Slashdot Mirror
Why You Shouldn't Buy a UHD 4K TV This Year
Lucas123 writes "While it's tempting to upgrade your flatscreen to the latest technology, industry analysts say UHD TVs are still no bargain, with top brand names selling 65-in models for $5,000 or more. And, even though 4K TVs offer four times the resolution of today's 1080p HDTVs, there are no standards today for how many frames per second should be used in broadcasting media. Additionally, while there's plenty of content being produced for UHDs, little has been made available."
Your argument is invalid. See subject.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
there are no standards today for how many frames per second should be used in broadcasting media.
Rec. 2020, a standard used by UHD, specifically gives framerates of 120p, 60p, 59.94p, 50p, 30p, 29.97p, 25p, 24p, and 23.976p.
But we need the deep-pocketed early-adopting suckers to offset R&D costs as much as possible so the prices come down for us average Joes when the content is actually widely available!
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
I don't need an analyst to tell me not to spend $5000 on a TV. That's common sense. Duh.
Why You Shouldn't Buy a UHD 4K TV This Year
Because there is very little content for it.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
No thanks; I've got enough resolution. I'm waiting for LED TVs, since they have a much better black level. I'll finally be able to play Doom64 again. That game is so dark, that I really haven't been able to play it properly since I switched years ago from a CRT screen to an LCD.
4k screen? At 15 feet away, I couldn't even see any better than 1080p on a 40" screen. 3D? I don't enjoy it. Give me an LED screen so I can have a decent black level. (And no marketing fraud, where they falsely advertise an LCD screen with an LED backlight as an LED TV. That's not an LED TV, and they know it.)
Obviously we're at the early adopter/nouveau riche part of the technology curve here.
Follow the porn industry, they have an unblemished track record going back decades of getting at the bleeding edge of technology. From VHS to DVD to any number of other technologies porn was there first at any notable level. The rule of thumb for buying new technology without paying an arm and a leg is porn adoption + 4 years. That gets past the bleeding edge costs, the differing standards and the price typically settles down.
OLED is the tops for image. The "depth" of the black pixels makes the OLED image SO superior to anything else, it beats pixel count no end.
The average viewer would probably notice little difference on a 4K TV even if corresponding content were readily available (which, at this time, it is not). But I'm still hoping for the success of 4K, because it will make a big difference on monitors. Higher production volumes means cheaper panels. Currently, to get a 4K monitor (based on a 32" IGZO panel) that supports 60 Hz, you need to shell out $3500; but once the 4K monitors based on cheaper 39" VA panels hit the market, this should drop to $1000 or less. Seiki can sell TVs with those panels for $500, but the big drawback is that these only support 30 Hz due to limitations of the input controller.
"While it's tempting to upgrade your flatscreen to the latest technology,
I don't have a TV, and don't watch TV/movies other than through my faux-HD monitor.
I understand not everyone is like me, and that's OK. But in my circle of friends, it's really common to not have a TV and not care. Is this the experience of others, too?
Also, this whole 4K thing reeks of "we tried to sell 3D, failed, now trying desperately with the next thing..." But please reply if you're really into 4K, too...
If you look at the TV on Amazon (not an affiliate link), one of the top-rated comments is a really helpful set of instructions in getting it to work well under Linux.
I have to admit I am strongly tempted in getting the monitor for programming, and there are some indications it might be good for photo work after calibration. But I would really love to see one in person first.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You forgot to factor in the cost of the microscope you'll need to see any additional detail at 4k on a 39" screen.
How will the UHD content be distributed? Bluray or some kind of new physical media format? Don't think so...
Most likely people would prefer to stream. How the hell will UHD content be streamed over the existing connections? So, before investing to a UHD TV investment has to be made on an ultra-fast internet connection. Very few locations around the world will have enough bandwidth at home to support this. And even if you get that kind of bandwidth, I'm not sure that the backbone will be able to cope with the load.
Until these things have been settled, I'll pass.
And it's $3k. That might sound like a lot, but 1080p televisions of the same size seem to go for about $2k from most vendors anyhow...
The submitter fails to understand that people only buy TVs like this to demonstrate penis size to their neighbors. No amount of "it serves no actual purpose over other TVs" will change the minds of people who make these kinds of ego purchases.
