check out this deal:
i'm kind of pissed, i bought myself a christmas present, a $300 41" 1080p 60hz westinghouse, part of me is tempted pick up this 4k tv and use it as a big ass pc monitor.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 31
Nice price. I think it's too big to use as a computer monitor though. And only 30 Hz at 4K? Maybe now 2560x1440 ~27" monitors will start coming down in price.
Originally Posted by jagabo
It doesn't say it's 3d but if it were does 30hz at 4k mean it can't do 3d at 4k? (true 3d that is not anaglyph which obviously can be done on any set).
It's my understanding it has to be 120hz or higher to do 3d - either active or passive. Is that correct?
The list price is 699 which isn't bad either. Though I'm not in the market for a new tv yet.Donatello - The Shredder? Michelangelo - Maybe all that hardware is for making coleslaw?
Eh, nobody can see the future. But based on how HDTV stuff has been in the past, I suspect if you can wait until Christmas that for similar money or maybe somewhat less you can get an even better 4k HDTV and there will be more content available, although I remain skeptical at present about how much content is really going to be out there. But we shall see.
I heard the other day that netflix is already offering 4k material.
And there is youtube.
Sony is apparently the only one that has the widest 4k library on its sony unlimited network.Donatello - The Shredder? Michelangelo - Maybe all that hardware is for making coleslaw?
i don't get it. except the greed part.
vcd wasn't enough, so it went dvd, then that wasn't enough, and went bluray. now that isn't enough, so its going 4k ?
so its just more pixels, right ? same colorspace 709 or will they change that too ? same sampling, same connections, same encryption, everything except more pixels, right ? maybe same distribution format, h264 or maybe they will use h264 for prelimiary (test) leases, then go h265 or some other format or keep same and include h265. oh, and lets not forget, same new cheat-job, like they did with HD sets when they said hd but was actuall a downsampled or downscaled 720p or an aspect ratio thing and less pixels but still called hd. my point being, what new cheat-job will they employ on us with these newer sets that will (are) hitting the market. i saw a demo at bestbuy. the sales rep was showing the difference between 1080p and 4k on their newest 50 or 60 inch screen. he was showing a spiderman 4k sample. honestly, i couldn't see the difference. plus, he would only swap the source via remote. no side-by-side views. i argued with the guy that i could not see the difference because of the lack of mentioned side views.
what standards will change or improve in this 4k presentation ? i didn't see anything in the glossary here. maybe we should add one. anyway.
so whats next after 4k ? 8k ? 16K ? ...
Only last night I found myself wishing the grain in the movie I was watching could be more detailed grain, and the noise slightly more detailed noise, and I'm sure the compression artefacts in the free to air TV where I am will look great upscaled to 4K.
VIZIO Ultra HD Smart TV
VIZIO Announces Pricing For Ultra HD Smart TV
50' (P502ui-B1) $999.99 (MSRP)
55' (P552ui-B2) $1,399.99 (MSRP)
60' (P602ui-B3) $1,799.99 (MSRP)
65' (P652ui-B2) $2,199.99 (MSRP)
70' (P702ui-B3) $2,599.99 (MSRP)
(This topic about prices 4k?)
as i mentioned this past christmas i bought myself a 41" 1080p 60hz tv to replace my 720p 32" tv. both tv's were/are setup the same way, FIOS is used on both tv's (which broadcasts at 1080i) and the input on both tv's was set to accept only 1080i.
watching the exact same movie being broadcast, namely the lord of the rings (any of them) or any football game or any of the shows i normally watch, the difference between the two is like night and day.
now obviously as you go up in pixels you need more bit rate and/or an improved compression standard and yes if you're starting from a 1080p source and try to upsample to 4k then you probably won't see much of a difference.
but here's the thing, technically this tv, and all tv's like it on the market, are not real 4k tv's, they are technically 2160p or 4k UHD, real 4k refers to DCI 4k, a professional format that only allows for jpeg2000 compression with uncompressed pcm audio.
i think once youtube switches completely to vp9 and starts offering uhd content, as will vimeo and as was already mentioned netflix is already streaming uhd content, people will see the benefit of uhd.
