eyesight to appreciate it I guess.

There is no doubt that they will be as common as HD is now in the future.

The question for me is the technology to provide 4k source material and how fast that will develop.

Matt35 · 31-12-2013, 20:22

Well lovefilm are showing 4k movies from 2014 and think sky are gonna start from 2015. 4k material will come more and more in the next few years.

zx50 · 31-12-2013, 20:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by d'@ve

Well of course, they can. http://accessories.ap.dell.com/sna/p...n&sku=210-ACBW

32 inch 4K monitor there - a snip at around £2,200 - but who wants to sit in an armchair watching a TV that's 3 feet away so they can see all the detail? If you can even get that close in an armchair!

Using one as a computer monitor 30 inches from your eyes (as I'm doing now with my 27 inch HD monitor) is one thing... but watching TV on it in a living room?

No thanks! And therein lies the problem.

I don't think you'd need to sit 3 feet away from the UHD TV in order to see the detail properly. I think I could see the difference between full HD and 4K from about 7 feet away. Yes, okay, I might not be able to see the detail 100%, but I'd still be able to see the detail well enough.

zx50 · 31-12-2013, 20:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonner101

I've seen 4k TV's demonstrated in John Lewis. The picture quality is pretty amazing. It's not a gimmick like 3D. You do need the eyesight to appreciate it I guess.

There is no doubt that they will be as common as HD is now in the future.

The question for me is the technology to provide 4k source material and how fast that will develop.

Absolutely. Technology's always very expensive when it first comes out. I imagine Blu-Rays were scarce when HD first came out.

trayhop123 · 31-12-2013, 22:54

absolutely ,the first dvd players were 700plus ,,,,,,,, now i think asda do one for less than 20quid

late8 · 31-12-2013, 23:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by call100

If you say so.....The same was said of HD in the early days.
The discussion has already been done to death HERE.

Dunno - the same was said more for 3D than HD.

I remember HD went hand in hand with people buying Flat Screen TV's. People bought into it all as we moved from one era to another. (this also included Bluray and Games Consoles like the PS3 & 360)

Trouble with 3D was people had to go out AGAIN and buy a new Flat Screen TV and Bluray Player as many were HD but not 3D.
The format isnt that popular becuase there isnt much content and its gimmicky - people have seen past it.

With 4K it will be the same problem - People wont want to go out to upgrade again esp considering TV will probably never be in mainstream 4K for at least another 10-20 years - its not mainstream HD yet!
Then theres Bluray Players etc etc...

grahamlthompson · 31-12-2013, 23:56

I have seen a 4K display from a much further distance than your average room, The display was probably around 50". Forget the theory postulated on here, it looked stunning, much more so than my 40" display at around the optimum distance. Of course as you get closer it gets even more stunning. Have the theoretical de-tracters ever seen true 4K. It seems unlikely unless they need to visit Specsavers.

The display looks 3D (it's not), the contrast ratio delivers stunning images, totally ignored in this thread. Resolution isn't everything.

Do they also think a 7" tablet PC with more pixels than 1920 x 1080 is a waste. It's not by the way,

trayhop123 · 01-01-2014, 00:28

waiting for nigel's take on the subject ,,,,,,,,,,, what do you predict nige m8?

Orbitalzone · 01-01-2014, 10:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by tghe-retford

I have a 22" full HD TV in my bedroom and the difference between SD and HD is like night and day to my eyes.

I'd probably agree if I were to have a 22" TV but how many times do you see people saying that under 32" and you can't tell 720 from 1080 etc?

It's all relative and viewing distance, source all play their part.

Basically what I was saying is that Ultra HD will arrive and soon and whether people actually need it or not is not the issue, the TV manufacturers will provide it as a new item to buy and so we'll all end up with them eventually, much like most TV viewers these days have an HD tv regardless of whether they actually watch HD or have HD sources.