Please see last year's posts on why you shouldn't buy a 3D TV.
1) Remove SD card from your digital camera.
2) Insert in SD slot on TV.
3) Enjoy.
> Most UHD TVs large enough to showcase their better picture quality - that is, 65-in. or larger.
Your invalidity is invalid, RTFM
Something tells me you're a Windows user.
DPI settings exist for a reason. It's the reason why text that renders on a 5" 1920x1080 Android phone is the same size as text on a 15" 1366x768 laptop screen.
Why would I want a higher resolution tv with a smaller screen than what I already have?
Cable only comes in at 720p. Blu-rays and game consoles are 1080p. For 4k I'd have to go buy all new movies and a 4k player...and that's not even including how close I'd need to be to the TV to see the difference.
Sir, your car is waiting.
Based on the amount of input lag present in "1080p" TVs, I can only imagine how bad the input lag is on "4K" TVs. (2 seconds or higher?)
Of course, this isn't an inherent property of high-resolution panels. It's caused by idiots in management that "insist" that these TVs have worthless image filtering algorithms that distort the picture and lag the image.
Do you really want a TV whose name translates into "death blood" in Chinese?
My living room is too quiet to put an H265 decoder in it.
I can easily see pixellation on the 30" 2560x1600 monitor I'm sitting at. Please step aside and make way for progress.
I didn't want one, but now that I know, I want it!
Because if it isn't, UHD is DOA :-/
I think he's referring to pixel density, which he probably assumed (as did I) would be so fine you wouldn't notice the increase. However, after actually calculating it, here's a comparison:
1280x1024, 19": 86.27 px/in
1920x1080, 24": 91.79 px/in
3840x2160, 39": 112.97 px/in
Which is only 23% finer than the 24" HD monitor, and 31% finer than the uber-common 5:4 19" LCD. So I think you'd notice an improvement, and with proper DPI adjustment would be quite nice.
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
I still watch on my 36" tubed TV.
I was so happy when I bought that, and the cheapest flat screen was like 2500. I should have known something was up when the priced dropped like 400 on my TV... as soon as I bought it, they stopped making tubed TVs (by all appearances), and you could buy a flat screen that Christmas for less than my tubed TV...
And now it is perfectly good, and I can't in good conscience just throw that much lead away. PBS gets a bit annoying, they only broadcast in wide screen.
To play devil's advocate here, how far away from that monitor are you sitting? How far away from your TV do you sit?
Follow-up: the caveat in the above is that you're sitting at the same distance. The recommended distance for TVs is twice the diagonal, which would be about 3 feet for the 19" and 6 for the 39", which would again halve the angular pixel pitch. I don't think someone using this as a monitor would be that far away, however.
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
sells the steam box, as most non console games can be driven at any arbitrary resolution supported by your display. Sure textures may be crappy at that scale, but texture filtering and up sampling can go a decent way there.
The recommended distance being twice the diagonal is straight ou of the cathode tube area, we don't need that anymore.
Give me details and I'll happily sit 1x the diagonal. Like at the cinema.
To be a reasonable person here, if you are using that TV as a monitor you would sit the same distance.
Even if you are using it as a TV, my couch is not bolted to my living room floor, I doubt yours is either.
It's also a crap tv, but hey who are we to disagree?
This is like saying that a visio 67" 720p screen exists. It doesn't mean people with common sense should just give up their money and absolve all logic. In the non-TLDR form: it's a 30 hz (read: 1/2 of the supposed maximum for the human eye which has been debunked) 4K display. Even the worst of TV's can handle a proper 60hz at all resolutions.
Hell, many graphics cards can output 4k at 30 fps. 60 is a different story.
When was being an early adopter ever a good idea?
I am disappointed the new Playstation 4 and XBox One won't support 4k gaming though. A 4-way head-to-head game (remember Goldeneye?) would be so cool on that. I wonder if any PC games would allow me to run two instances and 'network' them.
From a philosophic point of view, 4K is pure aristocracy. 1080p was about perfecting the traditional TV, and was somewhat justified, but 4K is just "we gave you more pixels, because we can". The good side is of course that selling people another round of screens is good for the economy and employment. Personally, I'm perfectly happy with a high-quality 480p image, going higher than that is fun, but does not bring significant enhancement to my enjoyment.
