# Question re: 4K



## mkabi (Nov 23, 2013)

I don't even know why I'm asking this here, but we will see if anyone knows the answer.

Do you really need a 4K TV to view 4K?

I mean, I view a lot of online stuff, and my monitor's resolution is only 1280X1024.
We all know the difference between 480p and 1080p, and you can see the difference even between 720p and 1080p. And, this is all through youtube. Anyway, I've been watching plenty of 2.5K videos on vimeo... the video is so pristine... and thats on my 1280X1024 monitor... 

Similarly, there is a huge difference between a blu-ray movie that is 1080p and a dvd movie that is 1080p.


----------



## Brand B (Nov 27, 2013)

It depends on what you mean by view it.

If you want to see the full 4K resolution, yes you need a 4K display. But 4K will still look good on a regular HD display. So what exactly are you asking?

Also, there is no such thing as a 1080 DVD. The DVD spec is NTSC which is 480.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 28, 2013)

Go to Best Buy and view the 4k demo tv's. The Sharp and Samsung demo's are impressive looking to me, the Sony less so. In particular much of the Sharp demo looks to actually have been shot with a 4k cinema camera.

These 4k TV's though, clearly are the best TV's ever made (other than perhaps the current or future OLED TV's, which I've not seen in person). Pixel detail aside, the color, the contrast...it's mind blowing. 

But most of the content you would view at home, would be 1080p or less, and the 1080p-upsampled-to-4k, A-B test Sony has, doesn't look all that impressive to me. Obvious aliasing artifacts around small detailed objects like people skiing on the top of a snow covered mountain, shot from a helicopter. Of course I was about 2 feet in front of a 50 inch screen, when I saw this. _But that's how close you have to be to a 4k tv, to be able to see all the detail!_

I was happy for a long time, watching DVD, then 1080i broadcast, then some Blu-Ray's...on my 720p Panasonic front projector, whose screen is a Da-Lite high power (uses microscopic glass beads). The screen's width is 112 inches at 2.35:1 aspect. Still have the screen and surround sound, but sold the projector last year. Didn't feel like spending 2k to $3k on a new one just yet (especially given that I've spent more than that on camera gear this year!!)

That old projector could accept 1080p/24 via HDMI 1.3a, and Blu Rays looked astoundingly better than broadcast 1080i (or 720p) looked (even though I technically wasn't seeing all the pixels!). On my current (and small) 46 inch Samsung 1080p "smart tv", Blu Ray only looks a bit better to me than it did on the large screen via that projector that was only 1280x720. The oddest improvement is going from DVD to 720p or 1080i ("standard" HDTV broadcast). It absolutely kills DVD...

As for watching web videos, I don't do it much (other than on my new Asus 24 inch IPS desktop monitor, which I love...it's not perfect...but for the price it almost is). I watch Netflix on the Samsung occasionally, but the best signal I get from them is 720p. Not sure if it's my slow internet, or if that's just as high as they go. Either way, most of the time Netflix's picture quality appears a bit below that of satellite broadcast 1080i/720p, to my eyes. Sometimes it's very bad, because the feed, or the content, gets limited to as low as 320p!! I know because my tv can display the signal resolution...

As for your last comment, there is no such thing as a DVD that is 1080p. All DVD's are 480p at best. That's the standard. A DVD player can supposedly upsample and output a 1080p signal, but like the Sony comparison I mentioned above, it's obviously not always an actual improvement.


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 28, 2013)

Hi folks.
My question about this is being in the UK when might we see 4k content available, bearing in mind that it is almost impossible to rent 3D in most places, a dozen titles last time I looked in our local store. Satellite only broadcast in 1080i, so not at full high definition. 
I'm certainly not going to buy a 4k tv to watch upscaled content having been disappointed at having to do that as an early (ish) adopter of HD! I don't have or want my own 4k camera, so I don't need a 4k tv for that. 
I don't doubt that 4k is much better than HD but I still know many people mostly pensioners that watch CRT based wide screen tv's and didn't see the need to upgrade to HD and we are only going to see more elderly people due to an increasing life span. 
I see a problem of lack of uptake caused by lack of broadcast content, caused by lack of uptake, vicious circle for the foreseeable future, caused in no small part by the memory of recent lack of broadcast content issues, namely HD, very slow roll out and 3D still only one dedicated 3D channel, also times are tough economically.
I'm prepared to be proved wrong!

Cheers Graham.


