So do you know which TVs currently in shops support 10-bit colour for 4k/UHD at 50fps?

Cheers,
David.

Wouldn't all current HDMI 2.0 sets support 10bit colour, surely they have to as to be compliant with v2.0 spec.

Would then be down to the TV how it interprets the signal - there is a member on avsforums who managed to get 10 bit colour on their samsung.

No.


There are no mandatory requirements in the HDMI 2.0 spec.

Cheers,
David.

To the best of my knowledge the Panasonic AX series is HDMI 2.0 compliant and has support for Rec 709 standard and BT.2020 colour space is also supported.

I believe Neflix use Rec 2020 on their 4k streaming service.

So am I wrong in thinking Netflix 4k content on a Panasonic AX902 would give me 10 bit colour @4k?

And in any case having 10 bit on the interface does NOT mean that the panel is more than 8 bits ...

I would suggest that this enthusiasm for 10 bit colour is rather misplaced, and even assuming 10 bit colour does come it will make sod all difference.

Rec 709 8bit has 16.78m colours.

Rec 2020 10bit has 1,073,741,824 colours.

Rec 2020 12bit has 68,719,476,736.

So if you can't see the step up in resolution from 1080 to 4k you'll see the higher bit depth and wider color gamut.

Ive got a 3DTV. Nice to have occasionally. I got the hobbit in 3D and i am enjoying watching that.

A great use of 3D is to play split screen video games in full screen mode. 2player games, i mean.

Will you? - I remain to be convinced

The increase is over 50% so yes.

CIE 1931 color spaces (perceived colors in human Color Vision).

At present Rec709 is only 35.9% of CIE1931 whereas Rec 2020 is 75.8%

Have you not seen a monitor with Adobe RGB, colour space is 52.1%.

You won't need your newspaper test for this change.

4k?
8k is already here, well almost. They have them in Japan. I remember reading both 4 and 8k were developed at the same time. 8k is simply being held back so a shed load of people buy the lesser 4k screens without even being aware of 8k. Could be a simple case of buying a product (at great expense) which is effectively replaced after say 18months.

Yep most people think the advantage of 4K is the resolution. It's not although the extra resolution ups the sharpness (ignoring arguments about visible detail). It's said the biggest difference is in the colour space which getting nearer to human vision gives a more realistic and lifelike picture more akin to what people see in the real world. This results in extra depth and realism. There have been some very convincing demo videos of 8K with the extra colour depth on Youtube. Yes the monitor can't reproduce these. However, the camera does pick up the 3D effect and realism nonetheless.

This is a prime example Nigel. No camera tricks here and there's no denying the 3D effect and truly realistic picture:

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

When you consider you don't actually get the benefit of the colour space when viewing through Youtube, then the pictures even more remarkable.

Higher than HD spacial resolution is not a great difference from HD and in any case you can only see it at around or less than 3 times Screen height

The Consumer electronics industry are always wanting to get a "new" product so that they can make money - because over the past few years they have not!!!
Hence 3D and now 4K ( one notes cynically that they have moved from 1080 lines to "4K" which is only 3840 pixels ( because the bigger the number the better it must be!!!!)

So what makes a big wow factor -
the most obvious is to go for Higher Dynamic Range - in simple terms this is more bits - that would be useful in HD - but it means that the whites are brigher and the blacks are darker - so you can get a football match with both the showed pitch and the crowd enejoying the sun -with you able to see the whoel scene.

BUT also tied up with this is what is the referenece lunisoisty of the screen - ie. how broght is peak white? it you make it brighter it is more compelling (and a bit more natural)

Then what is the OETF and EOTF - ie. the conversion relationship between light and electrical signal and vice versa (you may know this as Gamma)
- what should that be to get the most out of a limited range of bits - as 10 bit (linear) may not be good enough for emission
(which probably means that at least 14 so you might as well say 16 bits in the studio .... ) (and do you do the transfer charecteristic change at emission point ???

