Do we really need yet another high res video standard?

[Rich]

Your question was clear, do we need this technology. My answer is yes we do.

Thanks for your input, even if it lacks any rational explanation to support it. I think the clear answer for 99% of consumers will be: no, we don't.

 

[snyderkv]

Thanks for your input, even if it lacks any rational explanation to support it. I think the clear answer for 99% of consumers will be: no, we don't.

So how are you going to rationaly explain your 99% claim? And a dozen others you made thus far.

All your arguments are repeats from SD vs HD from the last decade.

And I don't see how a quick google search on anti 4k blogs proves anything. Type "why 4K TVs are awsome" and you'll get just as many hits. Type anything you want actually and you will get hits. Simply typing some crap in google doesn't give you any credibility at all.

 

[twich54]

Grumpy old men said the same thing about HD over SD back in the day.

no they did not.........as a matter of fact Walter Matthau complained to Ann Margret that she had turned her perfectly good Zenith into an aquarium....but he could fix it for her !

 

[Rich]

So how are you going to rationaly explain your 99% claim? And a dozen others you made thus far.

I'm pretty sure I already have. If there is no additional benefit to the resolution advance and it requires costly equipment upgrades, the majority of consumers aren't going to be interested in it. If you have to sit three feet from the tv to see the benefits, the majority of consumers aren't going to be interested. If you have to have a twenty foot screen in your living room . . . well, you get the idea.

And I don't see how a quick google search on anti 4k blogs proves anything. Type "why 4K TVs are awsome" and you'll get just as many hits. Type anything you want actually and you will get hits. Simply typing some crap in google doesn't give you any credibility at all.

You actually have to read the articles linked and decide for yourself whether they are reliable sources and make rational arguments for or against the technology. I just provide the source, which I think pretty well supports my argument. But just for fun, I did as you said and googled "why 4k TVs are awesome." On the first page, there is really only one article holding that opinion, written by some kid at gizmodo, and it provides no serious analysis of the pros and cons of the technology. Meanwhile, there were several articles against it, including this one: Why 4K UHD Television is nothing but a CES wet dream which provides a pretty good analysis. Funny, you berate me for not doing any research. Then when I do some research and provide articles with lots of good information which supports my point, you berate me for providing those sources. I think you just want to be disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable.

 

[timm]

Here is where I think they are missing the mark.... I started buying movies awhile back - and then noticed... Hey - I watch them once and then don't watch them again.... what exactly is the point of buying a movie? So, I believe I represent the masses. I don't care how much better the picture gets -- it is the same movie that you all ready know the end to... That is their issue....not how great the picture looks..... Music is different in that regard. People want to listen ...and re-listen. Movies...uh... how many times can I watch 'Go ahead...Make my day'...or 'I'll be back'.... I mean maybe a handful of times if I am so inclined....

I buy certain special movies... but lets face it -- 99% of the movies put out these days are not what I would call special... or classics....

Good luck sony!!

 

[Rich]

Good point, timm. And I guess the response to that is that you can just download a movie from netflix or amazon to watch it once, as was argued above. But the technology fails in that regard as well, because of the HUGE amount of data required for the movie in 4K resolution. We are a long way from being able to stream that much data effectively to the home. So again, there will be a dearth of content available unless you purchase a very expensive disc. Considering after so many years, BluRay has only penetrated 26% of the market, with standard DVDs still making up 74%, and BluRay's market share growth rate is plummeting, it doesn't appear that consumers are exactly clamoring to spend even more money on a higher definition format with little obvious benefit.

 

[RUR]

This seems an odd argument. Since when do we care what "consumers" are doing? Studies have shown that 320kbps MP3 is largely indistinguishable from Redbook, yet I doubt most of us are regularly playing MP3 through our 'Logans.

Personally, I buy movies hand over fist (waaay more than music) and in hi-def at every opportunity. The nanosecond I can buy an 84" 4K OLED for less than my left cojone, I'm there. Hopefully, it'll also have 10 bit color.


OBTW, Sony isn't the largest shareholder of Blu-ray patents - That would be Panasonic.

 

[User211]

One of the more pressing issues for me than resolution is edge lit LED LCD screens. I think they look weird. On my listening room Samsung set no matter what I do colours seem psychedelic. Perhaps it is just down to the nature of LED light itself.

At the settings used in shops, especially with a certain colour hyped Samsung promo video, colours are just hyper-real stupidily idiotic. It's like the priority isn't really representing the real world at all - a good analogy would be bass boost and other such sonic "enhancements" designed to shout out and say "look at me, I'm REALLY impressive", but which become tiresome in a very short space of time.

Look at the TV and then look at the real world. If there's a reasonably good match in brightness and colour, it is a good telly with a sensible setup.

