Ultra High Definition

[mrtofu]

deleted

 

[Snailface]

With the amount of compression that still exists on 1080p sets I don't see the use in needlessly upgrading to 4K so I can witness even more compression. Fully utilize the resolution on 1080p sets first is my stance.

 

[gifi4]

Most of Australia's television broadcasts aren't even in 1080p yet.
When I download shows and movies, I tend to stick to the lower side of the quality slide, mainly due to HDD storage.
However, lower quality doesn't bother me, I'm not too fussed with having to see every im/perfection on someones face...

 

[Ericthegreat]

What size would a movie of this quality be? 300gb lol?

 

[Count Duckula]

Broadcast TV in Australia uses MPEG2 or MPEG, at awfully low bitrates. 4k is pretty pointless as it just means nothing you currently watch will be displayed at native res.
We need a modern codec for transmission and reasonable bitrates more than anything. Until a 4k blu-ray successor comes along there's really very little you can watch and see the benefit of the higher res display.

It will be nice for monitors, we've gone backwards in terms of pixel density from the CRT days with everything standardising on 1080. Even there it's a bit early for 4k displays for gaming, you'd need several top end graphics cards to drive modern games at 4k.

 

[p3rand0r]

i think the ps4 kan output 4k i dont know for the xbox1 but .......the wiiu ? it seams improbable

 

[ResleyZ]

I watched a video from Vsauce lately which told that the human eye can't truly perceive 4k. This video from The Game Theorist also explains this. The human eye can see up to 7 megapixel, while 4k is equivalent to 8,3 megapixel.

When TV's went from 720p to 1080p, I already was pretty sceptic about it. But then the size of the TV's changed and then I understood why the higher resolution was needed. IMO screens are already big enough, we have a 46" screen in the living room, and I have a 32" screen in my bedroom which really is big enough.

 

[Duo8]

I think Xiaomi made a 4K TV and sell it at $700 or something.

 

[yusuo]

1080p is sufficient in my opinion, my friend has a 4k tv and a couple of upscaled blurays (only things you can get as 4k) and sky with a few 4k channels and there isn't a difference really. Yeah I might get one in a few years if the price comes down and my TV breaks but at the moment there is no point

 

[Black-Ice]

Oh is HD like street fighter now?

 

[ilman]

I still have a 40" 720p TV in my living room and it looks perfectly good.
I see no point in 1080p, let alone 4k...
Still neat, though...

 

[Veho]

The human eye can see up to 7 megapixel

7.29 (taking the average angular resolution of one arc minute) but only if we don't move our eyes side to side. It all really depends on the screen size and viewing distance.

http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

So yeah, 4K makes sense for PC monitors or cinemas, doesn't make much sense for a home TV. I am always a proponent of more megapixels but the extra bang is barely noticeable while the extra buck is considerable at the moment.

 

[FAST6191]

http://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-is-for-programmers
http://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-is-for-programmers-redux
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_n...field-keywords=Seiki+4k+&rh=i:aps,k:Seiki+4k+ says $500

With the above 30fps would make me shy away a bit. However I could probably make it work if I had a true use case and 30fps works OK if done right in games. Right now dual (or more) monitors does most of what I need, mainly as I can still push an old CRT I have up to 1400x1050.
If I found one on the street, fixed a "dead" one that someone threw out or could get a deal at a fixtures and fittings type auction then you bet I would have it as a primary monitor, give or take my present need for colour accuracy. I would love to have a go at portrait mode for one as well.

For passive TV/video watching... only when such things are the default and if the upscalers/lower resolution options of them are worth a damn.

 

[Elrinth]

I wonder when the latency will start to drop on the hdtvs. The lowest we have on todays best HDTV is still freaking high.

Lowest on an IPS monitor is:
Asus MX279H - 27" @ 9ms
Lg 27EA33V - 27" @ 9ms
LG IPS237L - 23" @ 9ms
taken from displaylag.com

as for HDTV lowest is 16.9ms which is by:
Sony W802A

Duck hunt requires delay below 16ms else the zapper won't recognize the white box at the right frame. So probably even lower than that would be required.

 

[ResleyZ]

7.29 (taking the average angular resolution of one arc minute) but only if we don't move our eyes side to side. It all really depends on the screen size and viewing distance.

http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

So yeah, 4K makes sense for PC monitors or cinemas, doesn't make much sense for a home TV. I am always a proponent of more megapixels but the extra bang is barely noticeable while the extra buck is considerable at the moment.

4K would basically only matter, as you said, in cinema's. The only other use I can think of, is for presentation screens, since the distance you have is much larger than when you're watching it normally, but such a high resolution wouldn't really matter, since it isn't really needed.

Don't really see the need for 4K PC monitors, since it would be too big for such a close distance.

 

[spotanjo3]

Wow, 4K TVs are going down in price. This LG 55" 4K UHDTV is only $1.600. I also saw a few Sony 4K TVs for around $2,000~. As a reference, my Sony 1080p 55NX720 was $1,600 two years ago.

When will you adapt Ultra High definition? I'd love to, but I already have a decent TV. And I wouldn't have anything that supports 4K. I don't think the Wii U supports UHD and that's the only console I plan on getting.

No thanks. I am fine with my Sony LED 50 and 40 inches and they are good enough for me. They just want your money for their riches. No more.

 

[FAST6191]

Edit. I also forgot to say using a reference price on monitors is a tricky game. http://www.stltoday.com/business/lo...cle_41090317-811c-5c94-ac9c-a17889c34a41.html

Don't really see the need for 4K PC monitors, since it would be too big for such a close distance.

The ability to fit output, IM with the client, debug and the original document/coding window all on one screen at once is something I could probably make use of. 2160 vertical pixels (assuming landscape) is something of an improvement over even 1200 or 1440 of the previous higher end displays, I know 1600 exists but that was quite rare and the others are available from most vendors that matter.

 

[Arras]

Oh is HD like street fighter now?

I think 1440p is also known as Super HD, so... yes.

 

[BORTZ]

Its not that goofy 2K by 4K pixel ratio is it?

4K is coming, ( i mean its here) but I dont see a need just yet.

 

[Veho]

Its not that goofy 2K by 4K pixel ratio is it?

No, it's 3840 x 2160.