There are already indications that some in the industry want to go above 4k on TVs, which is a sure sign that nobody knows what the hell they are doing with the format right now.
You could have seen a difference if you were close enough to the screen, assuming you have normal vision. "Close enough" changes with the size of the TV.
I can definitely see a difference between a small 720p TV and a small 1080p TV sitting two feet away from the screen using them as monitors. When watching TV and sitting 6 feet from the same screens, the difference is no longer apparent.
I wonder how it would look upscaling a dvd to 4k???
Is that going to be too much of a stretch? If that was a pun it was unintentional....
Does that almost make bluray a necessity for 4k to make it worthwhile? Even though bluray obviously isn't 4k it's a larger frame to start with then dvd.
That would suck though for stuff that hasn't been upgraded to hd yet. Or worse yet first gen bluray prints that weren't remastered, ie grainy.Donatello - The Shredder? Michelangelo - Maybe all that hardware is for making coleslaw?
Pull! Bang! Darn!
even on a 21" computer monitor, at 20 feet away i can tell the difference between SD and HD content, according to that chart unless the tv is right up against your nose you won't see the benefits of 4k.
maybe if you're legally blind.
Well, the difference between 480i/p and 720p is huge; the difference between 720p and 1080p, less so. Sure, I can agree with your example, and I have 20/15, 20/20 vision, last time it was checked.
In the middle of the chart I think it's more debatable. On my (calibrated) Sharp 70" at VD of 8 feet, I can easily distinguish between 720p and 1080p. If I back up past 12 feet or so, it gets a lot harder.
As to 1080p versus 4K (and viewing distances), I dunno. There are many 4K proponents at AVS, and the long-time members are no fools. I just wonder if some aren't exaggerating the difference a little because they're predisposed to believe. But I notice that even those who are a little skeptical have stopped defending the Carlton Bale chart.Pull! Bang! Darn!
When I bought my 51" 1080p Plasma, there were several Samsung Plasma TVs together on display. Right next to the 1080p model I bought was a 720p model (same size screen). I had to get quite close to tell them apart. Once close enough (ie a couple of feet) I could start to see individual pixels on the 720p model (I think it's referred to as the "fly screen effect") whereas I pretty much had to put my nose on the screen to see it with the 1080p model. Back at something more like normal viewing distance, I'm not sure I could have picked which was which. At least not when it came to the video being displayed, although for some reason I can't recall what it was.
I don't regret buying the 1080p model, because now I can see just how much detail I'm not losing through resizing to 720p (by comparing resizing before encoding), but at the time the 1080p model was on sale so there wasn't much of a price difference, and it's also a 3D TV.
Even when you view various 1080p LCD TVs of the same screen size side by side in a store (or Plasma) it's fairly obvious not all 1080p TVs are created equally. If you're comparing 1080i video, it's possible the de-interlacing is different too and the new TV no doubt applies different processing.
To compare 1080p with 720p, in respect to picture detail, try the screenshots in the attached zip file. You might be surprised. Don't take these as definitive examples, they just happened to be the only two 1080p videos I had sitting on my hard drive. I picked a random frame in each video and saved it as a bitmap, opened that with Irfanview and resized it to 720p. I then resized the 720p bitmap back to 1080p. I applied some very mild sharpening each time I resized (because Irfanview's resizing isn't as sharp as the resizing generally used when upscaling or encoding). Finally I converted each bitmap to a maximum quality jpg.
