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."
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.
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.
You forgot to factor in the cost of the microscope you'll need to see any additional detail at 4k on a 39" screen.
Why not just call it 2160p so we have something easy to compare to?
1080p = ten-eighty-pee = 4 syllables
2160p = twenty-one-sixty-pee = 7 syllables
That's why.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.