If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Herald Online)   Now that you've finally upgraded to High Definition television, first Ultra High Definition televisions go on sale in US. Still no cure for Honey Boo Boo   (heraldonline.com) divider line 94
    More: Spiffy, United States, LG Electronics, PR Newswire, LED TV, flat-panel TV, Council of Economic Advisers, LCD TV, MSRP  
•       •       •

4341 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 Oct 2012 at 8:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



94 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-26 04:39:03 PM
There's some nightmare fuel for you - her mom in 4K resolution.

/now with more neck crust
 
2012-10-26 04:45:49 PM
HDTV:
images2.wikia.nocookie.net

Ultra HDTV:
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-10-26 06:27:49 PM

Solkar: now with more neck crust


hork!
 
2012-10-26 07:07:18 PM
I love how the article is literally the LG press release verbatim.
 
2012-10-26 07:12:54 PM
I'll be interested in this once my cable broadcasts in 1080p.
 
2012-10-26 07:23:37 PM
In a related story, CNN's Candy Crowley walked off the news set today. Some onlookers quoted her as saying, "Ultra High Definition? ULTRA High Definition? F*ck this sh*t, I give up..."
 
2012-10-26 07:26:47 PM
FTFA: *No "ultra high definition" or "4K" video content is currently available. No broadcast or other standard currently exists for "4K" or "ultra high definition" television, and the 84LM9600 may or may not be compatible with such standards if and when developed.

Just like the googolphonic stereo with the moon rock needle.
 
2012-10-26 07:38:08 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I love how the article is literally the LG press release verbatim.


Of course it's the LG press release.

Are you expecting hardcore investigative journalism from PRNewswire or something?
 
2012-10-26 07:41:34 PM

Shostie: cameroncrazy1984: I love how the article is literally the LG press release verbatim.

Of course it's the LG press release.

Are you expecting hardcore investigative journalism from PRNewswire or something?


F*ck, man. It even says "By LG Electronics USA" in the byline.

Jesus Christ...
 
2012-10-26 07:46:46 PM
I can barely tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. I mean, it's there, and it's noticeable, but it doesn't impact my viewing experience.

I don't even play bluray movies anymore, the technology is so grossly awful to deal with. On my current BR player, which is pretty good compared to others I've owned, most movies take 5 minutes to load, and heaven forbid you fark up and accidentally stop it or power it down halfway in. (I've heard good things about the PS3 capabilities but it's not really worth it to me at this point.)

I'm much happier playing from HDD or DVD, or my 1080p system.
 
2012-10-26 08:36:58 PM
In over 60 years, they still haven't gotten that "brightness" knob to work.
 
2012-10-26 08:38:12 PM
Man, just imagine the clarity of the C-section scars and needle tracks you'll see while watching porn on one of those babies!
 
2012-10-26 08:40:04 PM

bdub77: I can barely tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. I mean, it's there, and it's noticeable, but it doesn't impact my viewing experience.


This. I have to really wonder about how big the difference between 1080p and 4k would look to a person sitting 2-3 meters away from a TV set.
 
2012-10-26 08:44:53 PM
This is gonna end up like that whole megapixel thing we were all obsessed with 5 years ago, or the DPI thing in printers we were all obsessed with 15 years ago.
 
2012-10-26 08:45:46 PM
Keeping my 10+ year old TV with low resolution prevents horking neck crust
 
2012-10-26 08:46:45 PM
This will be adopted very slowly, much like the 3D tv fiasco. Most people won't upgrade until it's forced on them (i.e., low-end basic tvs have this tech). I'm just very skeptical this significantly adds to the viewing experience beyond HDTV.
 
2012-10-26 08:48:56 PM
imgs.xkcd.com

A 4k projector might be good stuff. Might be a wash with an 84" monitor, since I think they might be about the same size.
 
2012-10-26 08:53:07 PM

bdub77: I don't even play bluray movies anymore, the technology is so grossly awful to deal with. On my current BR player, which is pretty good compared to others I've owned, most movies take 5 minutes to load, and heaven forbid you fark up and accidentally stop it or power it down halfway in. (I've heard good things about the PS3 capabilities but it's not really worth it to me at this point.)


Ain't DRM fun? I've never even bothered with bluray, precisely because of its craptastic user-unfriendliness.

The likelihood of 4k content ever making it to OTA broadcasts or anything else that isn't hobbled with even worse DRM than bluray is pretty farking close to zero. Besides, even 1080i is pretty damn good - 4k is a solution in search of a problem unless you're talking theater-sized screens.
 
2012-10-26 08:56:56 PM
what internet service provider is going to let me stream 4k on netflix? I don't think there is an ISP anywhere (I've been) in this country fast enough..

farkers.
 
2012-10-26 08:57:27 PM

wildcardjack: [imgs.xkcd.com image 389x337]

A 4k projector might be good stuff. Might be a wash with an 84" monitor, since I think they might be about the same size.


It baffles me that someone as smart as the guy that does XKCD doesn't seem understand the concept of angular resolution.
 
2012-10-26 09:05:31 PM

Baron Harkonnen: bdub77: I can barely tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. I mean, it's there, and it's noticeable, but it doesn't impact my viewing experience.

This. I have to really wonder about how big the difference between 1080p and 4k would look to a person sitting 2-3 meters away from a TV set.


