Comments on: The Irrelevance of Ultra HD

By: Trancedany

Trancedany — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 03:53:00 +0000

The real thing is about how many people are really interested on purchase a huge tv? A lot of people barely care about picture quality, most just want to see bright popping colors. I know people that gives the same if they are watching SD or HD. Paying more for something you don’t care is not what people tend to do. I’m curious because I don’t see people complaining about the escalating process these tvs have to do. Why would I want a 1080p image upscalated to 4K? It’s the same than watching an SD content on a Full HD tv. And what about the settings on those tvs? Probably the contrast, color and sharpness controls are set way to high. I wonder If we would see the same quality on a normal house environment.

By: bertbopper

bertbopper — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:17:00 +0000

That ideal situation is only possible if you bought speakers before you got your wife. Otherwise you have to eat built-in shit. And since SACD went to the super-niche market, no music artist will ever be experienced as he or she intended it in the studio. All music will be d-range compressed and downsampled to 44khz/16bit. No matter what speakers you have, it will sound crap.

By: Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 07:11:00 +0000

If 4k content had been the first thing to be announced, this article would have been about the irrelevance of the medium. Either the TV or the content had to come first. As someone with a gaming PC hooked up to his TV, I’m looking forward to playing games at a massive resolution. The movie content can come later.

By: Tim Welch

Tim Welch — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 01:57:00 +0000

The first HDTVs were $20-50k too. It takes time for the price to come down. No, I’m not going to buy one at $20k. I’m going to wait until it’s reasonably priced, and then I’ll buy one.

By: Tim Welch

Tim Welch — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 01:52:00 +0000

Why do you assume that? The reason they’re not going to innovate on speakers with a TV is because the best way to do sound is with separate speakers placed around the room. The ones on the set are just there for testing purposes.

By: Tim Welch

Tim Welch — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 01:50:00 +0000

I didn’t care about 3D, but I do want UltraHD. I’m not going to pay
$20k for a set though. In a few years, when I can get an 85″ UltraHD
for $2,500 then I’ll probably buy one.

By: Yordan Yanakiev

Yordan Yanakiev — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:45:00 +0000

I am disagree with the statement that Ultra HD ( 4k ) does not matter.

Actually the most of the PC users is playing Games, and at least 2/3 of them dreaming about higher and higher resolutions, actually I would go further stating that out there is such a “clear view” gaming fans which even 4k is not enough …
And Game industry matters, and it does matters so hard, that if it wasn’t – there would not exists most of the currently exiting items, and powerful computers.

I would say that the high price of 4k is sort of auto-goal since now peoples will decrease buying 1080p TV’s as monitors , saving money for cheaper 4k ones, when they are available. And this will be most negative for the industry.
I am suggesting – make if not equal, then close to the current price of 1080p the 4k ones, and quit producing 1080p on highest class monitors and TV’s, else the industry will stuck..

20 000 $ for a TV sounds like a joke, but the price weren’t much different when the 1st 1080p popped up.

By: Brian James

Brian James — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 04:06:00 +0000

I desperately want a 4K projector combine that Microsoft’s surface mapping technology. With that tech, I’ll be able to sit in my living room, projecting my computer over the wall, ceiling, floor and furniture while, from my point of view, all I see is a gigantic flat screen the size of my house.

By: bertbopper

bertbopper — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:12:00 +0000

In the end we will watch 4K movies with speakers that fit in an iPhone. I want someone to stand up in favor of decent sound. We still have to listen all the fantastic music ever made in crappy 44khz/16 bit CD noise. Put a Full HD movie with DTS track on a decent set, and have the true astonishing experience. A few pixels don’t matter as much.

By: Stocklone

Stocklone — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 18:33:00 +0000

Awesome. I’m glad Westinghouse is trying to make TVs average consumers can actually buy. I don’t know what the other manufacturers are doing with these crazy priced sets. That’s a great start once they begin selling it. Hopefully, they can deliver on their promises. I have way more interest in OLED than 4K so got a few more years of waiting to see something in that $2500 range. :)

By: westinghousefan

westinghousefan — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:51:00 +0000

4k content will come sooner than you think. REDRAY 4K is launching in the next couple months. Its $1500 for the 4k playback device. I remember when the first Blu-Ray player was the same price if not more. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/01/red-has-a-4k-player-for-the-coming-wave-of-4k-ultra-hd-tvs/

By: westinghousefan

westinghousefan — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:46:00 +0000

Westinghouse will have a 50″ for $2500 shipping 1st quarter this year. http://www.twice.com/articletype/news/westinghouse-brings-value-4k-ultra-hd-tvs/104595 We just need content…but this notion that they are all over $20,000 is in accurate. This was the EXACT same thing when HD first came out. the prices were RIDICULOUS. But considering we already have an Ultra HD panel for $2500 is pretty amazing imo.

