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."

Comments

I want my games to have all the pixels!

[Major Ralph]

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.

Fix HD First

[Rob Riggs]

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.

Re:Fix HD First

[MightyYar]

I came here to post this. I'm in the minority, but to my eye it is more pleasant to watch the old grainy picture than it is to watch compressed high resolution video. In particular, my eye gets drawn to grass. Every time I watch a game played on grass (baseball, football, the other football, etc), the digital compression just hijacks my eyes. I can learn to ignore it over time, like watching a movie with subtitles, but it still is not my preference.

Re:I would love 4K!!!

[jerpyro]

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?

Re:I would love 4K!!!

[canadiannomad]

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.

Re:Can't escape the laws of physics

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Hnnnnnggggg

[MozeeToby]

The ability to see individual pixels is not the limit of perceptible improvement though. Even on 'retina' displays there is visible aliasing on diagonal lines. Think about it like this, a 12nm chip fab produces individual elements at 12nm, but places them with much, much better than 12nm accuracy.

Re:Can't escape the laws of physics

[evilviper]

4K is the video equivalent of Monster Cable.

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