THIS! I mean, Fox broadcasts in 720p, and the sports on Fox look *great*! And yes, I have seen stuff in 1080p (Inglorious Basterds in 1080p is *fantastic* to watch), but the difference is between great, and somewhat greater. 4k is, possibly, *too* sharp a resolution (there is only too much an "artificial" sharpness a human eye and brain can handle).
 
2012-10-26 09:13:26 PM
I've been waiting to buy a new TV until 60" 4K sets are a) available and b) under $2k.

Do I need that for TV? No.
Do I need that for movies? No.
Do I need that for my PC that I use from my couch? Fark YES!

42" 1920x1080 is okay from 8' away, but it's still quite a step-down from back when I had a proper monitor in front of my face. I know upping the diagonal will shave off much of the gains made by doubling the resolution, but I would like a wider FOV than I currently have, and 60" of 1920x1080 just looks god-awful.
 
2012-10-26 09:14:47 PM
You folks can have yer damned high def flatscreens and all that crap. I'll stick to either watching things on my computer, or on my old CRT TV. I've watched things in high def on high def screens before at other places and I just don't get the draw. Ok, picture's sharper and all, so what? Does that make the story of whatever I'm watching any better? Does it make the actors/actresses any better? Does it make the team I'm watching catch better or run faster or something? No? Well then screw you guys, I'll stick to my CRT until it dies.

/I'm also cheap.
 
2012-10-26 09:16:56 PM
Meh, 99.9% of TV programming will stil suck, but just like a 20 dollar whore vs. a 5k call girl, still the same jizz.
 
2012-10-26 09:23:21 PM

rickycal78: You folks can have yer damned high def flatscreens and all that crap. I'll stick to either watching things on my computer, or on my old CRT TV. I've watched things in high def on high def screens before at other places and I just don't get the draw. Ok, picture's sharper and all, so what? Does that make the story of whatever I'm watching any better? Does it make the actors/actresses any better? Does it make the team I'm watching catch better or run faster or something? No? Well then screw you guys, I'll stick to my CRT until it dies.

/I'm also cheap.


It's pretty sweet to actually be able to see offensive line holding in football. Or the puck in hockey.

Plus, videogames.
 
2012-10-26 09:26:12 PM

qsblues: Meh, 99.9% of TV programming will stil suck, but just like a 20 dollar whore vs. a 5k call girl, still the same jizz.


You haven't bought the jizz upgrade? Weird
 
2012-10-26 09:27:30 PM

jso2897: In over 60 years, they still haven't gotten that "brightness" knob to work.


That's for the picture, not the TV personalities.
 
2012-10-26 09:31:00 PM
I'm understanding that 4K is the same resolution that feature films are rendered at (and projected at when a digital projector is in use). I know an engineer at Dolby, who tells me that the DRM on these projectors is far beyond what's in a Blu-Ray player.

I don't think it's impossible that we'll ever see 4K content, but I can't imagine it anytime this decade - America's internet pipes simply aren't fat enough to handle the streams (fark you Comcast and AT&T for ensuring that the US isn't even in the top 10 anymore on this count).
 
2012-10-26 09:31:52 PM
Someone notify when programming shows any signs at all of improving enough to justify a better TV.
 
2012-10-26 09:33:27 PM

Kuroshin: I've been waiting to buy a new TV until 60" 4K sets are a) available and b) under $2k.

Do I need that for TV? No.
Do I need that for movies? No.
Do I need that for my PC that I use from my couch? Fark YES!

42" 1920x1080 is okay from 8' away, but it's still quite a step-down from back when I had a proper monitor in front of my face. I know upping the diagonal will shave off much of the gains made by doubling the resolution, but I would like a wider FOV than I currently have, and 60" of 1920x1080 just looks god-awful.


That's the reason I use my P4 for most internetsing and only use my quad core for games and movies.
 
2012-10-26 09:33:51 PM
DRM? Oh you mean the reason piracy will never go away?
 
2012-10-26 09:34:43 PM

Dafatone: It's pretty sweet to actually be able to see offensive line holding in football. Or the puck in hockey.


THIS. In fact, I'm currently taking in a Chicago Wolves hockey game right now (Wolves lead 1-0 after 2 periods, BTW), and 720p is wonderful in this situation.

/fark you, Bettman, for trashing the NHL season
 
2012-10-26 09:42:35 PM
What GROUND BREAKING TECHNOLOGY! For only $20,000 USD you too can own the same LCD technology that has been sitting in your computer monitor for the last 6 years.

/TVs are such a farking rip off
 
2012-10-26 09:45:29 PM
Man my porn and video games going to look so good on that.
 
2012-10-26 09:46:21 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I love how the article is literally the LG press release verbatim.


I believe in the 21st century, they call that "journalism."
 
2012-10-26 09:48:37 PM
What 4k will look like in the future:

fubegra.net
 
2012-10-26 09:50:10 PM
4K won't be adopted widespread if that's the only selling point, HDTV brought a lot of changes along with it in content delivery - some of which had nothing to do with HDTV itself (like digital delivery), 4K will only be adopted as simply a cog in a wider push in the evolution of home entertainment - this is reason 3DTV failed, nobody cares enough about an optional extra to buy another tv, but if they needed a new tv anyways then it's a nice extra (despite probably not being used anyways)
 
2012-10-26 09:52:31 PM
I still have an SD tube TV. We bought it in 2003-2004 or so when HDTV was still novel and LCD/Plasma prices were through the roof. I hate throwing away stuff that still works, so no upgrade likely soon. I have mixed feeling about this.
 
2012-10-26 09:53:58 PM
UHD is only useful for very large televisions that display 1080p with jagged edges. For normal consumers with a 30-50" television, there's just no need for it. That's why you only see UHD on 70" monster televisions.
 
2012-10-26 10:01:14 PM

natmar_76: UHD is only useful for very large televisions that display 1080p with jagged edges. For normal consumers with a 30-50" television, there's just no need for it. That's why you only see UHD on 70" monster televisions.


I guarantee you they'll be selling UHD TV's in the 30-50 inch range. There's a sucker born every minute.
 
2012-10-26 10:02:40 PM
4K won't be a broadcast resolution. The OTA bandwidth just isn't there. For disc media, even a Blu-Ray would struggle to contain enough data. For internet downloads, yeah, not likely anytime soon.

The human eye flat cannot discern the difference between 720p and 1080p for normal viewing distances with fairly normally sized screens. While you might notice the difference between 1080p and 4K on a really huge screen, it would take mammoth screens for that to matter.

It's probably going to stay on the very high end for people with lots of disposable income. I really don't think everybody's 1080p or even 720p TVs are going anywhere anytime soon. IMO, it's probably going to be like 3D- something very few even bother with.
 
2012-10-26 10:06:53 PM
www.goldenspatula.net

Good, those spatula commercials will look amazing!
 
2012-10-26 10:15:07 PM
I will say this, though. LG makes some damn fine televisions for the price point.

// This is just a general statement about the brand, and not particularly in reference to this 4k monstrosity.
 
2012-10-26 10:32:41 PM

Oreamnos: I still have an SD tube TV. We bought it in 2003-2004 or so when HDTV was still novel and LCD/Plasma prices were through the roof. I hate throwing away stuff that still works, so no upgrade likely soon. I have mixed feeling about this.


I've got one of those. A 32" I think. That thing weighs a farking ton
 
2012-10-26 10:38:59 PM

Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: *No "ultra high definition" or "4K" video content is currently available. No broadcast or other standard currently exists for "4K" or "ultra high definition" television, and the 84LM9600 may or may not be compatible with such standards if and when developed.

Just like the googolphonic stereo with the moon rock needle.


Steve is that you?!?!
/love that bit
 
2012-10-26 10:54:07 PM

Fubegra: bdub77: I don't even play bluray movies anymore, the technology is so grossly awful to deal with. On my current BR player, which is pretty good compared to others I've owned, most movies take 5 minutes to load, and heaven forbid you fark up and accidentally stop it or power it down halfway in. (I've heard good things about the PS3 capabilities but it's not really worth it to me at this point.)

Ain't DRM fun? I've never even bothered with bluray, precisely because of its craptastic user-unfriendliness.

The likelihood of 4k content ever making it to OTA broadcasts or anything else that isn't hobbled with even worse DRM than bluray is pretty farking close to zero. Besides, even 1080i is pretty damn good - 4k is a solution in search of a problem unless you're talking theater-sized screens.


HDDVD loaded way faster, but then the copyright protection wasn't perceived to be as good, so it died.

/still have my toshiba a3...
 
2012-10-26 11:03:50 PM

Baron Harkonnen: bdub77: I can barely tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. I mean, it's there, and it's noticeable, but it doesn't impact my viewing experience.

This. I have to really wonder about how big the difference between 1080p and 4k would look to a person sitting 2-3 meters away from a TV set.


The fact they're debuting its release at 84" is your answer.
 
2012-10-26 11:05:58 PM
www.big13.net
 
2012-10-26 11:12:37 PM
I thought we just got a new status symbol with the mini-pad.

/Or was it the new iphone?
 
2012-10-26 11:13:20 PM
I guess this gives the cable companies a new excuse to jack up fees.
 
2012-10-26 11:16:36 PM
4k LCD will be nice for PC gaming, but what else? I guess all those people with Red cameras will have something to show their videos on, but outside of that, 4k content is a good ways off.
 
2012-10-26 11:20:31 PM
I haven't owned a TV since 1994.
 
2012-10-26 11:24:26 PM
I can't wait to watch reality TV in 4K. It will be like you are actually sitting there are Arbys.
 
2012-10-26 11:30:50 PM
images57.fotki.com
 
2012-10-27 12:02:26 AM

theorellior: Man, just imagine the clarity of the C-section scars and needle tracks you'll see while watching porn on one of those babies!


You'd be able to see healed over herpes sores in scary quality as well.
 
2012-10-27 12:10:23 AM
I look at what I have in my system...

A DVD resolution .avi file... about 1.2Gb for a movie.

A HD version at at least 4Gb, for the same movie.

The difference is quality sitting from 6 feet (at least) on my 720 TV (of from a bit further from the 1080 one), completely negligible

My 32TB system with over 3000 movies and a good 150 TV series would dwell down to a fraction of that if I went with HD for everything.

Now, this 4K resolution... I'd need 10 times more capacity, and if this was for streaming, my bandwidth would never be able to handle it.

I'd rather they'd go for quality of image, as they should with digital cameras, instead of pixel count.
 
