big boss you say that TV is for viewing programmes but if you examined Sony's latest ads on the triluminous TV, it doesn't go with that convention, the free experia z phone with nfc underpins that as you ideally see the image on the big colourful screen mirrored from your phone.It maybe marketing but convention changes and I believe consumers are finding new ways to use the TV with little encouragement.(The ultra high res' comes handy)Streaming from NAS boxes on A/v content or even from a Ps3. Youtube has presence from some broadcasters it is higher than 1080p which windows media does not play but on mac quick time...on mac display. ...jaw dropping sharpness in videos.
Movies at the cinema is still unbeatable! 4K projector and breathtaking professionally calibrated 7.1 sound, and theater acoustic consideration that would be difficult to duplicate in the home and at considerable cost.
The TV is now largely for games, social networking, Sky sports. I think any survey data would justify the points.
Bluray sells are declining...4k bluray is not the answer to 4k TV success as what hi fi hinted in their ultra hd article....when they said....are the public expected to buy the whole lot of blurays again?Explains why no 4k bluray.4k Broadcast is still the genie.
Movies at the cinema is still unbeatable!
HiFi / A/V / Bedroom
1) All these extra features are what manufacturers are concentrating on for advertising. But let's not forget the priorities of the consumer. Why would you buy a TV? What's your priority for using your TV? To watch programmes and films or check facebook and play games? Can you point me to any survey data you're alluding to? I'm yet to see a person wanting to buy a TV to access facebook.
2) Blu ray disc sales are actually increasing:
Personally, I enjoy watching films both at the cinema and at home equally. My buttkicker gives me the experience not possible at the cinema.
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
Depends on the cinema.
Given the choice between my local odeon and watching at home, would rather watch at home, but IMAX 3D is an experience you just can't replicate in a home environment.
Lounge: Panasonic TX-P60ZT65B (calibrated), Pioneer SC-LX75, Denon DPB-2012, Sky-HD1TB, PS4, Xbox 360, Apple-TV, Atacama Equinox AV stand, Monitor Audio Silver RX8, RXC, RX-FX, RXW-12. Kitchen: Pioneer XC-HM81, Monitor Audio Bronze BX2. Bedroom: Samsung UE37D6510, Samsung BD-C5900, Sky-HD, Pioneer N-50, Rotel RC-03 (pre-amp), Rotel RB-9708X (power-amp), Mordaunt-Short MS914
The highest quality available on youtube is 1080p:
I spoke to my sister-in-law who works for Google and Youtube. They had announced 4K videos in 2010, but that was lowered to 2048 X 1536 last year, which is not far off from 1080p.
I'm yet to see a person wanting to buy a TV to access facebook.
I know zero people who access any social networking on their TV (or have any desire to do so). On the other hand, virtually everyone I know access social networking on their phone / iPad / tablet / laptop whilst watching something on TV.
It does depend, which is one of the reasons I disagreed with the blanket statement. However, I've not been to any cinema where I prefer the bass to my own, that includes IMAX. Main speakers are frequently too loud and / or distorted at the cinema and there are also often projection problems such as soft focus.
on the audio front I do agree, not found a cinema that sounds better than home - was thinking more of the big screen impact.
That said, am planning to go and watch Pacific Rim at the empire in Leicester square, just to hear Dolby Atmos on action.
Let us know how it sounds.
I've never seen a well sorted PJ in a home environment. My guess is that, given the proximity to the screen, it would be possible to replicate scale and exceed quality of the cinema.
I find it difficult enough with Gamemaker's writing style and also his random marshalling of several apparently unrelated topics in the same paragaraph, to now be unsure whether he himself has actually seen a 4K television showing true 4K content. And nobody mentioned plasma in this thread before he did. Mentioning plasma in a 4K discussion really did not help, the merits or demerits of 4K are quite separate from a plasma argument.
The one thing that could shift the paradigm here would be if Sky fully engaged.
They're the one company that has the broadcast platform with the available bandwidth (satellite), the ability to roll out the necessary hardware (ie replacement set-top boxes), the financial muscle to roll this out at heavily subsidised prices, with access to potential content (Hollywood films and premium sports content), and on the sports front with the clout to insist on 4k cameras being used in all premier league grounds and major sporting events (cricket, F1 etc).
If sky came out the blocks in 2014 and offered 3 genuine 4k channels for an extra £10 a month (sports, movies and nature), plus a free set-top box, then that could be a game changer.
I know it didn't work with 3D, but 4k doesn't require people to sit in their lounge wearing sunglasses!
Well said as usual, Mr Malarky. However, I'm now very keen for someone else to go into their local Sony Centre and see the blessed £6K 65" 4K television, showing true 4K content. I would like to be reassured that someone else found the 4K television more impressive than I did, and I'll be happy to stand corrected if my opinion is in the minority.
Click here to read about my system
sony had employed parker marketing research in 2009 to assess its 4k vs 2k to see if it makes a difference. It is as objective as you can get in blind study with 20 foot screen. The results show a higher audience satisfaction with 4k.Results were replicated over time so the findings are valid. How that test would fair on TVs though we have to see. If on the otherhand the test in the cinema context showed no preferences then I would not be going on about 4k.I am fair and knew about this research before I penned about 4k and its importance for home entertainment. I am all for democratic assessment as we live in a demcracy decreed by consensus.
I cannot see a home non projector TV set up could rival a sony 4k dcp movie experience. I wouldn't comment on other cinema set up as it has not been researched. I would aways look for cinemas with quality systems.TVs are not first choice for movies anymore as it is 2k.
If you spend 25k on a room installation incl projectors for home cinema then I would make an exception in what I say. Hands up who has a special home cinema room with professional A/v installation? If you have then you are in the select minority who do not need to go to the cinema. But Imax is unrivalled as said.
That's exactly the point. The results were visible on a 20 foot screen. What about consumer grade TVs? Is there any TV with a 20 foot screen?
Anyways, I have no idea why this is being brought up. No one's denying that 4K will be superior to 1080p. The problem is 4K content delivery.
Interesting to note that even you admit you don't know how 4K will look on TV, yet you're expecting people to wholeheartedly embrace it & spend 4 times the price of 1080p TVs on a 4K TV.
big boss, I have seen 4k showroom set up but not in the UK but in asia with the missus.All expectations were met. I was about 6ft from it... I urge others to view from themselves and discover. Democratic enough.
I simply said I like to see a blind viewing test like the market research exercise with the sony projectors but with 1080p and the 4k set from a comfortable viewing distance and maybe 6 ft?
I think what hi fi has done it internally but not on a public platform.
I urge others to view from themselves and discover. Democratic enough.
Son_of_SJ has checked it out.
I happened to see the 65" Sony 4K television in my local Sony Centre today. It was showing true 4K source material. I must be honest, it looked good, very good indeed, but, for me, not quite the "Wow!" factor that I had been expecting from the reviews. Maybe if I hadn't been watching my Blu-Ray of "Drive" last night on my 64" Samsung plasma I might have been more impressed. I don't often get the chance to watch Blu-Rays in my parlour, so last night I was thinking that the picture from Drive looked pretty good. The 65" 4K Sony television showing 4K material today looked as good, but not, to my middle-aged eyes, noticeably better than Blu-Rays on my Samsung.
The thing is, what's the point? 4K on demo will only be seen in the showroom. There is no 4K content available in the UK. Sony is offering 4K delivery system to US customers, not UK.
Sony needs to announce something similar for the UK first.
I don't think you're understanding my point at all. I have no doubt that 4K is far superior to anything on the market today. But I will not buy it until I know there is 4K material available to watch. It is quite possible that 4K will be widely available in the UK in 2-3 years' time. I'll think of buying a 4K TV then. I'm not going to buy a 4K TV when I know there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING available in 4K resolution in the UK.
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing