Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

4K UHDTV Hardware On Display in Berlin, And On Sale In Korea

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the brought-to-you-by-shiseido dept.

Displays 137

First the spec, and now the hardware: MrSeb writes "After five years of trying to convince us that 3D TVs are the future, it seems TV makers are finally ready to move on — to 4K UHDTV. At the IFA consumer electronics show in Berlin, Sony, Toshiba, and LG are all showing off 84-inch 4K (3840×2160) TVs. These aren't just vaporware, either: LG's TV is on sale now in Korea (and later this month in the US), Sony's is due later this year, and Toshiba will follow in the new year. Be warned, though: all three will cost more than $20,000 when they go on sale in the US — oh, and there's still no 4K Blu-ray spec, and no such thing as 4K broadcast TV. In other display-related news, Panasonic is showing off a humongous 145-inch 8K (7680x4320) plasma TV, and some cute 20-inch 4K displays — but unfortunately neither are likely to find their way to your living room or office in the near future."

cancel ×

137 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

4k Monitor (5, Insightful)

SETY (46845) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199087)

How about a 4k or 8k 27" monitor? They can market it as a TV if they want too.

Re:4k Monitor (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199113)

For me a 24" one at that resolution please!

27" is a bit too big for my desk.

Re:4k Monitor (3, Insightful)

strack (1051390) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199187)

get a better desk.

Re:4k Monitor (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199351)

I've been thinking lately that at some point in the future, I might buy a big, high-res TV and mount it to the wall for use as my monitor...

Re:4k Monitor (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199501)

I've been thinking lately that at some point in the future, I might buy a big, high-res TV and mount it to the wall for use as my monitor...

Do it. You won't be disappointed. Most PC monitors are 1080p anyway (so you won't lose any resolution) and if you use a HDTV instead, the text is large enough that you don't have to crank up Windows' DPI setting, which can break badly-behaved software. I have used a 32" 1080p TV as my monitor for a couple years and it works very well. More recently, I've been somewhat tempted by the cheap Yamakasi Catleap 2560x1440 monitors on eBay, but I'm worried I would either have to crank the DPI setting way up, or hurt my eyes squinting at everything. The drop from 32" to 27" is pretty significant...

Re:4k Monitor (1)

otuz (85014) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199641)

Why don't you fix your eyesight instead? People with normal vision or glasses shouldn't have any issues distinguishing content on any consumer displays.

Re:4k Monitor (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199985)

Do you play Eve Online? You'd fit in perfectly there.

Re:4k Monitor (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#41200245)

Why don't you fix your eyesight instead? People with normal vision or glasses shouldn't have any issues distinguishing content on any consumer displays.

there's no such thing as normal vision and there's plenty of consumer displays.

I have to keep the dip setting cranked up all the time on my laptop, if I use the laptop screen then fullhd resolution on 15" display just needs that. it just does, every ui element is too small to hit comfortably otherwise.

then when I'm at home, like now, I also need it cranked up because it's attached to a 55.5" fullhd tv. sure it's bigger but I do sit ~2meters away from it and again need the dpi setting to be turned up. I just like the higher resolution, smoother fonts and such - but why the fuck I'd like close window icons to be tiny. I'd probably want it this way even if my eyes were super perfect.

(I do have to wear glasses anyhow - thing is, think glasses create distortion around the edges.. so there's a limit for the text size to be comfortable. on related note I've understood why green on black is brilliant for text, it's a wavelength thing)

oh and 95% of programs work just fine with the cranked up dpi(win7), while practically any program I actually need has been usable enough.

I'd still like my tv to have 4k resolution. why? for creating that window illusion. sure, I can't "see" the individual pixels now so why bother with higher? it still looks higher dpi if I look at the laptops monitor from 2 meters than the tv. I wouldn't mind that look for the bigger screen.

Re:4k Monitor (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199755)

The biggest challenge with 2560x1600 is that you start pushing your luck on graphics cards that can connect to, and effectively drive that resolution, you usually need two DVI connectors. I'm not sure on 2560x1440 - it's close enough you might not need two.

I would expect to see a 'retina' display from Apple some time soon. But for the next couple of years that sort of tech is going to be more trouble than it's worth.

