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!

Why You Shouldn't Buy a UHD 4K TV This Year

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the more-pixels-than-sense dept.

Television 271

Lucas123 writes "While it's tempting to upgrade your flatscreen to the latest technology, industry analysts say UHD TVs are still no bargain, with top brand names selling 65-in models for $5,000 or more. And, even though 4K TVs offer four times the resolution of today's 1080p HDTVs, there are no standards today for how many frames per second should be used in broadcasting media. Additionally, while there's plenty of content being produced for UHDs, little has been made available."

cancel ×

271 comments

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

Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks. (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | about 10 months ago | (#45542315)

Your argument is invalid. See subject.

Also Linux friendly (4, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 10 months ago | (#45542401)

If you look at the TV on Amazon [amazon.com] (not an affiliate link), one of the top-rated comments is a really helpful set of instructions in getting it to work well under Linux.

I have to admit I am strongly tempted in getting the monitor for programming, and there are some indications it might be good for photo work after calibration. But I would really love to see one in person first.

Re:Also Linux friendly (4, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | about 10 months ago | (#45542653)

Re:Also Linux friendly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542763)

It's pretty obvious some of those are actors. I suspect they all are. Pretty much all advertisements with "real life" reactions are actors.

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (4, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | about 10 months ago | (#45542403)

You forgot to factor in the cost of the microscope you'll need to see any additional detail at 4k on a 39" screen.

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542441)

Something tells me you're a Windows user.

DPI settings exist for a reason. It's the reason why text that renders on a 5" 1920x1080 Android phone is the same size as text on a 15" 1366x768 laptop screen.

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (3, Interesting)

almitydave (2452422) | about 10 months ago | (#45542643)

I think he's referring to pixel density, which he probably assumed (as did I) would be so fine you wouldn't notice the increase. However, after actually calculating it, here's a comparison:

1280x1024, 19": 86.27 px/in
1920x1080, 24": 91.79 px/in
3840x2160, 39": 112.97 px/in

Which is only 23% finer than the 24" HD monitor, and 31% finer than the uber-common 5:4 19" LCD. So I think you'd notice an improvement, and with proper DPI adjustment would be quite nice.

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (1)

almitydave (2452422) | about 10 months ago | (#45542695)

Follow-up: the caveat in the above is that you're sitting at the same distance. The recommended distance for TVs is twice the diagonal, which would be about 3 feet for the 19" and 6 for the 39", which would again halve the angular pixel pitch. I don't think someone using this as a monitor would be that far away, however.

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542793)

The recommended distance being twice the diagonal is straight ou of the cathode tube area, we don't need that anymore.
Give me details and I'll happily sit 1x the diagonal. Like at the cinema.

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45543091)

Give me details and I'll happily sit 1x the diagonal. Like at the cinema.

Down in front! Or rather... what are you doing in my house? -- Get out of here!

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 10 months ago | (#45542527)

I can easily see pixellation on the 30" 2560x1600 monitor I'm sitting at. Please step aside and make way for progress.

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about 10 months ago | (#45542675)

To play devil's advocate here, how far away from that monitor are you sitting? How far away from your TV do you sit?

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45542799)

To be a reasonable person here, if you are using that TV as a monitor you would sit the same distance.

Even if you are using it as a TV, my couch is not bolted to my living room floor, I doubt yours is either.

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 10 months ago | (#45542847)

I'm not the guy you want to ask that question, I have a linux PVR connected to my TV so I do use it as a computer sometimes.

I am disappointed the new Playstation 4 and XBox One won't support 4k gaming though. A 4-way head-to-head game (remember Goldeneye?) would be so cool on that. I wonder if any PC games would allow me to run two instances and 'network' them.

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (3, Insightful)

F.Ultra (1673484) | about 10 months ago | (#45543001)

Who buys a larger TV just so that they can sit further back in the room? I bought my 64" to get a bigger screen, not to sit far far away.

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45543109)

I can easily see pixellation on the 30" 2560x1600 monitor I'm sitting at. Please step aside and make way for progress.

