Slashdot Mirror
4K Ultra HD Likely To Repeat the Failure of 3D Television
New submitter tvf_trp writes "Fox Sports VP Jerry Steinbers has just announced that the broadcaster is not looking to implement 4K broadcasting (which offers four times the resolution of today's HD), stating that 4K Ultra HD is a 'monumental task with not a lot of return.' Digital and broadcasting specialists have raised concerns about the future of 4K technology, drawing parallels with the 3D's trajectory, which despite its initial hype has failed to establish a significant market share due to high price and lack of 3D content. While offering some advantages over 3D (no need for specs, considerable improvement in video quality, etc), 4K's prospects will remain precarious until it can get broadcasters and movie makers on board."
I can understand why 4k televisions may not take off, but 4k monitors will definitely be a big deal. Just look at how AMD and NVIDIA are gearing up their GPUs to support it.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
To make full use of that resolution ("Retina" quality, i.e. indistinguishable pixels) at a viewing distance of 10ft you'd need a screen 150" screen. That's 8ft wide 4ft6in tall.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Why the heck would I want UHD when most HD content is so compressed that the artifacts are easily discernible from across the room. At least that is my experience with every HD medium I have seen OTA, cable, satellite, and to a much lesser degree in Blu-ray.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
I would love 4k too but I don't want to use it for a TV, I want to use it for a computer monitor (How many IDEs can you fit in 4k?). I keep looking at this particular TV and thinking about how much space I'd have to clear off on my desk to use it with my laptop:
http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra/dp/B00DOPGO2G
Much cheaper than a lot of the 4k monitors out there, but is the image quality good enough to not make your eyes bleed?
Let me put it this way:
Linus Torvalds Advocates For 2560x1600 Standard Laptop Displays
The fact that laptops stagnated ten years ago (and even regressed, in many cases) at around half that in both directions is just sad.
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
You just need to look at the higher resolution phones to realize what you're saying is bullshit (and those are ridiculously small 5" screens, although albeit you do look at it closer than a television). The so-called "retina" display by Apple is still far short of the maximum resolution we can see. Have you actually gone and looked at a 1080p display before deciding on your 720p monitor, or did you trust your flawed math and went with it? Here's the actual math with references to the visual acuity numbers.
and just repost every complaint about going to 1080p form 10 years ago? Jest replace 1080 with 4k.
Or flat screen with 4k.
People are going to want 4k because it's stunning.
If I had time I would look at the history of the loud complainers and see if they were the people saying no one would do HD or pay for a flat screen.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
While I'm no fan of 4K TVs... You're using a vastly oversimplified model of human vision:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=230181&cid=18677583
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Higher resolution beyond a certain point no longer becomes about displaying more data, but displaying it better. The font remains the same physical size, but more pixels are devoted to it, leading to much crisper, clearer text, without reverting to tricks like anti-aliased and sub-pixel rendered fonts.