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."
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?
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.
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.
My living room is too quiet to put an H265 decoder in it.
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
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.
When was being an early adopter ever a good idea?
Fifteen feet away? Get a bigger screen, or move your couch.
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.
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.
You don't "have to". My SD DVDs look much better on my 1080 screen than they did on my 480 screen and then my 1080 is also way bigger in size.
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
hdtv began as a way to replicate the movie theater experience at home.
Pick the best seat in the house, and the screen occupies 36 degrees of your visual field. It dominates your field of view, and it's immersive. Trouble is if you sit that close to a standard definition screen, your eyes see pixels--blurred details that should be there, but aren't.
So, more resolution, and a wider screen was needed. Sure, you can sit ever closer to a small hdtv, but it's somewhat uncomfortable ergonomically
Using the standard that the human eye can resolve one arcminute of resolution, 480p is good for about 12.7 degrees, 720p, about 21 degrees, and 1080p is good for about 32 degrees. 4k is good for about 64 degrees, which is just massive.
The problem is, a 40 inch screen, viewed at a distance of 15 feet is solidly in the realm of Standard Definition --it doesn't matter if it's 1080p or not; you'd need very good eyes to resolve any more detail than what's on a DVD. (Since I have a 39 inch TV, I can confirm that viewed from a distance of 15 feet, it's rather tiny. My couch is limited by a tiny living room, so it's rather closer than yours.)
As for "correctness", content viewed on a small, distant screen has a different impact than content viewed on a close, large screen. People with smaller screens tend to prefer sharp, grain free pictures. People with larger screens can tell that the sharpening algorithms have resulted in halo artifacts, and the grain scrubbing has reduced human skin to the consistency of wax.
But if you're not impressed by the idea that a TV can an should occupy more of your visual space; if you're disturbed by the idea that what's on TV should dominate your attention; if seeing films in a theatre of your very own seems inappropriate; then yeah-- 4k television is the ultimate boondoggle.