Also, the higher resolutions make me desire a higher frame rate, has anyone else noticed this? I mean, when running the same material SD vs. HD, the extra-sharp image somehow screams more to be in a higher frame rate.
Who buys a larger TV just so that they can sit further back in the room? I bought my 64" to get a bigger screen, not to sit far far away.
We all expect the ignorant detractors and negative commentators on slashdot.
Yes, the pixel count is higher, but so it the frame rate and the color space is greatly expanded. 60p Sports will look great for those that give a shit. The expanded color gamut and pixel count enables greater range. Assuming h265 is widely adopted (it is by far the leading technology at this point) then last mile network requirements will be around 20Mb, doable even over copper cable.
The "will I notice" comments are stupid. Go see it. Look at the detail you see in the shadows even from across the room. Look at how the gradients blend nicely on flatly lit scenes. Notice the absense of judder or steppiness in fast moving objects (assuming 60p or greater frame rates).
Last point- the production cost. Right now, it's 1998 all over again- a return to when HD production and post was difficult. The 4k cameras cost less than their HD counterparts did in '98. Graphics cards are much faster now, and are easlily capable of delivering 120hz 4k for HFR content. Flash storage eliminates the complexity of building storage systems supporting 4k workflows. Object storage, especially erasure coded object storage, makes the active archives affordable. Processors have advanced in throughput. Memory systems are robust. DDR4 is a year out of GA, and will nearly double the memory bw. 10Gb is the new 1Gb. Those that complain about cost are those that haven't built a system capable of 4k, much less 4k HFR Stereo.
4k is here now. Next year, we will see rapid growth in consumer devices thanks to companies like Qualcomm and NVIDIA. 4k distribution will be over IP networks to IP connected devices. See ya, optical disk.
If you don't like it, enjoy your crappy 720p, your VCR and your DSL connection
The biggest reason to buy one is no content. Maybe once h265 becomes popular and there is a 4k Blu-Ray standard.
39" is a fairly modest TV; but a big monitor. Like 'dominates your desk' big. I suspect that the bigger question would be whether you find yourself comfortably able to use real estate that is that far out of the center of your field of view (and, unlike dual or triple monitor setups, is all fixed in the same plane, rather than in two or more individually rotated chunks).
Do you really want a TV whose name translates into "death blood" in Chinese?
Honestly, that's actually fairly compelling as brand names go. I'll have two.
Give me details and I'll happily sit 1x the diagonal. Like at the cinema.
Down in front! Or rather... what are you doing in my house? -- Get out of here!
It really is 4K by how the naming conventions goes today. Today it goes Horizontal then Vertical like 1080p = 1920x1080 pixels. Really easy to understand. What they are calling 4K 4K = 3840Ã--2160 pixels. So fuck the advertisers that are trying to sell stuff that most people well assume is something else.
I can easily see pixellation on the 30" 2560x1600 monitor I'm sitting at. Please step aside and make way for progress.
Wait a few years.... screen will get better, and your eyes will get worse. Soon, you'll have nothing to worry about.
After a number of years in the desolate wasteland that is 1080P, we are finally at a convergence of the television and monitor markets with 4K televisions. Based on the ability of Seiki to sell a 4K 39" panel for less the $500, it's likely that 2014 will usher in a series of relatively-inexpensive monitors delivering this resolution. Similar 1080p panels are selling for $300, and since the manufacturing isn't significantly more difficult, it's likely that in 12-18 months that pricepoint will be reached for 4K monitors as well.
Worth noting - the Seiki does all of this while including a remote, tuners, and multiple connectors unnecessary for strictly computer-use monitor. It's likely the costs (and prices) could drop even more in that sort of an implementation given enough volume. (Since the TV market is much bigger it may still make sense to make a one-size-fits-all model)
I purchased the 4K 39" Seiki TV about two weeks ago for use as a monitor. The 30Hz refresh rate is lower than I would like, but for software dev, still images, and watching the tiny amount of 4K video content it is completely fine. 39" is a little bit larger than I would have normally considered, but it offers a nice amount of screen real estate (less than 2 30" monitors though) and slightly higher dot pitch than a standard 2560x1600 30" display.
tl;dr It's completely worthwhile to get a 4K display now at this price.
