# Come join this active discussion on the adoption of 4K



## Robert Zohn (Aug 13, 2011)

I was selected to be on the CES panel discussion on the adoption of 4K. Here's a good article in CEPro about the CES 4K breakfast event.

Chime in, tweet, like and share this article.

-Robert


----------



## Andre (Feb 15, 2010)

Grats Robert, but until a considerable amount of movies become available in 4k its not even on my radar


----------



## Robert Zohn (Aug 13, 2011)

Streamed Ultra HD movies will be available in the next two months from Amazon, Netflix, M-G0, Comcast and DIRECTV and movies streamed directly from 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment and Paramount Pictures.

Even better news is the BDA approved 100gb triple layer discs and the standards for Ultra HD BD and we should start seeing Ultra HD BD titles by the end of 2014.

-Robert


----------



## Andre (Feb 15, 2010)

Unfortunately I doubt any of that streaming will be available in Canada


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Robert Zohn said:


> Streamed Ultra HD movies will be available in the next two months from Amazon, Netflix, M-G0, Comcast and DIRECTV and movies streamed directly from 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment and Paramount Pictures.


Im still having a really tough time believing that Ultra HD content streamed can better than what we have now given so much if not all of it will be compressed in order to be reasonable in size. 1080p streamed content looks awful when blown up to 100 or so inches as it is so how can they deliver 4X that resolution?


----------



## pddufrene (Mar 14, 2013)

I agree with Tony, there is a serious lack of quality when it comes to viewing standard HD much less 4k which is 4x the information. That being said, I am happy to hear that there will be 4k blueray. Once the 2014 uhd tv's roll out I do plan on buying one, my current tv in my HT is still a 720p set. So I figured I'll just skip 1080p and dive right into the 4k sets instead, beings I won't buy another tv till my next one dies anyway.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

The displays are going to have to come way down in price before I bite. Until then the talk doesn't interest me much. I probably will for those who have the money to plunk down on the new displays.


----------



## pddufrene (Mar 14, 2013)

Sonnie said:


> The displays are going to have to come way down in price before I bite. Until then the talk doesn't interest me much. I probably will for those who have the money to plunk down on the new displays.


I don't find them to be that highly priced, you won't pay that much more for a 4k set than you will a top of the line 1080p set. Look at Samsung's top of the line 75" for a while that thing was priced at close to $9000. I think last time I checked it's maybe around $6000 now, which you can get a 4k set for less than that.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

I paid less than $2,500 for my Panasonic TC-65VT30 Plasma and less than $2,500 for my Panasonic PT-AE8000U Front Projector. I don't want to spend anymore than this for anything else to replace either one.


----------



## pddufrene (Mar 14, 2013)

Sonnie said:


> I paid less than $2,500 for my Panasonic TC-65VT30 Plasma and less than $2,500 for my Panasonic PT-AE8000U Front Projector. I don't want to spend anymore than this for anything else to replace either one.


Point well made! Lol


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

I am located in a suburb of Dallas and my ISP is Verizon FIOS 50Mbps downstream, we have Netflix on Roku 3, PS3, Samsung 8000 series TV, and on the BD player.
While I am not complaining about Netflix streaming quality it truly pales in comparison to BD and I might even think it is no better than DVD when you throw in the difference in the sound track quality.
Before Netflix spends much time on 4k I want them to get the 1080p/sound/and ISP throttling issues all resolved.


----------



## Robert Zohn (Aug 13, 2011)

I agree with what everyone is saying and have some suggestions to make the best out of what we have available.

Streamed HD or UHD will never be as good as the physical disc. But two things all streaming users must do to get the best and most reliable performance is to upgrade there's provider's service plan to a faster up and download speed and be sure the entire home network is configured properly and the Wi Fi and wired devices are all the fastest possible devices. The latest "AC" Wi Fi is exceptional and gigabit devices are the best home network solutions to enjoy reliable and best performance streaming.

