• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

4k is officially Ultra HD

It'll be interesting to see when consumer 4k tvs come about. Sony have their $25k 4k 85" with their special media hub thing that comes loaded with 10 4k movies 😀.

Red have their box thing and their up and coming 4k projector.

Koing
 
Koing said:
It'll be interesting to see when consumer 4k tvs come about. Sony have their $25k 4k 85" with their special media hub thing that comes loaded with 10 4k movies 😀.

Red have their box thing and their up and coming 4k projector.

Koing
Click to expand...

The REAL problem with jumping into 4K now is that they haven't even agreed on the approved connection type. So if the new red-ray player comes out with an incompatible HDMI 1.5 speced connector, you are sol on your $25K investment (the 4K Sony is HDMI 1.4a). Quite honestly, $25K is not too bad of a price tag on a state of the art 84" 4K display, but I wouldn't want to buy something that expensive that may be obsolete the very next year.
 
Durvelle27 said:
Its perfectly fine not F'ed up. Its something they call cinema wide. Has a aspect ratio of 21:9
Click to expand...

Holy crap, you actually bought one of those things? I was just kidding. I thought you misquoted the standard 1080p res (1920x1080). I never would have thought you had a 21:9 display.

I alway thought that was a horrible idea unless you only watched anamorphic movies.
 
lopri said:
Is 4K the resolution that Hollywood uses today for their digital products (movies)?
Click to expand...

The good thing about 4K is that most studios that have released BD versions of their movies have already restored the original film to 4K which they then down converted to 2K (1920x1080) for Blu-ray. So all they have to do now is agree on the media and just dump the 4K restoration to disc (or whatever media they decide on).

Quite honestly though, 4K should only be reserved for 70" and larger displays, with projectors seeing the biggest benefits of the higher res.
 
JackBurton said:
Holy crap, you actually bought one of those things? I was just kidding. I thought you misquoted the standard 1080p res (1920x1080). I never would have thought you had a 21:9 display.

I alway thought that was a horrible idea unless you only watched anamorphic movies.
Click to expand...

Yea i love Vizio TVs and when i heard of them bring a new tv out with a higher res i was on board especially since i needed a new tv for the living room.


Yea i have a 21:9 tv with a res of 2560x1080 not 1920x1080. I believe its the only one of its kind

It looks pretty good when watching movies but it looks even better when gaming 🙂
 
JackBurton said:
Quite honestly though, 4K should only be reserved for 70" and larger displays, with projectors seeing the biggest benefits of the higher res.
Click to expand...

Depends how far you sit from the screen. 4K really only benefits computer monitors and high detail graphics work on smaller screen sizes.

The TVs will come down in price sooner rather. I remember when plasmas cost $20,000. Content is a different story. Early 4K content will be on Bluray, and broadcast sports. Namely the NFL and the Olympics. People with deep pockets. It'll take a long time for the networks to fully transition.

It'll be interesting to see how they do distribute content. Bluray holds roughly 190min of content at its typical maximum bit rate. Players would pretty much have to support triple or quad layer discs. The 2x BD bit rate should be sufficient though. Streaming gets a little more interesting. YouTube says they use up to 5.5mbit/s. All I can say is it looks good at 720p.
 
So...I have to ask...with 4k do we get more issues like ghosting, blurring, jittering, soap opera effect and all the fun things that went along with our supposed upgrades from CRT to LCD/Plasma? Because while sure the resolution is higher, there are way more issues than there should be considering the cost of TV's. Upping the resolution fixes NONE of the actual issues that the hardware gives you. So what you get is something that looks pretty, when it's not moving. None of this is good, we just have to accept it because we're given no other choices.

And yes, you get that crap in theaters too (jittering especially). Anotherwords, they haven't perfected current technology yet, so I'm guessing 4k introduces a whole new slew of issues that they'll never actually fix.
 
Last edited:
JackBurton said:
Holy crap, you actually bought one of those things? I was just kidding. I thought you misquoted the standard 1080p res (1920x1080). I never would have thought you had a 21:9 display.

I alway thought that was a horrible idea unless you only watched anamorphic movies.
Click to expand...

21:9? isn't it 7:3?
 