I am disappointed the new Playstation 4 and XBox One won't support 4k gaming though
from what i read, it seems to be questionable whether or not they'll be able to support 1080 gaming (well).
framerate > pixel count anyhow.
He's comparing a TV to a computer monitor, not to another smaller TV. The use cases generally differ.
it's a 30 hz (read: 1/2 of the supposed maximum for the human eye which has been debunked) 4K display. Even the worst of TV's can handle a proper 60hz at all resolutions.
True, but only by a technicality.
Refresh rates haven't mattered nearly so much since the bad ol' days of having an electron beam scan a screen so it updates in pulses of brightness. At 30hz, a CRT causes massive headaches. At 60hz, most people could feel the eye strain after a while. But with a display that doesn't flicker, none of that applies, at any "refresh" rate.
If you actually had a true full-4k feed at 60+hz (and did I miss the announcement of a mainstream optical media format that holds more than a terabyte?), you could - marginally - detect the difference in a rapidly moving scene. For writing code (the biggest reason I've seen Slashdotters' mention lusting after one of these), you won't even notice refresh rates down to the 10-15fps range.
As mentioned already, there is hardly any content for a 4K TV. Nobody broadcasts 4K, and there is no 4K cable provider either.
While there are 4K movie theaters, and some productions are really shot and finished in 4K, most are not. And the current model of the most professional and widely used motion picture camera, the Arri Alexa, is not 4K.
From their FAQ:
Will there be a 4K ALEXA?
[...] Given that 4K digital workflows are still in their infancy, and that for the foreseeable future most productions will finish in 2K or HD, ALEXA is the perfect choice for theatrical features as well as television productions. Furthermore, the ascendance of 3D has resulted in a doubling of image data volumes which further complicates the effective storage, processing and movement of such data. So, for the foreseeable future, ALEXA is ideally suited for 2K or HD workflows in 2D and 3D.
Because you don't need one. This year or ever.
That I can't even tell the difference between 720P and 1080P. Once you get into the high colour and high resolution systems, the eye starts to lose the ability to see any flaws at all. Maybe there is a difference for uses other than recorded video. however.
...Steve
The recommended distance for TVs is twice the diagonal
Who says that, and why? I've heard twice, three times, six times...
Twice the diagonal is way too close for comfortable viewing, for me. I don't want to be moving my eyes like a sucker!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
If you actually had a true full-4k feed at 60+hz (and did I miss the announcement of a mainstream optical media format that holds more than a terabyte?), you could - marginally - detect the difference in a rapidly moving scene.
Get some 60p content and turn it into 30p, I think you'll notice the difference. The "filmatic" 24p is *very* noticable. But yeah for writing code, no problem.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
For watching movies or writing code that 30hz refresh will be perfectly fine. Fire up a FPS on there and you'll be feeling the choppiness. The difference between 30fps and 60fps is absolutely noticeable in fullscreen games.
I read the internet for the articles.
That's funny. I can slap the DPI up high on my windows media server so it looks good at 1080p on my tv, but with the mac mini I was using before, I had no choice but to lower the resolution to a slightly better 720p.
Even if you are using it as a TV, my couch is not bolted to my living room floor, I doubt yours is either.
mine is bolted to the ceiling! it's because i am that awesome.
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/8k-tv-films-arrive-to-japan-and-they-feel-like-looking-1464050347
I invalidate your invalidity with more invalid data from my wheelchair (i'm an invalid).
you wouldn't?
I got here through a series of tubes
http://www.howtogeek.com/176392/smart-tvs-are-stupid-why-you-dont-really-want-a-smart-tv/
I still have a CRT you insensitive clod!
On a monitor I can understand the appeal: I want resolution so ridiculously high that serif fonts look right (there are fonts that look off at 600 DPI, and need 1200 DPI to look right), but color correctness and wide color gamut are far more important to me, so I care much more about OLED.
On a TV I just don't get it: I can barely tell the difference between DVD and 1080p resolution on a 65" TV. I mean, it's a great step up from my old 460p set for reading text when used as a monitor, but when watching a film I just don't see what the fuss is about.