Also the new Ulta HD standards call for the latest compression scheme, HEVC, aka h 2.65 and it's not only far more efficient it also preserves the video and audio signal far better than what we are using for HD streaming.

So I have hope for decent Ultra HD streaming, but would never expect it to come close to the upcoming UHD BD.

-Robert


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

Isn't the Giga Internet supposed to be coming soon? If so I would think that would take care of it.


----------



## Khahhsounds (Feb 2, 2014)

I am already on the "will get" a 4K list. I however need the feeling that I wont have any "early-adopters-remorse" that could have happened if any of us had bought a non-upgradeable 4K set before HDMI 2.0 was finalized. I have done a few side/by/side comparisons (HD vs 4K) and I can actually see an improved picture using bluray as the source, and its enough of a difference, that I'll be satisfied until more native 4K sources become available.

I hope that 4K streaming is'nt the main proposal for 4K content. Even though we have fios quantum (75/35) in the house, I don't like the idea of being tethered to only one 4K source. Especially since its all about the increased resolution. I dont believe that you can get the "all" that 4K has to offer with a streamed source, considering that netflix for quite a while streamed the majority of their library in 2.0 stereo, losing dolby 5.1 etc..... I would rather download a full 4K video than trust that the streamed content is complete.
Maybe VUDU? Netflix DL(Download)? DL to a properly registered device?

Lastly, does anyone know if there are other technologies on the books in order for 4K to be a "locked" technology? 

thanks


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

ellisr63 said:


> Isn't the Giga Internet supposed to be coming soon? If so I would think that would take care of it.


Maybe so but very few people will have access to that for many many years.

Another concern is that very few networks will be upgrading any time soon to broadcast any sort of 4K as they just spent millions upgrading to standard HD.


----------



## Tonto (Jun 30, 2007)

ellisr63 wrote:



> Isn't the Giga Internet supposed to be coming soon?


Kim Kommando just said yesterday the the new DSL speeds will be 100 X faster & will be out this year.


----------



## Robert Zohn (Aug 13, 2011)

Khahhsounds said:


> I am already on the "will get" a 4K list. I however need the feeling that I wont have any "early-adopters-remorse" that could have happened if any of us had bought a non-upgradeable 4K set before HDMI 2.0 was finalized. I have done a few side/by/side comparisons (HD vs 4K) and I can actually see an improved picture using bluray as the source, and its enough of a difference, that I'll be satisfied until more native 4K sources become available.
> 
> I hope that 4K streaming is'nt the main proposal for 4K content. Even though we have fios quantum (75/35) in the house, I don't like the idea of being tethered to only one 4K source. Especially since its all about the increased resolution. I dont believe that you can get the "all" that 4K has to offer with a streamed source, considering that netflix for quite a while streamed the majority of their library in 2.0 stereo, losing dolby 5.1 etc..... I would rather download a full 4K video than trust that the streamed content is complete.
> Maybe VUDU? Netflix DL(Download)? DL to a properly registered device?
> ...


DIRECTV and Comcast will be the first programming content providers with Ultra HD broadcasts, Ultra HD Blu-ray is estimated to start launching titles by the end of this year.

Keep in mind that all video sources are compressed, including Blu-ray. It's the compressionist skills and type of compression used that can make the difference between a clean error free picture vs. one with compression artifacts. 

-Robert



tonyvdb said:


> Maybe so but very few people will have access to that for many many years.
> 
> Another concern is that very few networks will be upgrading any time soon to broadcast any sort of 4K as they just spent millions upgrading to standard HD.


Actually most broadcasters upgraded to either 720p or 1080i or 1080p between 1997 and Q4 1998. I worked in TV Broadcast as a senior systems engineer from 1986 through 2009 and never missed an NAB or IBC convention. I worked with all of the broadcasters in north and south America and many throughout the world.

The transportation schemes needs to be worked out, but I estimate we'll see Ultra HD broadcasts over cable and satellite by Q1 2015.

