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."

10 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. Early Adopters by almitydave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Early Adopters by Todd+Palin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe they can trade in their 3-D TVs.

  2. I don't need an analyst to tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't need an analyst to tell me not to spend $5000 on a TV. That's common sense. Duh.

  3. 4K makes sense for monitors by JDG1980 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Tempting? I Don't Have a TV... by Iskender · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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...

  5. Also Linux friendly by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Also Linux friendly by Cryacin · · Score: 4, Funny
      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  6. Re:Seiki 39" 4K can be had for less than 500 bucks by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You forgot to factor in the cost of the microscope you'll need to see any additional detail at 4k on a 39" screen.

  7. Same reason as before by Russ1642 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Please see last year's posts on why you shouldn't buy a 3D TV.

  8. Re:Why You Shouldn't Buy a UHD 4K TV This Year by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.