CES is the most important event on the industries calendar and shows what will be hitting the consumer market in the next few months.

The show hits Las Vegas in a week and will be a wash with 4k.


bye-bye 1080p hello 4k

http://ces.cnet.com/8301-35284_1-576...hat-to-expect/

I've seen that said about HD TVs a few times in here. Completely disagree with your opinion that people need to sit closer to the HD TV in order to see the detail. Not everyone has good enough eyesight to be able to see the detail the way they should.

"Yee canna change the laws of physics Jim!"

I've posted my 'famous' newspaper tests numerous times - are you claiming it doesn't work?.

Newspaper tests? I don't care what they say. I know what my eyesight can see.

They are already cheap as chips in the states.
There are at least 2 direct manufacturers selling 50" 4K TVs very cheap.
One of them sells at £500.


Year end, under £1000 for a very high quality one is a near cert.

We aren't really interested in what the odd person can see, except from the hobbyist point of view. It's more useful to discuss what the average man in the street can see - and is interested in seeing. Most people are 20/20 vision or worse, even if they bother to keep up with deteriorating eyesight (which most don't). Those people (the vast majority) will determine whether 4K takes off or remains a minority hobby (unless it replaces SD and HD TV and they have no choice in the matter).

As for those in this thread who rave about the "WOW" factor in non-spatial resolution aspects, well, as the International broadcast specifications are nowhere near being finalised yet, and broadcasters will for cost reasons inevitably try to squeeze broadcasts into far lower bitrates than the current demos, they are sadly in for a disppointment. The demos they see now at trade shows etc. will not be anywhere near matched by commercialy available broadcasts, that's the way of the World. Manufacturers will inevitably and unrealistically hype it unto high heaven, of course and on the back of that, will sadly sell a lot of sets, most of which will never be used to their full potential.

For once, well twice in fact (3D), I broadly agree with Nigel.

Wrong. 20/20 is a below average. Most people are better.

And considering younger people have superior eyesight and zest more for the best, 4K is surely big.

I know there is a current popularity for low resolution screens, but reality says sentimentality slows down progress, it does not stop it.

OK thanks. Would be nice to see this in a link though. Just to be sure, as it doesn't match my personal experience. Perhaps because most of the people I know are old-ish!

Better contrast, viewing angles, motion and illumination wasn't enough for plasma to beat LCD in the market. 4k sets are likely to be sold purely on the basis of resolution. The hype around 4k is huge, whether the technology and content live up to that hype is another thing. Most people don't bother to switch to HD channels when they aren't first on the EPG so is the general public clammering for UHD?

It is a historic thing in coming out of the optician thinking you are above average.
I'd say that until the internet a semi-mythology sufficed for most things.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity
"The significance of the 20/20 standard can best be thought of as the lower limit of normal or as a screening cutoff. When used as a screening test subjects that reach this level need no further investigation, even though the average visual acuity of healthy eyes is 20/16 to 20/12."


The other thing to note is that in low light eye resolution resolving goes down so in fact with something like a TV, it should be at its peak.

Yet you aren't prepared to test what you claim to be able to see?.

I agree... but NO TV set on sale now can handle what UHD offers -
Higher dynamic Range (bit depth) Higher Frame rate (At least 100Hz)and Wide colour Gamut(BT2020)
I have posted this link on other threads - It shows how the broadcasters are seeing UHD... (and what they caution about now)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPrNh...re=c4-overview

Really? Nice to know you speak for us all...


I'd still rather go with what I actually see, than the future gazing of someone slightly more than jaded in their view.
Each to their own, It doesn't really matter to me if anyone else buys or avoids the next move forward. Some will be looking forward to it, others will be mumbling into their porridge about it never catching on, as they do with most next generational things...

I've been to the future. I just bought a 3 mile 64k resolution screen with in-built 4D time-travel expressonadanada.

It only cost me 4 Euros and half my wife's leg.

Unfortunately neither me, nor my family, have the money to buy a 4K TV. I wouldn't even pay what they cost at the minute anyway.

i saw the most recent gadget show, with latest 4k screens costing £2,200 along with 4k upscaling blurays - as my prediction, they were not impressed by upscaled hd. in their words "no short cut to 4k" and dont forget bluray offers better hd quality than broadcast hd, so broadcast hd wouldnt even look as the test. and think how bad sd broadcast & dvd would look upscaled......i think people care more about content than quality.

