• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

4k not impressed

maverick177uk

Distinguished Member
I went to the Gadget Show live and saw both a JVC PJ showing Revenge of the Sith and I believe a Sony TV both showing a 4k picture and I really couldn't see what all the fuss was about. I don't think it's a great improvement over HD, as HD was to SD, I just think its yet another gimmick to try and flog TVs. Now I'm the most ardent adopter of new tech but I think we are getting to the stage in the home were both sound and picture you need a dedicate room to get the most from it, I just don't think in an ordinary living space that you will get any benefit from these new advancements. Maybe it's just me, maybe my eyesight and hearing are getting bad (they aren't ;)) I don't really see we're they go from here now, Super Super HD!! I've not converted to 3D as I think many conversions are bad and until I can watch it without glasses I can't be bothered, my dads had a set for 2 years now and we don't even bother watching the football in it anymore, in fact I don't hear SKY pushing it as much these days either.
 

ovbg

Active Member
4K will come into it's own when you own an 85" television or larger - or of course large projections.

4K on a 55" TV will simply only be of value to pixel-peepers, but I think the majority will not really notice the difference.

There is an 85incher in Saturn (Frankfurt) where it shows 4K videos and they look stunning on that large screen. Once when I walked past I noticed the picture was all of a sudden very lame, and it turned out they were just running an HD video on the big screen. So I really do think on the larger screens it will make a big difference.

The fact we can't afford these giant screens right now is a different story, but they will come down in price. It was only a decade ago that a 32" screen was considered beyond most people's budget.

3D is completely different, and for me that will have little use until it is glasses free and the video quality is as high as a 2D image.
 

next010

Distinguished Member
If it 4K needs 60"+ TV's to make any headway then the TV companies pinning their hopes on 4K for a reversal of fortunes are doomed.

4K sounds a lot like 3D, companies desperate to latch onto any fad to try and maintain interest.
 

ovbg

Active Member
That is a very good point, though many may have asked the same question 10 years ago. Back then, it was unheard of to have a TV larger than 32 inches, and people did say that if HD relied on such impossible to imagine TV's 40 inches or larger then it also is a doomed format.

Now, we are talking crazing situations where even smart phones are advertising HD screens!

3D was still different in that it was a totally incomplete technology. It was pushed for sales, and people fell for it. It's incomplete because the video quality is still so poor (worse than 2D) and we need silly glasses.

The difference with 4K is that the video quality is not poor. It is excellent and better than HD. Granted, you will need a bigger screen to tell that difference, but we needed this with HD when it came out as well.

People will have these bigger screens in the future, even if it is just high end projection models. And then people will notice the difference between HD and 4K.

Anyway, that's my prediction. I can be wrong as well ;)
 

Jason Shouler

Active Member
I've not converted to 3D as I think many conversions are bad and until I can watch it without glasses I can't be bothered, my dads had a set for 2 years now and we don't even bother watching the football in it anymore, in fact I don't hear SKY pushing it as much these days either.
That seems a strange comment for someone who says they like to adopt new technology :confused:

3D technology is well proven & established and many people have now been enjoying it for years.

Granted there's plenty of rubbish produced in 3D (I'm talking content here) but good productions can look simply superb.
 
Last edited:

celsius

Active Member
I disagree with SOME people saying that 3D era has died.
It is here and is still going.
I do not see much improvement required with present technology.
Glasses free 3D is of course the next step but I for one do not think it will succeed because the market is so small (expensive, shortcomings).
Present 3D technology is almost mature and common with few problems and that is why less and less people are talking about it.
 

ovbg

Active Member
Good points, but I am going to disagree with you for the following reason. Outside of forums, I have never actually met a living human who still watches 3D at home. Sure a couple tried it out when they bought their new TVs. But now that is done and dusted, the phase is over. Granted, some still go to see 3D films in the cinema, but again, that is different.

On the other hand, nearly everyone I know and meet in person watches HD TV every day (Including, bless him, my father who is so old he doesn't even realize he is watching HD). Of course it helps that there are normal broadcast channels in HD, Blu-Rays and even streaming from sources like the iPlayer, Netflix, LoveFilm, Hulu etc all comes in HD - but that is also a byproduct of the success of HD.

3D (with glasses) was a fad in the 1950's, the 1960's, the 1980's and in the mid noughties. It has only dragged on this time because people finally had the chance to watch it at home, and some people, after investing so much money, have trouble stopping as they really want to get their money's worth.

I don't doubt you really love it - and that's great. The world is always a better place when people enjoy non-mainstream things. But seriously, as long as there are glasses, it just will never take off.

Hell... outside of testing 3D, I have never (ever) just walked into a room and seen someone actually (and really) wearing glasses to watch 3D TV.