White-Knight · 01-01-2014, 11:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray_Smith

Unless you have a large enough room and enough distance within the room between the tv and the seating area, there's no practical reason to upgrade to 4k. In theory, this format - as fantastic as I'm sure it looks - may not succeed. Well, not for people of average earnings living in average size accommodation. It might be similar to 3D tvs. Most people don't have the sets and there's virtually zero 3D content out there to guarantee a viable future.

Clearly someone who's never seen the technology.

1. Screen sizes will be similar to today's tv's. The large 80" screens at the trade shows, are just that early models.

Samsung and Sony already have screens in the 40" range (50" is the UK's most popular size. A brand in the US is producing 39" screens and several PC manufacturers are making 28" 4k PC screens.

2. 4K / 8K are much more than just their resolution. Where 4K and 8K excel is not just in sharpness but from huge contrast depths and extended colour palettes that CANNOT be reproduced on current SD / HD tv's. The latter results in a picture of unparalled depth and photo realism. Some would say it looks 3D even without glasses. With some of the demo material I would agree.

3. Regarding cost, the current cost is nothing out of the ordinary. Go back to 2007/8 and your 42" HD 720P tv would have cost £20K. Prices are falling and will no doubt reach the levels of the more expensive HD tv's shortly. Prices on all tv's always start high whilst the manufacturers recover their research costs and then fall as sales and production ramps. I'd expect in the long run that 4K will be no more expensive than existing HD in a couple of years.

If you need any convincing of 4K / 8K, look at this now very old 8K demo. Even on your pc monitor at less than HD, the picture looks amazing for detail, sharpness and has a 3D depth and realism that's beyond belief. The room with the bamboo water feature in it looks totally real:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U7e_quvkPQ

Nigel Goodwin · 01-01-2014, 11:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by trayhop123

waiting for nigel's take on the subject ,,,,,,,,,,, what do you predict nige m8?

I don't really 'predict' anything - but personally I don't see the point in 4K - too expensive (at the moment), and people don't view existing HD from close enough, so it's unlikely they are going to view from a great deal closer and get the benefit from 4K.

We've got a 4K demo at work, and fair enough it's stunning (on the special demo material) when viewed from very close. But from more sensible distances it doesn't look that much different to other Sony sets on normal HD.

As for the supposed '3D', I don't see anything 3D about it? - it's just a really good higher resolution picture (if you're close enough). But I always said 3D wouldn't succeed anyway, too little 3D material and people don't want to wear glasses to watch TV.

Deacon1972 · 01-01-2014, 12:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by White-Knight

Clearly someone who's never seen the technology.

1. Screen sizes will be similar to today's tv's. The large 80" screens at the trade shows, are just that early models.

Samsung and Sony already have screens in the 40" range (50" is the UK's most popular size. A brand in the US is producing 39" screens and several PC manufacturers are making 28" 4k PC screens.

2. 4K / 8K are much more than just their resolution. Where 4K and 8K excel is not just in sharpness but from huge contrast depths and extended colour palettes that CANNOT be reproduced on current SD / HD tv's. The latter results in a picture of unparalled depth and photo realism. Some would say it looks 3D even without glasses. With some of the demo material I would agree.

3. Regarding cost, the current cost is nothing out of the ordinary. Go back to 2007/8 and your 42" HD 720P tv would have cost £20K. Prices are falling and will no doubt reach the levels of the more expensive HD tv's shortly. Prices on all tv's always start high whilst the manufacturers recover their research costs and then fall as sales and production ramps. I'd expect in the long run that 4K will be no more expensive than existing HD in a couple of years.

If you need any convincing of 4K / 8K, look at this now very old 8K demo. Even on your pc monitor at less than HD, the picture looks amazing for detail, sharpness and has a 3D depth and realism that's beyond belief. The room with the bamboo water feature in it looks totally real:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U7e_quvkPQ

I paid £3k for my 50" plasma in Dec 2005, so I think your reference to cost is a little on the exuberant side.

