|
||||||||
4K tv - set to be a massive flop? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,328
|
4K tv - set to be a massive flop?
Quote:
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.htmlQuote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 7,519
|
Quote:
. 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.
But HD to "4K" - not much difference |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
It was hard enough getting folks to accept "Full HD". Why would anyone want 4K when there nothing on it broadcast?
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 6,572
|
Another thread for the naysayers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,747
|
Quote:
Same argument for HDTV's, there was no HD, the TV's still sold.
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). |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
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).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
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). 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: County Durham
Posts: 78,632
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,816
|
Quote:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
Quite a few BluRays look no better than their DVD counterpart, the same is going to happen with 4k.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 7,519
|
Quote:
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).
A screen with BT709 spec except fir pixel numbers does look much different from HD |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,494
|
Quote:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,494
|
Quote:
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.
Freeview is different because there's more SD boxes / users and bandwidth issues that may restrict the possible bit rates that could be used. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
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. ![]() 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:56.