I have a feeling that 1600p will be like Bluray vs DVD - it will only take off when there's no price difference, so you might as well.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
From the many reviews and some other things I've read online, it seems like if you drop the sharpening down to zero they make for good coding monitors, and if you calibrate it the colors are fine.
Have you seen anything that indicates after doing those things they still are not good monitors for either purpose?
The only other thing I've sen, I think in one review, said something about uneven lighting... that would be too annoying for me, but I didn't see anyone else saying that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
At one point I got curious about what resolution would have to be before it no longer pays off. So I went to a retailer and looked at 1080p monitors of various sizes from a distance at which I usually look at a screen (36" or so). I found that I can tel pixels for screens larger than about 25" class. So I looked up specs and it seems that my eyes are OK at 100 ppi but not below. So for my screen preference (36"x64") that translates to 3600x6400 resolution. As soon as eyefinity can drive 3 4K monitors at 60 fps from a single card (http://www.tested.com/tech/gaming/456899-triple-monitor-4k-gaming-15-billion-pixels-second/) I will upgrade my computer, buy 3 UltraHD monitors and never have to upgrade again since my eyes are only going to get worse.
Seems like this isn't the popular opinion, but the difference between DVD and BluRay on my 50" Panasonic plasma 1080p was remarkable and I am blown away by the picture. I can't imagine that another double of the resolution won't be just as great. The thing I'm curious about - last I checked Comcast wasn't even broadcasting 1080p - they were just doing 720p. Thus the only way to actually be able to fully appreciate the potential of my TV was to watch BluRays. Does Comcast now broadcast 1080p? I assume it will take them forever to get to 2160p. IMO, if you really want to see the difference - get "Planet Earth" on BluRay. All that said, I have friends that seem much more interested in brightness than in image quality, so perhaps I'm in the minority.
The consoles are evidently fill-rate limited, so framerate and pixel count are interchangeable. But sheesh, it's almost 2014, I want BOTH! If the games I would want aren't at least 30hz at 1080p, I'll pass.
This still isn't high enough definition to see Amy Wong's tatoo. Wait for those...
I'm waiting until Sony offer a deal on TVs which includes a free PS4. This is why I was able to purchase a PS3 without the wife complaining.
I am disappointed the new Playstation 4 and XBox One won't support 4k gaming though
from what i read, it seems to be questionable whether or not they'll be able to support 1080 gaming (well).
framerate > pixel count anyhow.
From what I've read on actual tech review sites which have good reputations, the Xbox1 is actually only running 720p and then upconverting it to 1080, while the PS4 happily runs natively in 1080p, and at higher framerates.
You forgot to factor in the cost of the microscope you'll need to see any additional detail at 4k on a 39" screen.
You seriously need to quit with this line of bullshit. I'm not going to bother posting a citation because it's not needed. If you can't see a difference then you seriously need to go get your eyes checked.
Until you can match reality in terms of display resolution there's always going to be a difference.
hold on, insight alert - the term "ultra hd" is misleading. the point of 4k is not to boost the image quality on a small screen. The point is to make big screens that have the same HD quality as a small screen. mind blown!
Here I define HD quality as PPI.
My TV is so big I have to sit in my neighbor's living room.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You're a douche. And I will post a citation: see here.
I can watch The Simpsons from 30 blocks away!
That's why.
I suspect that the bigger question would be whether you find yourself comfortably able to use real estate that is that far out of the center of your field of view
I want to test it! Though at least for windows use I suspect I'd want to install something that modifies 'full screen' behavior. I remember the old days when you needed special software so that 'maximize' didn't spread your app across ALL the windows, and it had the nice feature that it stuck a button on maximized apps that automatically sent it, still maximized, to the other screen. I'm thinking I might end up wanting some software that turns it into ~4 virtual monitors.
Of course, there's still the issue that way too many apps waste far too much space and don't look right if they're not taking up at least half a normal widescreen monitor.
I don't read AC A human right
From reading the reviews the only issue in using the 39" Seiki as a monitor is that the mouse cursor can experience a little ghosting (or some other artifact).
