"4K" Ultra High Def TVs Page 2

  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

  • kalel 12 Mar 2013 10:53:37 86,404 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Latin wrote:
    I am not a tech person so this question could be stupid... But what's the point of having these TV's, if nothing is filmed for them? Or do all these HD cameras capture the images and are currently being reduced for 1080p? Also the same with games, will the "next gen" be able to output for 4k/8k TVs?

    /could be chatting shit
    Red cameras which I believe are the standard for digital films in Hollywood shoot in 4K. And anything shot with proper film presumably can be digitised at that res (might be bollocks, never understood how that works).
  • roz123 12 Mar 2013 10:56:38 7,112 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I wonder if they have these in Harrods yet, its the only place I can think of that sells 20K TVs.
  • Armoured_Bear 12 Mar 2013 11:01:13 10,291 posts
    Seen 18 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Latin wrote:
    I am not a tech person so this question could be stupid... But what's the point of having these TV's, if nothing is filmed for them? Or do all these HD cameras capture the images and are currently being reduced for 1080p? Also the same with games, will the "next gen" be able to output for 4k/8k TVs?

    /could be chatting shit
    All analogue stuff is way beyond 4k so will benefit from being re-digitised.

    XBL : ecosse011172
    PSN : ecosse_011172
    NNID : armoured_bear

  • Lukus 12 Mar 2013 11:04:30 18,999 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Armoured_Bear wrote:
    Latin wrote:
    I am not a tech person so this question could be stupid... But what's the point of having these TV's, if nothing is filmed for them? Or do all these HD cameras capture the images and are currently being reduced for 1080p? Also the same with games, will the "next gen" be able to output for 4k/8k TVs?

    /could be chatting shit
    All analogue stuff is way beyond 4k so will benefit from being re-digitised.
    35mm isn't...

    Paintings & Photographs

  • Latin 12 Mar 2013 11:04:40 3,596 posts
    Seen 51 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @kalel Cheers, I guess on the games front we won't be seeing anything (in terms of consoles) until the next "next gen"!?

    I'm still amazed at how good some games are looking on 1080p on my xbox!

    I haven't seen 4k in action, so maybe the pictures are miles better than HD, but there's surely a point when these advancements are only marginal to the human eye...

    Edited by Latin at 11:05:26 12-03-2013
  • kalel 12 Mar 2013 11:07:27 86,404 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I really don't understand the whole analogue vs digital thing. Surely there's no such thing as pixels or resolution when it comes to analogue?

    All I know is, I've seen a lot of discusion about this photography forums, and for whatever reason most people seem to agree that digital is now starting to surpass 35mm in terms of "resolution".
  • Deleted user 12 March 2013 11:09:34
    Armoured_Bear wrote:
    Latin wrote:
    I am not a tech person so this question could be stupid... But what's the point of having these TV's, if nothing is filmed for them? Or do all these HD cameras capture the images and are currently being reduced for 1080p? Also the same with games, will the "next gen" be able to output for 4k/8k TVs?

    /could be chatting shit
    All analogue stuff is way beyond 4k so will benefit from being re-digitised.
    @Armoured_Bear

    But so is the noise within the image(or film grain irregularity), so you reach a point where digitizing and remastering doesn't match the signal to noise ratio of the digital capture; which can also be enhanced by post processing from interpolating.
  • Lukus 12 Mar 2013 11:11:45 18,999 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    I really don't understand the whole analogue vs digital thing. Surely there's no such thing as pixels or resolution when it comes to analogue?
    Technically there isn't, no, but it's about at what point (size when projected) a film image degrades in visual quality and what pixel count that corresponds to digitally. And best estimates put 35mm at around 3.5k iirc.

    Paintings & Photographs

  • Psychotext 12 Mar 2013 11:22:20 53,849 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    vizzini wrote:
    If I could afford it, I always go with the TV that provides the best signal processing(which are the big ones).
    You'd also demand a cell processor built in if you could, but no-one is perfect.