Also companies like Kaleidscape, Sony and other hard drive storage suppliers will also be among the first to jump into streaming 4K content that will be stored on local built-in storage devices. 

Before then Ultra HD streaming from Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, M-Go, and the History Channel that are expected to be available by Q1 - Q2 and hopefully by the end of 2014 we'll begin seeing physical Blu-ray discs to round out our 4K content choices.

-Robert


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

It does appear DSL can potentially achieve faster speeds, but the option that is closest to deployment requires at least two phone lines into the home (additional lines allow the speed to scale up) and the next step after that will be vectoring which is not really ready to be deployed.
The same issues that currently affect DSL speeds achieving the advertised speeds will still apply.

Don't get me wrong, I am very pro 4k, and I expect it to become the standard but there are many bumps in the road before it is common place.
DVDs still outsell BD and cable companies still do not include HD set top boxes in the base price.
HDTVs are finally getting real penetration but there are still millions of 480i CRT TVs being used every day.

There will certainly be an OTA component to this as well and if you look back at that history we could have been watching at 680 from the very beginning so at this time I would not venture to guess where that might land.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

As for my personal adoption of 4k .... I really hope it's going to be a while, I spent $600 back in the day for a Sony Triniton and that TV was close to 15 years old when it was replaced by a $2.5k Samsung 56" 720p DLP which I only had for 7 years before replacing it with a $2.8k 60" 1080p LED/LCD TV.
I have spent enough money on TVs in the last 10 years to last another 10-15 as far as I am concerned.


----------



## HUFN8OR (Jun 19, 2012)

I have a new Samsung UN65F9000 and have viewed a few UHD movies from YouTube and Vimeo and they look better than Blu-Ray discs currently. Granted, they have limited audio, and they are very short, but I think with increased bandwidth being provided by most carriers and the new codecs, streaming can be a successful delivery medium.

I also really like the "concept" of Sony's UHD Media Server, but not the proprietary nature of it. I think if a company came out with a UHD USB 3.0 "server" like that with 1-2TB of disk on it, and a rental/purchase app associated with it, that would be great. Being able to remotely login to the service on my iPhone, purchase a movie in 4K/UHD on the go, and then having it already downloaded to the UHD Media Server by the time I got home would be a fantastic service I would buy - if the cost was reasonable.

Otherwise, waiting for the new 100GB Blu-ray discs and associated HDMI 2.0 players later this year would be an acceptable delivery method for UHD as well.

No idea what method will ultimately win out, but that's the price as always for being an early adopter (HD-DVD anyone?). All three methods have potential, it's going to depend on the content owners and which direction they prefer.

HUFN8OR


----------



## tripplej (Oct 23, 2011)

I will only get a 4K tv when OTA reception in my area is 4K.

CBS, NBC, FOX are not even 1080p.. They are still 1080i. 
ABC is only 720p.

Till then, I wait.


----------



## Andre (Feb 15, 2010)

802.11ac gigabit wifi is already out, In fact my current router (ASUS RT-AC66U) is has it. I am just waiting for them to come out with their EeeBox PC with 802.11ac


----------



## Robert Zohn (Aug 13, 2011)

tripplej said:


> I will only get a 4K tv when OTA reception in my area is 4K.
> 
> CBS, NBC, FOX are not even 1080p.. They are still 1080i.
> ABC is only 720p.
> ...


If you are in Dallas/Ft Worth area you should start seeing Ultra HD OTA by Q1 2015. I'm heading to the 2014 National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) April 5th annual convention in Las Vegas to learn first hand from my insider friends on which broadcasters are moving ahead with UHD and what timetable we can expect to see live broadcasts.

-Robert


----------



## RBTO (Jan 27, 2010)

I just bought my last set for a while (a Panasonic VT plasma). With that purchase, I have a projector HT, an LED/LCD, and the plasma, all HD resolution with 3D capability. I was remarking to myself the other night, how sharp and clear my projector image is at a 90 inch diagonal size. It exceeds my eyesight capabilities for sharpness at my viewing distance and picture quality is comparable or better than most theaters. My flat screens provide similar performance on a smaller scale.