If you can see a major loss of detail due to the resizing to 720p and back which I can't, please let me know. Or try the same thing for yourself. Sometimes there will be a noticeable difference when comparing resolutions one frame at a time, but even then, when watching the 720p version in the usual manner..... not so much. I compare 720p and 1080p in a similar way before pretty much every encode, only I do it using avisynth scripts, and it's why I don't get it when people talk about how much better 1080p is. It can be, and sometimes is it, but I'm still sceptical as to how much more actual picture detail we'll get from 4k. Maybe eventually if everything is "filmed" with 4k digital cameras, but till then the 4k placebo effect will probably provide most of it.
Although apparently the new color standard can reproduce a wider range of colors than BT.709, and maybe more accurately, but if that does improve the picture quality I've no doubt the higher resolution will probably get the credit for it most of the time.
I've resized 720p to 704x396, encoded it with the x264 encoder and compared the two. Not with a 21" computer monitor while standing 20 feet away, but with a 51" plasma while standing closer, and if you sharpen a tiny bit while using the right resizer and a high x264 quality setting..... I'm not saying the 704x396 version looks as good, but the difference doesn't need to be as massive as you've described. Twenty feet away from even a 51" plasma it can be somewhat on the "minor' side. In fact from 20 feet away I wonder if you'd even see a difference.
Last edited by hello_hello; 19th Jan 2014 at 00:20.
To explain things like that, I've read criticisms of ABX testing along the lines of the ABX test itself skewing the results of an ABX test, although I could never manage to understand the logic behind that argument.
Last edited by hello_hello; 18th Jan 2014 at 23:38.
I'm in the market for an additional large tv likely 3D but since 4k is so close I will wait to see what the new BD standard might bring in terms of a possible enhanced new connector and/or protection scheme on the new discs.
Watching online material won't mean much if it's low bitrate material but at the same time many ISP are not cheap with low mb monthly maximums so d/l large filesize 4k samples would quickly eat up the allowance. Mine offers what they call set overage fees but they cost a lot and they mean "reasonable overage" it's not really open ended so if watching a lot of Netflix 4k movies for example it would quickly put a user on the undesired list and as rumour has it possibly subject to being deliberately bottle necked. Don't know if it's true or not but I've seen people complain that they were moved to a throttled service IP block
I'm convinced that discs are still the way to go for me but it will mean buying a new player and probably re-buying some (but not all) of my special collectables many of which I already bought on VHS, DVD and Blu-ray.
Last edited by gll99; 19th Jan 2014 at 00:15.There's not much to do but then I can't do much anyway.
Will it be backwards compatible in otherwords? If you want to future proof your collection then buying a 4k disc would make sense if it can play on your regular bluray players.Donatello - The Shredder? Michelangelo - Maybe all that hardware is for making coleslaw?
Methinks you will have to buy new bluray players for 4K.Inside Every Older Person Is A Younger Person Wondering What The Hell Happened.
I mean a standard bluray player playing the 4k bd as if it was a normal 1080p bluray.
Would that be in the offering? Or is that expecting too much?
Edit - maybe they could have a 1080p "core" like they do for dtsma and dolby truehd?Donatello - The Shredder? Michelangelo - Maybe all that hardware is for making coleslaw?
No, UHD (4K) will be encoded as HEVC (H.265). Assuming the optical format comes to fruition, you'd likely see boxed sets with separate 1080p and UHD discs. Like 3D boxed sets now with 3D and 2D versions, and often DVD as well.Pull! Bang! Darn!
Originally Posted by friztiz93
Originally Posted by fritzi93
Though it could get a bit ridiculous for some things with triple wide bluray cases for mega sets. It would be a bit nuts to have three discs for the same movie and none of them having bonuses - ie a 3d disc, a hd 2d disc and a 4k disc. (or rather the extra discs not being solely for bonuses)
But hey as long the prices aren't much more inflated than 3d is right now I suppose I could live with it.
So long as they don't PHASE OUT 1080p and force higher priced 4k discs on the public than I could deal with it.Donatello - The Shredder? Michelangelo - Maybe all that hardware is for making coleslaw?