DS Forums

 
 

4K tv - set to be a massive flop?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 19-07-2014, 22:23
Ray_Smith
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,328

At the $999 level for a 4K TV only 10.5% say they are “slightly likely to purchase”, 8.9% “moderately likely” to purchase, and 3.4% “definitely” would purchase. Moving up in price puts even further pressure. At $1,999, only 4% would be slightly likely to purchase, 1.9% moderately, and 1.3% definitely would purchase.
http://www.mediapost.com/publication...low-publi.html

1.3% definitely would purchase
That's really gonna be a success then!

Oh well, I'll have to put my 4k tv in the shed along with my now obsolete 3D tv (with glasses), 3D tv without glasses, my anti-grav lawnmower, my Sony Time Machine (never worked and Argos refused to give me a replacement), and my Samsung Sex Femme Robot which was a lesbian. I got the wrong model. I wanted the heterosexual female version but Amazon sent me the wrong one.
Ray_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 19-07-2014, 23:35
alan1302
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Yorks
Posts: 6,180
Not really the best questions to ask. If it's expensive will you buy it? Most people say no. Hardly surprising.

When prices come down to more mainstream pricing then I expect more people to want them.
alan1302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2014, 08:36
David Waine
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 2,270
By coincidence, I was looking at some 4K TVs yesterday and a thought occurred. Do I really want the domestic equivalent of IMAX in my living room? For me, the answer is no. A set with a screen size of 40" or thereabouts fits nicely in my room without overwhelming everything else in there. HD transmissions look razor sharp and the more compressed channels, such as Drama, are not so enlarged that they become unwatchable. The 4K TVs on display were all very impressive, but they were also all enormous. Scale it down to the sort of size that I would prefer and would the difference still be appreciable? Hard to say. I expect that I would be able to tell a 4K transmission from a Full HD one, but whether it would be worth the price differential is a different matter.
David Waine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2014, 08:43
Tassium
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,413
More of a niche than a flop.

Maybe like sales of projectors, for enthusiasts only?
Tassium is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2014, 08:50
technologist
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 7,519
. I expect that I would be able to tell a 4K transmission from a Full HD one, but whether it would be worth the price differential is a different matter.
You will certainly see the difference between and HD and a UHD1 ph2 which is what the broadcasters are wanting/ and working towards ...

But HD to "4K" - not much difference
technologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2014, 09:01
roddydogs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,355
It was hard enough getting folks to accept "Full HD". Why would anyone want 4K when there nothing on it broadcast?
roddydogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2014, 09:15
Deacon1972
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
It was hard enough getting folks to accept "Full HD". Why would anyone want 4K when there nothing on it broadcast?
Same argument for HDTV's, there was no HD, the TV's still sold.

Netflix started streaming 4k in April.

I don't think the wait was as long for 4k content to start arriving as it was for HD - Netflix have streamed 4k since April, the TV's capable of showing this content only went on sale this year.

I'm ready to upgrade, current set showing signs of letting go, it's not used for main viewing but would still consider 4k so long as the standards have been finalised - I'm more interested in 4k projection.
Deacon1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2014, 09:16
call100
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 6,572
Another thread for the naysayers.
call100 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2014, 21:09
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,747
Same argument for HDTV's, there was no HD, the TV's still sold.
They sold like hot cakes mainly because the introduction of HD TV broadcasts broadly coincided with the introduction of large slim flat panel HD TVs, and the demise of SD TVs.

