4K TV or Monitor

[chemgear]

Anybody jump on this yet? Prices range from $25,000 for 84" to $5,500 for a 55". I think you can get some "no name" versions for even cheaper.

I'd be tempted but only to run high end gaming - tv and movies feeds are still a ways away. Unfortunately, it looks like they're not really designed to have a decent fps at full 4K resolution - yet.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Anybody jump on this yet? Prices range from $25,000 for 84" to $5,500 for a 55". I think you can get some "no name" versions for even cheaper.

I'd be tempted but only to run high end gaming - tv and movies feeds are still a ways away. Unfortunately, it looks like they're not really designed to have a decent fps at full 4K resolution.

Dumb question, but do the gaming consoles even offer this type of resolution output? Is it expected for the next generation coming out soon?

[chemgear]

I am fairly sure the PS4 and XBOX 720 (or whatever they call it) will not support gaming at native 4K.

The gaming on native 4K would pretty much be the PC master race only.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by chemgear

I am fairly sure the PS4 and XBOX 720 (or whatever they call it) will not support gaming at native 4K.

The gaming on native 4K would pretty much be the PC master race only.

Do any games currently support this resolution? Or would this be future development?

[To Be Quite Honest]

Yup, wait for the technology to ketchup first. Right now it's like 2002 getting a HD tv and it's only 480p. Full Aperture format is the only way to go due to aspect ratio. Also, the amount of data needed to transfer the picture to each home is ridiculous. It's taken well over a decade to upgrade systems for 1080p!

FORMAT_____________________Resolution____Aspect Ratio ___ Pixels

4K Ultra high definition television - 3840 × 2160 - 1.78:1 - 8,294,400
Digital Cinema Initiatives 4k (native resolution) - 4096 × 2160 - 1.90:1 8,847,360
DCI 4K (CinemaScope cropped) - 4096 × 1714 - 2.39:1 - 7,020,544
DCI 4K (flat cropped) 3996 × 2160 - 1.85:1 - 8,631,360
Academy 4K (storage format) 3656 × 2664 - 1.37:1 - 9,739,584
Full aperture 4K (storage format) 4096 × 3112 - 1.32:1 - 12,746,752

[red sky]

Mmmmmmm ketchup

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Anybody jump on this yet? Prices range from $25,000 for 84" to $5,500 for a 55". I think you can get some "no name" versions for even cheaper.

I'd be tempted but only to run high end gaming - tv and movies feeds are still a ways away. Unfortunately, it looks like they're not really designed to have a decent fps at full 4K resolution - yet.

Everything I've read says that 4K TV is pointless for anything other than really large screens (75"+) because no one sits close enough to a 55" screen for your eye to be able to resolve the difference between 1080p and 4K. You have to sit something like 2 feet away to tell the difference.

[chemgear]

Really? I am reading that chart incorrectly? You start seeing the difference at about 8 feet for a 55"?

Having seen them in person you can TOTALLY tell the difference at a reasonable distance. To be fair, I do sit more closely than most and I do know people who can't even tell the difference between 480p vs. 1080p.

Again, my interest is more on the gaming side of things though. I can't stand on gaming on anything less than a 2560x1600 for the most part. But I am sure that many people don't bother with that resolution.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Really? I am reading that chart incorrectly? You start seeing the difference at about 8 feet for a 55"?

Having seen them in person you can TOTALLY tell the difference at a reasonable distance. To be fair, I do sit more closely than most and I do know people who can't even tell the difference between 480p vs. 1080p.

Again, my interest is more on the gaming side of things though. I can't stand on gaming on anything less than a 2560x1600 for the most part. But I am sure that many people don't bother with that resolution.

The only thing that bothers me is aspect ratio. It's a pet peeve of mine to watch a TV that stretches or compresses the picture from it's normal broadcasting aspect ratio; 4:3 or 16:9.

[Flaming Choy]

If people want to take the plunge, Tiger Direct has a chinese brand one for pretty cheap. Read a review on gizmodo that it was pretty good. Need a receiver or something that can up-convert to 4k.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...?EdpNo=7674736

Review

http://gizmodo.com/5994765/seiki-50+...tiful-so-cheap

[darockwilder]

Might as well wait for 16K if you're looking for 4K already

[sclitheroe]

I wonder why a smaller 4K panel costs less than a larger one for the same resolution - you'd think that it would be the other way around, as a larger panel of the same resolution has a lower pixel density, and thus is easier to manufacture, with fewer potential defects.