Prices had already dropped dramatically by 2007/8.

As a comparison a 4k TV is now cheaper than what I originally paid for my plasma. I'm hoping my plasma holds out until the next generation 4k TVs arrive, prices should be at least 50% cheaper by then, there will then be very little or no difference between certain 2k/4k makes/models, if that's the case I'll have no hesitation in going out and buying one.

call100 · 01-01-2014, 13:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

I have seen a 4K display from a much further distance than your average room, The display was probably around 50". Forget the theory postulated on here, it looked stunning, much more so than my 40" display at around the optimum distance. Of course as you get closer it gets even more stunning. Have the theoretical de-tracters ever seen true 4K. It seems unlikely unless they need to visit Specsavers.

The display looks 3D (it's not), the contrast ratio delivers stunning images, totally ignored in this thread. Resolution isn't everything.

Do they also think a 7" tablet PC with more pixels than 1920 x 1080 is a waste. It's not by the way,

I was in Japan last year and 4K was all over the place. You are right, most of those with negative thoughts on the subject haven't actually seen any practical application of the tech. Even the Sony demo's in JL and PCWorld are not as spot on as I've seen.
They are putting 4K screens on phones and tablets, so size is not necessarily any barrier.
I think the natural looking 3D perspective (not to be confused with actual fake 3D) and clarity, as you say, is exceptional.
Most people I know are at the 50" plus area in their lounges already, so thinking that people won't buy TV's of this size is a mistake IMO.
There are good demos on YouTube - SEE HERE- I don't know if it will show it's potential on a 1080p set but on a 2560 x1440 PLS monitor with a 4K capable graphics card... they look great.

31-12-2013, 16:09	#1
Ray_Smith Inactive Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 1,328	4K (and 8K) won't be a success? Quote: From a current Digital Spy item: "Realistically, the smallest display size that will exist in the short term for Ultra HD is 55 inches. This is because as the screen size starts to shrink beyond this, the benefits of having such a high pixel density start to diminish." Unless you have a large enough room and enough distance within the room between the tv and the seating area, there's no practical reason to upgrade to 4k. In theory, this format - as fantastic as I'm sure it looks - may not succeed. Well, not for people of average earnings living in average size accommodation. It might be similar to 3D tvs. Most people don't have the sets and there's virtually zero 3D content out there to guarantee a viable future.

31-12-2013, 16:26	#2
call100 Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 6,572	If you say so.....The same was said of HD in the early days. The discussion has already been done to death HERE.

31-12-2013, 17:18	#3
trayhop123 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 865	wether in reality there's any noticeable difference in picture quality on smaller sets will largely be glossed over ,,,,,,why ???, because the manufacturer's will want a slice of the 40/32/ inch market share even the 24/22/19 inch bedroom sets will eventually get in on the act your eyeballs physically being able to see it or not doesn't really matter , its our willingness to open our wallet for the latest tech that counts ,,,,, so all ends of the budget spectrum must be covered . im personally just as much a sucker as the next guy ,,,,,,,,, most of us dont have 2grand spare for a new telly ,,,,,, but lots of us have sub 500 , the manufacturer's know this,,,,,, my current full hd 22inch set is probably overkill already , ,,,,,(can i really see a difference on it between full hd and hd ready?? lol), but as soon as the reviews start pouring in for 22inch ultra hd bedroom sets , and i read positive things , and argos/currys/richers start selling em for 300 quid , im in regardless lol fool/money/parted ,,,,,,,,,,,, sorry for the cynical post , but deep down you know im right lol

31-12-2013, 17:21	#4
solenoid Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 14,764	If you want a 55'' TV but do not have the room I suggest waiting for a roll-up 4k TV in about 20 years time.