But for that lucky coincidence, take-up of HD TVs would have been much slower, as will the take-up of 4K (probably even slower).
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2014, 22:18
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
But for that lucky coincidence, take-up of HD TVs would have been much slower, as will the take-up of 4K (probably even slower).
No 'lucky coincidence', HD TV's sold simply because all TV's became HD, SD sets rapidly disappeared from sale. The same will happen with 4K, panel production will gradually shift towards 4K, and 1080 panels will be discontinued - it makes sod all difference if 4K transmissions ever happen or not, you won't be able to buy a set that isn't 4K (or higher).
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2014, 22:33
Grouty
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The Nth East
Posts: 21,598
Cant afford to broadcast in 4k, can't really afford to do HD yet, otherwise every channel would be in it, and HDs been around eons.
Grouty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2014, 23:02
Deacon1972
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
They sold like hot cakes mainly because the introduction of HD TV broadcasts broadly coincided with the introduction of large slim flat panel HD TVs, and the demise of SD TVs.

But for that lucky coincidence, take-up of HD TVs would have been much slower, as will the take-up of 4K (probably even slower).
Pioneer had HD ready plasma selling in Jan 2005, pretty sure others were available before that, that's roughly 18months before HD started with Sky.

I got my first HDTV in Dec 2005, Sky didn't launch HD until May 06, I waited 6months - the only content I could watch was on the internet, as far as I can remember there was no indication this early on Sky was showing any signs HD was on the way.

Pioneer had an elite model out in 2003, but it didn't have the HD ready label and cost £12,000 - a 3yr wait if you bought this.
Deacon1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2014, 23:14
zx50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: County Durham
Posts: 78,632
http://www.mediapost.com/publication...low-publi.html



That's really gonna be a success then!

Oh well, I'll have to put my 4k tv in the shed along with my now obsolete 3D tv (with glasses), 3D tv without glasses, my anti-grav lawnmower, my Sony Time Machine (never worked and Argos refused to give me a replacement), and my Samsung Sex Femme Robot which was a lesbian. I got the wrong model. I wanted the heterosexual female version but Amazon sent me the wrong one.
The percentage is obviously going to be lower for TVs that are double the price of the $999 price tag.
zx50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2014, 07:39
crofter
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,816
Same argument for HDTV's, there was no HD, the TV's still sold.

Netflix started streaming 4k in April.

I don't think the wait was as long for 4k content to start arriving as it was for HD - Netflix have streamed 4k since April, the TV's capable of showing this content only went on sale this year.

I'm ready to upgrade, current set showing signs of letting go, it's not used for main viewing but would still consider 4k so long as the standards have been finalised - I'm more interested in 4k projection.
Of course HD TV's had the big advantage of the Xbox 360 and PS3 launches - 4k gaming is but a pipe dream for the vast majority. Having said that resolution will always win in the end and the very same arguments with 720p vs 1080p seem a distant memory - you don't see too many 720p TV's on the market.

Personally I will be sitting tight until 4K OLED comes about and things like HFR, HDR and WCG are sorted out. We could be getting a whole lot more out of the 1080p resolution right now but the move to 4K has to include all these advances or it simply won't do it justice.
crofter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2014, 12:55
Fowl Fax
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,680
Quite a few BluRays look no better than their DVD counterpart, the same is going to happen with 4k.
Fowl Fax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2014, 13:04
bobcar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
Quite a few BluRays look no better than their DVD counterpart, the same is going to happen with 4k.
A very small minority look no better when viewed with the correct size TV for the viewing distance, most of the time blu-ray is quite a lot better though nowhere near the improvement from VHS to DVD.
bobcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2014, 13:11
technologist
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 7,519
The same will happen with 4K, panel production will gradually shift towards 4K, and 1080 panels will be discontinued - it makes sod all difference if 4K transmissions ever happen or not, you won't be able to buy a set that isn't 4K (or higher).
But it is unlikly that they will be to uhd1ph2 specs that the broadcasters are working towards ....
A screen with BT709 spec except fir pixel numbers does look much different from HD
technologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2014, 13:24
White-Knight
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,494
http://www.mediapost.com/publication...low-publi.html



That's really gonna be a success then!