Wait a few years.... screen will get better, and your eyes will get worse. Soon, you'll have nothing to worry about.

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 10 months ago | (#45543069)

39" is a fairly modest TV; but a big monitor. Like 'dominates your desk' big. I suspect that the bigger question would be whether you find yourself comfortably able to use real estate that is that far out of the center of your field of view (and, unlike dual or triple monitor setups, is all fixed in the same plane, rather than in two or more individually rotated chunks).

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542435)

> Most UHD TVs large enough to showcase their better picture quality - that is, 65-in. or larger.

Your invalidity is invalid, RTFM

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542449)

Why would I want a higher resolution tv with a smaller screen than what I already have?

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542463)

Sir, your car is waiting.

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542481)

Do you really want a TV whose name translates into "death blood" in Chinese?

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542549)

I didn't want one, but now that I know, I want it!

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 10 months ago | (#45543087)

Do you really want a TV whose name translates into "death blood" in Chinese?

Honestly, that's actually fairly compelling as brand names go. I'll have two.

Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 10 months ago | (#45542803)

It's also a crap tv, but hey who are we to disagree?

This is like saying that a visio 67" 720p screen exists. It doesn't mean people with common sense should just give up their money and absolve all logic. In the non-TLDR form: it's a 30 hz (read: 1/2 of the supposed maximum for the human eye which has been debunked) 4K display. Even the worst of TV's can handle a proper 60hz at all resolutions.

Hell, many graphics cards can output 4k at 30 fps. 60 is a different story.

Err, what? (2)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | about 10 months ago | (#45542339)

there are no standards today for how many frames per second should be used in broadcasting media.

Rec. 2020 [wikipedia.org] , a standard used by UHD, specifically gives framerates of 120p, 60p, 59.94p, 50p, 30p, 29.97p, 25p, 24p, and 23.976p.

Re:Err, what? (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 10 months ago | (#45542425)

It's not that content can't be properly produced or formatted. It's getting it to you that's the problem.

Re:Err, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542645)

well, the hollywood-drughead-peado-titface-brainwasher with the touch-me-and-ILL-screen seems altogether a more sensorable option.....

"yeah, but can i get illegal-israeli excstacy and some illegal-israeli-insider-trading-tips on my brainwasher?" -Eliot Spitzerness

Re:Err, what? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#45542453)

Is rec. short for approved standard or recommendation?

Re:Err, what? (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | about 10 months ago | (#45542519)

Is rec. short for approved standard or recommendation?

When speaking video standards, Rec. 2020 is short for ITU-R Recommendation BT.2020. Not sure who started that abbreviation, but it's stuck.

Early Adopters (4, Insightful)

almitydave (2452422) | about 10 months ago | (#45542343)

But we need the deep-pocketed early-adopting suckers to offset R&D costs as much as possible so the prices come down for us average Joes when the content is actually widely available!

Re:Early Adopters (5, Funny)

Todd Palin (1402501) | about 10 months ago | (#45542377)

Maybe they can trade in their 3-D TVs.

Re:Early Adopters (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#45542495)

I'll have you know that I watched several hours of the Olympics (and nothing else ever) in 3D last year, thank you very much.

Also, my lawn. Get off it.

Re:Early Adopters (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45543081)

I've watched pieces of a football match in 8K@60p UHD.
They show the complete pitch at once and you can still count the player's teeth when he smiles after a goal.

Re:Early Adopters (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45542921)

I will be getting one of those this year if only so I can rewatch the Dr Who 50th in 3D. I intended to buy a bigger TV anyway and adding in 3D is pretty cheap.

Re:Early Adopters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542589)

Don't worry, the early-adopting suckers don't ready Slashdot nor Industry Analysts.

Re: Early Adopters (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542821)

Yeah, but you have to buy it now. To be ready for when the content arrives.

Because when the content arrives they won't make anymore uhd tv's or they will double the price

You have to be ready

I don't need an analyst to tell me (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542351)

I don't need an analyst to tell me not to spend $5000 on a TV. That's common sense. Duh.