I can't see myself trashing several thousand dollars worth of equipment to by UHD devices just to watch streamed content. I don't have high-speed internet at my home location, and it isn't even available at my vacation location so streaming (even if it did provide high quality, which it doesn't) would be a moot point for me.

I felt ripped when 3D came along since it required me to buy a new BD player and AVR, along with upgrading my projector system to 3D (my two flat screens came with 3D). My personal feelings are that UHD is worse since it has less to offer, and more cost right now compared to the 3D upgrade (and UHD 3D hasn't been mentioned yet).

Now consider the media. I am definitely a disk person since I believe that allows the best image quality. How much more are UHD disks going to cost?

For all these reasons, UHD is a non-starter for me. I'll stick with my HD until that equipment fails and needs replacement (or the industry purposely provides for its ﻿obsolescence to force me into UHD acceptance).

Still, don't get me wrong - I'm all for technical progress and find the advances in UHD fascinating. It just for practical reasons I don't see _UHD_ in my life anytime soon.


----------



## kshallen (Feb 14, 2014)

Ditto on the TC-65VT30. Superb set. It will take a lot to get me to budge too


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

Robert Zohn said:


> Streamed Ultra HD movies will be available in the next two months from Amazon, Netflix, M-G0, Comcast and DIRECTV and movies streamed directly from 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment and Paramount Pictures.


I'm not bagging on anybody and I'm just saying (having a conversation), Comcast streaming quality is so poor, we buy new/used blu-ray disks on Amazon and have cancelled all our premium movie channels subscriptions because the image/sound quality is so poor.

Our 60" flat screen is not quite two years old,. Our recently upgraded receiver passes 4k and our recently upgraded BRP is a universal blu-ray player. The point, like many who have posted, in my opinion, it's all for the industry's fiscal benefit.

(whine)

Technology moves so fast, many can't afford the speed the industry purposefully upgrades technology. Last week it was CRT televisions and rear projection. A few days ago, it was 720P and then 1080P. Yesterday it was 3D and today the industry wants to get us to hit the hip for 4k which my understanding needs an 80" or 85" screen to take benefit of the additional resolution.

(Read the most helpful review as the guy has a seriously hilarious sense of humor.)

The above vs a 80" 1080P, 240hz, 3D for less than $4kUSD. 

Help! Our pockets are only so deep and because of this, those who have recently adopted current technology, will be here for many more years to come so as to get some use out of recent upgrade expenditures. And now the industry is asking us to once again pony up for technology that's reportedly, barely, if at all, noticeable on 60" flat screens?

...

Maybe someone can explain the whole cost, upgrade, thing as right now, many if not most are happy with their current systems?


----------



## RBTO (Jan 27, 2010)

Those Amazon reviews on this TV (Post #26) have really taken off and you're doing yourself a disservice if you don't check them out. Note that you get a 2% kickback from Amazon. - that's $800!!!!!! AND the set is available used and refurbished.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

Those reviews have become totally hilarious.


----------



## NYPete (Oct 11, 2011)

Robert Zohn said:


> If you are in Dallas/Ft Worth area you should start seeing Ultra HD OTA by Q1 2015. I'm heading to the 2014 National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) April 5th annual convention in Las Vegas to learn first hand from my insider friends on which broadcasters are moving ahead with UHD and what timetable we can expect to see live broadcasts.
> 
> -Robert


Broadcast UHD over cable and satellite (and perhaps over the air) is what is really needed to get large numbers of people to switch to UHD TVs. 

I am very skeptical of the idea that internet streaming approach of UHD is the answer as the industry seems to be suggesting. The quality after compression is an issue and even bigger an issue are slow internet connections and caps on internet usage. Many companies already include caps and it seems that is the way we are moving more and more. Plus, the people I know that are most into using Netflix, iTunes, Hulu, Amazon, etc. tend to be younger and many use their laptop, or a small TV as their primary TV watching experience. (I know, it's ridiculous!) UHD won't mean a thing on these screens. On the other hand, somewhat older people are the least likely to use streaming services a lot (even if they have the ability through their Blu-ray player or TV - they may use it but it's minor compared to time spent watching cable or satellite), but they are the most likely to spend cash on a big UHD TV. That's a disconnect to me.

