4K

[Mr_Simnock]

 So the latest round of one-upmanship in the screen resolution game has now brought us 4K TV as well as 8K TV in some countries (Japan I think is already producing 8k stuff). Is this really necessary for home users? Blu Ray is just getting a good foothold so is the market ready for 4K? I have seen a 4K TV in action at the Trafford Centre in Manchester and I must admit to being very impressed. One thing I noticed is that it's so realistic I don't think you need the current 3D set up as your eye is tricked into seeing a depth of field you don't get from a normal telly. At least it'll give Lucas a new reason to do another Star Wars box set.

[weirdbeard]

So the latest round of one-upmanship in the screen resolution game has now brought us 4K TV as well as 8K TV in some countries (Japan I think is already producing 8k stuff). Is this really necessary for home users? Blu Ray is just getting a good foothold so is the market ready for 4K? I have seen a 4K TV in action at the Trafford Centre in Manchester and I must admit to being very impressed. One thing I noticed is that it's so realistic I don't think you need the current 3D set up as your eye is tricked into seeing a depth of field you don't get from a normal telly. At least it'll give Lucas a new reason to do another Star Wars box set.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the last two films were shot using new digital cameras, but at a maximum resolution of 1080.  So even if he wanted to remaster then in 4k, he couldn't - he could only upscale.

[Blumf]

Fuck the TV, computer monitors. A 40"+ 8K desktop please.

[steveh]

Not sure about Blu-ray taking hold - a lot of interesting stuff that gets releases in the USA now seems to only appear on DVD in the UK. 4K will probably largely bypass physical formats - Netflix have already announced their plans to support it.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

They've been wanting to bypass the physical formats for a while now.  I'm not entirely sure why, I suppose we could cite the environmental cost (a disc and its case is mostly plastic after all) but I doubt that's the reason.  It's probably just cheaper to stream stuff, and possibly easier to control piracy.  I don't know if it's possible to rip films from Netflix, but I imagine people wouldn't bother downloading a film off a pirate site if you can just stream it.

EDIT:  not seen a 4k telly yet, but it'd be nice to see one.  I'd probably want a projector if it's that resolution though.

[Famous Mortimer]

A PC with XBMC wired up to your TV, about 5 minutes of fiddling to get it set up and you've got a magic streaming box too, only with lots more choice (admittedly, not in 4K).

It just seems a waste of time. I presume 3D is pretty much dead and buried in Britain now, so all those early adopters who've wasted thousands on one will hopefully ponder a little more carefully what they're buying in future. I know electrical items buck this trend, but inflation rises beating wage rises all over, I just don't see yet another wave of purchases to buy the new kit.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

I'd still quite like to have a 3D TV.

[Benevolent Despot]

4K will probably largely bypass physical formats - Netflix have already announced their plans to support it.

Youtube does 1080p but it's piss. Encoding artifacts all over the place. It would be worse with 4k. As soon as movement or scenes with no contrast are introduced then you are starkly reminded that you are only watching 4mbps or whatever. Bluray is 40mbps. You can't magic picture quality out of thin air.

YOUR PIXELS ARE NOT IMPORTANT.

[Jerzy Bondov]

I've got a 3D TV. That's right, it's a physical object occupying three dimensional space.

[biggytitbo]

Little known fact, 4k is actually higher than the resolution of reality. They have to use special computers to add the extra detail in that doesn't exist.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Youtube does 1080p but it's piss. Encoding artifacts all over the place. It would be worse with 4k. As soon as movement or scenes with no contrast are introduced then you are starkly reminded that you are only watching 4mbps or whatever. Bluray is 40mbps. You can't magic picture quality out of thin air.

YOUR PIXELS ARE NOT IMPORTANT.

Isn't 4mbps the same bitrate as a 4-5gb bluray rip? Never had a problem with them. I've even seen bluray films taken all the way down to 600mb for the whole file that look good.

[billtheburger]

I think our eyes contain something like 20 million rods and cones - basically our natural pixels. One day, soon, someone will make a pointless TV that has more tiny dots than our eyes can perceive.

[Alberon]

I think 4K (and definitely 8K) is going to be about the maximum resolution we'd ever need for a telly, unless it takes up the whole wall anything more than that is largely wasted. What would be the point in getting one right now, though? There's no 4K Blu-Rays yet and certainly no one streaming it.