Supposedly the 50" (only $1k) can go to 60Hz - but that to me utterly bursts the confines of a workable computer monitor, that the 39" strains the edges of...
I'm waiting for a while though and hoping for one more refresh of the smaller Seiki.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Not remotely reasonable. To make a 39" 4K TV worth it you'd have to sit about 3' away. You really think people want to set up their living room with their 39" TV 3' from their couch? I guess that's why you are not in consumer electronics biz dev or home interior design ;)
Doesn't answer his point, though, which is about pixel size vs. distance, and totally valid. If you are sitting 6' from your 64" TV, you might benefit from 4k. If you are 12'+ away, you probably won't notice the difference...
I said this in the last 4k TV discussion. I have a 60" 1080P set, and my couch is 8 feet from it, or 96 inches. According to http://isthisretina.com/ 60" 1920x1080 pixels should only be visible to the average retina up to 94". That 8 foot distance is about as close as I would want to sit to a TV that size anyway, so I lucked out there. If I got a 60" 4k TV it WOULD NOT LOOK ANY DIFFERENT at that distance. The 1920x1080 pixels are already just small enough to not see.
Now, go back to isthisretina and punch in 3840x2160 and 60" and what do you get? Yep, 47". Do you want to sit 47" from a 60" TV? Pretty sure you don't. I know I don't. You need to double the size to 120" in order to make the 8-foot viewing distance happen. But, again, do you want to sit 8 feet from a 120" TV? I don't think I would want to. Nevermind that an 85" 4k TV is something like $40,000! haha. How much would a 120" one be? Pff, yeah. That'll happen.
Also nevermind the fact that the last time you were in a movie theater with that big screen you were looking at a 4k picture. Did you see pixels during the movie? No. (And you were probably looking at a lot of 2k content during that movie anyway.)
TLDR: 4k is useless for the home, and always will be.
I think height is the big issue at that point. Having a 27" tall monitor on your desk means you end up trying to look over the top of your glasses, craning your neck, or just not using the top third of the screen very much. Hmm. So long as you're not going to use part of the screen: set it up in portrait mode. Use the top half of the screen when standing, bottom half when sitting.
Moving your eyes like a sucker? Are you some sort of cephalopod?
On the internet, nobody knows you're a cuttlefish.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
So does that mean that the Wii U is the only console of this generation that will do 1080p gaming well?
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
I sit about three metres away from my TV. I sit about 0.7 metres away from my monitors.
On a TV I just don't get it: I can barely tell the difference between DVD and 1080p resolution on a 65" TV. I mean, it's a great step up from my old 460p set for reading text when used as a monitor, but when watching a film I just don't see what the fuss is about.
Then it's you, because to me the difference is so clearly night and day, DVDs are completely unwatchable.
Not everyone has great eyesight, perhaps your eyesight just doesn't see it, and that is ok. But I assure you the difference for those of us who can see it, is night and day...
Was it part of a proper double blind study? Because just like sound, there's all sorts of ways to make a picture 'look' better in ways other than pixel density. Brightness properly set for the room, angling of the lighting in the room, color balance, etc...
Think about weight loss/exercise before/after pictures, where they feature a grumpy 'before' without any makeup, and a smiling person in makeup and nice clothing afterwards.
I don't read AC A human right
Chances are GP is not seeing a difference because something is doing a good job of up-scaling, so *everything* is in 1080.....
hip hip hip www.ayowisatakarimun.com
Taking a 480p DVD and "upscaling" it to 1080p doesn't make up for the missing information. Too much was lost to put in on DVD in the first place.
More pixels means nothing if the spatial resolution sucks, look at some modern 16 megapixel cameras, a basic SLR with a good lens at 8mp will generally take a better image.
With a good source, 4K will outright crush 1080P, with a good source, 1080P will outright crush 480P.
I have seen them all in person, this is the truth, everything else is a lie and hope.
The games that people play on the XBox and PS are much more graphically complex than Wii U games, so their rendering demands are higher. The PS4 has a more powerful integrated GPU than the XBox One so it can handle 1080p better.
And the 50" version is about $1000. Now if only they had a way to display 4K/60p. The inputs of the Seiki TVs aren't capable of that; perhaps next year's version will be now that the HDMI 2.0 standard is complete.