2012-10-27 12:11:26 AM
Once you upgrade your TV, We will add yet another unnecessary audio channel, forcing you to buy a new DVD-Ray player, A new tuner, and the new colon mounted speaker with colon scanning DRM to prevent unauthorized users from listening.
 
2012-10-27 12:16:18 AM

akula: 4K won't be a broadcast resolution. The OTA bandwidth just isn't there. For disc media, even a Blu-Ray would struggle to contain enough data. For internet downloads, yeah, not likely anytime soon.

The human eye flat cannot discern the difference between 720p and 1080p for normal viewing distances with fairly normally sized screens. While you might notice the difference between 1080p and 4K on a really huge screen, it would take mammoth screens for that to matter.

It's probably going to stay on the very high end for people with lots of disposable income. I really don't think everybody's 1080p or even 720p TVs are going anywhere anytime soon. IMO, it's probably going to be like 3D- something very few even bother with.


Stop saying things that are flatly incorrect. It ruins your ability to communicate your position with any sort of authority.

I have Human eyes. I'm looking at 1080p right now (1:1 source:display mapping), from 8' away, on a 42" screen. I can see the pixels. It doesn't really bother me too much, but double the resolution and you halve the pixel size. This crap got hashed out back when Apple "invented" high pixel-density displays and launched the iPhone 4.

Want to say there's diminishing returns in how much enjoyment you'll get from a given media source? Sure, fine, I can agree with that. There's not going to be any benefit in jumping to 4K on smaller screens for movies, TV and the like. But don't blow smoke up anybody's ass over how PPI differences can't be discerned by "the human eye." It makes you sound like a jackass.

Next you'll be trying to convince yourself that "the human eye" can't detect anything higher than 60Hz... My migraine will happily cockpunch you for the suggestion.
 
2012-10-27 12:26:02 AM

rickycal78: You folks can have yer damned high def flatscreens and all that crap. I'll stick to either watching things on my computer, or on my old CRT TV. I've watched things in high def on high def screens before at other places and I just don't get the draw. Ok, picture's sharper and all, so what? Does that make the story of whatever I'm watching any better? Does it make the actors/actresses any better? Does it make the team I'm watching catch better or run faster or something? No? Well then screw you guys, I'll stick to my CRT until it dies.

/I'm also cheap.


NFL Football
 
2012-10-27 12:33:44 AM
Cool!!
I can see the difference between 720p and 1080p on my 1080p screen, but my brother clai,s that he can't..

Would be nice to finally get a monitor with pixel counts closer to my DSLR's native resolution. It would certainly make image editing, and graphics work easier. And the ability to just show closer to the full res of the original camera image would be a real improvement. A 12 megapixel image on a 2 megapixel HD screen just doesn't look good enough.

Be a great toy for a video game that took advantage of it! My gamers PC has had the video capacity to run 3xHD for years, and this would only be 4xHD, and without the nuisance of separate monitors.

TV?
Waste of effort, the incoming HD signals are compressed so badly already, they're just too pathetic.
 
2012-10-27 12:35:15 AM
clai,s = claims

/fat pinky
 
2012-10-27 12:47:02 AM
To simplify things for the networks, next fall, EVERY SHOW will now be titled "Ugly Betty".
 
2012-10-27 12:53:45 AM
The cable and satellite providers can barely fit in their crappy overly compressed 720p broadcasts as it is.
 
2012-10-27 01:12:11 AM
1. It can be a broadcast standard. HEVC compression, which is about twice as efficient as h.264 will allow it to squeeze into a broadcaster's channel bandwidth, but it means ditching those 'extra channels'. More likely it will allow cable, fiber, and satellite providers to run some premium channels in 4K. So don't consider it a no-show for broadcast.

2. 4K fits neatly onto the quad-layer BluRay disks that were invented six years ago. There hasn't been any need to produce them until 4K. So the media is ready to go for this resolution. The PS4 will have full 4K function - or so they keep claiming.

3. Almost every movie filmed in the last 100 years, except those shot on 70mm which are damn rare, can't be scanned at resolutions higher than 4K. There just isn't any more detail in the 35mm film stocks. That means that when you buy Star Wars or the Godfather at 4K that is the last version you will need. It won't ever get any sharper. BluRay already delivered the maximum audio clarity. 4K provides the maximum visual clarity. Do you want to keep buying BluRays, only to see them outdated with 4K or hurry up and get to 4K and enjoy the plateau?

4. This isn't the first consumer 4K display. 4K projectors have been out for a year. They ain't cheap though.

5. 4K is really for large displays. Unless you just sit super-close to your display you just aren't going to see the full detail

6. This (hot) chart tells you if 4K would actually be a benefit for you:
www.rtings.com
 
2012-10-27 01:27:26 AM
3. Almost every movie filmed in the last 100 years, except those shot on 70mm which are damn rare, can't be scanned at resolutions higher than 4K. There just isn't any more detail in the 35mm film stocks. That means that when you buy Star Wars or the Godfather at 4K that is the last version you will need. It won't ever get any sharper. BluRay already delivered the maximum audio clarity. 4K provides the maximum visual clarity. Do you want to keep buying BluRays, only to see them outdated with 4K or hurry up and get to 4K and enjoy the plateau?

...interesting.
I find the movies from non-digital sources to look ok on DVD, but on Bluray all I see is the film grain. I figured it would just get worse at any higher def.
When I scanned my 35mm slides, I could get up to 5 megapixel before the grain became obvious, so I always presumed the industry was just careless/crappy at doing the transform...
 