It took many years for large numbers of people to buy HDTVs with early adoption in the late nineties, and mass adoption by the second half of the 2000s. The biggest driver for mainstream purchases in my opinion was HD broadcast of live sports. When mainstream American men finally saw in the mid 2000s how great football, hockey, baseball and basketball look in HD, everyone wanted a large HDTV for the living room. Even now, those broadcasts are 1080i or 720p, nobody even broadcasts in 1080p. And there were plenty of bumps and false starts along the way (anyone remember Fox Widescreen and Fox' belief that no customers actually wanted true HDTV football?) Maybe UHD is feasible and 1080p will just be skipped (was the lack of the new h.265 codec the reason we never got 1080p TV broadcasts but may get UHD now?), and perhaps we can get live broadcast UHD sports over cable or satellite in the near future - that will drive big UHD sales but not internet streaming of movies.


----------



## tripplej (Oct 23, 2011)

I am happy to hear about UHD over antenna. That is a good step moving forward for UHD that is for sure. I just wonder how many stations will pursue this. It will be expensive for the stations to convert to UHD, I am assuming? Afterall, NBC, CBS, PBS are still on 1080i and ABC is on 720p and FOX has some shows/games on 1080i. Most of the rest are still at 480i. I guess time will tell.


----------



## RBTO (Jan 27, 2010)

I think tripplej has a good point. Some of my family members were sold on HD when they saw sports via broadcast TV in HD. Unfortunately, it's a good deal more difficult to get broadcasters across the country to shift to a new standard than it would be to sell a UHD set to an individual. A lot of broadcasters are still recovering from the HD changeover and some of these are "mom & pop" operations which can't afford another broadcast revision (a major one) this soon. Another question, with the added digital bandwidth which UHD requires, what would happen to sub-channel capacity for a broadcaster? A lot of stations rely on the revenue these digital subs provide through carrying extra programming content. Would broadcasters be willing to give that up to accommodate UHD channels? Ultimately this presents a conundrum in that broadcast television might be the way to sell UHD but it may be the last medium to embrace the technology. I still believe UHD is destined for a narrow market (at least in the near future). Until set & media prices come down and content becomes available, it will be a technology without much application. The Amazon offering is one of the best examples of this, and a poor way to introduce UHD technology to the public (hence the jeers and inside jokes), but I guess it has to happen by some means.


----------



## tripplej (Oct 23, 2011)

In addition to what RBTO mentions above, if tv stations are not willing to convert (spend lots of $$$) for UHD conversion from 1080i or even 720p or 480i, look at the issues we are seeing now with internet speeds. For UHD, lot of the isp have data caps. To get proper signal with no buffer issues, we would need high capacity for internet and isps who want to maximize their revenue stream will charge an arm and a leg. Just look at netflix and comcast as a prime example. Netflix had to sign a deal with comcast in the long run to ensure capacity was available for their service. In the end, while UHD is nice and all, the underlying expenses are massive not only for broadcasters but also to ISP customers for streaming UHD.


----------



## Tonto (Jun 30, 2007)

I see the only market being "over the air" broadcasts & disc media. Streaming is going to be a problem & an expence (which I forsee will be quite expensive). I think this will limit most viewing to disc media that only serious HT enthusiats will adopt. That meas us, and how many of us are gonna spend that kind of cash considering how good our displays are in 1080P. Price is gonna have to come way down!


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

Tonto said:


> I think this will limit most viewing to disc media that only serious HT enthusiats will adopt.


I hope it's not like laser technology where just about the time the general public was about to embrace it....."BAM!".....DVD technology hit the streets and like an upside down turtle flipped on it's back, laser technology was flipped on it's back with a lot of lucky early adopters, stuck with a boatload of large, uber expensive laser disks. 