Re:4k Monitor (1)

Jaime2 (824950) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199993)

My 2560x1440 needs dual DVI. But, my cheapo GeForce 250 card has no problem driving it.

Re:4k Monitor (4, Interesting)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199213)

How about, instead of constantly trying to push even higher bandwidths, trying to compete on who makes the most long living devices. I'm not talking about TVs being passed on from father to son, but living a couple of times longer than the guarantee would be nice for once.

More modular displays (5, Insightful)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199815)

I've only bought 4 TVs brand new since 1990, and they all worked fine when I got rid of 3 of them, including the 22 year old Trinitron. I got rid of them not because they broke, but because they were all functionally obsolete in some way.

I think what's needed isn't really longer life but coming up with some way to eliminate as much of the intelligence as possible from the display. Set top boxes kind of do this, but they're not really meant to be "display controllers" and don't perform some of the intelligence functions of the TV itself.

We need a "controller" and a "display" with an interface between them that is high resolution/bandwidth enough to handle at least 3 generations of future TV (ie, 4k, 8k, 16k..).

The controller should do everything that the built-in controller on a TV does now: switch between inputs, providing scaling, upconvert/downconvert for input sources to match the display itself, ATSC tuning (perhaps with cable card capability), P-I-P and other alternative display modes, provide basic audio functions and some of the "smart TV" functions you see cropping up now everywhere.

You can do this now with a combination of maybe a tuner with HDMI switching and a DVR, but it's kind of a compromise. Even a $1200 Pioneer receiver won't downconvert HDMI to a component-connected TV (or, more maddeningly, digital audio to analog).

With a controller designed to actually replace the intelligence and features within a TV, replacing your display would be easier and have no impact on the devices that send you video signals.

Re:More modular displays (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#41200411)

I suspect that this would not go over well as the upgradeability of this prototelevision would be suspect. The business case for manufacturers neglecting upgrading in favor of upselling is too strong. See, for example, the sad tale of cell phone providers upgrading Android on a regular basis.

Re:4k Monitor (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199305)

This actually sounds like something Apple would do with it's 'Retina' displays and it would fit the 27" iMac with Retina.

Re:4k Monitor (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199377)

640 pixels ought to be enough for anybody. -- Bill Gates

Re:4k Monitor (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199381)

A 4k 27" monitor would rock! Making monitors bigger only goes so far without adding more pixels to effectively use the extra real estate. Many power users use two smaller displays, effectively doubling the resolution, but it comes with the downside of managing two desktops. With todays monitors all using cheap TV "full hd" panels, we have been robbed of truly useful displays. We are seeing high dpi on small screens, and consumers are eating it up. It is way past time to take high dpi to the desktop as well.

Re:4k Monitor (5, Insightful)

Zero_DgZ (1047348) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199483)

I concur. The killer thing is, you USED to be able to get normal-sized, high density computer displays and not pay a whole hell of a lot more for them versus similar sized LCD's. But then the HDTV thing happened and went mainstream, and now it's next to impossible to find a monitor that's any higher than 1920x1080, and a lot of the smaller 16:9 ones are much worse resolution that that, and lower resolutions than they were 4 or 5 years ago.

It truly, absolutely, makes no damn sense. Except that manufacturers just want to recycle cheap HDTV panels manufactured in bulk (often with lousy 6 or 7 bit color depth as well) and try to pass them off as "premium" computer monitors.

Re:4k Monitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199393)

I foresee Apple having a 21" 4k iMac sooner or later (unfortunately probably later). And a 5120x2880 27" model as well.
And, I don't know if they'll do it, but I'd love to see a 17" 4k MacBook as well.

And sooner or later the rest of the industry will follow.

I am just so happy to see mainstream displays finally pushing past 1080p, after the long stall at 1920px wide and the slow backslide from 16:10 to 16:9 ratios. It's making me giddy!

Re:4k Monitor (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199529)

I foresee Apple having a 21" 4k iMac sooner or later (unfortunately probably later). And a 5120x2880 27" model as well.

Ivy Bridge supports resolutions up to 4096x2304. To go as high as you suggest, expensive discrete video cards would be necessary.