2012-10-27 01:47:37 AM

Harry_Seldon: rickycal78: You folks can have yer damned high def flatscreens and all that crap. I'll stick to either watching things on my computer, or on my old CRT TV. I've watched things in high def on high def screens before at other places and I just don't get the draw. Ok, picture's sharper and all, so what? Does that make the story of whatever I'm watching any better? Does it make the actors/actresses any better? Does it make the team I'm watching catch better or run faster or something? No? Well then screw you guys, I'll stick to my CRT until it dies.

/I'm also cheap.

NFL Football


And that extra definition does what for the football viewing experience exactly?
"Dude, I can totally see the grass stains on Rodgers' uniform better! And man check it out, you can totes see the expression on his face so much clearer now!"
It's a meh issue for me. I know eventually I'll end up with a moderate sized HD set since I don't think they even make CRT types anymore, but it's not really a priority. I can kinda understand why some people like it, but it's not important to me.
 
2012-10-27 01:56:41 AM
As with all new video technologies, the needs of porn viewers will determine the success or failure of UHD. If the porn industry doesn't go for it and produce UHD-resolution content, then what would be the point in buying it? I mean, just how much of a sharper resolution do we need when we can already count the fine peachfuzz hairs on the nape of someone's neck?

/admit it
//when I mentioned peachfuzz hairs, you thought of something else, didn't you?
///sicko
 
2012-10-27 02:03:42 AM

rickycal78: Harry_Seldon: rickycal78: You folks can have yer damned high def flatscreens and all that crap. I'll stick to either watching things on my computer, or on my old CRT TV. I've watched things in high def on high def screens before at other places and I just don't get the draw. Ok, picture's sharper and all, so what? Does that make the story of whatever I'm watching any better? Does it make the actors/actresses any better? Does it make the team I'm watching catch better or run faster or something? No? Well then screw you guys, I'll stick to my CRT until it dies.

/I'm also cheap.

NFL Football

And that extra definition does what for the football viewing experience exactly?
"Dude, I can totally see the grass stains on Rodgers' uniform better! And man check it out, you can totes see the expression on his face so much clearer now!"
It's a meh issue for me. I know eventually I'll end up with a moderate sized HD set since I don't think they even make CRT types anymore, but it's not really a priority. I can kinda understand why some people like it, but it's not important to me.


Football is a great match for HDTV just due to the field of play aspect ratio. The TV network production companies have poured a lot of money into the enhanced production values to take advantage of the higher resolution and larger screens. All I know is that I really enjoy watching Football far more since the HTDV broadcast.

Frankly, the TV's have dropped in price so dramatically, it is practically a no brainer. I paid $700 for a lightly used Panasonic 50" Plasma a couple of years ago. I really like high quality plasma TV.
 
2012-10-27 02:20:57 AM

Skyfrog: The cable and satellite providers can barely fit in their crappy overly compressed 720p broadcasts as it is.


Many cable operators in North America are still using the older H.262 (MPEG-2) compression scheme in order to remain compatible with ClearQAM tuners found in most HDTVs. In Europe, it is the same deal with DVB-C tuners.

Any deployment of UHD (3840 × 2160) television will probably come in tandem with the new H.265 (HEVC/MPEG-H) codec that is nearing final draft status. It is supposedly twice as good as H.264 (AVC/MPEG-4), which in turn is supposedly twice as good as H.262. So cable operators are going to be able to fit a comparable number of UHD channels into the same space they fit HD channels today.

The mini-sat providers might be farked, though. In both North America and Europe, many of them are using DVB-S2, which uses H.264, because they don't have as much bandwidth as the cable operators and they need the more efficient video codec. Either they are going to have to find new frequencies outside of the Ku-band channels they have now or launch more sats with spot beams.

It will also be interesting to see if UHD can be transmitted over-the-air in the Americas and Japan where we only have a 6MHz wide television channel as opposed to Europe and mainland Asia that uses 7 and 8MHz wide channels.


/ClearQAM = ATSC with QAM256 modulation
 
2012-10-27 02:49:25 AM
Sports and Theaters. Those would be the only use for such high resolution TV screens. And considering that our current broadcast infrastructure would not be able to handle such high resolutions, it really would be a moot point. Maybe in 20 years when there's actual content to be had and an ability to transmit said content (and sets are cheap enough that your typical lumpenprole can afford such extravagance) the tech will take off.

/until then the Oculus Rift shows far more promise for visual entertainment
//and in 20 years, my eyes will be so bad I won't notice the 'sharp image quality' anyway
 
2012-10-27 04:03:12 AM
I guess I'm one of the few who's actually seen a 4K television in action. I have to admit, they do look farking amazing...when you're sitting 5 feet away from an 84-inch display, like I was. It basically fills your field of view with film-projection quality video, and the pixels are completely invisible at that distance. At one point in the demo they switched to an upscaled 1080p Blu-Ray and the quality was visibly, noticeably degraded.

As 4K video techology becomes cheaper, I'm sure that the content will eventually be there, the same way almost everything these days is now shot in HD. That said, for anyone with a screen less than 50-60 inches 4K is going to be complete and utter overkill. And a lot of people aren't going to have the space or interest in having a 7-foot television in their homes, even if the price drops to the point where they're affordable.