So many questions to answer on just the luminance signal!!!!!

the Broadcasters/ content makers do not want to be pushed down the compromises they were forced into for HD - so they are sorting these out ....
(find out more at these Industry events in London and Salford )

the other things - Colour Gamut has been talked earlier - BT2020 colours are far more natural !
Then Frame rate - running at 100/120 Frames per second makes a great difference - and with interframe coding may actually reduce the emission bitrate requirements (As greater bit depth can)

And what about the audio - working with a object based rendered in the TV/STB means you can put the Loudspeakers more or less anywhere - and you DO need immersive sound - so it is nice to NOT have to put the LS in the doorway to get the "right" sound.

These are things that ,many people in the industry are working hard to resolve - and get standards formed -(and tested) and the way ahead is very clear - it will just take time!

Then where is the content ????
- as the majority of the world has still to convert to HD ORIGINATION (for which where is the increased revenue) we in the UK are very well off for HD!)
- so UHD will only be a premier content service .... for many years while broadcasters/ content providers get re-equipped.

So I await at 10 bit BT2020 100HZ screen - with whatever EOTF is decided and Object audio to the standard ...

But at the moment only a few screens have 100Hz let alone anything else!

I would say that proves exactly the opposite - that 10 bit makes no difference

You're not viewing it on a 10 bit system, so it's not 10 bit - so obviously no advantage at all to having 10 bit.

But if you do view it in a 10+ bit system which can be brighter like this
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professio.../prm-4220.html
You can see the difference ........
It only does P3 colour spec not BT 2020... Yet !!!!!
And its only HD ...

The posterisation on the BBC poppies ident annoys me every time I see it!
It is not like that in HDSDI or SDI ,

..apart from the fact that you can see the improvement on the video.

Yep the video you're watching isn't 10 bit, but the video that's being video'd is and you can see the differences over a normal video that's video'd.

I think Technologist summed up the differences very well.

The resolution / detail debate will no doubt rage on. However some improvements are clear to see - simply take a walk into your local store, and the extra sharpness is visible. Youtube contains proof of the colour, gamma and contrast improvements.

I have made my decision and that is that I am getting the following:

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-dvd-...pdt.html#cat-0



The reasons are as follows:


1. There is not much in the way of 4K content available let alone a box to connect to a 4K TV.

2. It will take a few years for 4K to be properly used.

3. 4K will have 8K to deal with.

Don't buy the £39.99 HDMI cable though! Even if it is discounted from £59.99!

What happened to Monster? I can't believe Currys isn't still trying to sell cables for hundreds of pounds with original retail prices in the millions!

On a 32" TV you are not going to have to worry about 4k or indeed 8k unless you are sitting less than 3 feet away. Having said that CES 2015 is just under a month away and things may be a lot clearer after that.

With that in mind and the fact that prices usually creep up at this time of year - so they can come back down in the sales I couldn't recommend buying a new TV right now ...

8k imho is at least 6 years off and the tech companies are going to have a hard job trying to sell that to the public in 6 years time ... NHK the Japanese broadcaster who are pushing the tech have said they plan to skip 4k but it will be a mute point as to how much native content will be able to broadcast in 8k.

4K OLED with Dolby Vision will do me just fine.

Well seeing as you're spending less than £500 on a 32" screen, the title thread was never really a realistic proposition was it?

There are reasons why I created this thread:


1. I was stuck in choosing either a 3D TV or a 4K TV.


2. I needed to make my decision based on what other users said.


3. Technology is moving forward, not backwards like some people.


4. I wanted to know as to which would serve me the best in years to come.


5. If there was a 32 inch 4K TV with brilliant reviews, then I would have gone with it.

With a 32" display, you need to sit a lot closer than 2 metres away for the extra resolution to make any sense. That's why they don't make 32" 4k TVs yet. To really appreciate 4k on a screen that size you'd need to be about one metre away. That's more like a PC monitor experience than a TV.

Cheers,
David.

The 32" is for my bedroom, if it were for my living room then it would be different.

Currently running a 6 year old 1080i Philips 42 inch Plasma and about to make the jump

I'm looking at 55" panels (actually same physical size as the old Philips with its giant side speakers) which is why I want 4K - I do poke my laptop onto my big telly from time to time - and I'm leaning towards the Samsung UE55HU6900 at a uniform £950 across all reputable retailers Its 4K (not 3D nor curved - both gimmicks I can do without) but its handling of motion is bothering me - the UE55HU7500 adds 3D and far better motion handling but is it really worth the extra £850? Anyone any experience of the big 6900?