ImpulsE69 said:
So...I have to ask...with 4k do we get more issues like ghosting, blurring, jittering, soap opera effect and all the fun things that went along with our supposed upgrades from CRT to LCD/Plasma? Because while sure the resolution is higher, there are way more issues than there should be considering the cost of TV's. Upping the resolution fixes NONE of the actual issues that the hardware gives you. So what you get is something that looks pretty, when it's not moving. None of this is good, we just have to accept it because we're given no other choices.

And yes, you get that crap in theaters too (jittering especially). Anotherwords, they haven't perfected current technology yet, so I'm guessing 4k introduces a whole new slew of issues that they'll never actually fix.
Click to expand...

I don't know many people who consider the new display technologies a downgrade from CRTs. The newer displays offer so many advantages, cost, size, resolution, power consumption. My 60 LED TV is eons ahead of any CRT, absolutely gorgeous to my eyes yet it suffer from many of the imperfection you speak of. Well, it's good enough for most people, it's good enough for me. 4K is going to shine with giant screens, or if you stick your face right into the screen.
 
Hell, nobody is even broadcasting OTA in 1080p yet. It'll be a LONG time before UHD will be much more than a gimmick.

As I understand it, the main advantage will be basically that you can sit closer to a larger TV.

Which will be cool, since it'll make a room that currently is only good for say, a 70" TV at 1080p maybe able to go 100"+. And that'll obviously improve on the immersive factor of home theater, which is the point of big TV's in the first place.
 
Pacfanweb said:
Hell, nobody is even broadcasting OTA in 1080p yet. It'll be a LONG time before UHD will be much more than a gimmick.

As I understand it, the main advantage will be basically that you can sit closer to a larger TV.

Which will be cool, since it'll make a room that currently is only good for say, a 70" TV at 1080p maybe able to go 100"+. And that'll obviously improve on the immersive factor of home theater, which is the point of big TV's in the first place.
Click to expand...

As of now 4k would be awesome for PC use, mostly.
 
Number1 said:
I don't know many people who consider the new display technologies a downgrade from CRTs. The newer displays offer so many advantages, cost, size, resolution, power consumption. My 60 LED TV is eons ahead of any CRT, absolutely gorgeous to my eyes yet it suffer from many of the imperfection you speak of. Well, it's good enough for most people, it's good enough for me. 4K is going to shine with giant screens, or if you stick your face right into the screen.
Click to expand...

The complaints are all over. I understand the "wow" factor that is todays TV's but there are plenty of issues that they've never been able to resolve that everyone has had to just accept. If you are oblivious to this, you are one of the lucky ones. The only "real" upgrade is the resolution, everything else is a downgrade. I'll give you the power consumption as thats a plus but has no bearing on the picture quality that we're talking about.
 
I heard the term Ultra HD a year ago. Resolution is something that just has never really bothered me, i watch 480p quite often. Of course lack of 5.1 doesn't seem to bother me either nor does having it make feel any more involved.
 
Lots of misinformation in this thread.

Koing said:
It'll be interesting to see when consumer 4k tvs come about. Sony have their $25k 4k 85" with their special media hub thing that comes loaded with 10 4k movies 😀.

Red have their box thing and their up and coming 4k projector.

Koing
Click to expand...

Toshiba's been selling a 4K tv for a year now. They were the first.

JackBurton said:
The REAL problem with jumping into 4K now is that they haven't even agreed on the approved connection type. So if the new red-ray player comes out with an incompatible HDMI 1.5 speced connector, you are sol on your $25K investment (the 4K Sony is HDMI 1.4a). Quite honestly, $25K is not too bad of a price tag on a state of the art 84" 4K display, but I wouldn't want to buy something that expensive that may be obsolete the very next year.
Click to expand...

HDMI has been capable of 4K for 3 years now, since 2009. HDMI 1.4a can handle 4K just fine. There is no need for another connection type.
 
Dari said:
Lots of misinformation in this thread.



Toshiba's been selling a 4K tv for a year now. They were the first.



HDMI has been capable of 4K for 3 years now, since 2009. HDMI 1.4a can handle 4K just fine. There is no need for another connection type.
Click to expand...
@24fps. We're moving well past that now, with 3D and higher framerates...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top