I'm sure Hollywood is probably a little nervous about the widespread distribution of movies in quality that is essentially the same as today's digital theater projectors. But if they don't have their heads too far up their DRM-laden asses, a 4K television would make an absolutely biatchin' centerpiece to a home theater setup.
 
2012-10-27 05:45:45 AM

Fark Me To Tears: As with all new video technologies, the needs of porn viewers will determine the success or failure of UHD.


This whole "where porn leads" meme is overplayed.

You have to ask why porn jumped all over various technologies to understand why it doesn't now.

VHS: guys who went to adult movie could now fap without sitting in a theater with other guys.
DVD: you could watch porn on a laptop, so no embarassing hotel bills, far easier to store, less chance of tape breakage.
Download: you didn't get seen going in and out of an adult video store.

Porn just doesn't offer much for HD. My reasons for going Blu-Ray are far more about seeing Michael Powell or David Lean films than Ron Jeremy ones.
 
2012-10-27 06:13:50 AM
"*No "ultra high definition" or "4K" video content is currently available. No broadcast or other standard currently exists for "4K" or "ultra high definition" television, and the 84LM9600 may or may not be compatible with such standards if and when developed."

Enjoy your brick.
 
2012-10-27 06:44:18 AM
The real kicker is this. Much like there are multiple resolution standards for HDTV, there are multiple resolutions for UHDTV. This 20,000 dollar TV is one of the *low resolution* models at *only* 4K

The high resolution standard calls for 8K aka 7680 × 4320 aka a bit over 33 megapixels. We are talking about a TV standard with the same resolution as IMAX film and 22.2 audio that is nicer than most of the theaters in the world.

Once the video compression standards are finalized and ready for broadcast discs and streaming (ready or not you can already download 4K video content) this WILL be the death of movie theaters. Nobody is going to pay 15 or 20 dollars per ticket to go watch a movie in a theater when they can all gather at a friends house and watch the exact same movie in a higher quality than what the theaters are equipped to show. Gaming is going to take awhile to catch up. The current top of the line Geforce cards can just barely support 4K output. That doesn't mean you can actually play a game at that resolution, it just means you can get an image on the display. Even on their own performance page where they are bragging about their own cards a GTX 690 can't hit 60 FPS is Crysis 2 at a resolution of 2560 x 1600. These displays are designed to be driven at 120 Hz.

So right now if you dropped the 20K on the TV if you wanted to play games if you spent another 20K on a quad SLI system you *might* just barely be able to play games at the panels native resolution and refresh rate. Sure, it isn't as though every game is as demanding as Crysis 2 but it also isn't as though the majority of games are going to stay the same level of complexity or get less complex.
 
2012-10-27 07:22:36 AM
A seven-foot TV screen. Yeesh. Does it come with a golden calf?
 
2012-10-27 07:40:42 AM

bdub77: I don't even play bluray movies anymore, the technology is so grossly awful to deal with. On my current BR player, which is pretty good compared to others I've owned, most movies take 5 minutes to load, and heaven forbid you fark up and accidentally stop it or power it down halfway in. (I've heard good things about the PS3 capabilities but it's not really worth it to me at this point.)


Is this a general problem with current players? Is it worth me getting a Usenet account and getting HD rips then? (I'd rather be legal, but frankly, if people are going to do that, I'd rather just download it all..
 
2012-10-27 08:35:04 AM

farkeruk: bdub77: I don't even play bluray movies anymore, the technology is so grossly awful to deal with. On my current BR player, which is pretty good compared to others I've owned, most movies take 5 minutes to load, and heaven forbid you fark up and accidentally stop it or power it down halfway in. (I've heard good things about the PS3 capabilities but it's not really worth it to me at this point.)

Is this a general problem with current players? Is it worth me getting a Usenet account and getting HD rips then? (I'd rather be legal, but frankly, if people are going to do that, I'd rather just download it all..


For some reason, the PS3 doesn't have this problem. It has a metric asston of other problems, but it doesn't have this problem in particular.
 
2012-10-27 10:09:00 AM

rekoil: I'm understanding that 4K is the same resolution that feature films are rendered at (and projected at when a digital projector is in use). I know an engineer at Dolby, who tells me that the DRM on these projectors is far beyond what's in a Blu-Ray player.


Yes, for example, the theatre has to call a support number to unlock the projectors if the power goes out and comes back because the projector is in a protected safe-mode. The technician then remotes into the projector, logs in and unlocks it. (Sony system at an AMC few years back, it may have changed with the new 4K systems they're getting)
 
2012-10-27 10:12:53 AM

Doctor Jan Itor: "*No "ultra high definition" or "4K" video content is currently available. No broadcast or other standard currently exists for "4K" or "ultra high definition" television, and the 84LM9600 may or may not be compatible with such standards if and when developed."

Enjoy your brick.


Consumer HDTV started in Japan in the 1970s. Stuff takes a while.
 
2012-10-27 10:34:18 AM

qsblues: Meh, 99.9% of TV programming will stil suck, but just like a 20 dollar whore vs. a 5k call girl, still the same jizz.


I have no personal experience with either option, but theoretically, with the $5K call girl, I'd assume it's a higher probability that it's just your jizz.
 
2012-10-27 10:46:04 AM

farkeruk: Is this a general problem with current players?


Working like ass is a FEATURE of blu-ray players. Not a problem.