31-12-2013, 17:30	#5
d'@ve Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Darn Sarf Posts: 28,743	Quote: Originally Posted by solenoid If you want a 55'' TV but do not have the room I suggest waiting for a roll-up 4k TV in about 20 years time. But 55 inch 4K/8K screens will be far too small to see much improvement over HD, in living room viewing. But I see a more specialist use for large (96 inch+) 4K screens developing in a decade or two. For example, a fake window like some of the TV studios use (camera outside, solid wall, 4K fake window inside). Then, if you don't like today's weather, feed it a recording of the last sunny day - and you shall have sunshine! But we can forget it - and mainstream 4K/8K TV - for at least a decade because that's how far behind the technology is. Remember mobile "Brick" phones? A 96 inch 4K/8K TV using current plasma or LCD technology would remind me of them and would be just as massively impracticable for the masses... until your roll-up lightweight screens are produced at mass market prices, 4K projection TV takes off, 4K holographic TVs are produced, spray-on-the-wall TVs are invented, or 4K 'lightweight spectacle TVs" are produced. Can't wait for the first discussion threads as they appear in Currys at £1,999.99 in about 2025... <--- 4K spectacle TV

31-12-2013, 17:50	#6
Orbitalzone Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Sussex Posts: 12,173	TV manufacturers will push them heavily to get us to replace our existing Tv's - there's a constant battle to convince consumers to keep buying new equipment when there's nothing really wrong with their current one. The same with phones, tablets etc. I dare say that in the next couple of years we'll be seeing Technika 42" 4K TV's in Tesco's for £399 or less, used with DVD players with scart leads etc. But if I were to buy a new TV in the next couple of years and am willing to pay for a medium spec I bet there will be many 4K capable TV's to choose from regardless of whether there's much 4K sources to watch. Of course Netflix and the like will probably be a big supplier of 4K TV so we won't have to wait for the likes of Sky to bring out a 4K service with a new box etc. It doesn't matter whether 4K is pointless on anything smaller than 55" because we already have full HD 22" TV's which many say is pointless....

31-12-2013, 18:02	#8
tghe-retford Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Retford Posts: 20,464	Quote: Originally Posted by Orbitalzone It doesn't matter whether 4K is pointless on anything smaller than 55" because we already have full HD 22" TV's which many say is pointless.... I have a 22" full HD TV in my bedroom and the difference between SD and HD is like night and day to my eyes.

31-12-2013, 18:18	#9
zx50 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: County Durham Posts: 78,630	Quote: Originally Posted by d'@ve But 55 inch 4K/8K screens will be far too small to see much improvement over HD, in living room viewing. But I see a more specialist use for large (96 inch+) 4K screens developing in a decade or two. For example, a fake window like some of the TV studios use (camera outside, solid wall, 4K fake window inside). Then, if you don't like today's weather, feed it a recording of the last sunny day - and you shall have sunshine! But we can forget it - and mainstream 4K/8K TV - for at least a decade because that's how far behind the technology is. Remember mobile "Brick" phones? A 96 inch 4K/8K TV using current plasma or LCD technology would remind me of them and would be just as massively impracticable for the masses... until your roll-up lightweight screens are produced at mass market prices, 4K projection TV takes off, 4K holographic TVs are produced, spray-on-the-wall TVs are invented, or 4K 'lightweight spectacle TVs" are produced. Can't wait for the first discussion threads as they appear in Currys at £1,999.99 in about 2025... <--- 4K spectacle TV I'm not sure I'd be at all convinced by a 4K TV showing yesterday's sunny weather. TV screens output a different light to what you see out of the window. I'd know it was a TV screen straight away, although, a probably very impressive one though.

31-12-2013, 18:26	#10
zx50 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: County Durham Posts: 78,630	Quote: Originally Posted by tghe-retford I have a 22" full HD TV in my bedroom and the difference between SD and HD is like night and day to my eyes. I can imagine this being the case. The more pixels, the more detail that gets shown. I can't see anything more than UHD being able to fit in sitting rooms, mainly because of the increase in the screen size. Unless, of course, the pixels become smaller and smaller. If not, there just won't be the room for the gigantic screen sizes in the average sized home. If Apple can make the pixels on their iPads as tiny as hell, why can't the same be done for the pixels on TV screens as the resolution gets higher?

