HD/bluray is obsolete and is being replaced by 4K UHD standard

[PhotonWrangler]

OLED is more important to me than 4k. Incredible contrast ratio, no off-axis viewing problems, zero motion artifacts. I don't own one yet but that's what I want for my next display.

 

[idleprocess]

some day you will have no choice. when 4K is all they make.

Yes, it may. And by the time it does, there will be little to no price premium - which is my main objection. But with the benefits being so marginal despite aggressive boosterism, I'm not sure it's an inevitability just yet - certainly not at today's nosebleed prices and with a dearth of content.

Can you find a new CRT TV now? Or even a 720p?

An amusing rebuttal, but irrelevant to the discussion.

I have seen 4K versus HD. 4K looks better at any distance, up close or distant.

Perhaps you have better than average visual acuity - I don't claim to and my twenties are behind me, so here's why I don't care, somewhat quantified. I sit nine to ten feet from my present 42" 720P TV. I might be able to gracefully fit a 72" monstrosity into that same space, putting me right on the line where the benefits of 1080P are fully realized.

I also don't watch television (nor movies) too often, so I imagine the value proposition is far more elusive for me than the typical person.

I have also seen 32" 4K monitors, with them you don't need a dual monitor setup.

That's kind of what I already stated...

I have a 27"monitor at 2560x1440, which is an intermediate resolution, between 1080p and 2160. It does look a lot better than HD but not as goog as 4K.

My monitors are situated about 2' from my face, solidly within the realm of where a ~32" 2160P screen is beneficial. I genuinely look forward to an affordable ~32" 2160 panel so I can do away with the inconvenience of bezels interrupting the field of view and the perpetual lack of alignment that multiple displays introduce.

I was always surprised when median-priced widescreen computer monitors tentatively went beyond 1920*1080 briefly then promptly retreated once 1080P become the standard for larger LCD and plasma screens, not to march forward again for many years.

 

[idleprocess]

OLED is more important to me than 4k. Incredible contrast ratio, no off-axis viewing problems, zero motion artifacts. I don't own one yet but that's what I want for my next display.

I do fancy the OLED displays on my most previous and current smartphone. In addition to the other benefits mentioned, they offer such crisp colors, minimal bleed, (usually) acceptable brightness, and easier on the battery than backlit LCD. Would be nice if industry could figure out how to make them in larger sizes for the same price as LCD, but that seems to remain an elusive target.

 

[TEEJ]

I still watch on a CRT. Its ~ 15 years old, and works fine.

When it finally goes, I'll probably get the wall paint that shows 8k over whatever area you paint with it.

 

[TheShadowGuy]

OLED is more important to me than 4k. Incredible contrast ratio, no off-axis viewing problems, zero motion artifacts. I don't own one yet but that's what I want for my next display.

OLED is probably my favorite screen type. 4k OLED is gorgeous compared to pretty much anything else readily available; especially with a high refresh rate.

To me jumping from 1080p to 4k is similar to the jump from non-HD to 1080p; it's a huge and immediately noticeable difference. However, I have way above average vision with my contacts, and if the screen tech isn't as good (ie, a poor quality LCD panel with poor contrast and whatnot) then the extra resolution isn't worth it. A high quality lower res display over a lower quality higher res display, if you will.
People have different likes and dislikes and eyeballs though, so it is hard to tell when enough is enough when it comes to screen tech. For me, I'm waiting on 8k.

 

[etc]

Here is a 49" 4K UHD from Sony, sub-1000. The 43" version is even cheaper.

http://store.sony.com/49-class-48.5...-27-catid-XBR-4K-Ultra-HD-TVs?_t=pfm=category

 

[markr6]

Here is a 49" 4K UHD from Sony, sub-1000. The 43" version is even cheaper.

http://store.sony.com/49-class-48.5...-27-catid-XBR-4K-Ultra-HD-TVs?_t=pfm=category

My in-laws recently got something like this. I helped them hook it up since they're not into tech stuff at all. The difference is pretty amazing!! Even the GUI and cable guide graphics give you that WOW factor. The first thing that happened to be on was one of the Shrek movies. INSANE QUALITY!!! You expect that from a CGI movie, but it was just amazing. I just sort of stood there an stared at it. Checked a few other channels, CNN, weather, History. I'm totally impressed!

 

[NoNotAgain]

In my area, Comcast wants you to upgrade to HD for another $25 a month. This is on top of the $84 presently being charged. I can't get real high speed internet, so streaming isn't going to happen.

I've got video cards for my work station PC's that have been 2k versions for the past four or more years.

My Samsung monitor is a 28" version and supports their version of 4K, it's only 3800 or so DPI. The kicker is that you need a machine with PCE 2 or 3 and and a 500 watt minimum power supply.

I use the stoneware M disks for archival storage. They've got lots of space and don't suffer from the same issues as Blue Ray home burnt disks.

 

[Steve K]

In my area, Comcast wants you to upgrade to HD for another $25 a month. This is on top of the $84 presently being charged. I can't get real high speed internet, so streaming isn't going to happen.

Have we done a thread where we discuss the evils of our cable service providers?? If not, we should start with Comcast! Yeah, I've also decided to not get HD service simply because Comcast has annoyed me on a continual basis, and now I try to avoid giving them any more money than possible (while still getting basic cable).

okay.. back to discussing the virtues of crazy-high definition!