"Want to watch this Movie? Connect your player to the internet to download a firmware update"

/fark. you.
 
2012-10-27 12:07:04 PM

fluffy2097: farkeruk: Is this a general problem with current players?

Working like ass is a FEATURE of blu-ray players. Not a problem.

"Want to watch this Movie? Connect your player to the internet to download a firmware DRM update"

/fark. you.


FTFY
 
2012-10-27 12:26:15 PM

farkeruk: bdub77: I don't even play bluray movies anymore, the technology is so grossly awful to deal with. On my current BR player, which is pretty good compared to others I've owned, most movies take 5 minutes to load, and heaven forbid you fark up and accidentally stop it or power it down halfway in. (I've heard good things about the PS3 capabilities but it's not really worth it to me at this point.)

Is this a general problem with current players? Is it worth me getting a Usenet account and getting HD rips then? (I'd rather be legal, but frankly, if people are going to do that, I'd rather just download it all..


It is not really the hardware. Sony, Fox, and Disney do everything they can to make your watching experience as bad as possible on their discs. They spend a LOT of money obsoleting firmwares, finding new ways to show you ads, and trying to stay ahead of the DVD Decryptor guys..

The only reason the PS3 works better is that Sony prototypes the next fark-you on it before bringing ti to the BDA for the rubberstamp.
 
2012-10-27 12:51:55 PM

thrasherrr: It is not really the hardware. Sony, Fox, and Disney do everything they can to make your watching experience as bad as possible on their discs. They spend a LOT of money obsoleting firmwares, finding new ways to show you ads, and trying to stay ahead of the DVD Decryptor guys..

The only reason the PS3 works better is that Sony prototypes the next fark-you on it before bringing ti to the BDA for the rubberstamp.


OK. Looks like I'm going to be building a NAS
 
2012-10-27 02:13:43 PM

Kuroshin: akula: 4K won't be a broadcast resolution. The OTA bandwidth just isn't there. For disc media, even a Blu-Ray would struggle to contain enough data. For internet downloads, yeah, not likely anytime soon.

The human eye flat cannot discern the difference between 720p and 1080p for normal viewing distances with fairly normally sized screens. While you might notice the difference between 1080p and 4K on a really huge screen, it would take mammoth screens for that to matter.

It's probably going to stay on the very high end for people with lots of disposable income. I really don't think everybody's 1080p or even 720p TVs are going anywhere anytime soon. IMO, it's probably going to be like 3D- something very few even bother with.

Stop saying things that are flatly incorrect. It ruins your ability to communicate your position with any sort of authority.

I have Human eyes. I'm looking at 1080p right now (1:1 source:display mapping), from 8' away, on a 42" screen. I can see the pixels. It doesn't really bother me too much, but double the resolution and you halve the pixel size. This crap got hashed out back when Apple "invented" high pixel-density displays and launched the iPhone 4.

Want to say there's diminishing returns in how much enjoyment you'll get from a given media source? Sure, fine, I can agree with that. There's not going to be any benefit in jumping to 4K on smaller screens for movies, TV and the like. But don't blow smoke up anybody's ass over how PPI differences can't be discerned by "the human eye." It makes you sound like a jackass.

Next you'll be trying to convince yourself that "the human eye" can't detect anything higher than 60Hz... My migraine will happily cockpunch you for the suggestion.


You might want to READ before blowing up. Your method makes you look like an illiterate dick. I said that there's limits to what can be discerned at a given distance given a particular screen size. The actual difference between a 720p and 1080p screen is quite minimal. There are a rather large number of other things with the display that can make you think you see a difference. Humans aren't hawks- if you have incredible vision you might have some better ability to see that detail, but in general there is a limit to the detail that can be seen within those parameters I stated earlier. Is 4K going to be better than 1080p? Sure. But you won't likely be able to actually tell that if you're across the room from a 42" TV.
 
2012-10-27 02:59:41 PM

madgonad: 1. It can be a broadcast standard. HEVC compression, which is about twice as efficient as h.264 will allow it to squeeze into a broadcaster's channel bandwidth, but it means ditching those 'extra channels'. More likely it will allow cable, fiber, and satellite providers to run some premium channels in 4K. So don't consider it a no-show for broadcast.

2. 4K fits neatly onto the quad-layer BluRay disks that were invented six years ago. There hasn't been any need to produce them until 4K. So the media is ready to go for this resolution. The PS4 will have full 4K function - or so they keep claiming.

3. Almost every movie filmed in the last 100 years, except those shot on 70mm which are damn rare, can't be scanned at resolutions higher than 4K. There just isn't any more detail in the 35mm film stocks. That means that when you buy Star Wars or the Godfather at 4K that is the last version you will need. It won't ever get any sharper. BluRay already delivered the maximum audio clarity. 4K provides the maximum visual clarity. Do you want to keep buying BluRays, only to see them outdated with 4K or hurry up and get to 4K and enjoy the plateau?

4. This isn't the first consumer 4K display. 4K projectors have been out for a year. They ain't cheap though.

5. 4K is really for large displays. Unless you just sit super-close to your display you just aren't going to see the full detail

6. This (hot) chart tells you if 4K would actually be a benefit for you:
[www.rtings.com image 547x461]


PS4 will support 4K, just like it supports 1080P. IE it hardware scales games with native resolutions anywhere from the high 500's to 720P. At least 90% of them. A very, very few are 1080P, which is just such a waste of resources on this console.

