Yeah, another reason I'm not an early adopter. Waiting a while is the best policy imho.

Presumably they are on sale as there are sufficient early adopters out there who are willing to spend big money so they can brag about having a 4K TV - even though there is virtually no content.

Technology companies love early adopters.

Nope, it's the flat one (Series 9 which I think they have stopped doing now).

I did look at the curved one, but wasn't sure it would work in my room.

Guilty as charged

Although saying that - my unit has all the important bits in an external unit that can supposedly be replaced/upgraded without having to buy a new screen.

Although I am sure they will find a way to make me buy a new screen regardless!

You could just use a separate box which you'd probably want anyway for PVR features. My TV doesn't have an HD tuner but that's not an issue as I always use an external PVR.

I wouldn't buy one now as firstly the extra resolution is no benefit at my viewing distance and I can't fit much larger than my current 50" but also because the price will come down significantly. However I don't see the lack of compatibility with future broadcasting as a real issue.

Unfortunately that usually requires them to continue manufacturing new external units long after the set has ceased production - and historically that NEVER happens

I'm keeping my non full HD Pioneer 8G Plasma until it falls to bits.

It upscales very nicely, SD pictures are excellent, HD is superb, everything I need as yet!

25,000 hours and 6 years later I still enjoy the picture produced.

I spent the last 3 years learning about 4K at university, the answer is no because i'm sick of hearing about it and i'm not a fan of this 'resolution race', 8K is on the horizon anyway, it has a resolution of 7680 x 4320

I haven't even gone HD. Why should I pay extra? I'm quite happy with the picture quality now.

It'll be great, until the next best thing comes out. I just can't be arsed. I don't see much difference between HD and normal as it is except on live shows of X Factor or BGT, or adverts. The only people I know of that care are the geeks on the Broadcasting forum.

Me too, in fact when I bought a new bigger (50 inch) plasma recently, I went for an HD Ready model as at my 10 feet viewing distance, there is no point in paying extra for even a full HD set so 4K has NO chance in my house.

I suspect that it would be equally pointless in most other people's houses but sadly, many (not you or me) will succumb to the hype. I probably still watch more TV on SD channels than HD channels even to this day!

As we're all mostly taking very high resolution photos now as standard on our digital cameras and smartphones I can see this literally being the only advantage of an ultra HD resolution screen at the moment, you would see still images in much greater detail, after all HDTV at 1080 is only actually 2 megapixels!

However to watch video on it, is going to feel a bit rare and then it's going to have to upscale standard HD as well as SD TV resolutions so it's all probably going to look a bit ropey, there are 4K Blu-Rays but there is nothing at all broadcast at the moment, however Youtube is apparently compatible with 4K video if anyone uploads it, but even then not that many videos due to the cost of the equipment to make them.

I think the better use for higher resolution is 3D without glasses using a lenticular sheet in front of the display.

By the time that there is a lot of 4K content, especially mainstream from Sky or Virgin then the TV makers will already be making the next big thing to rip us off.

Wait a while, if you must by a TV by a good 1080HD set that will still look fantastic for years to come.

I started changing my TV every year when plasma technology first came to market. I've currently got a 55" Panasonic 3D plasma, which I've had nearly 2 years now and is perfectly fine for now. 4K and OLED are just too pricey and, with the former, a distinct lack of content available, so anyone who bought one will find it outdated due to the next technology around the corner.

You'll be off to Curry's this afternoon then as there have been models available for under £1k for a few months now.

Samsung have just released three new models for 2014 that have the current UHD spec, HEVC codecs, HDMI 2.0, HDCP 2.2 and the new Netflix app - 42", 50", 55", prices start at £899, I've seen the 55" as low ad £1249.

Netflix has started streaming 4k in the UK, available on compatible 4k TV's.

There's a few documentaries and House of Cards series 1 available at present, as it was with HD it'll take time for content to build.

I've seen bluray upscaled and it looks v.good, more than acceptable until native 4k content increases.

I don't think I could cope with buying the same films again on UHD but I probably will. I have had Star Wars twice on VHS, then DVD and now Blu ray. Lucas loves mugs like me.

but Not with HDR hardly worth doing it as the screen are only 8 bit (and the electronic ditto)
and being Film they do not understand what HFR is
and with either DCI or BT709 (ie. HD) colorimetry - (note there may be a mismatch!)
NOT the wide gamut that BT 2020 gives
and with simple surround. sound

So other than static resolution (which you need to be close to the screen to see)
it is no better than HDTV

but HEVC will be used more by IP Delivery than Broadcasting in the next few years!

No upscaler can create what is not there.

If the screen was exactly double the resolution of what it was upscaling, it could simply put on 2 pixels to the same colour for every 1 pixel and the picture would still look pin sharp. Would that be possible from 1080p to 4K?

Perhaps about time that somebody made a multi panel TV, in which there could be various pixel displays, there could be an SD one with 720x576, a 720 one with 1366x768 and a 1080 one with 1920x1080 for example all built into the same TV and removed by a motor and changed on the remote, then each resolution would look pin sharp as a result. This could be combined with a shutter to prevent black bars to suit either 16:9 or 4:3, that way with all the mess of the different resolutions and screen shapes we have had, whatever you view would look absolutely perfect. There could even perhaps be a 21:9 option so we could even do away with the black bars on those films, I am not a fan of black bars!
The TV would have to be a little bit bulky at the back again to accomodate the three pixel arrays. It would probably also be £3000 but worth it for a TV fan who could actually finally get their pin sharp pictures back again, whatever the material!

Where would you find 1366 x 768 content tp play back on this contraption. You missed out 1440 x 1080 as well. What about 480i 480P or 704 x 576 ?

Looked at on the same size screen, and from the same distance, you'd be able to see the pixels.


That is actually practical now using projection systems (either on to a screen, or using back projection). You just need to change the lens (or zoom using internal elements) to magnify a 720x576 SD portion of the picture, for example, onto the screen. (You might need to adjust the illumination too.)

But again, at the same size and viewing distance, it wouldn't look good. And when simply magnifying pixels optically, or duplicating them, you don't have the upscaling applied to smooth them out.

Alternatively, you could just buy three TVs. That can be done now.

Simple answer if yes it can be to UHD 1 but not of course to 4k as thus is nit an integral ratio to HD .

But a good upscaler will interpolate the extra pixels and thus it will be closer to the original image than the doubling pixels method but will not appear as sharp.

4K is four times the resolution of 1080p (twice vertically and twice horizontally). For each pixel in the original you would need a further 3. These would have to be in a square block otherwise the picture will be aspect ratio distorted.

Basically you will have a effective single pixel 4 times larger than a Full-HD display on the same size screen. Heaven knows how horrible it would look.