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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because you don't need one. This year or ever.
HDMI 2.0 went official only a couple of months ago and none of the sets on the market today support it, so you're limited to 24p. In short, the TV is obsolete the moment you buy it. It's the dumbest purchase you could possibly make right now (in regards to a TV). I would also add that if you have an AV receiver, then you will need to upgrade that to a new model that has HDMI 2.0 as well, and they don't exist either.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?