I won't say no to having a 3D TV (most of the sizes I want are anyway) when I upgrade, but it was never a must-have item that the manufacturers hoped. In the end it was Smart TVs that the public wanted. Over the next year or so we're going to be getting more and more curved TVs (and mobiles apparently), but I think that is not going to catch on either.

What I'd like is a good OLED TV around 50" which didn't cost more than a new car.

[KLG-7DD]

Why would anybody want a Smart TV? I don't get that, the software is surely going to be out of date pretty quickly and locked-in to manufacturer's own stuff (when you just want Netflix and Hulu and iPlayer, not PANASONIC DREAMVIEW), and upgrades will be at the whim of the manufacturer. I suppose Android-based sets might be good, but they're still going to be too custom for sense, right?

Seems easier and cheaper to just plug your own devices in.

[olliebean]

Seems easier and cheaper to just plug your own devices in.

Yep, I would have thought so, but they're not aimed at us. They're aimed at the non-tech-savvy people who like everything all in one box for one price and with as few wires as possible. You know, the same people who watch old TV programmes all stretched out of shape and Cinemascope films with the edges cut off because they think they're being short-changed if it doesn't cover the entire area of their screen.

[KLG-7DD]

Who gave them money?

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Did they ever consider most of the time, most of what people watch on TV is unworthy of the technology they're developing? Films and sport come in to their own on TV, sure, but what about The One Show? What about QVC Shopping Channel? Homes Under The Hammer? This is what is mainly on.

I hope 4K doesn't have the dreadful issue HD tvs suffer from which is the inability to process movement properly, giving the eye the impression of limbs flailing unnaturally quickly- a problem which seeming has been completely ignored because it would be too embarrassing to actually admit.

[El Unicornio, mang]

The biggest problem I have with HD is how distracting I find it. I find I lose my concentration sometimes because of something in the background I wouldn't have noticed in SD, or a small zit on someone's nose or something. I don't feel like my enjoyment of films/TV has improved (aside from stuff specifically aimed at HD like recent nature docus), but at the same time I'll choose it anyway (I almost always watch the 5-6 HD freeview channels exclusively) because it looks more beautiful and if I watch in SD I'll be thinking "this would look better in HD".

The curved TV thing seems like it might not work that well. Fine if you're sitting in just the right position, but for other people in the room I imagine it would be worse.

[Alberon]

With the curved TVs I've read the manufacturers say there isn't just one sweet spot to view from.

Also the two new screens announced the other day can have the level of curve adjusted from the setup menu.

Still not convinced it is something anyone wants, though.

Manufacturers are always thrashing around looking for something the public will latch on to. That's why there are voice control and gesture control sets around too.

These days all a set needs is a good picture and a good set of inputs. Even sound isn't considered that important.

[HappyTree]

Best direction TVs could evolve in is getting thinner until they can be a sheet of LEDs or whatever you can roll up and stretch out on a wall, etc. I bet they already exist and are being suppressed by The Man.

[phantom_power]

Why would anybody want a Smart TV? I don't get that, the software is surely going to be out of date pretty quickly and locked-in to manufacturer's own stuff (when you just want Netflix and Hulu and iPlayer, not PANASONIC DREAMVIEW), and upgrades will be at the whim of the manufacturer. I suppose Android-based sets might be good, but they're still going to be too custom for sense, right?

Seems easier and cheaper to just plug your own devices in.

Smart TVs are great. In essence it just means your TV is connected to the internet so I can watch Iplayer or Netflix on it and stream media from a PC. I have a little PC that I use for this that is directly connected to my TV but if I didn't then being able to stream would be very useful. It is also good for displaying things from my phone on the TV without dicking around. My phone recognised and displayed pictures on my TV without me even setting it up, which is a minor miracle really. The other night I downloaded a film on my phone while watching TV and then played it on my TV without doing anything more tapping my phone a couple of times.

They are certainly more useful than 3D TVs at least

[Jerzy Bondov]

It is useful but that sort of thing seems to be built into[nb]or 'baked in' as we say now apparently. GOD I'm sick of reading that. Consumer technology is not made in an AGA by Granny, it's made in factories by suicidal people[/nb] most DVD and Blu Ray players and game consoles now as well so you end up with multiple expensive devices all doing the same thing. I know I saved about a hundred pounds getting a new TV because my Blu Ray and my Xbox already have iPlayer in them.  There's no shortage of ways to get stuff off your computer to come up on the TV.

