Have your say & ask the experts!

4K Televisions

21 replies [Last post]
zameerisgreat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10 May 2008
Posts: 66

When are these sets finally going to be available? There were prototypes at the CES this year and Panasonic showed off working examples of plasma's with 3840 x 2160 resolution to japanese journalists at a privately organised event in japan. This was last year.  With manufacturers releasing their high end models into the market early this year as opposed to year end releases, i suppose they plan to introduce 4k sets at the IFA show in sept. Can WHF provide any info on this ???

Also, would these televisions be accompanied by blu-ray players able to output native 4k resolution signals or would they only upscale Full HD to 4k.  With the advent of high capacity bluray discs, i am sure the format can provide  full length movies shot at 4k on a single disc.

Anything on this, WHF ? Please....   

Andrew Everard's picture
Offline
Joined: 30 May 2007
Posts: 29118
RE: TVs and projectors

We have no knowledge of planned product introductions at the moment. 4K TVs and projectors have been shown for many years as prototypes and technology products, but it's unlikely TVs will start to appear until there are either source components or broadcasts available to exploit them.

And while at least one manufacturer has started to sell AV receivers with 4K upscaling, there's been no news as yet about players able to deliver this quality in native form, or broadcasts. NHK in Japan is leading the technology in this respect, and has been doing some work with other broadcasters worldwide (including the BBC), but as yet there are no firm plans for the launch of such a service.

__________________

Audio Editor, Gramophone

TKratz's picture
Offline
Joined: 13 Jun 2008
Posts: 614
RE: TVs and projectors RE: TVs and projectors

And I will have to ask, once again, what is the point in 4K?

At least on TVs I do not see what we need 4K for. Screen sizes are simply too small to detect any difference compared to 1080p (at least at normal viewing distances). On projectors it could make a difference. I am talking about the big ones in the Cinemas, not so much the ones you got at home.

So far I have only watch one movie in 4K (Salt). I wasn't overly impressed, and didn't find it much of an improvement. I guess the screen is still too small to really show. It was a medium sized cinema rather than one of the biggest around.

There are so many areas there can still be improved on TVs, but resolution is not one of them in my opinion. The focus is wrong.

__________________

Panasonic TX-P55VT60 | Yamaha DSP-Z7 | Oppo PDB-83SE | Panasonic DMP-BDT330 | B&W XT-series

micks_address's picture
Offline
Joined: 31 Aug 2010
Posts: 613
RE: TVs and projectors

i think one of the main drivers for 4k tvs will be glasses free 3d.. if they can up the resolution enough.. then its easier to get glasses free 3d to work.. i dont see a need for anything higher that 1080 on consumer sets less than 50".. would you be able to perceive the difference?

__________________

Panasonic 42VT30 Plasma, Denon AVR 3310, Opp BD93, MA Radius 225HD left/centre/right, MA Radius 90HD surrounds, RSw12 sub, Harmony 1100 remote, Project RPM5 Turntable 

daveloc's picture
Offline
Joined: 6 Feb 2010
Posts: 95
RE: TVs and projectors

TKratz wrote:

And I will have to ask, once again, what is the point in 4K?

At least on TVs I do not see what we need 4K for. Screen sizes are simply too small to detect any difference compared to 1080p (at least at normal viewing distances). [...]

There are so many areas there can still be improved on TVs, but resolution is not one of them in my opinion. The focus is wrong.

 

Absolutely; once you reach the point where a pixel is smaller than about one minute of arc at standard viewing distance http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper092.shtml, there's no value in still smaller ones. 

 

[Memo to BBC: of course, you still have to keep the bitrates of your MPEG2/4 lossy-encoded transmissions up to the level where enough data can be recovered to fill the pixels properly]

 

Even if the reason for ever-bigger numbers is that ever-bigger numbers can be "sold" to people who still think bigger must always be better, the whole TV panel arms race is a bizarre contrast with audio, which has been stuck at CD data-rates below equivalent audio perception thresholds, for quarter of a century... 

 

__________________

Panny 42V20, BDT500; Foxsat HDR; Sony PS3; Quad 99; B&W 684; Pure Evoke-3; Apple iMac/AE

Gaming PC: Bitfenix Prodigy, Asus P8Z77-I, 8GB i5-3570K, 2GB GTX 660Ti, 256GB Corsair SSD, Dell 2412M

TKratz's picture
Offline
Joined: 13 Jun 2008
Posts: 614
RE: TVs and projectors

daveloc wrote:

TKratz wrote:

And I will have to ask, once again, what is the point in 4K?

At least on TVs I do not see what we need 4K for. Screen sizes are simply too small to detect any difference compared to 1080p (at least at normal viewing distances). [...]

There are so many areas there can still be improved on TVs, but resolution is not one of them in my opinion. The focus is wrong.

 

Absolutely; once you reach the point where a pixel is smaller than about one minute of arc at standard viewing distance http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper092.shtml, there's no value in still smaller ones. 

 

[Memo to BBC: of course, you still have to keep the bitrates of your MPEG2/4 lossy-encoded transmissions up to the level where enough data can be recovered to fill the pixels properly]

 

Even if the reason for ever-bigger numbers is that ever-bigger numbers can be "sold" to people who still think bigger must always be better, the whole TV panel arms race is a bizarre contrast with audio, which has been stuck at CD data-rates below equivalent audio perception thresholds, for quarter of a century... 

 

 

Well put! Couldn't have said this better myself, and I fully agree!

And yes, the bitrate is a far more important point. We are also strugling with poor bitrates in Denmark.