As the price of SD cards continues to come down and the size of SD cards continue to grow, it's just a matter of time before solid state becomes the media of choice for transferring movies to televisions and then expectedly, blu-ray players are going be kicked to the curb and we just recently upgraded to a universal blu-ray player.....who's technology (came on the market) is only two years old.

In my opinion, if the 4k industry doesn't push 4k technology into the consumer market like Apple pushed it's technology into public K-12 education, televisions are going come out with little bitty slots for SD cards and life is going continue with 4k being more a bust than a success.

(and that folks is why it's called an opinion)

...:dontknow:


----------



## RBTO (Jan 27, 2010)

BeeMan458 said:


> I hope it's not like laser technology where just about the time the general public was about to embrace it....."BAM!".....DVD technology hit the streets and like an upside down turtle flipped on it's back, laser technology was flipped on it's back with a lot of lucky early adopters, stuck with a boatload of large, uber expensive laser disks.
> 
> As the price of SD cards continues to come down and the size of SD cards continue to grow, it's just a matter of time before solid state becomes the media of choice for transferring movies to televisions and then expectedly, blu-ray players are going be kicked to the curb and we just recently upgraded to a universal blu-ray player.....who's technology (came on the market) is only two years old.
> 
> ...


I don't want to get off topic but to throw something out relative to your post, actually most upper tier TVs have SD slots right now which will play AVCHS files directly but that isn't displacing BD players because SD cards have limited capacity vs price, and are more prone to failure when compared to BD media. They also can't be produced in quantity like BDs and have the issue of permanence compared to BD media (they "fade" with time). 

It's not the media that's limiting the adoption of UHD, but the lack of it in any form (among other things). Industry_ is_ pushing hard on the adoption of UHD. It's just the fact that a lot of people are techno savy and don't see that big a benefit in UHD right now. When it matures and includes improved color gamut, 3D support, higher frame rates, _and_ low cost playable media (a la low cost players), it will start to be accepted as the next evolution in video. Some of that is in the back room right now, but the current generation of UHD has a way to go before those things materialize. The issue of digital bandwidth will always be with us, and the present day internet won't prove a good transport media for UHD, particularly when pay per Mb rears its ugly head. Your conclusion that UHD could be a "bust" is entirely possible, but I would like to see the technology flourish so it will be available when its time does come (that may just not be right away).

In conclusion, I totally agree with the main thought in your opinion and don't want to go through another round of equipment buying so soon.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

Allow me to repost this parsed comment:

"As the price of SD cards continues to come down and the size of SD cards continue to grow, it's just a matter of time before solid state becomes the media of choice for transferring movies to televisions....."

As to dependability issues, news still photographers have sealed the need for speed and dependability. Price? Who cares as it's get the image (get the story), download content to the computer and then reformat the card for the next story.

You posted: "It's just the fact that a lot of people are techno savy and don't see that big a benefit in UHD right now."

Isn't that a contradiction of terms? The point, I'm not "techno savy" and yet I see the benefit of UHD. My point, people/businesses don't have the money to see this particular upgrade, necessary to implement and in my opinion, will the technology will fail due to the weight of it's costs vs merits.

Working with you, expectedly, the next technological iteration will take hold......five or ten years down the road.


----------



## RBTO (Jan 27, 2010)

BeeMan458 said:


> Allow me to repost this parsed comment:
> 
> "As the price of SD cards continues to come down and the size of SD cards continue to grow, it's just a matter of time before solid state becomes the media of choice for transferring movies to televisions....."
> 
> ...


You threw me a curve when you said something about blu-ray players getting kicked to the curb. My interpretation was that you were saying SD cards would replace blu-ray disks as a permanent media. I totally agree with you about SD cards being a transport media and that's the _only_ way in my mind to save the contents from a still camera, camcorder, or pro camera, but only as a _short term_ storage device. I don't see SD cards replacing store bought blu-ray disks because of cost factors (and other things).