On the other hand, I'm guessing that a smaller panel has a sufficiently high pixel density that you can get by with a few dead pixels that nobody is capable of noticing, which they might on a larger display that has larger individual pixels.

[Daradon]

4K, is that the Hz rating? IE 4 kHz?

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Daradon

4K, is that the Hz rating? IE 4 kHz?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

Second link on google, searching for "4k television"..tricky eh

[Daradon]

Sorry for trying to add to the discussion. Maybe other people weren't sure either.

I have come across things like this before, and sometimes I have even Googled it before or after asking the question. I remember a kegerator was one. Anyway, if the thread is about that, what's the harm in asking? Sometimes there are others that want to know. Sometimes it adds to the discussion because of the way a person might respond.

For instance, one could have said. 'It's resolution. The same way were have 1080p horizontally right now, 4K is two generations after that and is actually just simplified to 4K even though it's the standard multiplier resolution has when going up.'

That would be awesome, and then others, who are also just browsing the thread wouldn't have to Google themselves plus it adds to the discussion.

Anyway, I guess this is really only important for big screens? It's not going to be noticeable on things under 40 inches or so.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Sorry for trying to add to the discussion. Maybe other people weren't sure either.

I have come across things like this before, and sometimes I have even Googled it before or after asking the question. I remember a kegerator was one. Anyway, if the thread is about that, what's the harm in asking? Sometimes there are others that want to know. Sometimes it adds to the discussion because of the way a person might respond.

For instance, one could have said. 'It's resolution. The same way were have 1080p horizontally right now, 4K is two generations after that and is actually just simplified to 4K even though it's the standard multiplier resolution has when going up.'

That would be awesome, and then others, who are also just browsing the thread wouldn't have to Google themselves plus it adds to the discussion.

Anyway, I guess this is really only important for big screens? It's not going to be noticeable on things under 40 inches or so.

Wikipedia definition for a kegerator is hit #1 on google Maybe it wasn't when you searched, who knows.

I would tend to agree that it's not going to be super useful or make a lot of economic sense to consumers on sub 40" television sets, although I'm going to reserve judgement until I get to see one in real life - the reason I say this is that a retina macbook display, even when viewed at distances where the doubled pixel density shouldn't make a huge difference, is definitely perceptually better.

[Daradon]

Oh, it was, I was just saying I got the 'let me google that for you' joke then too. The actual one. I just meant, no reason to be smart, even these simple questions can add to the discussion.

Back to the discussion about the product, yeah, I have already seen studies that say our eyes, especially ones that are not 20/20 or better, can't tell these minute differences in the screens coming out now. Like the color ratio or other things. I can only imagine this making a difference on really huge TV's.

[To Be Quite Honest]

4K is a resolution. This is how it was explained to me from a cinematographer when the Red cam came out years ago and I'm too lazy to verify my memory right now. A 3 chip or Cmos video camera is a sensor were they typically shoot 4:2:2 resolution in 1080. 4 is uncompressed and 2 is compressed. So you get Red Cams that shoot 4:4:4 or very close to it. That's what these TV's are for. Double the 1080 resolution.

[theinfinitejar]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

4K is a resolution. This is how it was explained to me from a cinematographer when the Red cam came out years ago and I'm too lazy to verify my memory right now. A 3 chip or Cmos video camera is a sensor were they typically shoot 4:2:2 resolution in 1080. 4 is uncompressed and 2 is compressed. So you get Red Cams that shoot 4:4:4 or very close to it. That's what these TV's are for. Double the 1080 resolution.

4:2:2 vs. 4:4:4 is about colour compression, it's a way to save a huge amount of storage or bandwidth in video because the human eye doesn't see colour all that well. 4K is just the number of lines displayed.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by theinfinitejar

4:2:2 vs. 4:4:4 is about colour compression, it's a way to save a huge amount of storage or bandwidth in video because the human eye doesn't see colour all that well. 4K is just the number of lines displayed.

It's the digital equal to film.