 

__________________

Panasonic TX-P55VT60 | Yamaha DSP-Z7 | Oppo PDB-83SE | Panasonic DMP-BDT330 | B&W XT-series

6th.replicant's picture
Offline
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 3005
RE: TVs and projectors

And there's already a 5K camera, the Red Epic, which Peter Jackson and Ridley Scott are using to shoot The Hobbit and Prometheus, respectively.

Some Red Epic 5K 96fps footage:

http://vimeo.com/20807374

Cool 

zameerisgreat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10 May 2008
Posts: 66
RE: TVs and projectors RE: TVs and projectors

TKratz wrote:

And I will have to ask, once again, what is the point in 4K?

At least on TVs I do not see what we need 4K for. Screen sizes are simply too small to detect any difference compared to 1080p (at least at normal viewing distances). On projectors it could make a difference. I am talking about the big ones in the Cinemas, not so much the ones you got at home.

So far I have only watch one movie in 4K (Salt). I wasn't overly impressed, and didn't find it much of an improvement. I guess the screen is still too small to really show. It was a medium sized cinema rather than one of the biggest around.

There are so many areas there can still be improved on TVs, but resolution is not one of them in my opinion. The focus is wrong.

zameerisgreat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10 May 2008
Posts: 66
RE: TVs and projectors

Okay. Maybe 4k does not make sense but try telling that to sharp which has developed an 85" LCD Display which is capable of displaying 8K (7,680 x 4,320) resolution for which the native content is provided by NHK of japan. They claim it delivers super sharp pictures. Last year, Samsung and LG showed off 4K sets ( U-D sets as they dubbed them) at the FPD show in Japan and side by side comparisons with Full HD displays of the same size showed the higher res sets to display marginally sharper and far more stable images.
I dont know about BBC's pixel theories but 4k panels are definately on the horizon. Further proof being that Mitsubishi, which is a popular lcd manufacturer in japan has developed a high quality chipset, which is capable of upscaling content of any resolution to 4K with demonstrably great results and this will probably feature in future sets of many other brands... Maybe

maxflinn_banned's picture
Offline
Joined: 3 Feb 2009
Posts: 9536
RE: TVs and projectors

it seems logical that 4k or higher res tv's are going to be pointless at your average consumer size, but i bet given the choice in the future between a paltry 1080p set and an uber high res one for a premium, many will pay the piper...

__________________

laptop...airport...marantz pm7001...dynaudio dm 2/7's...

chrisup's picture
Online
Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 174
RE: 4K Televisions

I think more people would be intersted in 4K televisions rather than 3D TVs with glasses. Might show how good your blueray player is and how good the transfer to blueray the discs are.

The_Lhc's picture
Online
Joined: 16 Oct 2008
Posts: 12592
RE: TVs and projectors

You're missing the marketing opportunity, the next generation of digital cinema filming and projection is 4k, so it'll be sold as being even better than 1080/24p as the resolution will be the same as the director intended as well as the frame rate.

Paul.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 26 Nov 2010
Posts: 2842
RE: TVs and projectors

I think for current use, 4k is a little pointless.  But, as the way we use our electrical equipment changes so will our needs.  If you decided to use current TV's at arms length for example, the image quality is really really bad.  If we wanted to go all minority report with our displays, 4k and up would be essential. 

__________________

Paul's system thread

(where the photos live) Paul's Flickr page

maxflinn_banned's picture
Offline
Joined: 3 Feb 2009
Posts: 9536
RE: TVs and projectors

Paul Hobbs wrote:

I think for current use, 4k is a little pointless.  But, as the way we use our electrical equipment changes so will our needs.  If you decided to use current TV's at arms length for example, the image quality is really really bad.  If we wanted to go all minority report with our displays, 4k and up would be essential. 

that there is a good point..

__________________

laptop...airport...marantz pm7001...dynaudio dm 2/7's...

TKratz's picture
Offline
Joined: 13 Jun 2008
Posts: 614
RE: TVs and projectors

Paul Hobbs wrote:

I think for current use, 4k is a little pointless.  But, as the way we use our electrical equipment changes so will our needs.  If you decided to use current TV's at arms length for example, the image quality is really really bad.  If we wanted to go all minority report with our displays, 4k and up would be essential. 

And why would you want to use a TV at arms length? Unless of course you use it as a computer monitor.
Maybe I am just being unimaginative, but I still do not see the point (except from the marketing point, but that doesn't count).

__________________

Panasonic TX-P55VT60 | Yamaha DSP-Z7 | Oppo PDB-83SE | Panasonic DMP-BDT330 | B&W XT-series

bigboss's picture
Offline
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 11807
RE: TVs and projectors

If a 200-megapixel camera can be released (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2385933,00.asp), there's no reason why a 4K, 8K or even 16K television won't come in the near future. Smile

__________________

My Home Cinema  Pioneer KRP 500A, Yamaha RX-V1900, MA Radius R225HD LCR, R90HD rears, AW12 sub, Panasonic BD60, PS3, Boxee Box, Sky HD, Boxee Box, Logitech Harmony One, Logitech PS3 Adapter, Sonos ZP90

Bedroom Samsung UE32C6510, PS3 slim white, Apple TV, Sonos S5, Sonos ZP90, Audioengine 2, Oppo OPDV971H

Miscellaneous: Synology DS212J + 2 X WD Red 2TB drives, WD 1TB NAS, Sonos ZoneBridge, BT HH3 as modem & AirPort Extreme router