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."
But I don't want to pay 4K.
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.
Existing 1080p quality can't be discerned as better by someone sitting 10 feet away on a couch looking at a 42" TV. Going past 1080p has no value whatsoever unless you're talking about insanely huge screens or impractically close viewing.
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
As it is right now, the only true 1080p content is high bitrate blu-ray disks, and PC games. There is nothing else.
None of the currently released consoles can render 1920x1080 at 60 fps : they use a lower frame rate (30 fps) and a lower rendering resolution (not even 720p internally for most games). The next gen can maybe do it, but I suspect that some games will use lower frame rates or internal resolutions so that they can put more detail into other things.
Broadcast channels, satellite channels, and HD cable channels all generally are full of lower bit-rate tradeoffs. You need about 30-50 mbps to do 1080p without compromises or visible encoding errors.
Maybe in another 10 years, when the technology is actually fully utilizing the 1080p displays we already have, will an upgrade make sense.
Note that this is for video content. For your computer or tablet PC, higher resolutions are useful, and shipping tablets are already at higher resolutions.
I really do. It wasn'tmuch added cost. And yes, the problem is content.Movie makes should do the year of 3D. And actually sell the 3D at the same price. People would buy more 3DTVs.
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.
3d TV's failure was most certainly not a 'lack of content' and if it's perceived that way by the media mavens, then the same mistakes will be repeated.
3d failed because:
- technologically not-ready-for-prime-time; wearing uncomfortable specs etc wasn't popular in theaters the FIRST go around with 3d.
- people recognized it for what it was: a money-grab by hardware producers trying to re-milk the public that had already been forced to go out and buy all-new digital tvs.
-Styopa
Yes but 4K content can be rendered in a video game given the right hardware/software. 4K video requires that the content be recorded and sent at that resolution. Content providers like cable channels are now only producing all of their content in 1080p much less 4K.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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
Wake me when they announce 640K.
That should be enough for anybody.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
When I visit the local Sony and see the 4K 9with true 4K content) side-byside with their best regular HDTVS, the improvement is quite stunning. The get pretty close to "appearing like a real window rather a just a TV" threshhold.
Why did they switch from using vertical pixels as the dominant label (720, 1080) to using horizontal pixels as the dominant label (4k)?
I think it's because 4k is a cinema standard, which measures horizontally, whereas previous measures (405/525/625/720/1080) have all been from broadcast TV, that happens to measure vertically.
Not to mention... If you want to stream a 4K Show over Hulu or Netflix, you'd hit your AT&T or cable provider's MONTHLY bandwidth cap in ~5 MINUTES. (variable, depends on compression, cap, buffering, throughput, etc.)..
Reminds me of LTE, Verizon Wireless is quick to point out you can download from them at over 50Mb/sec.. they wont tell you that after 60 seconds your phone bill is now $600
So let's break it down:
12.5 Mbps MPEG-2 encoding does a reasonable job today for current HD resolutions (720p60, 1080i30).
So 4xHD = 50 Mbps for 30 fps progressive 4K, or 100 Mbps for 60 fps progressive 4K.
AVC encoding may optimally be able to cut the bit rate in half, so say 50 Mbps for AVC 4K 60p. I'm not sure live AVC encoders are actually at that point yet, but I believe they will make it in a year or two.
Then assume HEVC cuts the AVC bit rate in half. So 25 Mbps for HEVC 4K 60p. I know there are not even HD resolution live HEVC encoders yet, so I'd say it will take ~5 years to get 4K live HEVC encoding accomplishing equivalent video quality of half the bit rate of AVC for 4K 60P.
25 Mbps still does not fit into 6 MHz ATSC 8-VSB modulated digital channels. It does not fit into DVB-T 8 MHz COFDM 16-QAM modulated digital channels It would fit into 64-QAM DVB-T or DVB-T2 at higher QAM rates, with higher S/N ratios required for reception.
Most people who replied to you didn't answer you and most of those people gave you the wrong answer. A number of people said that the Seiki will only run at 1080p with a computer attached, which is just flat wrong.
The 4k Seiki will run in full resolution with both the 39-inch and 50-inch models. The limiting factor on the Seiki's are the connector, which is standard HDMI. A standard HDMI cable cannot push more than 30 hz, which is a very flow refresh rate for monitors these days. Indeed, the Seiki itself supports 120hz, but because it only comes with a cable jack that allows 30hz, you need to use 30hz.
In the next year hopefully other companies or Seiki itself will come out with displays with HDMI2 or Thunderbolt ports at similar price points. This will allow higher refresh rates to be used, prevent screen tearing in 3d work and gaming and improve fast-motion scenes.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
I look at this article and I see the other article today at http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/10/23/2213237/top-us-lobbyist-wants-broadband-data-caps for broadband data caps and clearly these two things are opposed initiatives, both designed to make more money by treating the public as money pinatas.
Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
It is not to have 4 times as many things on the screen as a 1080p monitor. It is to have a 2:1 pixel ratio (like all the apple retina displays) or somewhere in-between. Web content, thanks partly to apple pushing high dpi displays, is now often tuned for this, showing you twice as much detail in the same space while keeping the dimensions it would have on a normal dpi display.
Read what anandtech had to say about testing a 4k monitor, and about how nice it is to look at fonts that arent just anti-aliased, but hardly have aliasing to begin with, thanks to the dpi.
I run a 1440p monitor, as it was the most pixels I could reasonably afford, (4K is just too much $) and I scale everything up so it's roughly 1080p sized. I love it for the clarity and sharpness, not for the number of things I can cram on the screen. (Although I do run my font just a little small in my text editor/ide)
There are of course downsides besides the price. Most of the 1440p monitors have poor input latency, meaning your mouse might feel a tiny bit laggy or put you at a slight disadvantage if you're a gamer, compared to lower latency 1080p monitors. That's totally ignoring whether your video card can render smoothly at that resolution. With 4K I'm not sure but I suspect it's the same or worse.
The existing for-profit private network infrastructure can barely handle 1080p to begin with and 4k ain't gonna' happen on optical media since Blu-ray is already a failure. You can kiss 4k goodbye until a majority of homes have fiber connections.