Advertised a lot around the perimeters at the World Cup , has anyone actually got one of these tv's , are they any good and are they broadcasting in 4k yet, or is this a thing of the future that hasn't yet/ might not take off?
Went to Currys earlier today, apparently there's no 4k channels broadcasting ATM but in the pipeline they say. It's real impressive but I'm keeping my money till it's up and running. For more info: www.whathifi.com/news/ultra-hd-4k-tv-reviews-news-and-everything-you-need-to-know
4k tv's - new generation of tv's - represents number of pixels - whereas HD is 1080, then 4k will give you 4 times the pixels and therefore hugely improved quality
4k curved tv's are the ones to get once they come around, but they are only good for a sofa of people, as they have a limited field of vision
so in my house I would be on the end of the sofa missing half of the tv??? what a fucking waste of money...that will never work if u have to be sat straight in front of the tv all the time
As @The_President correctly says, it's to do with the number of pixels on a given display. Now something to bare in mind here, as far as I know, having a 4K TV and watching regular HD (or SD) TV will probably look crap. (Imagine taking my display picture next to my username, and stretching it out to be bigger - it certainly wouldn't be any clearer, it would in fact look very poor and 'blocky'/'pixelated') So I wouldn't bother getting one, I don't know of any medium that actually supports 4K other than the equipment that shoots video. (TV, Internet Streams, DVD and Blu-Ray and so on certainly don't support such a high resolution, meaning that all media is essentially going to be "scaled up".)
The reason that you're seeing them advertised at the world cup is Sony; they're a World Cup partner (i.e Sponser) and are going all out with their advertising. It just so happens they're pouring money in to this 4K stuff, so it's getting advertised more so than you'd expect*.
Is it worth it? In my mind no. Sony claim that their mobile phones (Xperia Z2 >) are capable of shooting in 4K, which may or may not be technically correct (check the Sony Mobile site closely!), but does show that they're trying to push the 4K slant throughout all avenues of their business which may give an inclination of just how much of a gamble they're taking on it.
* What I haven't seen advertised is their TVs that can mute commentary by cancelling it out. I think that would've been a much better technology to be pushing this year, it's ready for use after all - and you only have to look on here to see how much annoyance stems from poor commentary! I'm wondering whether they would've been allowed to advertise it with regards to televised matches though, and the technology essentially conflicting with the broadcaster(s).
Buying 4k tvs right now is a complete waste of money. Very few programmes and only most films are shot on 4k cameras. Unlike what president says its only twice the pixels of HD - HD is 2k, it counts the horizontal pixels, not the vertical ones, which is 1080 for HD. It still takes a ridiculous amount of time to render 4k files and there isn't actually any way of broadcasting 4k at the moment worldwide. Basically we're at where HD was in 2004-2005, eventually everyone will shoot on 4k and then more people will demand 4k channels etc. But right now get a top notch 2k (1080 HD) tv and save yourself some money when good 4k tvs will be around in 5-6 years time and we might actually have some 4k channels.
Then the final step will be 8k... twice the detail of 4k and is apparently the detail the human eye sees things in, so when we can render 8k special effects is when the special effects will be mega super realistic.
Source: I'm a videographer filmmaker and i'm currently looking into investing in 4k video equipment.
Buying 4k tvs right now is a complete waste of money. Very few programmes and only most films are shot on 4k cameras. Unlike what president says its only twice the pixels of HD - HD is 2k, it counts the horizontal pixels, not the vertical ones, which is 1080 for HD. It still takes a ridiculous amount of time to render 4k files and there isn't actually any way of broadcasting 4k at the moment worldwide. Basically we're at where HD was in 2004-2005, eventually everyone will shoot on 4k and then more people will demand 4k channels etc. But right now get a top notch 2k (1080 HD) tv and save yourself some money when good 4k tvs will be around in 5-6 years time and we might actually have some 4k channels.
Then the final step will be 8k... twice the detail of 4k and is apparently the detail the human eye sees things in, so when we can render 8k special effects is when the special effects will be mega super realistic.
Source: I'm a videographer filmmaker and i'm currently looking into investing in 4k video equipment.
Pretty sound advice - probably the best way of explaining the sitation to be fair; it's like HD when HD was pointless!
With regards to the numbers though, I think you may have done @The_President a bit of a dis-service there, as in actual fact (as per the spec) - 4K will be at least 4 times the pixels.
1080p Full HD @ 1920 x 1080 = 8,294,400 Quad HD @ 3840 x 2160 = 2,073,600 8,294,400 / 2,073,600 = 4
4K/Ultra HD @ 4096 x 2160 = 8,847,360 8,847,360 / 2,073,600 = 4.266~
You're right in that the measurement has switched from being measured vertically to horizontally, but the aspect ratio has stayed the same... This means that by doubling the length, you have to double the height - the end result being that by doubling it in size you can actually fit four of the original ones inside the new size.