31-12-2013, 18:40	#11
alanwarwic Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: the wild world web Posts: 28,132	It might creates problems for the likes of Sky. Obviously for stuff like the Olympics/World Cup big screens will want to be set to 4 X PIP. And you can bet your life that people will start to use PIP to browse the web,check facebook and watch TV.

31-12-2013, 18:48	#12
d'@ve Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Darn Sarf Posts: 28,743	Quote: Originally Posted by zx50 I can imagine this being the case. The more pixels, the more detail that gets shown. I can't see anything more than UHD being able to fit in sitting rooms, mainly because of the increase in the screen size. Unless, of course, the pixels become smaller and smaller. If not, there just won't be the room for the gigantic screen sizes in the average sized home. If Apple can make the pixels on their iPads as tiny as hell, why can't the same be done for the pixels on TV screens as the resolution gets higher? Well of course, they can. http://accessories.ap.dell.com/sna/p...n&sku=210-ACBW 32 inch 4K monitor there - a snip at around £2,200 - but who wants to sit in an armchair watching a TV that's 3 feet away so they can see all the detail? If you can even get that close in an armchair! Using one as a computer monitor 30 inches from your eyes (as I'm doing now with my 27 inch HD monitor) is one thing... but watching TV on it in a living room? No thanks! And therein lies the problem.

31-12-2013, 19:37	#13
jonner101 Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,153	I've seen 4k TV's demonstrated in John Lewis. The picture quality is pretty amazing. It's not a gimmick like 3D. You do need the eyesight to appreciate it I guess. There is no doubt that they will be as common as HD is now in the future. The question for me is the technology to provide 4k source material and how fast that will develop.

31-12-2013, 20:22	#14
Matt35 Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 9,552	Well lovefilm are showing 4k movies from 2014 and think sky are gonna start from 2015. 4k material will come more and more in the next few years.

31-12-2013, 20:33	#15
zx50 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: County Durham Posts: 78,630	Quote: Originally Posted by d'@ve Well of course, they can. http://accessories.ap.dell.com/sna/p...n&sku=210-ACBW 32 inch 4K monitor there - a snip at around £2,200 - but who wants to sit in an armchair watching a TV that's 3 feet away so they can see all the detail? If you can even get that close in an armchair! Using one as a computer monitor 30 inches from your eyes (as I'm doing now with my 27 inch HD monitor) is one thing... but watching TV on it in a living room? No thanks! And therein lies the problem. I don't think you'd need to sit 3 feet away from the UHD TV in order to see the detail properly. I think I could see the difference between full HD and 4K from about 7 feet away. Yes, okay, I might not be able to see the detail 100%, but I'd still be able to see the detail well enough.

31-12-2013, 20:37	#16
zx50 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: County Durham Posts: 78,630	Quote: Originally Posted by jonner101 I've seen 4k TV's demonstrated in John Lewis. The picture quality is pretty amazing. It's not a gimmick like 3D. You do need the eyesight to appreciate it I guess. There is no doubt that they will be as common as HD is now in the future. The question for me is the technology to provide 4k source material and how fast that will develop. Absolutely. Technology's always very expensive when it first comes out. I imagine Blu-Rays were scarce when HD first came out.