Re:4k Monitor (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199655)

I foresee Apple having a 21" 4k iMac sooner or later (unfortunately probably later). And a 5120x2880 27" model as well.

Ivy Bridge supports resolutions up to 4096x2304. To go as high as you suggest, expensive discrete video cards would be necessary.

27" iMacs already have at least a AMD Radeon HD 6770M (which theoretically supports 6 monitors, so ought to be able to be able to handle one at high resolution plus a couple of external ports), so the resolution limits of integrated intel graphics aren't really relevant.

Re:4k Monitor (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199569)

Actually, after double-checking, no current GPU seems to support a resolution that high. nVidia's cards only go up to 2560x1600, and AMD's cards max out at 4096x2160 (and that only for the top-line models). So if Apple wanted to do this, they'd have to work with one of the vendors to provide silicon that could handle it. This is assuming they don't want to use the same trick the old IBM T220/T221 used, and treat the one physical monitor as 2 or 4 virtual monitors each with its own cable.

Re:4k Monitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199725)

The existing Retina MacBook Pro already drives it's 2880x1800 display with a nVidia GeForce GT 650M. So either nVidia's cards are more capable than you think, or Apple is already driving one display off of multiple outputs.

Re:4k Monitor (1)

Mattsson (105422) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199885)

The GPU's themselves probably could support those resolutions on a single monitor if the driver supported it, since they can handle the amount of pixels when spread out on several outputs and displayport supports it.
When higher than 2560x1600 monitors becomes available, drivers will surely follow.

Re:4k Monitor (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#41200431)

At the rate Apple is going, they could buy out nVidia or AMD and make their own damned cards. It would be just like them - make a premium product that only they can sell.

Re:4k Monitor (1)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 2 years ago | (#41200573)

I think anti-trust legislation would step in if apple started acquiring companies that compete in a field of competition numbering 2.

Re:4k Monitor (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199695)

How about a 4k or 8k 27" monitor? They can market it as a TV if they want too.

That sounds like what they're actually doing. There's no tv broadcast available for these things. They're basically selling monitors advertised as televisions. It's a shame I won't be able to afford one for another 5 years after they become mainstream.

Re:4k Monitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41200501)

That sounds like what they're actually doing. There's no tv broadcast available for these things.

But if you use picture in picture you will be able to watch the miniature screen in full resolution.

Re:4k Monitor (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199737)

Panasonic make a 4k 20" display for consumers. You can get 4k displays around the 27" size but they are marketed as "professional" products and cost fantastic amounts of money.

Re:4k Monitor (4, Informative)

Mattsson (105422) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199851)

WQUXGA [wikipedia.org] (3840×2400) computer monitors, which is a little higher than the 4K UHD [wikipedia.org] resolution (3840 × 2160), has been around for quite a while.
For instance the 204 PPI 22 inch IBM monitor T220/T221 [wikipedia.org] from 2001.

Hopefully there will come high density monitors at a price point reachable by us mortals soon, since there seem to be a trend towards high density monitors in mainstream computing.
Also, since WQUXGA (barely) fits into the specifications of Displayport, it won't be required to use quad single-link DVI or dual dual-link DVI to support the resolution at reasonable refresh rates any more. =)

damn, and i just went back to OTA (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199093)

i got tired of paying for cable and don't even care that most of my stuff isn't HD anymore. i plugged the cable coax into my TV and i still get the free channels at barely SD resolution

am i missing anything?

Re:damn, and i just went back to OTA (4, Informative)

enjar (249223) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199153)

You should try plugging the coax into an antenna, and you can get all the free channels (and probably sub-channels of the free stuff) in HD. There are a lot of DIY designs out there using very basic materials (lumber, tinfoil, coat hangers, wire), or you can spend well under $100 for a pretty decent pre-made antenna setup where you literally have to just make the cable connections.

Check out antennapoint.com to see where your nearest transmitters are and what you can get from your home. You might be pleasantly surprised. Most places you'll get the major networks and a few independents, plus PBS. In my area we get something like 20+ channels of programming in HD using an OTA antenna I built myself. We supplement with Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, DVDs from our library, etc.

Truth be told, a lot of what is on cable nowadays is low-budget "reality" crap. IMHO the only bright spots are on HBO, and I'm not shelling out money for a cable subscription plus HBO on top of that. I can wait for DVDs. The networks and PBS actually still do quite a OK job with scripted stuff and science/educational programming.

Re:damn, and i just went back to OTA (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199411)

Not all OTA broadcasts are HD. In my area, only one OTA channel is in HD. The rest are in SD, but have multiple streams on multiple sub-channels.

Re:damn, and i just went back to OTA (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199537)

Dude has a point. I recall Jay Leno quipping about "Twisted Sister on CD" when that format was relatively new. He wondered if there was some fine aural nuance he was missing in other formats.

Re:damn, and i just went back to OTA (1)

AaronMK (1375465) | more than 2 years ago | (#41200621)

i got tired of paying for cable and don't even care that most of my stuff isn't HD anymore.

The stuff on cable is so compressed to hell and filtered that it was never really HD to begin with.

$20k, wow (1)

tidepool (137349) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199101)

With the right person doing it, $20k can 'buy you' a lot of life experiences that you'll never forget. Or it can buy you a 'super high def' television set.

I always thought I was a technology fan, but as I find myself becoming older, I keep thinking: "This is insane.".

Who would honestly consider spending $20k on a television?

Re:$20k, wow (3, Insightful)

Zuriel (1760072) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199125)

Very, very few people. The point is, it wasn't really that long ago that 1080p screens were up around that price point.

Re:$20k, wow (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199771)

4k displays have been available for a while and are well under the quoted $20,000. The Toshiba 55ZL2 was the first released (last year) and is about £7,000 in UK, where most stuff is a total rip-off anyway. I saw one in Japan in January for about £4,000.

Re:$20k, wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199135)

If you're rich enough, $20K is just noise in the daily swings of your holdings on the market. Also, I bet you the first "HDTV" cost about the same.

Re:$20k, wow (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199409)

I can buy a 720p plasma display right now that costs more than 20K. go look at the prices of anything that is larger than 102"

Re:$20k, wow (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199205)

Do you recall the first plasma/lcd efforts with very fancy brands on them in designer shops?
They looked wonderful with early dvd's and $20k was fine.

Re:$20k, wow (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199209)

I remember watching the hotel scene (we then skipped straight ahead to the wood chipper scene - we were 13 at the time) from Fargo on DVD in a rich friend of a friend's media room. In 5.1 surround sound. On a projection screen with a RGB projector about the size of a VW bug that hung from the ceiling. Then we watched the intro to Return of the Jedi on Laserdisc. Also in some form of surround sound. It was glorious. It was 1997.
 
People with $350,000+ houses and with children can't really leave the state, they're stuck at home raising their children, so they buy ridiculous stuff. Other people dump tons of money in to their cars and trucks. Only single people (and clever married ones) manage to convert that cash in to meaningful vacations. A lot of people I know cash in vacation days for money to pay off cars and pay tuition.

Re:$20k, wow (1)

Njovich (553857) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199239)

Individuals? Not many.

For mid to large size companies that need the resolution for something worthwhile, they may buy a screen.

Re:$20k, wow (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199259)

I dunno. How many 3-Series does BMW sell at $45K? Any of those people could have bought a Camry for $25K instead - a difference of $20K (and the BMW will depreciate by more than the TOTAL price of the ridiculous TV in 10 years).

It's not frugal, but it's not really a vast sum of money.

Re:$20k, wow (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199405)

" How many 3-Series does BMW sell at $45K? "

I can get you one right now for $14K. It's even the convertable M3, the REAL 3 series not the 3 series for poor people like the 325i.

Granted it's used, but they are everywhere. Hell I saw a BMW 740 for sale on craigslist for under $9K.

Re:$20k, wow (1)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#41200271)

Used M3s are pretty risk unless you know the seller well or you're personally a really good BMW mechanic.

A late-model, one-owner car might be in pretty good shape, but in any other circumstance you worry about how badly it's been beaten on. And then there's maintenance and repairs -- BMW stands for "bring money with"

A M3 is stupid expensive to maintain; a friend with a 2009 ragtop paid something like $1200 for a set of tires after he punctured the sidewall. Not including the flatbed tow trip 250 miles back home where they had the right machine to demount and remount the low profile tires.

740s are mostly the same deal in terms of maintenance. Outside of warranty lots goes wrong with these cars and it is expensive to fix. Which is why so many 5-6 year old high end luxury cars seem available for so cheap. I saw a two-owner 5-6 year old Mercedes S600 with 55,000 miles on a local used car web site for $20k.

Re:$20k, wow (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#41200283)

It's a buyer's market for anything 3 litres and up, because nobody wants to put petrol in them. A couple of years back a friend of mine bought a BMW 735i for £100, and about a week before I'd bought a Citroen XM V6-24 (slightly shorter, slightly slower but still capable of twice the national speed limit, 5mpg better on fuel) for £150.
What a way to go broke!

Re:$20k, wow (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199261)

Well, not many as the initial production run is 84 units [highpants-technoid.com] in the first month. Even with it going worldwide you're probably looking at hundreds per month and maybe 10000 units a year. Is there a market for 10000 $20k TVs? Quite probably, the richest man I've been in a meeting with was good for over $100m so that TV is a drop in the bucket for him. Remember with 7 billion people on the planet there's 70 million 1%-ers and 700k 0.01%-ers. And the last ones will probably get half a dozen to decorate their other rooms in addition to their THX-grade home cinema...

Re:$20k, wow (1)

cobraR478 (1416353) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199485)

The "1%" on a global scale is not the same thing as the "1%" within western countries. A lot of westerners that most in western countries would consider (upper) middle class fall into the global "1%" and sure as hell wouldnt't just go out and drop 20k on a tv.

Re:$20k, wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199477)

Who would spend $20k on a television? There are people who have tons of disposable income. Although if you're to believe Republic rhetoric, those people are the job creators.

It bothers me they're calling it 4k when 4k should refer to 4320p in the vertical, not the horizontal. It seems to be a way to inflate the actual resolution.

Faux-k not 4k (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199141)

4k denotes 4096 pixels horizontal resolution. These are "quadHD" screens and should be measured using vertical resolution at 2160 pixels.

I invite everyone who insists on calling quadHD screens 4k to hand me $4096 and I'll hand them $3840 right back.

Re:Faux-k not 4k (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199933)

The proper 4K standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution) is over 4000 pixels width. These are 4K UHDTV, which are basically twice the Full HDTV resolution. Basically like the Apple retina doubling thing but with TV. But I agree most people will stick only to the 4K part and forget the rest, driving techies insane.

Re:Faux-k not 4k (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41200113)

The "4k standard" is the DCI one shown on the page you linked [wikipedia.org] or better here. [wikipedia.org]

When QuadHD / UHDTV displays support 4096 horizontal pixels, we'll call it 4k. Until then it is "faux-k".

2160 ?? I SMELL A RIP-OFF !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199145)

1088 + 1088 = 2176

Who stole my 16 rows ??

Re:2160 ?? I SMELL A RIP-OFF !! (4, Funny)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199217)

1088 + 1088 = 2176

Who stole my 16 rows ??

2+1+7+6 = 16

There are your 16 rows. But fun equations aside, HD resolution is 1920x1080. It is encoded on video streams as 1088 lines because the MPEG2 standard requires that the resolution be divisible by 16. The extra 8 rows are not displayed.

You are not being ripped off, because those extra rows on the video would probably just be black.

I paid for them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199285)

You are not being ripped off, because those extra rows on the video would probably just be black.

I PAID for those black rows and I want to see them!

Re:I paid for them! (2)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199719)

I PAID for those black rows and I want to see them!

Well, you are in luck. Modern LCD and plasma TVs actually record the unused black lines and display them as a highlight package whenever you turn off the set. Don't believe me? Try turning off your TV now and tell us what you see.

Re:I paid for them! (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199943)

Do you watch 4:3 content in "stretch mode"?

Video Walls (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199163)

No need for native 4k right away.

If someone comes out with a box that can combine 4 HDMI video streams, these new TVs will be used in lots of places as video walls. Sports bars, airports, TV editing suites, surveillance posts, etc. Plus all the people that want to have a mess of channels displayed at once. Console video players, maybe?

For true information gluttons, 16 video streams on 8k monitors.

Re:Video Walls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199279)

I an still waiting for the humble feature known as PIP to be allowed natively at the cable provider level.

Though your TV may actually let you see a small secondary channel window for times you dont wanna miss two simultaneous shows, cable boxes do not want to provide means to view the new stream, so you see an empty black box.

Re:Video Walls (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199957)

surveillance posts,

Finally, a slashdotter who appreciates the panopticon!

Why is it called a 4K display? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199181)

I thought a 2K display was a display with around 2K lines and 4K was around 4K lines (i.e. 4x the resolution of 2K). Obviously I have it wrong. Can someone please explain this to me?

Re:Why is it called a 4K display? (3, Informative)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199201)

2K and 4K refer to the horizontal resolution. QuadHD/3840x2160p (which is what this is) is only slightly smaller than 4K horizontally, so it is often referred to as 4K (same with regular 1920x1080p and 2K).

Re:Why is it called a 4K display? (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199587)

I remember the days when 1K was 1024

No 4k content, don't sign me up (2)

Warmart (939757) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199193)

$20K+ and there's no 4K content? Yeah, that makes lots of sense. Still no standard broadcast TV @ 1080p, although Directv has some ppv movies at that standard. I just cannot for the life of me figure out how this makes any sense for the companies involved - let alone the consumer. All we need is an additional consumer movie disc format, ughh. How about getting everything up to 1080p standard before we look too far ahead?

Re:No 4k content, don't sign me up (1)

cruff (171569) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199247)

$20K+ and there's no 4K content? Yeah, that makes lots of sense.

Didn't you learn anything from all of the myriad CSI variants? All you need to do is up-sample and details will magically appear, which you will then display on your extra pixels. I think the term formerly used by the ancients used to be called "spontaneous generation", but they applied that to insects and such.

Re:No 4k content, don't sign me up (4, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199255)

8k and 4K content is ready in the form of most movies -very old and new.
It just a matter of clean up, encoding and selling.
In the past HD and dvd was the final output target, but the back end went for 4/8k.
So there is a lot of great 4/8k material waiting, encoded, cleaned and audio ready.
The real trick is the new medium to sell it back.
Region coding, encryption, consumer codec payments, release dates and branding will be the fun part.
Can parts of the world with optical to the home do anything good in an expected movie watching time with this amount of data?
Terrestial transmission?
Or the dream of a new dvd/bluray like buy up craze with some strange cube of "data"?
No moving parts but expensive hyped adaptive networked realtime encryption.
A movie just for you for one night and not an hour longer.
If your internet fails, no movie for you?

Re:No 4k content, don't sign me up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199293)

Many online streaming services will supply 1080p. Heck, even youtube.

Re:No 4k content, don't sign me up (1)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199303)

PlayStation 4, basically this should be the selling point of it. Imagine things like Skyrim in 4K.

Re:No 4k content, don't sign me up (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199371)

" Imagine things like Skyrim in 4K."

Oh boy. Low poly count 3d with bad textures in high res! ooohh...

I would rather see Skyrim done on a good 3d engine using at least 9000 polygon count models and decent textures on a 720P screen before seeing them phone it in on a 4K screen.

I'll take a console game machine that is able to use the Unreal4 engine and have at least 4 i7 quad core processors so it can do photo realistic rendering in low res first.

Re:No 4k content, don't sign me up (2)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199441)

All we need is an additional consumer movie disc format, ughh?

Disk? No silly, just stream the content on your 150 Mb/s broadband connection.

Buy everything again (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199227)

So now I have Betamax, VHS, Laserdisk, DVD and Blueray. Soon I must buy everything again for my UHDTV.

Re:Buy everything again (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199253)

Wow, you must have a huge porn collection by now

Wake me up when (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199243)

..the current 1080p resolution ( now presumed near obsolete given this new tech ) actually reaches the 20 inch market.
It just barely made it into the sub forty inch market in the past year, but you find many more 17 - ish screens on display than actual 32 and 37 sizes now. Probably as vanity kitchen or portable laptop resolution facilitators.

At least this 4K boldness means that marketwise we'e a step closer top seeing near retina display production on our laptops. Because last 8 checked 8oopx is a horrible place for 3D games and even google maps.

Re:Wake me up when (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199277)

Uh, I'm reading this on a 23 inch 1080p display. What's your point?

Re:Wake me up when (2)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199399)

I'm reading it on a 22" 1080p display, and only because I'm not using the 17" 1080p display in my laptop.

Re:Wake me up when (2)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199767)

And I'm reading slashdot on a 21.5 inch 1080p screen. However, I'm viewing it from 20 inches away.

Much beyond that viewing distance, it's overkill-- the added detail doesn't do much.

My 27" TV is perfectly fine for bluray, even though it's not 1080p. Were I to upgrade it, my chief consideration would be size-- (and preferably at a size where 1080p would make an actual, visible difference.)

I do have the "new iPad." The display's chief advantage seems to be the lack of color fringing. It doesn't need to anti-alias text.

Re:Wake me up when (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41200287)

I've found that the Retina display in the iPad makes a huge difference when scaling black and white comics. When using the Viz app, I can fit 2 pages on the screen and read 99% of the text without issue. With the older screens, I run into problems when trying to view 2 pages; I can only view one at a time. With some titles, this is an annoyance because a big action scene or landscape can be presented across 2 pages.

Korea, a "strange" country... (4, Funny)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199323)

....where people can afford to buy the highest tech available anywhere in the world, and that tech is actually manufactured there!

Re:Korea, a "strange" country... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199357)

I was thinking that North Korea kind of cancels out South Korea in that respect :-)

Re:Korea, a "strange" country... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199711)

That's why they have the DMZ in between them - if they let the two countries touch, they would annihilate each other with a flurry of gamma radiation.

Re:Korea, a "strange" country... (1)

erdos-bacon sandwich (2676113) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199531)

....where people can afford to buy the highest tech available anywhere in the world, and that tech is actually manufactured there!

Actually Samsung and LG do very little (almost none) of their manufacturing in Korea. It's too expensive. The majority of their mass productions lines are in China and eastern Europe (for the euro market)

Re:Korea, a "strange" country... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199845)

They have Gangnam Style. Now *that's* strange!

Don't go straight to "Ultra" (1)

fa2k (881632) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199335)

It's not "Ultra" HD, they should use "Very" HD for 4K then they can use "Ultra" for 8K. Now they have to start calling the next ones XSUHDTV (eXtra Super Ultra) etc ..

Unrelated question: what connector would you use to feed them 3D at 50/60 Hz (so really, 100/120 Hz) at the native resolution?

Re:Don't go straight to "Ultra" (3, Informative)

fa2k (881632) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199369)

Unrelated question: what connector would you use to feed them 3D at 50/60 Hz (so really, 100/120 Hz) at the native resolution?

It's in the article. Sorry I didn't see it:

Perhaps most worryingly, the 55ZL2 only accepts 4K video input through Toshiba’s proprietary “digital serial port” — and the only device that outputs to a digital serial port is Toshiba’s own professional, very expensive media servers. Hopefully the 84-inch model will accept 4K over HDMI, like the Sony and LG UHDTVs.

And it's useless to own.... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199337)

as there is NO 4K content out there, nor will there be any for a long time.

We had 720P sets for nearly 5 years before people could buy BluRay players or even tune in a HD channel in their area.

broadcast, CATV and Satellite will NOT broadcast 4K content.

Re:And it's useless to own.... (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199795)

4k content [youtube.com]

When HDDVD first came-out, it could play half a dozen titles. Granted,one of the disks was Serenity, but still...

Re:And it's useless to own.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199905)

First there will be video games. Then there will be porn. What more do you need?

Re:And it's useless to own.... (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#41200565)

as there is NO 4K content out there, nor will there be any for a long time.

Here's a list of major motion pictures available in 4K [sony.com] . There's no consumer medium for this yet, but theaters with 4K projectors can show this content.

This presents a new problem for the movie industry. They have no delivery format ready to go, yet YouTube can already handle 4K movies. Netflix can probably upgrade. This kills the movie industry's distribution channel.

What's the point when we still can't get (1)

PJ6 (1151747) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199469)

good regular HD? 4K would only mean more expensive service with even worse overcompression.

These will work best as monitors, not TVs (0)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199471)

For TV watching, this is probably overkill; even once 4K source material becomes available, the difference is going to be very hard to notice unless you are sitting extremely close to the TV, or are using a front projector with a giant movie screen. (Even then, 1080p looks nice enough with a front projector to satisfy all but the most demanding cinemaphiles.)

However, they could be far more useful as PC accessories. Once these drop to more reasonable prices ($1000-$2000) and are available in somewhat smaller sizes (32"-40"), they would make very nice monitors. I see from the previous posts that others are already thinking along these lines. It's about time that PCs escaped the tyranny of low-DPI, mass-market 1080p panels.

Display manufacturers are doing it wrong (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41199523)

They should spend more time trying to push oled into consumer level displays rather than expand on the lcd model. lcds in the grand scheme of things are 100% temporary garbage displays. We have the ability to do consumer grade oleds today but for some reason display manufacturers don't care. They would rather sell an inferior technology for 100x more than most people will be willing to pay.

Waste (0)

markdavis (642305) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199595)

It took dozens and dozens of years to FINALLY get HDTV out there and available and affordable also also have content. The idea of breaking all the standards yet again is unnerving.

I can't see any reason for these UHDTV's at all. On smaller sets, consumers can barely tell the difference between SD and 720P. On larger sets they probably can't even tell the difference between 720P and 1080I/P.

Really, for television, unless you have a 100+ inch TV and are sitting rather close, more than 1080P is just a uber-geek thing.

Re:Waste (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199911)

calculations based on the resolution of the human eye when corrected to only 20/20 [carltonbale.com] suggest that the base model 4K display should have been on the order of 100 inches or so. Less if you're using it as a display for your computer, Considerably less if you're squinting at it like a radiologist.

A 100 inch display is 7 feet wide-- too large for many homes.

Re:Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41200255)

Really, for television, unless you have a 100+ inch TV and are sitting rather close, more than 1080P is just a uber-geek thing.

Not quite, I recall a viewer test from back when HDTV was new that found that to get a statistically significant visual perceptive difference between 720p and 1080p, when viewed from a standard viewing distance of 3m (12' 10"), you needed at least a 28" display. That means that at 28", 720p was not quite enough (though 1080p was still overkill). The recommendation that followed was be content with 720p if you got a regular 28" TV, but go for 1080p if you were shelling out for 32" or more.

Extrapolating from those figures, 1080p is no longer quite enough at 42", and the next step, 1440p, is no longer quite enough at 56". Even 2160p is no longer quite enough when you get to 84", at which point you should preferably get an even higher resolution.

Of course, if you factor in the cost and the very small difference at the cut-of-point, I would say 1080p is good enough up to about 45-50", while 2160p should do for up to about 90-100".

Re:Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41200525)

does it really matter when almost all your content is in 480 or 720 in the first place?

Aspect ratio? (0)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#41199949)

Are these gonna be cinema aspect ratio (e.g. 64x27) or just HDTV aspect ratio (e.g. 16x9) or office computer aspect ratio (e.g. 8x5) or legacy TV aspect ratio (e.g. 4x3)? I want 4096x1728.

Bass Akward (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | more than 2 years ago | (#41200297)

People don't need bigger screens, they need smaller houses.

don't knock it til you try it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41200339)

I don't know about that. I have a much easier time watching a movie on a 100" projector screen than I have watching it on my laptop or even the 40" TV in the same resolution. My eyes are a lot more relaxed and the movie can cover my field of view without causing eye strain from a comfortable distance. My friend who normally has to wear glasses found that he was able to see it fine without.

I saw the Panasonic 8k TV in Akihabara in August. (1)

bikochan (247109) | more than 2 years ago | (#41200357)

The images look amazing!
The sales guy said it was due for 2020 along with broadcasting (in Japan).
That gives me a few years to settle there and make loads of money to buy one, I guess :)

I'm glad I have craptastic vision (1)

jjeffries (17675) | more than 2 years ago | (#41200521)

It makes the whole "new higher resolution every couple of years" thing easy to ignore. My TV is a 27" hunk of glass made in 1997.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?