If you aren't techno savy, then what benefit do you see in UHD (has to be a big benefit)? That's a rhetorical question because I know one answer is resolution, but that's only a benefit if the users expect to view their display with a rather large angle of acceptance (closer than 1.5 times the diagonal)? That's unusual for an average viewer which someone who _is_ tech savy _is_ aware of, so I don't believe it's a contradiction to say tech savy folks see limited benefit to UHD. I'm not saying there's _no _benefit to UHD - the benefit that does exists is a benefit to relatively few users at the present, and is that benefit great enough to warrant UHD over HD? In my own personal case, I think not, especially if it costs $40k.

I think we're agreeing with each other but just saying the same thing in different terms.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

RBTO said:


> You threw me a curve when you said something about blu-ray players getting kicked to the curb.


Sorry for any confusion. I do see flash memory replacing CDs, DVDs and Blu-ray discs. My understanding, yes, flash has a certain lack of permanency.....my understanding, after fifteen or twenty-five years.



> If you aren't techno savy, then what benefit do you see in UHD (has to be a big benefit)? That's a rhetorical question because I know one answer is resolution, but that's only a benefit if the users who expect to view their display with a rather large angle of acceptance (closer than 1.5 times the diagonal)? That's unusual for an average viewer which someone who _is_ tech savy _is_ aware of, so I don't believe it's a contradiction to say tech savy folks see limited benefit to UHD. I'm not saying there's _no _benefit to UHD - the benefit that does exists is a benefit to relatively few users at the present, and is that benefit great enough to warrant UHD over HD? In my own personal case, I think not, especially if it costs $40k.
> 
> I think we're agreeing with each other but just saying the same thing in different terms.


I hate it what that happens. 

Many here remember the days of large, 60" rear projection screens, taking up all the living room's real estate, just so the best one could get was a terribly color aligned image. And the happening CRT television of the time was the 40" Mitsubishi television which back in the 80's was +$4k USD. Recently, we purchased a 42" flat screen from Costco for the home office and with tax and the additional three year warranty, was a touch over $500.00USD. The point, 1080p flat screen technology, even if an 80" screen, is affordable by yesterday's standards.

Yes, agreed, the answer to your rhetorical question, the only benefit I see in UHD (4k) quality; resolution. In my opinion, that's a lot of money for the single stated benefit of higher resolution. In the case of 1080p, one is able to see individual grass blades on a football field and individual sweaty pores on an actor's face. Just stating the obvious, high resolution is not complimentary to actor's facial features and reportedly, this point alone is causing directors and actors fits. How much resolution can today's aging actor/actress group handle?

...:rubeyes:...:huh:

(next blu-ray purchase..."Enemy at the Gates.")


----------



## tripplej (Oct 23, 2011)

Another problem with 4K is the next step 8K.

Consumers will only "upgrade" so much on their equipment. The average Joe on the street is not going to go with the latest and greatest. They want "somewhat" quality and cheap.. After all, there was a study sometime back where people were more interested in watching movies/tv shows on their iphone/ipad instead of watching it on their hdtv which is more designed to handle hd quality film. 

In the end, while 4K or 8K or whatever else is out there is nice and all, in order for it to be pushed to the masses, it has to be cheap which I don't see will happen anytime soon. And by the time it does, well, the next big thing will be then pushed to get the average consumer to open their wallet. 

Like I stated in the past, I will wait it out till ABC, NBC, CBS, PBC, FOX, etc. go to 4K via OTA.


----------



## NYPete (Oct 11, 2011)

One possible advantage of UHD is use with 3D. With all the extra pixels, you can use passive glasses and get a high def image to both eyes unlike with 1080p passive 3D TVs. I am not a big fan of 3D, but for those that are, 3D, especially 3D gaming, might drive some UHD sales. At CES, a couple companies even showed off glasses-free TV, which might get some traction in 3D gaming as well.


----------