Best set I have seen for apparent accuracy is my sister's 60 inch Pioneer Kuro from 2009. Nothing I have seen thus far gets very close and it is 2013.

I've not seen an OLED screen in the flesh yet, let alone a 4K one. Let's hope they fair better than LED LCDs to these eyes.

 

[Rich]

This seems an odd argument.

The argument is that I don't see any benefit to myself (even with a 10' diagonal projection screen), or to most consumers, by upgrading from BluRay to 4K. The science seems to support that argument. So what is odd about it?

Since when do we care what "consumers" are doing?

Well, the technology isn't going to get much traction if most "consumers" don't buy into it. In that case, those that do buy into it get screwed. I am sure all those folks with HDDVD players know what I am talking about.

Personally, I buy movies hand over fist (waaay more than music) and in hi-def at every opportunity. The nanosecond I can buy an 84" 4K OLED for less than my left cojone, I'm there. Hopefully, it'll also have 10 bit color.

I have always bought a lot more music than movies. But, I actually buy a lot less movies now than I used to. In part because I think the number of quality new releases has dwindled somewhat. But mostly because of the big price increase of Blu Ray. If I am going to have to spend nearly twice as much for a movie, then I am likely to buy half as many movies. But that's just me. I don't buy a lot of high res CDs anymore for the same reason.

Just curious . . . when you get that 85" 4K tv, do you intend to sit about 5' away from it, so you get the full benefit of 4K?

OBTW, Sony isn't the largest shareholder of Blu-ray patents - That would be Panasonic.

Good point. Blu Ray is a consortium of manufacturers. I shouldn't put it all on Sony.

 

[RUR]

I've not seen an OLED screen in the flesh yet, let alone a 4K one. Let's hope they fare better than LED LCDs to these eyes.

Here you go, Justin,

OLED

The flat panel is made up of millions of tiny LEDs. The “O” in OLED stands for “organic” which means there is carbon within the molecules of the emissive (light producing) layer of the panel. Large screen OLED panels need no lamps, it’s a self illuminating device......

They provide very wide and consistent color no matter where you are seated in the room. LED LCDs tend to get significantly dimmer as one moves away from center and many exhibit color shift...

The greatest attribute of OLED is the ability to have the deepest blacks of any flat panel technology. Unlike LED which at best can only dim the image in regions, OLEDs can produce a very low luminescence level down the individual pixel. This ability coupled with bright whites is why OLEDs are expected to have the highest contrast. OLEDs are very fast devices, changing intensity faster the best plasmas and the fastest (240 Hz) LED LCDs, meaning no motion blur.

OLEDs can make more colors than CCFL or LED panels however; HDTV is limited to a specific color palette which a number of plasmas and LED HDTV already can meet or exceed. (ed: Here's where that 10-bit color comes in)

Are OLED and LED TVs The Same?

 

[RUR]

Rich, if you're part of the 99% who expects to see no benefit, then the argument makes perfect sense - for you. Since I do see multiple benefits, or at least prospective benefits, I have a conrary POV. Not only do I sit close enough to see some of the resolution benefits, I expect that industry will use this opportunity to provide other improvements such as deep color and passive 3D (no flickering or ghosting as with active glasses). These can't/won't happen with DVD/BD.

As for traction, don't assume that this will be driven solely by general consumer wants. If (big if!) the CE's see enough interest and therefore potential profit, it will come. Since I correctly adjudged HDDVD to be a bad bet, it didn't affect me, but even if 4K content ends up being slim, I'll still enjoy it.

Dunno where you're checking BD prices, but where I buy them they're only about 30% higher on average, and they've decreased by IIRC 17% over last year. Whatever the cost, it hasn't slowed me down one bit, not to mention that I find more and more $5-8 "bargain bin" BD's.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi guys,

Come to this a bit late but the compelling argument is screen size and how close one sits to the screen. Correct?

Given the fact that most folks own flat panels in the 42" to 60" range and likely sit more than eight feet from the screen, I really don't understand the argument for a new and improved within the context of mass market appeal and sales thereof.

I believe "a given" is that this sector of technology has to reinvent itself on a cyclical basis to create new sales. Seems like the cycle life, in video technology, continually shrinks. We all know past history. Latest effort was 3D. A flop in my view. Now we have the new kid on the block. At some point, we can all decide if increasing the clarity of the sweat coming off an athletes head is a worthwhile expenditure.

GG

 

[Rich]

Rich, if you're part of the 99% who expects to see no benefit, then the argument makes perfect sense - for you.

Exactly. For me, the other potential improvements from OLED are much more important. Things like color, contrast ratio, and so forth. I just don't expect to see any benefits from the increased resolution, and certainly not enough to want to spend a lot of money to upgrade equipment and pay more for movies just for that benefit alone.

As for traction, don't assume that this will be driven solely by general consumer wants.

I can't imagine how it can't be driven solely by the general consumer. That is where the profit is.

Dunno where you're checking BD prices, but where I buy them they're only about 30% higher on average, and they've decreased by IIRC 17% over last year. Whatever the cost, it hasn't slowed me down one bit, not to mention that I find more and more $5-8 "bargain bin" BD's.

Well, you are right. I haven't purchased any in a while, and the prices have come down a bit. I just checked Amazon and they have some good deals off of list too. Looks like the new 3d tech has stepped in at the higher price bracket. I expect the same would be true for 4K. They will start off expensive, and if it gets wider adoption the prices will come down.

 

[RUR]

Do you want improved color space? You should, and it will be visible at any distance. Personally, I also want passive 3D, though I understand some may not. Neither is likely to come to pass without a new standard, and 4K is the obvious vehicle.

As for general consumption, never underestimate a good marketing blitz, and consumers are easily led. Furthermore, once 4K prices reach reasonable parity with 2K, folks will begin to say "why not?". Or, they may have no choice - 3D is now included in virtually every decent display.

Hell, I may be dreaming, but it's a great dream. Time will tell.

 

[amey01]

create new sales.

GG

Three poignant words there.

Don't forget, paper sells - even if there is no obvious benefit.

A 16 megapixel camera will sell more than a 15 megapixel camera, even if the 15megapixel camera has a better lens, better processing, more features, even (dare I say) more usable pixels.

Much the same can be said for amplifier watts - a layman will prefer a 100w amp, even if it doesn't sound anywhere near as good as a 50w one.

People who don't understand technology are impressed by big numbers and flashy acronyms. Sadly, they'll pull out their wallet for it.

 

[JonFo]

I'll chime in and state that I do plan to go 4K on my front projection system as I'll be in the range for visible improvements with a 136" screen and seats at 16' and 14' away.
I'll start with a JVC DLA-RS55 (yes, I know it's 1080p upscaled via wobulation) on my current screen, but as soon as a real 4K source and LED/Laser illuminated PJ hit the market, I'll be there.

My biggest concern is media. As downloads or streaming will never do the job for me due to the crappy ISP I have. I hope a UHD BD format comes out with good content.

Also, I'm with Ken (RUR) on the topic of improved color space and depth, that is a big win regardless of resolution in the display device.

In my view, 4K displays under 80" will primarily deliver much improved 1080p 3D experiences, as well the improved color inherent in the new formats.

 

[Rich]

I'll chime in and state that I do plan to go 4K on my front projection system as I'll be in the range for visible improvements with a 136" screen and seats at 16' and 14' away.

Thanks for chiming in, JonFo. I was hoping to get your input. I do find it interesting that you would have to sit about 8' from your screen to get the full benefit of 4K. From the chart above, it looks like you will only see some marginal benefit from the increased resolution at 14-16'. However, I suppose you could always invest in a larger screen size and see more benefit from the resolution.

I'll start with a JVC DLA-RS55 (yes, I know it's 1080p upscaled via wobulation) on my current screen, but as soon as a real 4K source and LED/Laser illuminated PJ hit the market, I'll be there.

Highly recommend JVC. My RS1, though first generation, is superb.

My biggest concern is media. As downloads or streaming will never do the job for me due to the crappy ISP I have. I hope a UHD BD format comes out with good content.

I think with the size of the files for a 4K movie, no one is going to be getting these as downloads any time within the next decade or so (unless they come up with a really good compression scheme). There simply isn't the bandwidth for it. So they have to come out with physical media. My concern is that they will price it beyond what most consumers want to pay for a movie, thus limiting widescale adoption. I think that is one reason Blu Ray has been so slow to catch on and still has only 25% market penetration after seven years. Now that prices are starting to come down a bit, I expect maybe it will pick up. Although the growth curve doesn't look good for it.

Also, I'm with Ken (RUR) on the topic of improved color space and depth, that is a big win regardless of resolution in the display device.

I agree with both of you on color and contrast improvements. In fact, this is one of the things that dumbbfounds me about Sony's marketing of 4K. They aren't really hyping any new technology in these areas; they are mostly just marketing the increased resolution. I can't understand that. And I think that is one reason they are getting the cold shoulder from a lot of reviewers who were expecting more. Here is a quote from an Ars Technica article after demoing the technology:

The general consensus among the Ars staff at CES was that while Ultra HD TVs certainly looked nice—especially the ones shown off in closed booths with carefully controlled lighting and viewing distances and content—they weren't jaw-droppingly overwhelming. The jump from standard-definition to HD content was very noticeable, but the jump from 1080p to 2160p doesn't appear to carry nearly the same visual wallop.