So if they had kept with the vertical naming convention we would be going from 1080p to 2160p - the size increase will have the same relationship regardless of which axis you measure from.
you have to be a right mug if you think a 4k tv is worth spending loads of dosh on, I have no doubt payday loan companies are rubbing their hands at the thought of this launch, the power of advertising eh.
3DTV seems to have been a phase that seems to be dying out (i.e. You dont see too many adverts for this anymore)... Have to wait and see if 4K is similar
It's definitely coming, the only issue is the licensing of the overcrowded broadcasting wavelengths as the data transmission required to broadcast one 4k channel is equal to 16 standard BBC or ITV channels! I'm for weeding out all those shopping and religious/Arabic channels to make space there!
Buying 4k tvs right now is a complete waste of money. Very few programmes and only most films are shot on 4k cameras. Unlike what president says its only twice the pixels of HD - HD is 2k, it counts the horizontal pixels, not the vertical ones, which is 1080 for HD. It still takes a ridiculous amount of time to render 4k files and there isn't actually any way of broadcasting 4k at the moment worldwide. Basically we're at where HD was in 2004-2005, eventually everyone will shoot on 4k and then more people will demand 4k channels etc. But right now get a top notch 2k (1080 HD) tv and save yourself some money when good 4k tvs will be around in 5-6 years time and we might actually have some 4k channels.
Then the final step will be 8k... twice the detail of 4k and is apparently the detail the human eye sees things in, so when we can render 8k special effects is when the special effects will be mega super realistic.
Source: I'm a videographer filmmaker and i'm currently looking into investing in 4k video equipment.
Pretty sound advice - probably the best way of explaining the sitation to be fair; it's like HD when HD was pointless!
With regards to the numbers though, I think you may have done @The_President a bit of a dis-service there, as in actual fact (as per the spec) - 4K will be at least 4 times the pixels.
1080p Full HD @ 1920 x 1080 = 8,294,400 Quad HD @ 3840 x 2160 = 2,073,600 8,294,400 / 2,073,600 = 4
4K/Ultra HD @ 4096 x 2160 = 8,847,360 8,847,360 / 2,073,600 = 4.266~
You're right in that the measurement has switched from being measured vertically to horizontally, but the aspect ratio has stayed the same... This means that by doubling the length, you have to double the height - the end result being that by doubling it in size you can actually fit four of the original ones inside the new size.
So if they had kept with the vertical naming convention we would be going from 1080p to 2160p - the size increase will have the same relationship regardless of which axis you measure from.
ah yes, true that! It was last night's rose speaking, i swear!
3DTV seems to have been a phase that seems to be dying out (i.e. You dont see too many adverts for this anymore)... Have to wait and see if 4K is similar
3d was and always will be a fad. Especially if you need special glasses to watch it. 4k will be the norm eventually like HD is now, but you'll be spending wayyyy too much money for something that you can't use properly if you buy one now.
Until such a time that native 4k content is more widely available there is no real point in buying one of these yet....although some of the better ones do a pretty decent job of upscaling HD content.
This is not another 3D 'fad' though - 4k will be the norm in a few years.
If you have seen any native 4K stuff feeding one of these TV's then you will know how fantastic the pictures look.
I hardly watch anything in 3d so that's been a waste of money for me. That said I will treat myself but not as soon as they come out - more when they are the norm and the price is sensible.
I agree that it will take off but I don't think it will be in the same way that HD did. I think the take up will be a lot slower and there will be many more that will pass on it altogether. There are two reasons for that, in my view:
1> The world is a different place now. The population of the whole planet, and in the UK as much as anywhere, worked on the basis that with cheap money we should all change all our consumer goods as soon as a new, updated, version hit the shelves. That has led to thousands of perfectly good TVs being handed down, and then thrown away to be replaced by the newest, biggest, call it what ever you like-ist replacements that we can find. With the economic realities we, currently, have I think a lot of people will be happy with 1080 for a lot longer than they were with those massive boxes that took up space ion the font room with smallish screens.
2> Very few people have a front room big enough for a TV set big enough for there to be much appreciable difference between 1920 and 3840. Thus there is little benefit on a bigger set, and if the set is the same size as we have now it will be difficult to notice a difference in most of the programming that we watch.
Went to Currys earlier today, apparently there's no 4k channels broadcasting ATM but in the pipeline they say. It's real impressive but I'm keeping my money till it's up and running. For more info: www.whathifi.com/news/ultra-hd-4k-tv-reviews-news-and-everything-you-need-to-know
Exactly, always worth playing the waiting game. 3D tvs turned out to just be a gimmick.
I agree that it will take off but I don't think it will be in the same way that HD did. I think the take up will be a lot slower and there will be many more that will pass on it altogether. There are two reasons for that, in my view:
1> The world is a different place now. The population of the whole planet, and in the UK as much as anywhere, worked on the basis that with cheap money we should all change all our consumer goods as soon as a new, updated, version hit the shelves. That has led to thousands of perfectly good TVs being handed down, and then thrown away to be replaced by the newest, biggest, call it what ever you like-ist replacements that we can find. With the economic realities we, currently, have I think a lot of people will be happy with 1080 for a lot longer than they were with those massive boxes that took up space ion the font room with smallish screens.
2> Very few people have a front room big enough for a TV set big enough for there to be much appreciable difference between 1920 and 3840. Thus there is little benefit on a bigger set, and if the set is the same size as we have now it will be difficult to notice a difference in most of the programming that we watch.
Remember HD took a very long time to catch on, its only in the last 2-3 years when youtube started supporting HD video that it has become "the norm". It will take a while for the new HEVC codec aka h.265 to become widespread and operating systems and youtube and vimeo will support it. Then we can have fast streaming of 4k. It is definitely getting picked up by professionals though, as it allows a lot more detail to be captured and allows the editor to reframe a 4k shot if it will be compressed down to 2k without loss of quality. This will eventually be passed on to the consumer, with consumer 4k cameras, mobile phone cameras and tv channels.
4k looks utterly fantastic, take a look at the new GH4 footage and put on the 4k quality. It's fantastic. It may take a while to load, as i said, there are no codecs around at the moment that will stream 4k quickly, but that will change in the next couple of years when H.265 becomes widespread.
4k TV is impressive. Next time you are in an electrical shop take a look. The problem is that next to nothing currently being broadcast in 4k and 8k technology already exists. I am wondering whether 4k will ever see the light of day. They other big cost component for broadcasters is the additional bandwidth needed to transmit and support 4k/8k. It's a huge network overhead (cost) that they will struggle to recoup on.
4k tv's - new generation of tv's - represents number of pixels - whereas HD is 1080, then 4k will give you 4 times the pixels and therefore hugely improved quality
Comments
www.whathifi.com/news/ultra-hd-4k-tv-reviews-news-and-everything-you-need-to-know
The reason that you're seeing them advertised at the world cup is Sony; they're a World Cup partner (i.e Sponser) and are going all out with their advertising. It just so happens they're pouring money in to this 4K stuff, so it's getting advertised more so than you'd expect*.
Is it worth it? In my mind no. Sony claim that their mobile phones (Xperia Z2 >) are capable of shooting in 4K, which may or may not be technically correct (check the Sony Mobile site closely!), but does show that they're trying to push the 4K slant throughout all avenues of their business which may give an inclination of just how much of a gamble they're taking on it.
* What I haven't seen advertised is their TVs that can mute commentary by cancelling it out. I think that would've been a much better technology to be pushing this year, it's ready for use after all - and you only have to look on here to see how much annoyance stems from poor commentary! I'm wondering whether they would've been allowed to advertise it with regards to televised matches though, and the technology essentially conflicting with the broadcaster(s).
Then the final step will be 8k... twice the detail of 4k and is apparently the detail the human eye sees things in, so when we can render 8k special effects is when the special effects will be mega super realistic.
Source: I'm a videographer filmmaker and i'm currently looking into investing in 4k video equipment.
With regards to the numbers though, I think you may have done @The_President a bit of a dis-service there, as in actual fact (as per the spec) - 4K will be at least 4 times the pixels.
1080p Full HD @ 1920 x 1080 = 8,294,400
Quad HD @ 3840 x 2160 = 2,073,600
8,294,400 / 2,073,600 = 4
4K/Ultra HD @ 4096 x 2160 = 8,847,360
8,847,360 / 2,073,600 = 4.266~
You're right in that the measurement has switched from being measured vertically to horizontally, but the aspect ratio has stayed the same... This means that by doubling the length, you have to double the height - the end result being that by doubling it in size you can actually fit four of the original ones inside the new size.
So if they had kept with the vertical naming convention we would be going from 1080p to 2160p - the size increase will have the same relationship regardless of which axis you measure from.
Until such a time that native 4k content is more widely available there is no real point in buying one of these yet....although some of the better ones do a pretty decent job of upscaling HD content.
This is not another 3D 'fad' though - 4k will be the norm in a few years.
If you have seen any native 4K stuff feeding one of these TV's then you will know how fantastic the pictures look.
1> The world is a different place now. The population of the whole planet, and in the UK as much as anywhere, worked on the basis that with cheap money we should all change all our consumer goods as soon as a new, updated, version hit the shelves. That has led to thousands of perfectly good TVs being handed down, and then thrown away to be replaced by the newest, biggest, call it what ever you like-ist replacements that we can find. With the economic realities we, currently, have I think a lot of people will be happy with 1080 for a lot longer than they were with those massive boxes that took up space ion the font room with smallish screens.
2> Very few people have a front room big enough for a TV set big enough for there to be much appreciable difference between 1920 and 3840. Thus there is little benefit on a bigger set, and if the set is the same size as we have now it will be difficult to notice a difference in most of the programming that we watch.
4k looks utterly fantastic, take a look at the new GH4 footage and put on the 4k quality. It's fantastic. It may take a while to load, as i said, there are no codecs around at the moment that will stream 4k quickly, but that will change in the next couple of years when H.265 becomes widespread.
http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/are-curved-tvs-a-gimmick/