I've been tempted myself, all those pixels for not much money is hard to ignore (and, while the refresh rate isn't so hot, I don't do much twitch gaming and LCDs don't 'flicker' like CRTs used to, so I'd consider not waiting for the eventual Displayport/HDMI revision whatever version).
However, I find that my current 27-inch screen is really close to the limit for comfortable, 'unconscious', adjustment of field of view(it might just be a matter of acclimatization; but I've found the 30-inch units now mostly replaced by slightly denser 27s to be a bit unsettling, too many of the peripheral indicator widgets outside the field of view). Focusing on either the secondary monitor or the laptop isn't something you do without turning your head, and both of those are only really usable because they are at a significantly different angle(maybe 30 degrees or so relative to the primary screen), keeping all the pixels more-or-less equidistant. Another 12 inches would definitely require saner window management, and quite possibly leave me with chunks of space that just don't get touched very much.
We still have a lot of DVDs. When we put one in, I tend not to notice the resolution much, except that the bluray player makes the closed captions really blocky (cheap Samsung that doesn’t upconvert). Then when we put in a bluray, I DO noticed the difference, because of the added crispness and more vibrant colors. But on this 60” TV we have, I can’t imagine how I would see any finer resolution. The resolution and distance from the eye already make it so that there’s no way I can make out individual pixels. How would a higher res display make any perceptible difference?
It's absolutely noticeable all the time, and the hilarious part is buying in at 30hz means they can again sell you 120hz as a feature.
This is textbook maneuver by tv companies - disable something from last generation, sell it for a premium next generation, to keep prices high.
Nope, 30hz across the board. It's honestly not surprising - huge jump in resolution/higher performance graphics card required. It's just that Seiki is jumping early to try to be the "first", and it seems to be working - while all sorts of people are not realizing how much they're giving up in this case. My thing is actual computer parts trying to be an early adopter, but a TV it seems hilariously senseless.
That's not really fair though, because the HDMI 1.4 standard does not allow more than 30Hz for TV. None of the expensive sets can manage that yet either...
What the Seiki can do that is rare in lower end stuff is 120Hz at 1080p. That is pretty nice for computer use, and even good for realistic TV viewing now since most of the content does not exceed that. Sure it doesn't upscale very well but that is a function better left to things like receivers or Blu-Ray players than the TV set, which is much harder to upgrade over time.
I think they were just trying to provide a panel with as good a technical spec as existing standards would let them manage, without all of the cruft around televisions. To me they almost meant these things more as computer monitors for 4K video development than consumer TV sets.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I agree about the limitations - but to buy a 4K TV for the "wow 4K TV!" factor and yet miss including information on the HDMI 1.4 limitations which are not going to be fixed? I disagree with encouraging people to buy such things without showing that it's not as perfect as it sounds.
It's not at all rare to see 120hz at 1080p. You can buy TV's that do that which are twice the size for the same price. So that's not really "rare". We're talking $400 60" tv's here, if black friday is a legitimate comparison. Here's a non black friday deal for military for a $400 40" that does better than the seiki, for example: http://www.amazon.com/Sony-KDL-40R450A-40-Inch-1080p-Black/dp/B00AWKBZQQ or http://slickdeals.net/f/6506806-sams-club-50-tcl-led-1080p-120hz-hdtv-389-fs .
120hz at 1080p was rare in 2009.
It's not at all rare to see 120hz at 1080p. You can buy TV's that do that which are twice the size for the same price
But most of the cheap ones don't actually do real 120hz - they frame double. The larger ones you are talking about for the same price are pretty much all that way. Read some of the professional reviews and they are impressed it does real 120hz.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just find a TV that does 240P, or 480P, or any bunch of bullshit refresh rates that are hilarious and apparently impress the average consumer.
Do you think people actually pay attention to the frame doubling any more or less than 30hz? Buying the Seiki is not at all unlike buying a top of the line graphics card for a 1680x1050 display. It's not useless, it's just not a great idea.
Do you think people actually pay attention to the frame doubling any more or less than 30hz?
Gamers do for sure. Look at the reviews on Amazon, at HardOCP, and other places - there are a lot of serious people using this monitor. It works great as long as you understand what you are getting.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley