4K passthrough.....most pointless feature since DVD-RAM?

[Eug]

Fair enough. I've have a more comprehensive response to your statement in other threads, but all I'd like to say is that consider that the market contains all sorts of people and while you might not see the significance, that doesn't necessarily mean demand won't be there. 1080P took awhile to saturate because content was expensive and HD broadcasting didn't appear until later. Films had to be scanned into the new medium and cable/sat infrastructure had to be updated.

?? I've had 1080i broadcast TV in my home for almost a decade now, but it came out in the 90s in North America.

Virtually every film that was scanned for HD was scanned at 4K minimum with later releases at 8k for future proofing. As soon as a delivery medium is developed tons of content will be ready to go. Also, streaming compression has greatly improved and its a short jump to 4K for those that have the bandwidth.

And there's the rub. There isn't even a dream yet of any viable delivery medium. REDRAY doesn't count, so to expect significant mainstream consumer adoption of 4K within 5 years would be ludicrous.

Of course none of this means 4K tvs will sell well and you may be right, but my point is 4K is far more market ready than 1080P was at release (720P was a distraction) and as soon as they are standardized and prices become reasonable the question won't be if you want a 4K, it will be why wouldn't you. Naturally I'm talking 2 years from now. Mainstream 4K is still a ways off.

Why wouldn't I want 4K? Because it's simply not necessary for 99% of the population, which is anyone with up to a moderately big direct view TV. Ironically, I'm in that 1% who actually could make use of 4K since I have a dedicated home theatre room with a projector, projecting a 90" image. And I still don't care about 4K.

 

[Railgun]

Just because HD took as long as it did to reach the masses doesn't mean 4K will take as long.

Look at the history of TV and how much faster the next versions of tech have come from demo to affordability by a good majority of consumers. You'll see a big shift in three years, not eight.

 

[Gintaras]

Why wouldn't I want 4K? Because it's simply not necessary for 99% of the population, which is anyone with up to a moderately big direct view TV. Ironically, I'm in that 1% who actually could make use of 4K since I have a dedicated home theatre room with a projector, projecting a 90" image. And I still don't care about 4K.

maybe not 99%, but a large population of today's young people will need eyeglasses with 1/2 inch thick lenses after constantly wearing their vision with iphones texts(small letters) and they will need 8 or 16K to see same, older folks used to see very well on older ctr's

 

[bearxor]

I'd love a 4K projector, even if it just pixel doubled 1080p content. I have a 100" projection and sit like 12' away and can sometimes see individual pixels and some jaggedness, especially in things like logos.

 

[Eug]

Just because HD took as long as it did to reach the masses doesn't mean 4K will take as long.

Look at the history of TV and how much faster the next versions of tech have come from demo to affordability by a good majority of consumers. You'll see a big shift in three years, not eight.

It sounds like there is a lot of wishful thinking in this thread. Unfortunately, it is just not very realistic. About the only thing really in 4K's corner is the PS4 but even that isn't really an advantage because it won't include a 4k disc standard, which isn't surprising because such a standard doesn't even exist.

 

[13Gigatons]

Just because HD took as long as it did to reach the masses doesn't mean 4K will take as long.

Look at the history of TV and how much faster the next versions of tech have come from demo to affordability by a good majority of consumers. You'll see a big shift in three years, not eight.

I look forward to buying a 64" 4K tv for $999 in 2016.

 

[Railgun]

Yeah...because you can do that now.