    Many of the top manufacturers share their signal processing kit throughout their range, irrespective of size. Top end is usually top end, from 40" to 80".
  • roz123 12 Mar 2013 11:23:23 7,112 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I just googled and apparently they do have them in Harrods and some 10k OLED TV aswell. I might go down and have a look next time I am in the area
    http://advanced-television.com/2013/03/10/harrods-goes-4k-and-oled-crazy/

    Edited by roz123 at 11:27:01 12-03-2013
  • kalel 12 Mar 2013 11:29:59 86,404 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Wow, a 55" OLED? I had no idea they were that big now. "Only" 10k as well. That's actually really encouraging. Hopefully affordable normal size OLED TVs aren't that far away after all.
  • Armoured_Bear 12 Mar 2013 11:34:35 10,291 posts
    Seen 18 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Lukus wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    I really don't understand the whole analogue vs digital thing. Surely there's no such thing as pixels or resolution when it comes to analogue?
    Technically there isn't, no, but it's about at what point (size when projected) a film image degrades in visual quality and what pixel count that corresponds to digitally. And best estimates put 35mm at around 3.5k iirc.
    This is what I was meaning, I may have exagerrated the "point" though.

    XBL : ecosse011172
    PSN : ecosse_011172
    NNID : armoured_bear

  • kalel 12 Mar 2013 11:36:01 86,404 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Armoured_Bear wrote:
    Lukus wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    I really don't understand the whole analogue vs digital thing. Surely there's no such thing as pixels or resolution when it comes to analogue?
    Technically there isn't, no, but it's about at what point (size when projected) a film image degrades in visual quality and what pixel count that corresponds to digitally. And best estimates put 35mm at around 3.5k iirc.
    This is what I was meaning, I may have exagerrated the "point" though.
    You said analogue was "way beyond 4K"...
  • Deleted user 12 March 2013 11:36:07
    @Lukus

    There is an effective pixel count, just that it isn't so obvious.

    The film grain molecules undergo a chemical reaction to the coloured light based on duration of exposure. Different film speeds have different molecule sizes as a chemical requirement to react fast enough to a shorter exposures, this inversely works against colour sensitivity, granularity and molecule size, so each film type chosen has competing trade offs. 24 frames has been the sample rate we associate with cinema, so has been a constant that has meant other tradeoffs have taken place. Digital on the other hand, can shoot at 60fps and still be post processed to produce a hybrid of cinematic 24p, that has both clarity and motionblur.
  • Armoured_Bear 12 Mar 2013 11:38:05 10,291 posts
    Seen 18 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Armoured_Bear wrote:
    Lukus wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    I really don't understand the whole analogue vs digital thing. Surely there's no such thing as pixels or resolution when it comes to analogue?
    Technically there isn't, no, but it's about at what point (size when projected) a film image degrades in visual quality and what pixel count that corresponds to digitally. And best estimates put 35mm at around 3.5k iirc.
    This is what I was meaning, I may have exagerrated the "point" though.
    You said analogue was "way beyond 4K"...
    Yes, hence the exagerration admission, I think I may have been recalling it being way beyond 1080p.

    XBL : ecosse011172
    PSN : ecosse_011172
    NNID : armoured_bear

  • nickthegun 12 Mar 2013 11:38:40 58,848 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Haha. 'If you understood anything about molecular physics you would get it. But you dont. Ive watched people convert molecules into pixels in my degree'

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • kalel 12 Mar 2013 11:39:42 86,404 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    It's not exaggeration, the meaning is totally the opposite. The question was whether 4K would exceed analogue resolutions, and you said no, when the answer is yes.
  • RobTheBuilder 12 Mar 2013 11:39:55 6,521 posts
    Seen 8 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    The reason people have invested a lot in current HD is not HD. It's because the sets are thinner and lighter, Even with big screens.