By: Egin Tollkuci

Egin Tollkuci — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:08:00 +0000

I run 2 monitors at 2560×1440, Why would there be content if there is nothing to display the content on.What came first blue ray or 1080p TVs. Once consumers have the TV the content will come.

By: Mark Curtis

Mark Curtis — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:05:00 +0000

The author says “you need a huge set to actually take advantage of the technology you’re positioning…” which IMAX is.
He’s commenting on the fact that 4K is useless for ‘normal’ sized television sets, given how far away one should sit from them.

By: n900mixalot

n900mixalot — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:53:00 +0000

Hey, great comment. (I don’t even know what 4K is off of the top of my head, but you’ve presented an interesting perspective. Thanks!)

By: fool

fool — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:10:00 +0000

4K doesn’t require a ‘playing field-scale living room’. You could get a larger TV and sit at the same distance, or get the same size TV and sit closer.

Regular-sized 4K TVs do exist. Chinese brands have 50″ 4K screens in China for under $2000; we should see those in the West soon. That is not a “luxury toy”, it is firmly middle-class.

Content is not a problem, with some movies already being shot in 4K and the large range of 35mm films that can be scanned at 4K. Distribution should not be an issue once the more efficient H.265/HEVC is ready, using regular Blu-Ray discs and digital distribution.

An SLI/Crossfire setup with next-gen GPUs should run games at 4K. An advantage of high resolution is reducing the need for Anti-Aliasing, so you will not need as big an increase in power as you would expect.

As for “why 4K”, I suggest going to a 4K cinema. If you want a justification for 8K, try IMAX.

Finally, although I like 4K I do agree that its relevance is limited. NHK is skipping 4K and starting 8K broadcasts in 2016. There’s no point in TV broadcasters spending $$$ now on 4K with the trouble of making people switch when 8K is just around the corner, so it may be limited to movies, games and PC use.

By: MiniMax

MiniMax — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:13:00 +0000

I too don’t care for all those mamoth 84 incher TVs. Regardless of their resolution they would not fit my living room (and I do not know anyone who has a room spacious enough for these things).
But for years I long for higher resolution desktop monitors. And therefore the Panasonic 20 inch display rings a bell. Well 22 or 24 even 27 would be better but 20 is a good starter for a “retina” display (sort of).

By: Ocelotty1

Ocelotty1 — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 07:35:00 +0000

They said the same about Plasma screens a few years ago. Time will tell

By: Andrewy27

Andrewy27 — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 03:04:00 +0000

get used to Ultra HD, because it is practically the best the human eye can see. I’m not sure what the Television companies (Samsung, LG, Sony, etc…) will do next. Heck, the Retina display for macs has been out for 3/4 of a year, and barely anything is modified to utilize the display. How long would it even take for stations to broadcast Ultra HD?

Until it becomes affordable for 90% of the population, no one except the wealthy will buy it.

By: Stocklone

Stocklone — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 03:03:00 +0000

For the people who say 4K matters: how many of you are going put one of these $20k 84″+ UHDTVs in their living room and watch 4K content? If you’re not, I’m really failing to see how they matter to you and I’m wondering if you even got the point of the article. Perhaps you only read the title and maybe the first sentence? The author is absolutely positively right. There really isn’t a counter argument here. They don’t mater to the average consumer NOW.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 02:55:00 +0000

everyone commenting here is an idiot! What are you going to play on the damn thing? There are NO Movies available on the format, NOTHING! Not even going to be useful for PC / Console software either, as you’d need supidly hard-core GPU’s to run the resolution!

By: A

Fri, 11 Jan 2013 02:45:00 +0000

The guy who wrote this article clearly haven’t seen an imax movie…..

By: Bryce Reed

Bryce Reed — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 01:53:00 +0000

4k really does matter…….because it looks amazing. Whereas 3D doesn’t always look great or improve over 2D, 4k is a huge improvement over 1080p. It’s expensive now, but prices will eventually drop, and once the content problem is solved it will become as ubiquitous as HD sets are now.