Sorry, I meant as a hypothetical. In that if I didn't already have SKY's top package with UHD I would have to pay for it. Yes, in the tv room, we have a 2TB box that has outputs 2160p, though the satellite box in the lounge will only do 1080p.
Saying that, my 18 month £56 deal must be coming to an end soon. If SKY wants to charge me full price I'll most likely cancel. £92pm is too much if you ask me.
es.
last Autumn I did the maths as they say.
someone with a Sky mid range entertainment package, no movies or sport would need to spend another £100
a month to maximise UHD content; Amazon, Netflix, premium Sky subscription, BT Sports. Even then the average TV viewer would still struggle to find enough TV content to fill 1/4 of their TV viewing in UHD unless they watched, an awful lot of sport or movies or just, chose content on the basis of resolution rather than well, content.
For my household it would be less than 1% of our viewing and that's for an extra £100 per month. Um no thanks.
£100 per month is £1200 per year, the cost of an OLED every year, not UHD just an 'out of date' 1080, that displays 99% of what I watch at it's best. Those figures assume you already have and pay for, high speed broadband, assuming you can get it. You need that to stream all that UHD data after all. there are still fairly large geographical parts of the UK that can't get high spend broadband or SKY/Cable too well, ask large parts of Cornwall or Cumbria for instance.
That maths doesn't even include the cost of a UHD player and discs nor, buying a new AV amp.
The £1150 I spent on my 910V was a bargain in that context. I can buy a UHD TV in a few years time when the content both in terms of breadth and cost are better, then 910v can go upstairs in my(wo)man cave
Future proofing: is that really about HDMI or HDR standards? How long have the BBC been rumoured to be launching a 4k channel and still nothing on the horizon. Within 12 months of the first full 1080 consumer plasmas being in shops, for an extra £10 a month on my Sky package, i was watching 50% of my non sport/non movie TV viewing in HD on my First gen full HD Panny plasma. So i am no Luddite, very early HD adopter.
How long have 4 k TVs been available? How much content TV programing wise is out there, not a lot in comparison. This is because HD was broadcaster led ( a way to standardize global TV formats) , 4K is TV manufacturer led. Then there is bandwidth, of the airwaves type, half of free-view/broadcast TV is still in SD and too many of the so called HD channels are heavily compressed, not enough room out there.
I totally agree with what you have said in this thread, with a big caveat. It's the 21st century, a TV isn't just a telly, it's that big screen home cinema display for the movie buff or the huge sport fan, it's a display for the gamer. For those people, UHD is something they can enjoy now and will have more of in the next few years and is worth investing in.