----------



## AmbientLight (Nov 28, 2013)

Why are you in a hurry to be an early adopter anyway? You can wait until appropriate media are generally available and then you can grab the best established tv on the market for a bargain price instead of plunging ahead now.

I don't understand the need to be first. It's not like its a brand new 1D-Xs or something... :-X


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 28, 2013)

Hi AmbientLight.
I think my point was that if everyone does the "not getting it until there is sufficient content" bit, there is unlikely to be a large uptake of the technology to capture, process and especially broadcast the medium.
I personally have no intention of being an early adopter, possibly not even on the crest of the wave adopter. 
Not sure my eyes are HD compatible even with glasses on, let alone 4k! :

Cheers Graham.



AmbientLight said:


> Why are you in a hurry to be an early adopter anyway? You can wait until appropriate media are generally available and then you can grab the best established tv on the market for a bargain price instead of plunging ahead now.
> 
> I don't understand the need to be first. It's not like its a brand new 1D-Xs or something... :-X


----------



## AmbientLight (Nov 28, 2013)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi AmbientLight.
> I think my point was that if everyone does the "not getting it until there is sufficient content" bit, there is unlikely to be a large uptake of the technology to capture, process and especially broadcast the medium.
> I personally have no intention of being an early adopter, possibly not even on the crest of the wave adopter.
> Not sure my eyes are HD compatible even with glasses on, let alone 4k! :
> ...



Hi Graham,

There's a good concept called hype cycle having been created by a company named Gartner. It basically assumes that early adopters of new technology are most likely to waste their money, serving only to provide others with profits. From the buyers' perspective that is no good.

On the other hand technical progress will continue with or without our approval, so purchasing early on to enable new technology to become profitable is not really necessary. Early adoption may even turn out to be harmful as it might slow down mature product selection, which serves consumers better in the end.

If new technology is any good, it will sell. If it is in a status of not being really mature enough to be good, it is better to leave such things alone to allow market forces to clean up.

Cheers


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 28, 2013)

mkabi said:


> I don't even know why I'm asking this here, but we will see if anyone knows the answer.
> 
> Do you really need a 4K TV to view 4K?
> 
> ...



I have seen some 4k demo sets and the picture was incredible. A bigger difference than a good crt (say, Sony XBR) to 1920 x 1080 in my opinion.

There is a bottleneck, though.

A single HDMI 1.2 cable can do 4k, but only at 30hz.

Higher refresh only happens with (1) 2x HDMI 1.2 inputs, (2) HDMI 2.0 or (3) DisplayPort input.

So far, only certain Panasonic models have HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort.

Supposedly, LG has "promised" to upgrade early adopter sets to HDMI 2.0, but you better check on your own.

There is *no way* to upgrade HDMI 1.2 to HDMI 2.0 with a "firmware update".


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 28, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > I don't even know why I'm asking this here, but we will see if anyone knows the answer.
> ...



Are you saying there's no difference between HDMI 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4? 1.3 has been around since 2005 or 2006. 

From what I can tell, the only way to watch 4k video content in the home, is via Sony's pre-loaded, dedicated hard drive, on their 4k sets. Sharp and Samsung have something similar, but Sony owns the rights to a lot of movies, so their drive comes with like 20 movies on it. Whether or not the majority of those movies was remastered at the 4k resolution, rather than just upsampled to it, I can't say. Whether or not I would want to watch any of those 20 movies more than twice, I _can_ say...the answer is NO. 

Either way, I can agree that unless there starts being a lot of 4k content, then TV's with that resolution will not sell well.


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 29, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Are you saying there's no difference between HDMI 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4? 1.3 has been around since 2005 or 2006.
> 
> From what I can tell, the only way to watch 4k video content in the home, is via Sony's pre-loaded, dedicated hard drive, on their 4k sets. Sharp and Samsung have something similar, but Sony owns the rights to a lot of movies, so their drive comes with like 20 movies on it. Whether or not the majority of those movies was remastered at the 4k resolution, rather than just upsampled to it, I can't say. Whether or not I would want to watch any of those 20 movies more than twice, I _can_ say...the answer is NO.
> 
> Either way, I can agree that unless there starts being a lot of 4k content, then TV's with that resolution will not sell well.



I may have the 1.X number wrong, but unless the set has 2x HDMI 1.X input, HDMI 2.0 and/or a DisplayPort input, you aren't getting 4k at more than 30 Hz.

I didn't inquire at the store I saw the 4k sets at as to what the input source was.


----------