I'll probably get a lot of people disagreeing with me here, as this is technically a forum where people who actually use (and enjoy) 3D television congregate, so in order to not reap the wrath of hundreds of 3D TV lovers, I raise my gin and tonic to you all :)
 
Last edited:

Knockster

Standard Member
Just viewed an 84 inch Sony one today, all I can say was absolutely stunning, even SD looked good on it!

But the demo running had unbelievable detail, just out of my price range at 25k though!
 

celsius

Active Member
Affordable or otherwise, how many people can accomodate such large screen in their homes?

It is not for commonners, at least not for a few years.
 

ArmitageShanks

Well-known Member
I just don't understand the anti-glasses argument when it comes to 3D. Do these same people bitch and moan when they put on sunglasses?? I'm a regular glasses-wearer, and having to wear two pairs of glasses is probably a bigger inconvenience to me than most. But guess what: I can happily put up with it for a couple of hours to enjoy a 3D film!

Glasses-free/autostereoscopic technologies have so far proven to have more drawbacks in terms of picture quality and viewing position than wearing a simple pair of glasses. So I'll gladly stick with the 3D glasses until something much better comes along (highly unlikely...unless they figure out how to get holography into our homes).
 

Smith2004

Well-known Member
Even though 4K/Ultra HD will undoubtedly be more effective at large sizes, I reckon that in ten years time, or possibly less, most sets from 32in upwards (and probably most sizes below this also) will be 4K. Puttiing a '4K' sticker on a set - even smaller sets - will tempt more people to upgrade. Of course this all depends on the price of panels falling to today's HD levels, but if they do I'm sure manufacturers won't miss a trick to shift more sets, no matter the actual size.
 

silent ninja

Suspended
I'm looking at getting a 37" TV at the moment. It's pretty funny how if you read through lots of Amazon customer reviews, very few mention BLURAY quality on the respective TV set. The average Joe goes on about Freeview this, SD that and "it's so much better than my last set" which was probably 5 years old. I'm surprised how bluray still hasn't penetrated as much as DVD. The difference is night and day and it's just hilarious how people buy these top specced televisions and aren't getting anywhere near enough out of them. My brother has a 46" HD TV that dominates his room and he's had it 4 years. Only this week did he get a bluray player and that's only because I was chucking it out due to purchasing a new Sony BR player for myself. Kinda sums up my thoughts.

So 4K? I don't think so. Only for enthusiasts who live in mansions (i.e. not many people).
 

Greg Hook

Moderator & Reviewer
I went to the Gadget Show live and saw both a JVC PJ showing Revenge of the Sith showing a 4k picture

I saw that demo too and was decidedly unimpressed. BUT, I'm not sure if you noticed but the playback was just from a standard Blu-ray at 1080P. When the playback started, that's what it briefly said in the corner of the screen, so I'm not even sure they had it setup correctly. When the few minutes demo was done everyone left the room in silence as if to say 'what a load of crap'. No one said WOW, or that was amazing etc. They could at least have found a 4K demo to show on it. :thumbsdow
 

QuestShield

Distinguished Member
I just don't understand the anti-glasses argument when it comes to 3D. Do these same people bitch and moan when they put on sunglasses?? I'm a regular glasses-wearer, and having to wear two pairs of glasses is probably a bigger inconvenience to me than most. But guess what: I can happily put up with it for a couple of hours to enjoy a 3D film!

I'm not anti-3D by any means, but there is a difference between wearing sunglasses and active 3D glasses! Certainly my eyes or brain don't particularly like me wearing those active glasses, due to the flickering effect, which can induce headaches or certain uncomfortable feeling around the eyes. Now my wife who also wears regular glasses like yourself has completely gone off the whole wearing the 3D glasses. She loved the 3D at the beginning and now couldn't be much bothered with it. There is also the possibility of your glasses battery discharging mid-movie. And I suppose the general feeling that sunglasses are for outside use to protect your eyes from the sun, whereas 3D glasses are being used indoors sitting on a couch watching a movie. It's a state of mind for a lot of people.
 

boksbox

Active Member
That is a very good point, though many may have asked the same question 10 years ago. Back then, it was unheard of to have a TV larger than 32 inches, and people did say that if HD relied on such impossible to imagine TV's 40 inches or larger then it also is a doomed format.

Now, we are talking crazing situations where even smart phones are advertising HD screens!

3D was still different in that it was a totally incomplete technology. It was pushed for sales, and people fell for it. It's incomplete because the video quality is still so poor (worse than 2D) and we need silly glasses.

The difference with 4K is that the video quality is not poor. It is excellent and better than HD. Granted, you will need a bigger screen to tell that difference, but we needed this with HD when it came out as well.

People will have these bigger screens in the future, even if it is just high end projection models. And then people will notice the difference between HD and 4K.

Anyway, that's my prediction. I can be wrong as well ;)

Be interesting to see if you do but on surveys on these forums it seems that most people don't go above 42"
 

neiljones

Active Member
The very limited publicity or information provided by television manufacturers leaves a lot to be desired.
Philips and Sony are obviously not the players they used to be.
Why their failure ?
John Lewis have no knowledge of the release dates or specifications of the new products. A recent check with them reveal that they will not be selling the large screen versions of the new hi spec televisions.
If the sets are not available the quality of the pictures are academic.
 