Why You Shouldn't Buy a UHD 4K TV This Year (3, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 10 months ago | (#45542371)

Why You Shouldn't Buy a UHD 4K TV This Year

Because there is very little content for it.

Re:Why You Shouldn't Buy a UHD 4K TV This Year (1)

Pope (17780) | about 10 months ago | (#45542805)

Because there is very little content for it.

And there's no point in such a high resolution standard for the home user at this point anyway.

On top of that, the very name of the standard is misleading, which puts me against it regardless.
1080p = 1920x1080 pixels. Easy to understand.
4K = 3840×2160 pixels. Why not just call it 2160p so we have something easy to compare to?

Re:Why You Shouldn't Buy a UHD 4K TV This Year (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 10 months ago | (#45542831)

I for one, cannot wait to see the new edits George Lucas has planned for the UHD version of "A New Hope". But that probably won't be for another few years.

Re:Why You Shouldn't Buy a UHD 4K TV This Year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45543111)

Also he'll have to buy it back from Disney first...

Re:Why You Shouldn't Buy a UHD 4K TV This Year (1)

F.Ultra (1673484) | about 10 months ago | (#45543101)

While content would be nice it's not 100% necessary. My 64" 1080 Plasma shows SD content much better than an 64" 480 Plasma ever would have.

LED TVs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542375)

No thanks; I've got enough resolution. I'm waiting for LED TVs, since they have a much better black level. I'll finally be able to play Doom64 again. That game is so dark, that I really haven't been able to play it properly since I switched years ago from a CRT screen to an LCD.

4k screen? At 15 feet away, I couldn't even see any better than 1080p on a 40" screen. 3D? I don't enjoy it. Give me an LED screen so I can have a decent black level. (And no marketing fraud, where they falsely advertise an LCD screen with an LED backlight as an LED TV. That's not an LED TV, and they know it.)

Re:LED TVs (2)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 10 months ago | (#45542853)

Fifteen feet away? Get a bigger screen, or move your couch.

Re:LED TVs (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#45542933)

Fifteen feet away? Get a bigger screen, or move your couch.

There's only so much room in my parent's basement, you insensitive clod.

Well duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542383)

Obviously we're at the early adopter/nouveau riche part of the technology curve here.

How to know when to buy (3, Informative)

onyxruby (118189) | about 10 months ago | (#45542387)

Follow the porn industry, they have an unblemished track record going back decades of getting at the bleeding edge of technology. From VHS to DVD to any number of other technologies porn was there first at any notable level. The rule of thumb for buying new technology without paying an arm and a leg is porn adoption + 4 years. That gets past the bleeding edge costs, the differing standards and the price typically settles down.

Re:How to know when to buy (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about 10 months ago | (#45542713)

That reminds me of the time porn thought it was a good idea to have movies that you can cut to different camera angles in the same scene. Intriguing idea for titillating video, but for mainstream content, directors tend to want to control the camera angles the audience sees. Not every tech the adult industry backs works out.

Re:How to know when to buy (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#45542991)

The TECH is still there. DVD "seamless" branching is alive and well and working just fine. There's plenty of multi-angle non-adult films out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seamless_branching [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-Video#Chapters_and_angles [wikipedia.org]

...apparently it's alive and well in Yoga instructional videos.

Re:How to know when to buy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542919)

That's one of those urban legends that won't die.. stop spreading that crap (pun intended).

OLED (3, Insightful)

Travco (1872216) | about 10 months ago | (#45542389)

OLED is the tops for image. The "depth" of the black pixels makes the OLED image SO superior to anything else, it beats pixel count no end.

Re:OLED (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 10 months ago | (#45542913)

Another nice thing about OLED is the dark areas take no power. If I'm getting a 4K TV it will be a BIG one. But I don't want normal TV viewing to be that huge or power hungry, I want to light up just a 1080p area in the center, thus having a smaller TV inside my big TV.

Re:OLED (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 10 months ago | (#45542931)

I agree. I am far more interested in OLED than I am 4K. 4K is nice to have, but a large screen OLED would be a must have.

85" 4K OLED FTW!!

4K makes sense for monitors (5, Insightful)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 10 months ago | (#45542391)

The average viewer would probably notice little difference on a 4K TV even if corresponding content were readily available (which, at this time, it is not). But I'm still hoping for the success of 4K, because it will make a big difference on monitors. Higher production volumes means cheaper panels. Currently, to get a 4K monitor (based on a 32" IGZO panel) that supports 60 Hz, you need to shell out $3500; but once the 4K monitors based on cheaper 39" VA panels hit the market, this should drop to $1000 or less. Seiki can sell TVs with those panels for $500, but the big drawback is that these only support 30 Hz due to limitations of the input controller.

Re:4K makes sense for monitors (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 10 months ago | (#45542663)

The average viewer would probably notice little difference on a 4K TV even if corresponding content were readily available (which, at this time, it is not).

You'd have to qualify that with screen size. The average viewer sitting 10 feet away from his 40" TV wouldn't notice a different with 4K content, but give him a 70" or 80" screen, and he will.

Before I had an HD TV, I had a 30" CRT - if it had been 1080p capable, I wouldn't have noticed much (if any) difference between that and 480p. It wasn't until I upgraded to a 37" 720P LCD TV, and later to a 55" 1080p TV that I could take advantage of the higher resolutions. 4K is the same - users will need much bigger displays (or sit much closer to their TV) to really take advantage of it.

Re:4K makes sense for monitors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542741)

What twisted logic tells you that little difference would be noticed on a TV, but monitors would be greatly improved? They are both displays that show an increasingly amount of the same content.

Re:4K makes sense for monitors (1)

Rising Ape (1620461) | about 10 months ago | (#45542993)

Because you usually sit much closer to a monitor than a TV?

Re:4K makes sense for monitors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45543027)

Because most people sit WAY closer to a computer monitor than they do to a TV.

Re:4K makes sense for monitors (2)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 10 months ago | (#45543055)

I know, right? I edit CAD files from my couch.

Re:4K makes sense for monitors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542987)

Average viewer? What about average content? At least in the USA and China, so-called HDTV cable and satellite broadcasts look like crap because they are recompressed so much. I believe verizon FIOS may have better offerings on some channels, but FIOS is not available in my area, and I cannot comment as I've never seen it. HDTV was great at least in my area back in 2006 to maybe 2008 or so, and as they added more HTDV channels, the quality kept going down and down. I now have an antennae and the picture is blu-ray clarity. I'm shocked at how clear my TV is with OTA reception.

4k would be great for projectors or use on computers as we've been in a lull in monitor resolution for years since HDTV was released. However, the companies that charge for content and their customers should really up their standards.

Tempting? I Don't Have a TV... (5, Interesting)

Iskender (1040286) | about 10 months ago | (#45542393)

"While it's tempting to upgrade your flatscreen to the latest technology,

I don't have a TV, and don't watch TV/movies other than through my faux-HD monitor.

I understand not everyone is like me, and that's OK. But in my circle of friends, it's really common to not have a TV and not care. Is this the experience of others, too?

Also, this whole 4K thing reeks of "we tried to sell 3D, failed, now trying desperately with the next thing..." But please reply if you're really into 4K, too...

Re:Tempting? I Don't Have a TV... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542619)

I don't even own a computer! I lay in my yard and wait for a boob shaped cloud to float by and start beating it furiously. Cumulonimbus get me rock hard....

Re:Tempting? I Don't Have a TV... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542867)

-1? That shit's funny.

Re:Tempting? I Don't Have a TV... (2)

SmaryJerry (2759091) | about 10 months ago | (#45542851)

Why they ever upgraded from photographs to moving pictures I'll never know. I had all the detail I needed. Don't even get me started on color TVs.

Re:Tempting? I Don't Have a TV... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542965)

The word "TV" is getting kind of ambiguous. I've not had cable TV or air reception for watching public broadcasts for a long time (80s), but have had a boxy piece of equipment sold as a "TV" for most of that time to watch VHS tapes at first, then DVDs, then Blu-Ray (just a few) and now mainly Netflix. I'll also watch youtube/vimeo/etc. on my 30" monitor or on a 10" tablet. I sometimes hook up my laptop to the TV to see something that looks better on a bigger screen (e.g. LotR). I know a number of people that mainly use their "TV" as a large or shared video game monitor. Going back, the first TV I bought for myself was for use as a home computer "monitor" (RF output). At the time, the defining difference between a monitor and a TV seemed to be the input signal (modulated as a TV broadcast signal or not, and limited to TV broadcast resolutions or not. Now, equipment use and signal formats and amount of processing inside the box have become much more diverse, so I'm not sure there is really a point where you could say "I have a monitor but not a TV" or vice versa.

upgrade your internet connection first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542405)

How will the UHD content be distributed? Bluray or some kind of new physical media format? Don't think so...
Most likely people would prefer to stream. How the hell will UHD content be streamed over the existing connections? So, before investing to a UHD TV investment has to be made on an ultra-fast internet connection. Very few locations around the world will have enough bandwidth at home to support this. And even if you get that kind of bandwidth, I'm not sure that the backbone will be able to cope with the load.

Until these things have been settled, I'll pass.

Seiki sells a 65" model (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about 10 months ago | (#45542407)

And it's $3k. That might sound like a lot, but 1080p televisions of the same size seem to go for about $2k from most vendors anyhow...

There is only one reason. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542415)

The submitter fails to understand that people only buy TVs like this to demonstrate penis size to their neighbors. No amount of "it serves no actual purpose over other TVs" will change the minds of people who make these kinds of ego purchases.

Re:There is only one reason. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542681)

For many possibly, but not owning a 1080p TV, I await 4K to make the purchase.
Beside I really -do- enjoy all the little pixels, no matter what some guys with an arbitrary "normal viewing distance" tell me.
Not saying you're wrong, but I hear about 4K being pointless all the time, while I -do- see and enjoy the difference, and can't be alone.

Re:There is only one reason. (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 10 months ago | (#45542971)

I have noticed the opposite. People buy these kinds of TVs because they have money to burn. People bring up penis size because they want to convince others that they are secure in their manhood.

Same reason as before (4, Interesting)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 10 months ago | (#45542423)

Please see last year's posts on why you shouldn't buy a 3D TV.

Re:Same reason as before (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | about 10 months ago | (#45542883)

They'll just be ignored by people citing the anti-HD arguments were wrong. There is no rationalizing with mania.

Where to get 4k content (3, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | about 10 months ago | (#45542427)

1) Remove SD card from your digital camera.
2) Insert in SD slot on TV.
3) Enjoy.

What all is 4k anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542457)

Cable only comes in at 720p. Blu-rays and game consoles are 1080p. For 4k I'd have to go buy all new movies and a 4k player...and that's not even including how close I'd need to be to the TV to see the difference.

Re:What all is 4k anyway? (0)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#45542543)

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but all 4k content will be licensed only.

Re:What all is 4k anyway? (1)

laie_techie (883464) | about 10 months ago | (#45542667)

Cable only comes in at 720p. Blu-rays and game consoles are 1080p. For 4k I'd have to go buy all new movies and a 4k player...and that's not even including how close I'd need to be to the TV to see the difference.

Sony and Panasonic are working on a new physical disc [wired.co.uk] , as is the Blu-ray Disc Association [techradar.com] . HDMI 2.0 [wikipedia.org] supports 4k resolution at 60fps, 30 channels of audio, etc. I would wait for these standards to mature - I don't want to suffer the same "HDTV ready" fiasco from yesteryear.

Re:What all is 4k anyway? (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 10 months ago | (#45542887)

On one hand, I like 300 gigs a disk, for making backups, assuming the media will offer consumer level burners.

On the other hand, I dread to see what next-gen DRM will be packaged with it. DIVX (not the codec, the Circuit City device) style, always-on DRM? Media that has to be "bound" to an account to be used and can't be resold (like some console games)? Built in embedded chips on the disks that do some critical decoding step?

Blecch.

Re:What all is 4k anyway? (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 10 months ago | (#45542725)

Cable only comes in at 720p.

What kind of horrible cable provider do you have?

Re: What all is 4k anyway? (1)

alen (225700) | about 10 months ago | (#45542849)

1080i is the same thing as 720p

Re: What all is 4k anyway? (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 10 months ago | (#45543061)

Ummm...no.

Re:What all is 4k anyway? (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 10 months ago | (#45542963)

Even if it's ostensibly higher resolution than 720p--it could well be over-compressed.

I poked my head in the neighborhood HHGregg, the other day. All of the TVs, except the 4K ones were tuned to the same football game, and on those, you couldn't even tell that it was played on grass. They may use DirectTV.

Of course the 4K TVs looked stunning in comparison.

Input lag! (1)

GerbilSoft (761537) | about 10 months ago | (#45542469)

Based on the amount of input lag present in "1080p" TVs, I can only imagine how bad the input lag is on "4K" TVs. (2 seconds or higher?)

Of course, this isn't an inherent property of high-resolution panels. It's caused by idiots in management that "insist" that these TVs have worthless image filtering algorithms that distort the picture and lag the image.

Re:Input lag! (1)

quitte (1098453) | about 10 months ago | (#45542729)

But the results of the research has to go somewhere! We can't have students write their thesises and do their accompanying work without putting it on the market, can we?
Apparently it's even unthinkable to let their undergraduate tinkering go to waste. Or maybe there is an actual reason for the mood lights built into the coffee maker at my local gas station.

Re:Input lag! (1)

umafuckit (2980809) | about 10 months ago | (#45542819)

I thought the lag happened only when 720 is up-scaled to 1080. If a 1080 TV is getting 1080 input then lag the lag goes away (or becomes negligible). Isn't that so?

Re:Input lag! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45543015)

All digital signals will have delay. How much delay depends on the equipment. Certainly up scaling won't help, but there is no fixed rule on what options will add how much delay.

Noisy as hell (2)

bob_super (3391281) | about 10 months ago | (#45542493)

My living room is too quiet to put an H265 decoder in it.

Re:Noisy as hell (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45542781)

Please explain?
You think solid state parts working make noise?

Re:Noisy as hell (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 10 months ago | (#45542939)

I was unnecessarily hyperbolic. It's the H265 compression which requires decent fans to keep the solid-state parts from releasing magic smoke.

The decompression is a lot easier, but by the time you do it for 4k, I don't know that you can do it fanless yet.

Re:Noisy as hell (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45543065)

Well, you can always make the box bigger.
Just make the heat sink a few hundred pounds of copper.

Is UHD pr0n really better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542637)

Because if it isn't, UHD is DOA :-/

Insensitive Clod (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45542659)

I still watch on my 36" tubed TV.

I was so happy when I bought that, and the cheapest flat screen was like 2500. I should have known something was up when the priced dropped like 400 on my TV... as soon as I bought it, they stopped making tubed TVs (by all appearances), and you could buy a flat screen that Christmas for less than my tubed TV...

And now it is perfectly good, and I can't in good conscience just throw that much lead away. PBS gets a bit annoying, they only broadcast in wide screen.

Re:Insensitive Clod (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 10 months ago | (#45543041)

PBS gets a bit annoying, they only broadcast in wide screen

But so does everyone else.

but 4k TVs could be what (1)

kungfuj35u5 (1331351) | about 10 months ago | (#45542719)

sells the steam box, as most non console games can be driven at any arbitrary resolution supported by your display. Sure textures may be crappy at that scale, but texture filtering and up sampling can go a decent way there.

Well... (2)

Daniel Hoffmann (2902427) | about 10 months ago | (#45542813)

When was being an early adopter ever a good idea?

Deluxe life (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 10 months ago | (#45542947)

From a philosophic point of view, 4K is pure aristocracy. 1080p was about perfecting the traditional TV, and was somewhat justified, but 4K is just "we gave you more pixels, because we can". The good side is of course that selling people another round of screens is good for the economy and employment. Personally, I'm perfectly happy with a high-quality 480p image, going higher than that is fun, but does not bring significant enhancement to my enjoyment.

Also, the higher resolutions make me desire a higher frame rate, has anyone else noticed this? I mean, when running the same material SD vs. HD, the extra-sharp image somehow screams more to be in a higher frame rate.

Re:Deluxe life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45543053)

Very much agreed about the frame rate, though people freaking out over "The Hobbit" being too real (OMG, color movies, it takes away all the fuzzy magic!) probably put a cold shower on it. IMO picture technology should be as good (read realistically depicting) as possible, then directors can choose to crap up the picture if they want.

Any panning camera is choppy and blurry as it is, pretty lame.
Speaking of which, as much as I actually like 4K, I'd rather have 120hz 1080p (or 60hz 3k) if we're battling about the same data rate.

The detractoids are missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45543035)

We all expect the ignorant detractors and negative commentators on slashdot.

Yes, the pixel count is higher, but so it the frame rate and the color space is greatly expanded. 60p Sports will look great for those that give a shit. The expanded color gamut and pixel count enables greater range. Assuming h265 is widely adopted (it is by far the leading technology at this point) then last mile network requirements will be around 20Mb, doable even over copper cable.

The "will I notice" comments are stupid. Go see it. Look at the detail you see in the shadows even from across the room. Look at how the gradients blend nicely on flatly lit scenes. Notice the absense of judder or steppiness in fast moving objects (assuming 60p or greater frame rates).

Last point- the production cost. Right now, it's 1998 all over again- a return to when HD production and post was difficult. The 4k cameras cost less than their HD counterparts did in '98. Graphics cards are much faster now, and are easlily capable of delivering 120hz 4k for HFR content. Flash storage eliminates the complexity of building storage systems supporting 4k workflows. Object storage, especially erasure coded object storage, makes the active archives affordable. Processors have advanced in throughput. Memory systems are robust. DDR4 is a year out of GA, and will nearly double the memory bw. 10Gb is the new 1Gb. Those that complain about cost are those that haven't built a system capable of 4k, much less 4k HFR Stereo.

4k is here now. Next year, we will see rapid growth in consumer devices thanks to companies like Qualcomm and NVIDIA. 4k distribution will be over IP networks to IP connected devices. See ya, optical disk.

If you don't like it, enjoy your crappy 720p, your VCR and your DSL connection

No content (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45543057)

The biggest reason to buy one is no content. Maybe once h265 becomes popular and there is a 4k Blu-Ray standard.

It really is 4k (2)

Wexton (748563) | about 10 months ago | (#45543093)

It really is 4K by how the naming conventions goes today. Today it goes Horizontal then Vertical like 1080p = 1920x1080 pixels. Really easy to understand. What they are calling 4K 4K = 3840Ã--2160 pixels. So fuck the advertisers that are trying to sell stuff that most people well assume is something else.

Why you *should* buy a 4k Monitor this year (1, Interesting)

Steffan (126616) | about 10 months ago | (#45543125)

After a number of years in the desolate wasteland that is 1080P, we are finally at a convergence of the television and monitor markets with 4K televisions. Based on the ability of Seiki to sell a 4K 39" panel for less the $500, it's likely that 2014 will usher in a series of relatively-inexpensive monitors delivering this resolution. Similar 1080p panels are selling for $300, and since the manufacturing isn't significantly more difficult, it's likely that in 12-18 months that pricepoint will be reached for 4K monitors as well.

Worth noting - the Seiki does all of this while including a remote, tuners, and multiple connectors unnecessary for strictly computer-use monitor. It's likely the costs (and prices) could drop even more in that sort of an implementation given enough volume. (Since the TV market is much bigger it may still make sense to make a one-size-fits-all model)

I purchased the 4K 39" Seiki TV about two weeks ago for use as a monitor. The 30Hz refresh rate is lower than I would like, but for software dev, still images, and watching the tiny amount of 4K video content it is completely fine. 39" is a little bit larger than I would have normally considered, but it offers a nice amount of screen real estate (less than 2 30" monitors though) and slightly higher dot pitch than a standard 2560x1600 30" display.

tl;dr It's completely worthwhile to get a 4K display now at this price.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>