    I can't see 4k being more than a gadgety niche, even 10 years from now.
  • kalel 12 Mar 2013 11:41:17 86,404 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    RobTheBuilder wrote:
    The reason people have invested a lot in current HD is not HD. It's because the sets are thinner and lighter, Even with big screens.

    I can't see 4k being more than a gadgety niche, even 10 years from now.
    Agreed, which is the advantage that OLED has. The sets will be paper thin and incredibly bright and crisp, and cheap to run.

    However, if both OLED and 4K are marketed as the next gen of TVs, and 4K gets much cheaper much quicker, I can see it catching on, even if it's just a waste of time.
  • Tonka 12 Mar 2013 11:41:59 20,019 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Didn't they say you needed an 80" screen to be able to distinguish between 720p and 1080p?
    Now this?

    Well well, I still have my old 720 TV. I guess I won't get a new one until 2020

    If you can read this you really need to fiddle with your forum settings.

  • nickthegun 12 Mar 2013 11:43:07 58,848 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Its a similar thing with DVD and the tepid take up of blu-ray. There was a quantum leap between VHS and DVD (not least a more convenient format change) but not so much between DVD and Blu-Ray.

    And now people are actively sacrificing fidelity for convenience.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • monkman76 12 Mar 2013 11:44:04 3,976 posts
    Seen 31 seconds ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Tonka wrote:
    Didn't they say you needed an 80" screen to be able to distinguish between 720p and 1080p?
    No, nonsense. And it all depends on how close you are to it, no matter what size the screen.
  • kalel 12 Mar 2013 11:47:29 86,404 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    To be honest, they'll sell whatever they want by limiting availability of alternatives.

    I couldn't give a toss about 3D, but if I wanted a decent TV now then I'd have little choice. And I certainly wouldn't be able to get an SD one, or even just a 720p.
  • nickthegun 12 Mar 2013 11:48:02 58,848 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Any early reports on what the upscalings like? You would think such massive resolutions would make HD Broadcasts look like shit and SD broadcasts look like crayons on a piece of crumpled paper.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • RobTheBuilder 12 Mar 2013 11:54:05 6,521 posts
    Seen 8 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @kalel the average person will have no interest in buying a new TV for at least 5-10 years from their last purchase. It will probably be at least 4-5 years before they become affordable for the mainstream. At which point they may sell a bit purely because when someone buys their new TV It happens to be 4k ready.
  • RobTheBuilder 12 Mar 2013 11:54:44 6,521 posts
    Seen 8 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @nickthegun you'd hope at 20k for a set it would have some impressive scaling chips!
  • kalel 12 Mar 2013 11:57:13 86,404 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    RobTheBuilder wrote:
    @kalel the average person will have no interest in buying a new TV for at least 5-10 years from their last purchase. It will probably be at least 4-5 years before they become affordable for the mainstream. At which point they may sell a bit purely because when someone buys their new TV It happens to be 4k ready.
    More than a bit I suspect. It'll just be the next standard like 1080p is now.
  • Psychotext 12 Mar 2013 11:59:47 53,849 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It's interesting actually. They do keep coming up with this stuff to push purchasers but I truly believe that most people will just buy a new one when the old one breaks or if they give the old one to their kid etc.

    Smart TV, 3DTV and 4K don't seem to be driving purchasing at all.
  • kalel 12 Mar 2013 12:00:03 86,404 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    It'll get pushed by the likes of Sky as well. It gives them a new thing to constantly try and convince us we need to spend an extra 20 a month on for, as well as the 20TB HD box you'd need to record the content. And that in turn will help the TV sellers. Likewise some new ultra Blu Ray format will come out.

    This is another advantage 4K has over OLED, which will only be pushed by tv makers. There's a lot more parties that will benefit from pushing 4K.
  • RobTheBuilder 12 Mar 2013 12:00:26 6,521 posts
    Seen 8 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @kalel yeah. But I bet if you look at what resolutions people actually use, 720p is probably by far the most used resolution, with a great many still using 480p most of the time.
  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

Log in or register to reply