Source

Reviews like this certainly aren't going to help them get any traction with this technology.

In my view, 4K displays under 80" will primarily deliver much improved 1080p 3D experiences, as well the improved color inherent in the new formats.

This is probably true. Then the question will be at what point will the price come down to be reasonable for such improvements, such that they get widespread adoption. Personally, I have never cared for 3d and would pass on this format until something worth the cost of upgrading (for me) came along. Seriously improved color, bit depth, gamma, contrast, dynamic range, etc.

 

[User211]

Personally, I also want passive 3D, though I understand some may not.

Er... Ken - it is already here. Haven't you watched an LG set? No flicker on the glasses as they are indeed passive. They are much more pleasant to wear too. Just like a pair of light sunglasses.

What you see with them isn't ful HD but it does look pretty good.

 

[JonFo]

Thanks for chiming in, JonFo. I was hoping to get your input. I do find it interesting that you would have to sit about 8' from your screen to get the full benefit of 4K. From the chart above, it looks like you will only see some marginal benefit from the increased resolution at 14-16'. However, I suppose you could always invest in a larger screen size and see more benefit from the resolution.

Thanks Rich, there are a couple of other reasons why 4K projection can be helpful, and one applies to me: Acoustically transparent screens are either full of small holes (mine) or made from a woven stretch material. Both induce moiré depending on the pixel structure of the PJ. So old 720 PJ's were practically unusable on Stewart Microperf screens in '99. With a 1080 PJ, the effect was much improved and people can live it it, but a 4K (even JVC's 'fake' eShift 4K) completely eliminate any issues with AT screen interaction.
I will be stepping up the screen size in the next year or two, but will be aligned with an uber-bright LED/laser PJ.

Highly recommend JVC. My RS1, though first generation, is superb.

Agreed, I have a good friend with and RS-70 and it throws a beautiful image.
I just could not wait any longer for a no-bulb PJ, as the good LED units are still too pricey (in my book).
Can you believe my trusty old CRT is still going? At 10,500 Hrs, it still delivers (soft) HD with excellent black-level and color saturation. That thing is built like a tank and weighs a ton, but boy sure lasts longer than the new stuff.

I think with the size of the files for a 4K movie, no one is going to be getting these as downloads any time within the next decade or so (unless they come up with a really good compression scheme). There simply isn't the bandwidth for it. So they have to come out with physical media. My concern is that they will price it beyond what most consumers want to pay for a movie, thus limiting widescale adoption. I think that is one reason Blu Ray has been so slow to catch on and still has only 25% market penetration after seven years. Now that prices are starting to come down a bit, I expect maybe it will pick up. Although the growth curve doesn't look good for it.

High-tech adoption curves will probably apply again here, with few us willing to pay the high initial price of admission, then eventually see the prices falling. As long as there is no stupid format war, we might see it get adopted quicker the BR.
To me the HD-DVD / BluRay war slowed down adoption by the masses even well past the tipping point where BR won.

I agree with both of you on color and contrast improvements. In fact, this is one of the things that dumbbfounds me about Sony's marketing of 4K. They aren't really hyping any new technology in these areas; they are mostly just marketing the increased resolution. ...

Agreed, but the average consumer can't tell good color from bad or excellent black-levels, not when the majority of shopping is done in big-box store conditions.
Resolution is the easiest (not most relevant) number to hang the marketing hat on.

Plasma has struggled to differentiate it's superior color, black-levels, viewing angle and motion performance over LCD for years, and unfortunately, its getting to the point where there are now rumors Panasonic might exit the plasma business in the next year or two. So selling just on improved color, etc. is not always a winning strategy. As much as us enthusiasts might lament that fact.

This is probably true. Then the question will be at what point will the price come down to be reasonable for such improvements, such that they get widespread adoption. Personally, I have never cared for 3d and would pass on this format until something worth the cost of upgrading (for me) came along. Seriously improved color, bit depth, gamma, contrast, dynamic range, etc.

Those latter improvements will most likely come from the PJ lighting technologies; my hope is that laser can be made to work effectively and cheaply enough. It will give incredible brightness, contrast and color.
I'd also expect the new HD disc format to have at least the wider color space and bit depth already in the HDMI standards and implemented in some gear.

 

[RUR]

Er... Ken - it is already here. Haven't you watched an LG set? No flicker on the glasses as they are indeed passive. They are much more pleasant to wear too. Just like a pair of light sunglasses.

What you see with them isn't ful HD but it does look pretty good.

Sure, but with 4K, you'll get full 2K hi-def left and right. Why settle for low-def 3D?