Author Topic: 4K TV is SO 2014  (Read 670 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

4K TV is SO 2014
« on: September 04, 2014, 08:19:34 PM »
Dreaming of getting a new 4K 8.3 megapixel ultra high def display?
 4K 8.3 megapixels is so 2014!

Check out Dells new panel the UP2715K, it sports a res of 5120 x 2880 that's 14,745,600 pixels. Yep 5K 14.7megapixel display in a 27" form factor. Price $2,500.00, availability end of the year.

Could this be the start of a resolution war for big screens, just like the phone and tablet resolution wars?


4K TV is SO 2014
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2014, 08:55:57 PM »
It could certainly be the start of an arms race. But I worry that it continues the notion that "more megapixels = better."

Yes, higher resolution is better than lower resolution-- if both objects being compared have similar quality. I would also worry how something like this would handle upscaling.

Also, when you get to a certain pixel density at a certain distance, the human eye stops being capable of telling 4k (or 5k) from 1080p.

Source:http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

4K TV is SO 2014
« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2014, 11:30:33 PM »
I frankly don't know. A buddy got one of the 4K tvs but I have yet to see his. I did see one in a photography shop and it was AWESOME on stills...but made also with professional cameras. I txted a friend who saw his $K Sony and he said "yeah, but his 4K tv" isn't that great because neither cable or broadcast covers it so why" (unless you own an art gallery or something and have nice ass camera and skills.) But for stuff you watch will it be that great quality when the cable etc company doesn't? Then again I've seen some amazing photos from legit old film when taken from pros blown up in galleries. So Idk. It seems to me that the broadcast systems and media are being out-paced by the systems to show them? And, to me, some of the newer tvs are "hard on the eyes" (too bright, not deep enough black.) And for anything old (which many better movies are in b&w) harder to watch.


4K TV is SO 2014
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2014, 12:26:53 AM »
Even 4K is not necessary except on very large 65"+ size displays for normal viewing distances.
Your eye couldn't make out the finer pixels on a smaller display.
Even 1920x1080 pixels on 5" smartphones is way overkill I've found.


4K TV is SO 2014
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2014, 12:51:41 AM »
They haven't even got HD standardized right yet.  Every friggin channel on mine looks different with crazy borders etc.  Even within the same channel the content is all uneven.  (I'm saying this in an old cranky don't-care-much-for-change voice.)

4K TV is SO 2014
« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2014, 08:11:42 AM »
I txted a friend who saw his $K Sony and he said "yeah, but his 4K tv" isn't that great because neither cable or broadcast covers it so why" (unless you own an art gallery or something and have nice ass camera and skills.) But for stuff you watch will it be that great quality when the cable etc company doesn't? Then again I've seen some amazing photos from legit old film when taken from pros blown up in galleries. So Idk. It seems to me that the broadcast systems and media are being out-paced by the systems to show them? And, to me, some of the newer tvs are "hard on the eyes" (too bright, not deep enough black.) And for anything old (which many better movies are in b&w) harder to watch.
As image fidelity grows to include higher resolutions and color depth, it becomes a trade-off between processing and bandwidth.

You can either have a massively large stream (which you'll have to process anyway) or a manageable stream that is made manageable by the compression/decompression from a codec and a badass processor. H.265 is achieving great file sizes for high quality results, but at the expense of processing equipment that needs to be FAST.

Hopefully, as chips get faster and data pipelines larger, this increase in quality becomes moot. One bit of encouragement comes from simply looking back at what we had. Remember watching Realplayer video at low resolution through dialup? Now you can watch a 480p (or higher) video on your 4G phone.

Your point about cable providers is well-made. As they cram more channels into the signal, more compression occurs. My local NBC affiliate looks much better (and less jaggy) on my antenna at home than it does on my parent's digital cable. Because TWC compresses everything so much. Hopefully as quality increases, the providers are willing to up the bandwidth on their pipelines without charging us significantly more. I'm pessimistic on the last part of that...

4K TV is SO 2014
« Reply #6 on: September 05, 2014, 11:53:32 AM »
Well... computer monitors and TVs are about application. 4K rez on a monitor means I have 4x the amount of desktop space when compared to a 1080p monitor. Basically I can fit more on the screen, at the cost of viewing size. When you are editing video or processing digital imagery, the higher the rez, the easier it is to work with the output. My Sony Alpha takes stills above 4K. Most cinema movies are shot at or above 6K. Getting all of that information on to one output device to edit is a tremendous advantage.

That is all regardless of image clarity / physical screen size. That's why I like having a 4K display... it's just easier to work with media closer to it's native format.