4K Televisions

[zameerisgreat]

When are these sets finally going to be available? There were prototypes at the CES this year and Panasonic showed off working examples of plasma's with 3840 x 2160 resolution to japanese journalists at a privately organised event in japan. This was last year. With manufacturers releasing their high end models into the market early this year as opposed to year end releases, i suppose they plan to introduce 4k sets at the IFA show in sept. Can WHF provide any info on this ???

Also, would these televisions be accompanied by blu-ray players able to output native 4k resolution signals or would they only upscale Full HD to 4k. With the advent of high capacity bluray discs, i am sure the format can provide full length movies shot at 4k on a single disc.

Anything on this, WHF ? Please....

 

[Andrew Everard]

We have no knowledge of planned product introductions at the moment. 4K TVs and projectors have been shown for many years as prototypes and technology products, but it's unlikely TVs will start to appear until there are either source components or broadcasts available to exploit them.

And while at least one manufacturer has started to sell AV receivers with 4K upscaling, there's been no news as yet about players able to deliver this quality in native form, or broadcasts. NHK in Japan is leading the technology in this respect, and has been doing some work with other broadcasters worldwide (including the BBC), but as yet there are no firm plans for the launch of such a service.

 

[TKratz]

And I will have to ask, once again, what is the point in 4K?

At least on TVs I do not see what we need 4K for. Screen sizes are simply too small to detect any difference compared to 1080p (at least at normal viewing distances). On projectors it could make a difference. I am talking about the big ones in the Cinemas, not so much the ones you got at home.

So far I have only watch one movie in 4K (Salt). I wasn't overly impressed, and didn't find it much of an improvement. I guess the screen is still too small to really show. It was a medium sized cinema rather than one of the biggest around.

There are so many areas there can still be improved on TVs, but resolution is not one of them in my opinion. The focus is wrong.

 

[micks_address]

i think one of the main drivers for 4k tvs will be glasses free 3d.. if they can up the resolution enough.. then its easier to get glasses free 3d to work.. i dont see a need for anything higher that 1080 on consumer sets less than 50".. would you be able to perceive the difference?

 

[daveloc]

And I will have to ask, once again, what is the point in 4K?

At least on TVs I do not see what we need 4K for. Screen sizes are simply too small to detect any difference compared to 1080p (at least at normal viewing distances). [...]

There are so many areas there can still be improved on TVs, but resolution is not one of them in my opinion. The focus is wrong.

Absolutely; once you reach the point where a pixel is smaller than about one minute of arc at standard viewing distance http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper092.shtml, there's no value in still smaller ones.

[Memo to BBC: of course, you still have to keep the bitrates of your MPEG2/4 lossy-encoded transmissions up to the level where enough data can be recovered to fill the pixels properly]

Even if the reason for ever-bigger numbers is that ever-bigger numbers can be "sold" to people who still think bigger must always be better, the whole TV panel arms race is a bizarre contrast with audio, which has been stuck at CD data-rates below equivalent audio perception thresholds, for quarter of a century...

 

[TKratz]

And I will have to ask, once again, what is the point in 4K?

At least on TVs I do not see what we need 4K for. Screen sizes are simply too small to detect any difference compared to 1080p (at least at normal viewing distances). [...]

There are so many areas there can still be improved on TVs, but resolution is not one of them in my opinion. The focus is wrong.

Absolutely; once you reach the point where a pixel is smaller than about one minute of arc at standard viewing distance http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper092.shtml, there's no value in still smaller ones.

[Memo to BBC: of course, you still have to keep the bitrates of your MPEG2/4 lossy-encoded transmissions up to the level where enough data can be recovered to fill the pixels properly]

Even if the reason for ever-bigger numbers is that ever-bigger numbers can be "sold" to people who still think bigger must always be better, the whole TV panel arms race is a bizarre contrast with audio, which has been stuck at CD data-rates below equivalent audio perception thresholds, for quarter of a century...

Well put! Couldn't have said this better myself, and I fully agree!

And yes, the bitrate is a far more important point. We are also strugling with poor bitrates in Denmark.

 

[6th.replicant]

And there's already a 5K camera, the Red Epic, which Peter Jackson and Ridley Scott are using to shoot The Hobbit and Prometheus, respectively.

Some Red Epic 5K 96fps footage:

http://vimeo.com/20807374

 

[zameerisgreat]

And I will have to ask, once again, what is the point in 4K?

At least on TVs I do not see what we need 4K for. Screen sizes are simply too small to detect any difference compared to 1080p (at least at normal viewing distances). On projectors it could make a difference. I am talking about the big ones in the Cinemas, not so much the ones you got at home.

So far I have only watch one movie in 4K (Salt). I wasn't overly impressed, and didn't find it much of an improvement. I guess the screen is still too small to really show. It was a medium sized cinema rather than one of the biggest around.

There are so many areas there can still be improved on TVs, but resolution is not one of them in my opinion. The focus is wrong.

 

[zameerisgreat]

Okay. Maybe 4k does not make sense but try telling that to sharp which has developed an 85" LCD Display which is capable of displaying 8K (7,680 x 4,320) resolution for which the native content is provided by NHK of japan. They claim it delivers super sharp pictures. Last year, Samsung and LG showed off 4K sets ( U-D sets as they dubbed them) at the FPD show in Japan and side by side comparisons with Full HD displays of the same size showed the higher res sets to display marginally sharper and far more stable images.
I dont know about BBC's pixel theories but 4k panels are definately on the horizon. Further proof being that Mitsubishi, which is a popular lcd manufacturer in japan has developed a high quality chipset, which is capable of upscaling content of any resolution to 4K with demonstrably great results and this will probably feature in future sets of many other brands... Maybe

 

[Anonymous]

it seems logical that 4k or higher res tv's are going to be pointless at your average consumer size, but i bet given the choice in the future between a paltry 1080p set and an uber high res one for a premium, many will pay the piper...

 

[chrisup]

I think more people would be intersted in 4K televisions rather than 3D TVs with glasses. Might show how good your blueray player is and how good the transfer to blueray the discs are.

 

[The_Lhc]

You're missing the marketing opportunity, the next generation of digital cinema filming and projection is 4k, so it'll be sold as being even better than 1080/24p as the resolution will be the same as the director intended as well as the frame rate.

 

[Paul.]

I think for current use, 4k is a little pointless. But, as the way we use our electrical equipment changes so will our needs. If you decided to use current TV's at arms length for example, the image quality is really really bad. If we wanted to go all minority report with our displays, 4k and up would be essential.

 

[Anonymous]

I think for current use, 4k is a little pointless. But, as the way we use our electrical equipment changes so will our needs. If you decided to use current TV's at arms length for example, the image quality is really really bad. If we wanted to go all minority report with our displays, 4k and up would be essential.

that there is a good point..

 

[TKratz]

I think for current use, 4k is a little pointless. But, as the way we use our electrical equipment changes so will our needs. If you decided to use current TV's at arms length for example, the image quality is really really bad. If we wanted to go all minority report with our displays, 4k and up would be essential.

And why would you want to use a TV at arms length? Unless of course you use it as a computer monitor.
Maybe I am just being unimaginative, but I still do not see the point (except from the marketing point, but that doesn't count).

 

[bigboss]

If a 200-megapixel camera can be released (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2385933,00.asp), there's no reason why a 4K, 8K or even 16K television won't come in the near future.

 

[daveloc]

Here's a quick calculation based on the BBC analysis I mentioned above: assuming that the eye can't resolve less than about one minute of arc, for a viewing distance of d metres, you can't see the pixels on a 1080p panel whose diagonal is less than about 25d inches. [p=2d*tan(1/120), times screen res, diagonal by Pythagoras, convert to imperial]

For a 720p or 4K panel, that's 17d inches and 50d inches respectively. Reversing this, you can't see the pixels on a 37" 1080p panel more than about 1.5m away, or on a 42" 1080p panel more than about 1.7m away. At what the BBC thinks is the median UK viewing distance of 2.7m, you'd need a 68" 1080p panel, or a 4K panel with a 12 feet diagonal, to see the pixels. Even in a cinema with a 100' diagonal screen, 4K is solid at 20m.

Very similar results, including graphics and even Java animations, can be found on a number of AV websites I'm not allowed to link. The ITU recommendation for 1080p (3x vertical height of screen) yields almost the same numbers.

Going the other way, of course pixel densities (not counts) need to increase to maintain resolution on devices viewed close up like computer monitors, tablets, and phones, but we're already hitting the "Retina Display" limit there too

But irrespective of such hard facts, there are always people who will want higher and higher numbers and smaller and smaller pixels just because they can have them; I believe The Emperor's New Clothes had a terrific thread count too.

 

[robjcooper]

I think more people would be intersted in 4K televisions rather than 3D TVs with glasses. Might show how good your blueray player is and how good the transfer to blueray the discs are.

Considering that blu-ray is compressed 1080 footage (which is give or take a bit is 2K), then what you'll be seeing is how good the upscaling of a 4K set is.

 

[zameerisgreat]

You are right, Daveloc. Stuffing too many pixels in a panel would not translate to a better picture. For any given resolution, ideal screen size and correct viewing distance are important to percieve additional detail.

But i still want my 4K TV.

 

[TKratz]

But irrespective of such hard facts, there are always people who will want higher and higher numbers and smaller and smaller pixels just because they can have them; I believe The Emperor's New Clothes had a terrific thread count too.

Indeed. As you might have noticed many people can't really worry about unimportant things like facts...
Belief if far more important! (I see a difference, and therefore there must be a difference)

 

[chrisup]

Considering that blu-ray is compressed 1080 footage (which is give or take a bit is 2K), then what you'll be seeing is how good the upscaling of a 4K set is.

Or as I said how good the blueray transfer is? I was being succint and am well aware 1920 x 1080 = 2.07 K. Have n't you seen a bad transfer of a film?

 

[TnA200]

Guess they're coming sooner rather than later... just hope the prices are nearer sky high, than astronomical!

 

[Slooper]

I was having a browse around my local Currys today and to my surprise they had the LG 4K ultra HD Tv on display. It was 84" and cost £22,500. I have ordered two of them. Joking aside, the picture quality the TV was displaying was phenominal, it looked so clear and vibrant. Even standing only about a couple of feet away the picture was still really clear and sharp. Very impressive stuff :O