31-12-2013, 22:54	#17
trayhop123 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 865	absolutely ,the first dvd players were 700plus ,,,,,,,, now i think asda do one for less than 20quid

31-12-2013, 23:38	#18
late8 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 7,052	Quote: Originally Posted by call100 If you say so.....The same was said of HD in the early days. The discussion has already been done to death HERE. Dunno - the same was said more for 3D than HD. I remember HD went hand in hand with people buying Flat Screen TV's. People bought into it all as we moved from one era to another. (this also included Bluray and Games Consoles like the PS3 & 360) Trouble with 3D was people had to go out AGAIN and buy a new Flat Screen TV and Bluray Player as many were HD but not 3D. The format isnt that popular becuase there isnt much content and its gimmicky - people have seen past it. With 4K it will be the same problem - People wont want to go out to upgrade again esp considering TV will probably never be in mainstream 4K for at least another 10-20 years - its not mainstream HD yet! Then theres Bluray Players etc etc...

31-12-2013, 23:56	#19
grahamlthompson Forum Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Redditch Worcs Posts: 17,293	I have seen a 4K display from a much further distance than your average room, The display was probably around 50". Forget the theory postulated on here, it looked stunning, much more so than my 40" display at around the optimum distance. Of course as you get closer it gets even more stunning. Have the theoretical de-tracters ever seen true 4K. It seems unlikely unless they need to visit Specsavers. The display looks 3D (it's not), the contrast ratio delivers stunning images, totally ignored in this thread. Resolution isn't everything. Do they also think a 7" tablet PC with more pixels than 1920 x 1080 is a waste. It's not by the way,

01-01-2014, 00:28	#20
trayhop123 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 865	waiting for nigel's take on the subject ,,,,,,,,,,, what do you predict nige m8?

01-01-2014, 10:58	#21
Orbitalzone Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Sussex Posts: 12,173	Quote: Originally Posted by tghe-retford I have a 22" full HD TV in my bedroom and the difference between SD and HD is like night and day to my eyes. I'd probably agree if I were to have a 22" TV but how many times do you see people saying that under 32" and you can't tell 720 from 1080 etc? It's all relative and viewing distance, source all play their part. Basically what I was saying is that Ultra HD will arrive and soon and whether people actually need it or not is not the issue, the TV manufacturers will provide it as a new item to buy and so we'll all end up with them eventually, much like most TV viewers these days have an HD tv regardless of whether they actually watch HD or have HD sources.

01-01-2014, 11:14	#22
White-Knight Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,494	Quote: Originally Posted by Ray_Smith Unless you have a large enough room and enough distance within the room between the tv and the seating area, there's no practical reason to upgrade to 4k. In theory, this format - as fantastic as I'm sure it looks - may not succeed. Well, not for people of average earnings living in average size accommodation. It might be similar to 3D tvs. Most people don't have the sets and there's virtually zero 3D content out there to guarantee a viable future. Clearly someone who's never seen the technology. 1. Screen sizes will be similar to today's tv's. The large 80" screens at the trade shows, are just that early models. Samsung and Sony already have screens in the 40" range (50" is the UK's most popular size. A brand in the US is producing 39" screens and several PC manufacturers are making 28" 4k PC screens. 2. 4K / 8K are much more than just their resolution. Where 4K and 8K excel is not just in sharpness but from huge contrast depths and extended colour palettes that CANNOT be reproduced on current SD / HD tv's. The latter results in a picture of unparalled depth and photo realism. Some would say it looks 3D even without glasses. With some of the demo material I would agree. 3. Regarding cost, the current cost is nothing out of the ordinary. Go back to 2007/8 and your 42" HD 720P tv would have cost £20K. Prices are falling and will no doubt reach the levels of the more expensive HD tv's shortly. Prices on all tv's always start high whilst the manufacturers recover their research costs and then fall as sales and production ramps. I'd expect in the long run that 4K will be no more expensive than existing HD in a couple of years. If you need any convincing of 4K / 8K, look at this now very old 8K demo. Even on your pc monitor at less than HD, the picture looks amazing for detail, sharpness and has a 3D depth and realism that's beyond belief. The room with the bamboo water feature in it looks totally real: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U7e_quvkPQ

DS Forums

4K (and 8K) won't be a success?