You don't need to - simply hang a newspaper over your existing TV.

Then try and read the newspaper from your normal viewing distance.

Presumably you can read the headlines? (that's SD), but presumably you can't read the article text? (despite your claims), that's HD - and you need to be much closer to be able to read it (and get decent benefit from HD).

For 4K you would need to be able to read some 'small print', if there's any in newspapers? - and have to be a LOT closer still.

There's a difference between trying to read small letters from a distance of about 7 feet and looking at images on the screen. I'd imagine the letters on the screen would be the same size but with more pixels. I'm guessing the whole point if UHD is to show even more detail than full HD does. The way to show more detail is by, I'm guessing, keeping everything the same size as SD but with more pixels.

Edit: By the way, I didn't claim to read small text from where the TV is.

Well no but as the thread asks: "4K (and 8K) won't be a success?" we (all of us) need to know what the public at large think as it's they who will determine its success in my book. Not the hobbyist minority who will always want better quality everything no matter how good what we have already is.

That's what I meant by "we" (all of us) because that's how you determine the success of new consumer technology. By its take-up and amount of use use among the masses. Isn't it?

There may of course be a useful minority and specialist take-up - but at some considerable cost like high end audio, I'll bet. We are getting towards that kind of market now for TV, methinks - and those who use the technology (high end audio) have somewhat limited access to content at that quality level. The same could easily happen with UHD and anyone who thinks broadcasters will push out shows at the kind of quality level seen in demos is living in cloud cuckoo land because they'll nibble away at the specs to get more quantity for their money, and are probably doing so even now, before the standards are even finalised.

I agree with you here. As with full HD/HD, if people want to see this in all its glory, buy a Blu-Ray player and then some discs and then start watching. I highly doubt broadcasters will send out true full HD bitrates to people's digital boxes.

You still see people on here argue that the old CRT pictures were better quality, or the old favourite that they can't see a difference between SD and HD.

I haven't got 20/20 vision, but I have once I have my contacts in, and the difference between SD and HD is night and day on my 5 year old Sony. If you can't tell the difference then it should probably serve as a hint to get your eyesight corrected.

As for 4k, I've seen the demo and it's night and day again over HD(which was easy to tell as it was sited next to a HD TV). Whether 4k broadcasts will start sooner or later is kind of superfluous anyway as to getting one. Within 2-3 years 4K will be the standard, available at prices well within the average family's budget. It will also coincide with the time window during which many will be be replacing their first LCD TV, so 4K will be a straight replacement. It's not a gimmick like 3D either, just just a development of the existing standard.

Given this I'll be amazed if 4K TV sets aren't ubiquitous within 5 years.

Yet you posted this in a previous post? - which insinuates exactly that.


So you presumably were mistaken in that statement (and small text isn't even particularly fine detail, 1080 HD provides far finer detail than newsprint).

The initial market for 4K is obviously via streaming or night-time downloads.
I quite imagine FTV will be encompassed by Youview.

For BT, Virgin or Sky that very sizeable 'useful minority' are the ones who will pay very good money.

It's internet TV and Broadcasting which will be the future IMO, People are already using a lot of internet and as the 'Smart' TV's actually become smart, then more and more will discover this as a means of finding content they want instead of what they are fed.
Most of the kids in the 13 year up bracket don't watch TV programmes from the broadcasters. Opting instead, for online content from the the likes of YouTube, Vevo, Netflix, Lovefilm, and other internet services....That's when they aren't playing Minecraft!!!
I think I record about 6 programmes a week (On a good week) from Terrestrial TV, the rest of my viewing is via the internet.
So, although, I understand that, right now, the adoption of 4/8K would seem to rely on the broadcasters, it won't be like that for much longer as the tech generations move upward.

It is also an "old favourite" that the difference between SD and HD is like the difference between "night and day", it has been mentioned twice on this thread alone.

Yes there is a difference, but that difference isn't as stark as some on here would like everyone to believe.

The suggestion that 4k will coincide with people replacing their first LCD TV is possible but these days I think today people are more inclined to replace due to necessity rather than because something new and shiny has come along. I have a 50" plasma and a 32" LCD and they will be replaced when they fail and not for the sake of it.

As others have said, like DAB radio and HD TV, broadcasters will be looking for the lowest standard they can get away with, broadcast quality is a thing of the past in the 21st Century, rendering many of the selling points for the technology worthless.