I suppose the dream is to just have all the boxes underneath the TV replaced by one mega TV, but then if it breaks you're sitting there reading a book or having a conversation or God knows what else until you find another thousand pounds. At least replacing individual boxes is cheaper.

Imagine buying a gesture controlled TV! Ha ha!

[KLG-7DD]

Smart TVs are great. In essence it just means your TV is connected to the internet so I can watch Iplayer or Netflix on it and stream media from a PC. I have a little PC that I use for this that is directly connected to my TV but if I didn't then being able to stream would be very useful. It is also good for displaying things from my phone on the TV without dicking around. My phone recognised and displayed pictures on my TV without me even setting it up, which is a minor miracle really. The other night I downloaded a film on my phone while watching TV and then played it on my TV without doing anything more tapping my phone a couple of times.

The point is, plugging a device[nb]even a fucking Roku, which I am currently using as it was a gift[/nb] into any TV at all provides a greater range of content, less vendor lock-in and is upgradable, replaceable and cheaper. I don't want to pay the premium on equipment that should just be a display device, and only isn't just a display device because of market competition.

I don't think it's in the UK yet, but that Chromecast thing is only $35, and is sure to be better than a TV vendor's software. There's just no need to have the smart inside the TV.

[Steve Lampkins]

I hope 4K doesn't have the dreadful issue HD tvs suffer from which is the inability to process movement properly, giving the eye the impression of limbs flailing unnaturally quickly- a problem which seeming has been completely ignored because it would be too embarrassing to actually admit.

I press the theatre mode button on my TV (a 3-4-year-old Sony) and it stops doing that.

[Famous Mortimer]

The point is, plugging a device[nb]even a fucking Roku, which I am currently using as it was a gift[/nb] into any TV at all provides a greater range of content, less vendor lock-in and is upgradable, replaceable and cheaper. I don't want to pay the premium on equipment that should just be a display device, and only isn't just a display device because of market competition.

No-one's expecting you to buy one, but there already is a big market for them. Not everyone is going to want the hassle of an extra bit of kit, and not everyone will even be aware of the stuff they're missing.

I don't think it's in the UK yet, but that Chromecast thing is only $35, and is sure to be better than a TV vendor's software. There's just no need to have the smart inside the TV.

I bought my mate a Chromecast for her birthday, and she absolutely loves it, but she did have to hack it before it worked properly in the UK. But it did get boring when she "threw" videos of her cats to the TV every few minutes.

[KLG-7DD]

No-one's expecting you to buy one, but there already is a big market for them. Not everyone is going to want the hassle of an extra bit of kit, and not everyone will even be aware of the stuff they're missing.

Point is, every TV has one, and I feel like I'm probably paying for it.

The very best external kit interfaces with cable boxes and allows them to pass-through, so it's actually a bit simpler for non-tech oriented people this way (if somebody sets it up first).

[HappyTree]

How many people are unable to plug stuff in these days? Genuine question. I really have no idea if my experience is narrow and skewed or could be widened into a general trend.

So, in that possibly limited experience, the days of dad not being able to set the video are long gone. Aren't people more tech-savvy now simply because it's become a more mundane facet of life? Can't most people generally cope with plugging a box into an HDMI port even if they're not quite sure what it is?

I dunno. Guess not or Smart TVs wouldn't sell.

[Blumf]

In general I prefer the separate smart box, for the reasons mentioned, but there is an argument to be made about having loads of remotes to juggle and a single TV/speakers/box package can be helpful.

Of course, you can grab an all-in-one remote jobbie[nb]Or luck out and have the HDMI CEC work reasonably[/nb], but that's yet another gadget to fiddle with just to watch Danny Fuckin' Dyer strut around Albert Square. Some people want an easy life.

[olliebean]

Aren't people more tech-savvy now simply because it's become a more mundane facet of life? Can't most people generally cope with plugging a box into an HDMI port even if they're not quite sure what it is?

You'd be surprised. Especially considering that many of these boxes don't come with the requisite HDMI lead included. I reckon loads of people have got stuff plugged into their HD tellies via crappy SD RCA leads because that's all that came in the box.

[Alberon]

I suspect like a lot of you I end up being tech support for my mum and in-laws.[nb]I mean your own parents and in-laws, not mine. [nb]That would be weird. [nb]And anyway, they don't need that much help.[/nb][/nb][/nb]