Slashdot Mirror
4K UHDTV Hardware On Display in Berlin, And On Sale In Korea
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."
How about a 4k or 8k 27" monitor? They can market it as a TV if they want too.
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?
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?
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.
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.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
$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?
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).
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.
So now I have Betamax, VHS, Laserdisk, DVD and Blueray. Soon I must buy everything again for my UHDTV.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
....where people can afford to buy the highest tech available anywhere in the world, and that tech is actually manufactured there!
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
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?
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'm reading it on a 22" 1080p display, and only because I'm not using the 17" 1080p display in my laptop.
good regular HD? 4K would only mean more expensive service with even worse overcompression.
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.
I remember the days when 1K was 1024
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.
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.
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.
calculations based on the resolution of the human eye when corrected to only 20/20 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.
Do you watch 4:3 content in "stretch mode"?
People don't need bigger screens, they need smaller houses.
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
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.
CBS, NBC, and, I think, one of the other networks produced 1080i content from the outset-- the same 1080*1920 image--just interlaced.
The marketing campaign for "fullHD/1080p" has been enormously successful in making people forget about tech that has been around for a while.
...and if they can can get a high quality image that fills their field of view with sound that is powerful and convincing, that is good enough for some people to feel like they have actually experienced something, as opposed to just "watching" it.
Of course, most of the people who can afford to create these artificial experiences in their home somewhat convincingly can also afford to actually go to places and have the real life experiences to which you are likely referring. But then, a convincing presentation of something is the closest ANY person can get to "experiencing" events and places that can't possibly be experienced in real life.
I'd never grant that movies can be a substitute for actually going places and interacting with the environment and the people, especially as someone who usually chooses to spend disposable income on travel instead of upgrading the home theater. However with the right presentation and material, movies the can be life experiences you'll never forget.
I mean those new 22nm processors those aren't built in... oh what's that? They are made in Chandler, Arizona? Oh.
Please, come off the bullshit of "The US doesn't make anything high tech." In fact, the US makes a shit ton of high tech. As I said, all those nifty Ivy Bridge processors are fabbed in the US. That is just one example.
Countries often specialize in things and get so good at them that few others compete. For example Japan and camera lenses. There are other countries that make them, but the lion's share come from Japan. Well for LCDs it is Korea. They have three of the four major LCD makers there (AU Optronics, LG.Displays and Samsung). So it is no surprise that when they roll out a new LCD for very limited distribution, that's where you see it first.
If you are unaware of the high tech stuff the US makes, the failing is yours not the US's. I just gave you one example, Intel processors (most of Intel's fabs are in the US, including all of their highest tech ones) you can find many more.
Movies are shot in all kinds of aspect ratios. Just depends on the kind of lens the director chooses for an anamorphic film, or the kind of matte for a spherical. Common anamoriphic ratios are 1.44:1 IMAX, 1.77:1 ATSC, 1.85:1 3 perf, 2:1 SuperScope (also what Red shoots in), 2.39:1 Panavision, 2.55:1 Cinemascope.
These are just some of the more common ones you see in theaters, and as I said just the anamorphic ones. There are other movies that are shot on spherical glass and then matted down, like Fight Club, that can be anything since there is no special lens required.
The new screens will be 1.77:1, aka 16:9. You can't spec a screen that's perfect for cinema because of the varied ratios. I'm not sure how the 16:9 ratio for ATSC came about but it is quite standard these days so it is what will continue, for now.