Do we really need yet another high res video standard?

[Rich]

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.

Well that makes a lot of sense for your application, then. For the average consumer, though, I don't see any advantage to buying a TV set with the increased resolution, unless of course it also incorporates obvious advancements in color, contrast, etc.

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.

That thing was pretty impressive technology for its day, even if it is the size of a compact car. You are so going to enjoy the extra four or six seats in the prime sweetspot of your room once you upgrade that behemoth!

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 think that is a very valid point. But for the average consumers, I think that price will be the real determining factor. People just have a mindset that they don't want to pay much more than $15 for a CD or a movie, it seems. Folks that are willing to pay $20 to $30 for a movie are a lot smaller number, I think. So venerable DVD still hangs on.

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.

Maybe so. But I would think in a side-by-side demonstration, vast improvements in color and contrast would be much more visible than 4k vs. 2k resolution.

 

[Rich]

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

Makes sense. If you are into the whole 3d thing, it may make sense to upgrade. That is another technology that I have passed on. Just looks too fake to me and distracts from my enjoyment of the movie. Maybe I am getting old . . .

 

[RUR]

Makes sense. If you are into the whole 3d thing, it may make sense to upgrade. That is another technology that I have passed on. Just looks too fake to me and distracts from my enjoyment of the movie. Maybe I am getting old . . .

Took me a while to take a liking to it, Rich, but I did come 'round.

Really well-done 3D can be fantastic. Last week we watched Cave of Forgotten Dreams and it was simply amazing. Avatar, Hugo and Prometheus also come to mind.

There are certainly many poorly-done films and, worse still, post filming conversions, but quality continues to improve as directors adapt to the concept. Jackson's Hobbit is SoTA 3D, though I didn't care for the film, itself.

 

[User211]

I actually lied a bit when I said I hadn't seen an OLED. There was one in my Creative MP3 player from years back. It looked great but was only about an inch wide

TBH OLED seems like the best option for an active TV as opposed to a projector. But from what I read a few months back it seems unlikely they'll get adopted by the big TV producers. Though that view does depend on particular article you are reading i.e. no one seems sure.

Ken - I think the LG glasses and lower res give reults that are preferable overall to wearing the Samsung actives I have. I don't take well to flicker and having to watch movies in total darkness to get a decent result. If anyone is wondering why I bought the Samsung after slagging it of a bit then that is just down to the fact in weighed very little, and was very thin. An easy self-install. Edge lit LEDs allow those attributes, of course.

I've gotta say though my appetite for music BluRays has gone up - great SQ and (hyped) PQ on the live Nirvana and Pixies disks I got recently. REALLY SERIOUSLY enjoyable.

Overall, if the price is right, 4K is fine IMHO. The right price may take a while though...:devil: Though I did pay £3K for the first Sony 1080P LCD set a few years back. Too much really - what an impatient soul I must be.

 

[RUR]

IKen - I think the LG glasses and lower res give reults that are preferable overall to wearing the Samsung actives I have. I don't take well to flicker and having to watch movies in total darkness to get a decent result.

Yup, this is exactly why those of use who enjoy 3D should be rooting for 4K passive, regardless of any other benefits.

OLED has proceeded in fits and starts from the get go. I think it'll get here - eventually! Since I just purchased two new plasmas, I figure I'll just enjoy those while waiting for the 4K/OLED train to arrive.

 

[User211]

Did you go for Panny plasmas, Ken?

Let's hope Kim doesn't mess things up - I think that Jap/South Korean competition thing is pretty healthy. Disturbing LG and Samsung won't be conducive to progress.

And let's hope I stop submitting so many typos... I'm getting pretty lapse round here

 

[RUR]

I did, Justin. I've posted before about the P50GT30 I purchased late 2011 for the MBR and, when my family room Sony became problematic a few months ago, I was compelled to replace it with a P65GT50.

They're great TV's.

 

[twich54]

And let's hope I stop submitting so many typos... I'm getting pretty lapse round here

no worries Justin, you have a long ways to go before you're as bad as me !