Oh well, I'll have to put my 4k tv in the shed along with my now obsolete 3D tv (with glasses), 3D tv without glasses, my anti-grav lawnmower, my Sony Time Machine (never worked and Argos refused to give me a replacement), and my Samsung Sex Femme Robot which was a lesbian. I got the wrong model. I wanted the heterosexual female version but Amazon sent me the wrong one.
It's no different to HD. When HD sets 1st came out, 42" cost more than £5k.

Prices come down with economies of scale so the more sold, the cheaper they become.

As for 4K being a flop, that could be likely but its more likely to happen because European broadcasters haven't agreed standards than because of tv prices. Same with 8K.

BTW 1.3% of the population of the UK (63 Million) is 819,000. That's still a significant number of potential set sales even at that price.
White-Knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2014, 13:50
Soundbox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The garden of earthly delights
Posts: 4,513
4K sets will guarantee that SD broadcasts and material will look even worse. FilmFour on Freeview is showing its resolution shortcomings when taped onto VHS and played back on a 1980's 14" portable CRT model. What a joke.
Soundbox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2014, 16:20
White-Knight
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,494
4K sets will guarantee that SD broadcasts and material will look even worse. FilmFour on Freeview is showing its resolution shortcomings when taped onto VHS and played back on a 1980's 14" portable CRT model. What a joke.
All the more reason why the position of native SD and minimum broadcasting standards generally need to be reviewed on Freesat / Sky.

Freeview is different because there's more SD boxes / users and bandwidth issues that may restrict the possible bit rates that could be used.
White-Knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2014, 16:30
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
All the more reason why the position of native SD and minimum broadcasting standards generally need to be reviewed on Freesat / Sky.

Freeview is different because there's more SD boxes / users and bandwidth issues that may restrict the possible bit rates that could be used.
You really need to give it a rest

Why this crazy obsession with trying to stop SD broadcasts?, there's decades of SD only programming out there, it's not going to simply 'disappear' - they even still show B&W programming.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2014, 17:07
anthony david
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,470
Try this, (load the link in to Google translate if you don't speak German) and you will see that Germany's main broadcaster ARD Das Erste uses 720p not 1080i. The page gives their reason for doing so. ZDF are probably the same.

http://www.daserste.de/service/konta.../faqs-100.html

HD only seems to be available via satellite and cable, DTT seems to be SD only.
anthony david is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2014, 17:28
Deacon1972
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
4K sets will guarantee that SD broadcasts and material will look even worse. FilmFour on Freeview is showing its resolution shortcomings when taped onto VHS and played back on a 1980's 14" portable CRT model. What a joke.
You would have thought that wouldn't you - but seeing SD upscaled to 4k on a PJ screen a few times now and it holds up better than you think. I can't comment on the particular channel you mention, but the BBC channels and a couple of Sky channels certainly look no worse than they did upscaled to1920x1080.
Deacon1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2014, 18:54
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
You would have thought that wouldn't you - but seeing SD upscaled to 4k on a PJ screen a few times now and it holds up better than you think. I can't comment on the particular channel you mention, but the BBC channels and a couple of Sky channels certainly look no worse than they did upscaled to1920x1080.
As long as you're watching from a suitable SD viewing distance then they should look fine, that's the whole point of viewing distance - if you view ANY resolution too close (although it's difficult to get too close for HD, and even less likely for 4K) then you will see defects.

Going back MANY, MANY years we took a lady a new 23 inch set to replace her 19 inch one (pre-colour), and she complained the picture wasn't as good - the reason was viewing distance, the increase in size (modest though it is in todays terms) had made the 405 lines that made up the picture visible to her.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2014, 20:10
spudmorley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 133
I recently got a second generation uhd set(Samsung uh7500)and all the channels benefit from the upscaling.built in freeveiw hd,two freesat tuners and active 3d to boot.i don't give a monkey what people say it cant do but I now know how it looks to me watching telly and its miles better than the current crop of hd tvs.if you don't think its worth it then that's fine but don't go harping on about it not being worth it or nobody will be bothered.that can be said about every new "thing" that comes along.just look at the moble phone.
spudmorley is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:56.