 

[Chauncey Gardiner]

Have we done a thread where we discuss the evils of our cable service providers?? If not, we should start with Comcast! Yeah, I've also decided to not get HD service simply because Comcast has annoyed me on a continual basis, and now I try to avoid giving them any more money than possible (while still getting basic cable).

okay.. back to discussing the virtues of crazy-high definition!

Steve, That is a great idea! A place to vent on cable service providers. Misery loves company. :grouphug: If you start it, they will come.

~ Chance

 

[NoNotAgain]

Steve, That is a great idea! A place to vent on cable service providers. Misery loves company. :grouphug: If you start it, they will come.

~ Chance

We had a conversation on net neutrality a few months back and cable providers. A certain individual was all for it.

I gave up the discussion after a week.

Now back to 4k video.

Some manufacturers use 4096 x2160 as the threshold while others use a modified 3840x2160.

I think more importantly that a high refresh rate means more than the resolution. Huge difference between 60 hz refresh verses 240 hz refresh.

As long as it's not the ultra blurry 3D it's all good.

 

[PhotonWrangler]

There is also some movement on the part of broadcasters to plan for a migration from the standard 10-bit color to 12-bit color. This will provide a richer color palette and much less banding on graduated colors.

 

[idleprocess]

Here is a 49" 4K UHD from Sony, sub-1000. The 43" version is even cheaper.

http://store.sony.com/49-class-48.5...-27-catid-XBR-4K-Ultra-HD-TVs?_t=pfm=category

Not as bad a price as I was expecting - they're clearly getting cheaper faster than I expected. But it looks like otherwise-comparable 1080 TV's are going for about half that.

We had a conversation on net neutrality a few months back and cable providers. A certain individual was all for it.

I gave up the discussion after a week.

... and the thread was ultimately locked if I recall.

 

[StarHalo]

I keyed you in to $299 4K sets a year ago; the link in that post is still active, though it's now $340..

Also, an Amazon Fire TV is $99; Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon Prime together are ~$20/mo. Been using this setup for a year now, and am much happier with only an internet provider/no cable provider.

 

[subwoofer]

4K is just another way the TV manufacturers can resell us all the equipment we bought from them a year or two ago.

Yes it is capable of a sharper image and therefore bigger screen, but at the expense of more, more MORE. More expense, more re-buying, more bandwidth, more power, more. The law of diminishing returns kicks in very strongly.

In my opinion full HD (as I fell for the earlier HD TVs that were actually only 720) with quality HD content is all anyone needs unless they stand right in front of the TV (like you do in a shop). Put you TV at a normal viewing distance and you will be hard pressed to see any difference.

Even in the current HD offerings you see vastly different quality. So often I see TV broadcasts where the camera if not focussed on the subject, but on the background. Viewed in SD you can't tell, but in HD you can. When they get HD right it truly sings.

Already I see more detail than I want to a lot of the time (no wonder many actors hate HD), I don't want this taken up a notch. With a 55" TV and good HD I see only a 'real' looking image, with no pixels evident.

I'm really hoping, just like 3D, that people don't fall for the 4K hype.

 

[etc]

My in-laws recently got something like this. I helped them hook it up since they're not into tech stuff at all. The difference is pretty amazing!! Even the GUI and cable guide graphics give you that WOW factor. The first thing that happened to be on was one of the Shrek movies. INSANE QUALITY!!! You expect that from a CGI movie, but it was just amazing. I just sort of stood there an stared at it. Checked a few other channels, CNN, weather, History. I'm totally impressed!

I am going to assume that CNN, etc was upscaled from 1080p to 2160 (4K).

 

[etc]

We had a conversation on net neutrality a few months back and cable providers. A certain individual was all for it.

I gave up the discussion after a week.

Now back to 4k video.

Some manufacturers use 4096 x2160 as the threshold while others use a modified 3840x2160.

I think more importantly that a high refresh rate means more than the resolution. Huge difference between 60 hz refresh verses 240 hz refresh.

As long as it's not the ultra blurry 3D it's all good.

I don't think the refresh rate is "better" than the resolution, both are a part of the package. I went from a 60 hz to 240 Hz and it was a huge difference.

A 4K device running at 240 Hz refresh rate will be stunning.

 

[markr6]

I am going to assume that CNN, etc was upscaled from 1080p to 2160 (4K).

At best. They also have Comcast. No matter what I watch, the cable box always says "720p" on the front display. I assumed they only broadcast 720p, at least in my area.

 

[etc]

Not as bad a price as I was expecting - they're clearly getting cheaper faster than I expected. But it looks like otherwise-comparable 1080 TV's are going for about half that.


... and the thread was ultimately locked if I recall.

4K prices are where HD was 5-7 years ago. My first HDTV was a 37" sharp and it was around 700 used. Only 60 Hz refresh. I think you can get that model used now for $100.

HD prices are where CRT TVs were 15-20 years ago. Used HD TV sell for 200-300, even for large 46" models. HD monitors sell for 100-$200, even 24" models.

I think I am going to wait a year until I buy 4K. Will let the prices drop even further.
On top of that, more content will appear.

 

[PhotonWrangler]

At best. They also have Comcast. No matter what I watch, the cable box always says "720p" on the front display. I assumed they only broadcast 720p, at least in my area.

The box is probably configured for fixed 720P output, possibly because that's what the TV can handle. If the TV can display 1080i, you can change the box settings to pass through the native resolution that the program is being transmitted at.