01-01-2014, 11:50	#23
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by trayhop123 waiting for nigel's take on the subject ,,,,,,,,,,, what do you predict nige m8? I don't really 'predict' anything - but personally I don't see the point in 4K - too expensive (at the moment), and people don't view existing HD from close enough, so it's unlikely they are going to view from a great deal closer and get the benefit from 4K. We've got a 4K demo at work, and fair enough it's stunning (on the special demo material) when viewed from very close. But from more sensible distances it doesn't look that much different to other Sony sets on normal HD. As for the supposed '3D', I don't see anything 3D about it? - it's just a really good higher resolution picture (if you're close enough). But I always said 3D wouldn't succeed anyway, too little 3D material and people don't want to wear glasses to watch TV.

01-01-2014, 12:13	#24
Deacon1972 Guest Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,103	Quote: Originally Posted by White-Knight Clearly someone who's never seen the technology. 1. Screen sizes will be similar to today's tv's. The large 80" screens at the trade shows, are just that early models. Samsung and Sony already have screens in the 40" range (50" is the UK's most popular size. A brand in the US is producing 39" screens and several PC manufacturers are making 28" 4k PC screens. 2. 4K / 8K are much more than just their resolution. Where 4K and 8K excel is not just in sharpness but from huge contrast depths and extended colour palettes that CANNOT be reproduced on current SD / HD tv's. The latter results in a picture of unparalled depth and photo realism. Some would say it looks 3D even without glasses. With some of the demo material I would agree. 3. Regarding cost, the current cost is nothing out of the ordinary. Go back to 2007/8 and your 42" HD 720P tv would have cost £20K. Prices are falling and will no doubt reach the levels of the more expensive HD tv's shortly. Prices on all tv's always start high whilst the manufacturers recover their research costs and then fall as sales and production ramps. I'd expect in the long run that 4K will be no more expensive than existing HD in a couple of years. If you need any convincing of 4K / 8K, look at this now very old 8K demo. Even on your pc monitor at less than HD, the picture looks amazing for detail, sharpness and has a 3D depth and realism that's beyond belief. The room with the bamboo water feature in it looks totally real: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U7e_quvkPQ I paid £3k for my 50" plasma in Dec 2005, so I think your reference to cost is a little on the exuberant side. Prices had already dropped dramatically by 2007/8. As a comparison a 4k TV is now cheaper than what I originally paid for my plasma. I'm hoping my plasma holds out until the next generation 4k TVs arrive, prices should be at least 50% cheaper by then, there will then be very little or no difference between certain 2k/4k makes/models, if that's the case I'll have no hesitation in going out and buying one.

01-01-2014, 13:00	#25
call100 Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 6,572	Quote: Originally Posted by grahamlthompson I have seen a 4K display from a much further distance than your average room, The display was probably around 50". Forget the theory postulated on here, it looked stunning, much more so than my 40" display at around the optimum distance. Of course as you get closer it gets even more stunning. Have the theoretical de-tracters ever seen true 4K. It seems unlikely unless they need to visit Specsavers. The display looks 3D (it's not), the contrast ratio delivers stunning images, totally ignored in this thread. Resolution isn't everything. Do they also think a 7" tablet PC with more pixels than 1920 x 1080 is a waste. It's not by the way, I was in Japan last year and 4K was all over the place. You are right, most of those with negative thoughts on the subject haven't actually seen any practical application of the tech. Even the Sony demo's in JL and PCWorld are not as spot on as I've seen. They are putting 4K screens on phones and tablets, so size is not necessarily any barrier. I think the natural looking 3D perspective (not to be confused with actual fake 3D) and clarity, as you say, is exceptional. Most people I know are at the 50" plus area in their lounges already, so thinking that people won't buy TV's of this size is a mistake IMO. There are good demos on YouTube - SEE HERE- I don't know if it will show it's potential on a 1080p set but on a 2560 x1440 PLS monitor with a 4K capable graphics card... they look great.