And you're right. 4K make NO sense unless you're planning on really big and really close. Which is not what most consumers are going for, not for the prices display manufactures are looking to haul in.

Hell, look at HDTV and BD adoption rates, and it's all you need to know.
 
2012-10-27 09:55:21 PM

Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: *No "ultra high definition" or "4K" video content is currently available. No broadcast or other standard currently exists for "4K" or "ultra high definition" television, and the 84LM9600 may or may not be compatible with such standards if and when developed.


Anybody know where I can get a piece of shiny black rectangular material measuring 84" diagonally? I can put a frame around it, hang it on the wall, and it'll be every bit as useful as this UHD TV for a tiny sliver of the price.
 
2012-10-27 11:15:33 PM
You must be logged in to access this feature.

/FAIL
 
2012-10-28 06:44:02 AM
The cure for Honey Poo Poo? Drop cable or satellite.
 
2012-10-28 09:34:13 AM

akula: 4K won't be a broadcast resolution. The OTA bandwidth just isn't there. For disc media, even a Blu-Ray would struggle to contain enough data. For internet downloads, yeah, not likely anytime soon.

The human eye flat cannot discern the difference between 720p and 1080p for normal viewing distances with fairly normally sized screens. While you might notice the difference between 1080p and 4K on a really huge screen, it would take mammoth screens for that to matter.

It's probably going to stay on the very high end for people with lots of disposable income. I really don't think everybody's 1080p or even 720p TVs are going anywhere anytime soon. IMO, it's probably going to be like 3D- something very few even bother with.


Pretty much, yeah. 4K is an excellent cinema standard. I've recently seen that, and I can testify that it's beautiful. In that setting, the goal of 4K is to deliver resolution approaching that of 70mm, and it does accomplish that. For home viewing, though, on any surface smaller than the side of a house, it's overkill. Most of the time you won't notice any real difference, except in your bandwidth and wallet. And as I already said, higher resolution won't improve programming one whit. As Dave Barry said, there are some things science cannot do.
 
2012-10-28 09:55:26 AM

bemused outsider: 3. Almost every movie filmed in the last 100 years, except those shot on 70mm which are damn rare, can't be scanned at resolutions higher than 4K. There just isn't any more detail in the 35mm film stocks. That means that when you buy Star Wars or the Godfather at 4K that is the last version you will need. It won't ever get any sharper. BluRay already delivered the maximum audio clarity. 4K provides the maximum visual clarity. Do you want to keep buying BluRays, only to see them outdated with 4K or hurry up and get to 4K and enjoy the plateau?

...interesting.
I find the movies from non-digital sources to look ok on DVD, but on Bluray all I see is the film grain. I figured it would just get worse at any higher def.
When I scanned my 35mm slides, I could get up to 5 megapixel before the grain became obvious, so I always presumed the industry was just careless/crappy at doing the transform...


Because photochemical imaging resolves at the molecular level, 35mm film has a theoretical maximum resolution approaching a staggering fifty thousand lines per frame. Compare that number to the real-life line resolution of the 20th Century NTSC television most of us grew up with: nominally, 525 lines; actual delivery for most people: about half that, on a good day. And VHS tape? Maybe 230, if you were lucky. The real delivery, for both analogue and digital standards, is limited by lenses and such, and doesn't approach the theoretical limits of analogue or the calculated capacities of digital. (Yes, digital image capture does indeed capture at the calculated matrix capacity, but it's capturing the inherently inferior image delivered to it by the lenses, dirt, haze, and everything else in the way -- meaning, if you study your 4K image pixel by pixel, you'll find it's a 4K rendering of more like a 2-3K original.)

I don't know what's going on with your Blu-Rays. They have the capacity to deliver higher image quality, if the original image is good enough. As you point out, it's difficult to image industry film stock having lower quality than consumer 35mm. (Especially given that they're pretty much the same thing.) I suppose, then, that they're really just Blu-Ray updates of earlier DVD conversions, which would mean DVD resolution -- like when old records used to be re-released on CD directly from the record masters, instead of actual tape remasters that could take advantage of CD capacities. I'm not savvy enough to know how DVD>Blu-Ray would deliver subjectively inferior image quality, but perhaps someone else here is.
 
2012-10-28 12:30:21 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: And as I already said, higher resolution won't improve programming one whit.


And that is why I decided not to upgrade my current plasma television. There just isn't enough good programming to justify an upgrade. I'm watching less and less every year. So why should I drop 1000+ clams for a better TV?
 
2012-10-29 05:02:49 AM
Oh, I hope it's as successful as 3D TV because that was HUGE!

Most of Fark that commented on this article will probably be able to pick up one at an athletes bankruptcy auction in the near future.
 
2012-10-29 12:10:51 PM
I dont understand how people can even think that resolutions worse than 300 DPI are an end game, good enough, why bother advancing, stopping point. 1080p on a 50" TV is not "sharp", and 480p is just plain awful on a 50" TV. If 40 DPI is sharp, then next time you print a photo, rescale it to 40 DPI and think about what you've done.

Video card maufactureers didn't stop at 2.3 million colors, sound quality didn't hault at 5.7 KHz, and TV isn't going to stop at double didgit pixels per inch.
 
Displayed 94 of 94 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report