 

[User211]

no worries Justin, you have a long ways to go before you're as bad as me !

If ou ha mad a ost wit oads of tpos it woud ave bee funier Dav!

 

[timm]

(partial hi-jack!!) -- So, since I have some videophiles here.... what is the best tv out there in the 60" range that is competively priced? (i.e. I can't go 4K) -- something in the 2600 dollar range or so....
My room has a lot of light in it from big windows.... Any suggestions? My 8000 series samsung (240hz LED) went on the fritz and they are giving me a store credit..

 

[JonFo]

^^^ If you have tons of light, then an LED/LCD might be the best. But I sure can't recommend any, as I only follow plasmas, as they kill an LCD on video quality IMHO.

 

[RUR]

A surprising development:

Seiki 50-inch 4K TV on sale for $1,299, offers Ultra HD for a regular HD price

and early purchaser discussion at the Red camera users forum:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?98027-1299-Seiki-UHDTV-50-quot-SE50UY04-Bought-it-today

 

[timm]

^^^ If you have tons of light, then an LED/LCD might be the best. But I sure can't recommend any, as I only follow plasmas, as they kill an LCD on video quality IMHO.

Hi jonathon. Thanks. I ended up getting the 2012 8000 series 60" Samsung led Decided on the extended warranty as well given the problem I had w the first. Got a nice deal since the 2013s are getting ready to go on the shelf.

 

[User211]

Just been watching an 84 inch LG in Copenhagen. The extra res is apparent and beats a 65 inch Sony HD set close up. By no small margin.

With screens this size, I think ultra HD is desirable as they are so room dominating and large that when you do get close (which YOU WILL do) everything looks fine.

All I saw was the colour hyped LG demo which is as bad as Samsung's effort. It suffers from the usual LED backlit "undesirableness" but I'm confident an OLED would be quite a bit better.

 

[User211]

I took some snaps on my Nexus 4 - here they are but I've no idea what they look like as all I have is a phone. Probably fairly poor - just included for fun, really, and evidence!

Copenhagen is insanely expensive for people from the UK. Average income here is £62,000 or $83,000 using the exchange rate I paid - nearly 3 times ours!

 

[RUR]

Assuming that figure is DKK, it's cheaper (~$17,700) than the US ~$20K.

Let's not forget that the first plasmas were waaaay smaller (40-50") with initial pricing around $25K.

 

[User211]

It is DKK. Based on 470,000 a quick Google came up with.

Computers, electricals and physical media seem OK priced. Food and alcohol are very expensive.

B&O set in the hotel room

 

[timm]

wow-- even with your camera... that pic looks amazing.....

 

[timm]

just a question... originally this thread started based on a new format to sell little shiney discs... and moved to better tv tech.... I see value in better tv standards... I do not in the movie software - simply because I don't watch movies over and over... I find myself buying the movie - just to buy it - and then the movie just sits. I really liked the movie 'Inception' as an example - then when I was moving - found the blu-ray still in shrink rap....

However, since this thread has moved to tv tech - do the same nay-sayers (which I was one) still feel the same? That it is not worthwhile? I think it is - because I watch the tv often... The purchase of movies however - not so much.... Question is - does the new tv tech drive sales of new software...i.e. you need the new software so you can take full advantage of the new tv technology....

 

[Hocky]

just a question... originally this thread started based on a new format to sell little shiney discs... and moved to better tv tech.... I see value in better tv standards... I do not in the movie software - simply because I don't watch movies over and over... I find myself buying the movie - just to buy it - and then the movie just sits. I really liked the movie 'Inception' as an example - then when I was moving - found the blu-ray still in shrink rap....

However, since this thread has moved to tv tech - do the same nay-sayers (which I was one) still feel the same? That it is not worthwhile? I think it is - because I watch the tv often... The purchase of movies however - not so much.... Question is - does the new tv tech drive sales of new software...i.e. you need the new software so you can take full advantage of the new tv technology....

The new tech in the TV is only useful if you have content.... which would come on those shiny discs you were talking about a minute ago. There is hardly anything broadcast in even 1080p, let alone 4k.