Greg Hook

Moderator & Reviewer
The very limited publicity or information provided by television manufacturers leaves a lot to be desired.
Philips and Sony are obviously not the players they used to be.
Why their failure ?
John Lewis have no knowledge of the release dates or specifications of the new products. A recent check with them reveal that they will not be selling the large screen versions of the new hi spec televisions.
If the sets are not available the quality of the pictures are academic.

To be fair if you bought a 4K TV now, what 4K content would you be able to view on it? Nothing. So why should the manufacturers in this country be trying to push them? John Lewis certainly aren't going to stock anything that won't sell. It's like selling Blu-ray players but there not actually being able Blu-rays to play on them.

The sales guys will have a hard time trying to sell something you can't actually get the best out of.
 

Phil Hinton

Editor
Staff member
They could at least have found a 4K demo to show on it. :thumbsdow

It doesn't take a 4K signal, as, it is not a 4K projector. It has eShift2 technology which doubles the pixel count, but it is not 4K.

BTW, talking about screen sizes. We had a closed door demo of two 22 inch monitors at CES 2012, one showing 1080p, one native 4K, both the same clip. From a reasonable viewing distance you could see the difference and detail. Don't write it off until you see it done correctly and with native material. Many said the same about HD. Plus it is not just resolution this time around, but possible extended colour gamuts and more.
 

Phil Hinton

Editor
Staff member
To be fair if you bought a 4K TV now, what 4K content would you be able to view on it? Nothing. So why should the manufacturers in this country be trying to push them?

How much HD material was available when HD sets came to market? The same?

Almost all content to start with was upscaled SD. The same will happen with 4K TV and content until there is a playback device and broadcast material. And that will happen quicker than people realise. 4K is here now, just in small numbers. 12 months time and we will have a different story to talk about with 4K.
 

Greg Hook

Moderator & Reviewer
It doesn't take a 4K signal, as, it is not a 4K projector. It has eShift2 technology which doubles the pixel count, but it is not 4K.

Yes, I found that out last week. It's not immediately clear even on their marketing literature. Unless like yourself you know about this sort of thing, to the casual reader it could be misleading.

Talking of 4K Projectors, this looks like a bargain (it was a skimlink added into your post):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-Projec...8&qid=1366892698&sr=8-1&keywords=4k+projector :D

How much HD material was available when HD sets came to market? The same?

They let you escape out of South Korea then? :D

It was about 2006 when HD-DVD took off (albeit just for two years) and in May 2006 Sky HD was launched (although Virgin were first to offer HD in Dec 2005). Obviously anyone who bought a HD TV before then would have had nothing native to view on it. Do you know when the first HD TVs were sold in the UK?

But Sky in particular with their HD service presumably caused an upsurge in HD TV sales, particularly in time for the World Cup in 2006.

I would imagine when Sky get on the 4K bandwagon then we will start to see more retailers getting in on the act. Major sporting events always see a surge in TV sales, so perhaps we might see 4K for the 2014 World Cup or is that too early?
 
Last edited:

Smith2004

Well-known Member
How much HD material was available when HD sets came to market? The same?

Almost all content to start with was upscaled SD. The same will happen with 4K TV and content until there is a playback device and broadcast material. And that will happen quicker than people realise. 4K is here now, just in small numbers. 12 months time and we will have a different story to talk about with 4K.

Completely agree with this. I bought my first Full HD set in late 2005, before HD-DVD, Blu-ray and SkyHD. For some months afterwards I used an upscaling DVD player or ran HD stuff from a PC, before getting SkyHD installed in Spring 2006. I think those who are lucky enough to be able to afford 4K will do something similar initially, after all 4k upscaling Blu-ray players are already available, and the scaling in the sets themselves is said to be quite effective. Regarding the take-up of 4K on a large scale, it all depends on price as well as the availability of 'proper' 4K material. But (hopefully) once Sky and other providers start to broadcast 4K channels things will start to accelerate. Next year is a World Cup year of course and I'm sure there'll be a big push from manufacturers and broadcasters for a greater take-up of 4K.
 

boksbox

Active Member
Phil Hinton said:
How much HD material was available when HD sets came to market? The same?

Almost all content to start with was upscaled SD. The same will happen with 4K TV and content until there is a playback device and broadcast material. And that will happen quicker than people realise. 4K is here now, just in small numbers. 12 months time and we will have a different story to talk about with 4K.

There was a lot of HD material about for demos though, not least because of the failed analogue systems, many events such as Wimbledon had been filmed in HD long before HD broadcasts became available in the UK.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Hisense U7H TV and T+A Solitaire T headphone reviews, AV/HiFi news plus, what is screen uniformity?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom