8K ?????

[Benedict_Arnold]

(The last Japanese Olympics were broadcast in 8K in Japan)

In 1964?

Classic

No offense to abacus

The Stealth fighters first exposed to the public in (or shortly after) Gulf War 1 are reputed to have first flown in 1977. Which probably accounts for a lot of what went into the X-Files type nerds' heads of the 70s and 80s.

Who knows? Maybe Sony has / had a Skunkworks of its own that was broadcasting 8K back in 64 and is currently experimenting with 64MEG3D sumo wrestling holograms with added smellivision....

Okay. I'll get back to my Blakes Seven DVDs now....

 

[Alantiggger]

Really ?

Seems such an attacking answer, why ?

 

[Alantiggger]

The PROMISE from Sony was that my £200.00 blu-ray player was 'future-proof'd..... AND ABLE to PLAY 4K...... (it does not) this was lies, as it doesn't !

The Sony 790.... or similar, ALL LIES !

IT IS, still lies though !

I bought this £200.00 BluRay Player from Richards as IT PROMISED future ABILITY, which it cannot now do...... Sony OWE ME AND ANSWER TBH !

Nobody can promise a blu ray player being able to play 4K discs. It would have advertised 4K upscaling, which is totally different.

If I hadn';t swallowed the future-proof able to play 4K mvies, then NO WAY WOULD i HAVE EVER HAVE BOUGHT THIS 'PLAYER'..... NOT A CHANCE ! , none !

Yes bigboss, THIS IS WHAT SONY ADVERTISED UPON.

 

[bigboss]

The PROMISE from Sony was that my £200.00 blu-ray player was 'future-proof'd..... AND ABLE to PLAY 4K...... (it does not) this was lies, as it doesn't !

The Sony 790.... or similar, ALL LIES !

IT IS, still lies though !

I bought this £200.00 BluRay Player from Richards as IT PROMISED future ABILITY, which it cannot now do...... Sony OWE ME AND ANSWER TBH !

 

 

Nobody can promise a blu ray player being able to play 4K discs. It would have advertised 4K upscaling, which is totally different.

If I hadn';t swallowed the future-proof able to play 4K mvies, then NO WAY WOULD i HAVE EVER HAVE BOUGHT THIS 'PLAYER'..... NOT A CHANCE ! , none !

Yes bigboss, THIS IS WHAT SONY ADVERTISED UPON.

 

Can you find a link where Sony claimed this?

 

[bigboss]

If you check this review, the only claim Sony made was 4K upscaling:

https://www.whathifi.com/sony/bdp-s790/review

Nobody can claim compatibility with a format (4K blu ray) that didn't even exist then!

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

A lot of times it can be the retailer or their advertising company that misleads.

"4K upscaling" becomes just plain "4K". Either because the word "upscaling" isn't sexy enough, or it doesn't fit the page, or even, dare I say it, because a vendor is being deliberately misleading. Even Amazon (which is normally quite good at insisting on accuracy) sellers were doing this a while back.
Its a bit like when HDTVs first came out 10-15 years ago. A lot of 720p TV's were sold as "HD ready", which people took to mean they would get an HD picture, when in reality, 720p wasn't that much higher resolution, if at all, over the old 625 line PAL formats of yesteryear, and where 1080p signals actually got DOWNscaled for display.
Only thing I can say is "caveat emptor" (buyer beware) and always read the small print. If you happen to have the original ad you could try for a refund but it will be an uphill battle for sure.

 

[davidf]

...and where 1080p signals actually got DOWNscaled for display. Only thing I can say is "caveat emptor" (buyer beware) and always read the small print.

And this is exactly what’s going on in the projector market at the moment. Very few projectors are genuine, native 4K, and those that are, are normally around the £5,000 price point. Many projectors that sport the 4K or UHD logo may or may not accept a full Ultra HD signal. If it can, it will be downscaled to the native resolution of the chip it uses, and then “upscaled” by showing two images at the same time, one just shifted diagonally by a single pixel, effectively doubling the pixel count. It’s basically another type of upscaling. That’s not to say it doesn’t look good because it does, and it’ll generally look better than a 1080p projector, but you’re not getting the full benefit of genuine 4K.

It infuriates me to see projectors sporting a 4K or UHD logo only to find that it’s native resolution is around half that. I find this misleading, and because of the way information is being presented, it’s hard to find out the truth even if you know hat you’re looking for.

The main people that will fall foul of this are the bargain hunters. They just see “4K” and a price that’s several thousand pounds cheaper than somewhere else and think they’ve got a 4K bargain. More fool them to not seek proper advice. I’ve seen so many online conversation where people think they’ve got 4K projectors, and they haven’t. The industry is causing this, and mainly the manufacturers, because as I say, unless the way in which a particular projector works is explained to retailers, they themselves can be misled into thinking otherwise.

I saw a post on Facebook earlier this year where a retailer was promoting a particular manufacturer’s “4K” projector. It was nowhere near £5,000 so I had my suspicions. Someone piped up that it wasn’t genuine 4K (which is what I’d normally do), but the retailer hit back saying it was because of this that or the other. Further into the argument, they claimed they didn’t know it wasn’t, blaming the manufacturer, which is fair enough, that’s quite possible. But a month or so later, the same ad was running...

What you need to look out for is the NATIVE RESOLUTION of the chip it uses. It needs to be 4096 x 2160. If it is any less than that, it’ll be upscaling the 4K signal it receives, having already downscaled it.

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

Genuine 4k or "faux-K" its important to distinguish between the two. AFAIK only Sony is producing mainstream domestic genuine 4K PJ's right now.

Personally below 85 inch screen size I think you'll find a TV is cheaper by the time you add on the price of the screen, projector mount, super-long high quality HDMI cable (and high quality is needed because of the likely lengths and or 4K 30 or 60 fps, HDR, etc etc requirements). Then there's the cost of an electrical outlet in the ceiling, a conduit for the HDMI cable...

Here in the US the bottom end Sony 285 is US$5000 plus tax, and all the other stuff will easily set you back $1500. On the other hand an 85 inch Sony UHD HDR makes-the-tea-at-half-time X900F 4K TV can be had for under $5500. Last year's X850F for under faux-K (geddit?).

 

[MrReaper182]

About 4 years ago I asked on this site why upgrade to 4k when 8k is just around the corner. Bigboss was was also the first to comment on that post with much the same thing he said on yours and I do get where he is comming from but also I that 8k will be here soon and it will be bigger than 4k will. Teach moves at much to fast pase these days for me to keep up with

 

[davidf]

About 4 years ago I asked on this site why upgrade to 4k when 8k is just around the corner. Bigboss was was also the first to comment on that post with much the same thing he said on yours and I do get where he is comming from but also I that 8k will be here soon and it will be bigger than 4k will. Teach moves at much to fast pase these days for me to keep up with

I can’t see 8K becoming a big thing domestically. That’s not to say it won’t of course, as there always those out here who want the top of the range of anything, regardless of whether it actually convert any benefit for them. 8K will be pointless on the current sized TV sets that are being used, and to get it to run smoothly on broadband in the UK will take some serious compression. Compression is the enemy of higher resolutions - higher resolutions should also use less compression to really benefit from them.

 

[Sliced Bread]

I think you've got to be a bit of a mug to invest in 8k so soon anyway. Just look at how many HDMI and standard changes there were when HDREADY then 1080p then Full HD had, then several years later we had the same thing with the HDMI specs for 4k (which is still onging now we have 60 and 120 FPS round the corner).

No point in investing so early because by the time 8k material is here to watch you'll likely find your TV / Receiver cannot pass the full signal of the "standard-of-the-day anyway.

 

[jjbomber]

About 4 years ago I asked on this site why upgrade to 4k when 8k is just around the corner. Bigboss was was also the first to comment on that post with much the same thing he said on yours and I do get where he is comming from but also I that 8k will be here soon and it will be bigger than 4k will. Teach moves at much to fast pase these days for me to keep up with

But 4 years is a long time to sit on the sidelines. Just around a very big corner. When 8K comes out, people can then wait for 10K, or holograms etc.

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

^ Meh. Star Trek TNG holosuites or nowt!

 

[Deleted member 2457]

I think I can remember TVs being advertised as 4K even though it wasn’t exactly 4K because the HDMI inputs weren’t 4K, that was pretty shocking at the time, most people thought they were buying 4K TVs when all they were buying was a 4K screen. Same thing will probably happen with 8K TV. I know about not being able to keep track of all the improvemts, this year is the only year I haven’t upgraded since the Panasonic GT50 plasma, it’s just crazy the way TVs are at the moment with constant things being released.

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

"4K" TV's are actually 3840 x 2160, which is four times the old 1920 x 1080 resolution.

A full 4K picture is 4096 x 2180. So you're loosing a strip down each edge rather than any height. 4096-3840 is 256 pixels or 128 per side, or about 6% of the screen width, 3% per side.

Some PC's will display at full 4K resolution but not on a 3840 x 2160 screen obviously.

 

[Alantiggger]

I'm near SURE that my Sony Blu-Ray player info said that Mine COULD /WOULD be able to Play 4K disks ???

 

[Alantiggger]

"4K" TV's are actually 3840 x 2160, which is four times the old 1920 x 1080 resolution.

A full 4K picture is 4096 x 2180. So you're loosing a strip down each edge rather than any height. 4096-3840 is 256 pixels or 128 per side, or about 6% of the screen width, 3% per side.

Some PC's will display at full 4K resolution but not on a 3840 x 2160 screen obviously.

Four times 1920 is = 7680 AND 4 X 1080 IS EQUAL TO = 4230

4K is NOT .... 7680 x 4230 ?

 

[Diamond Joe]

Four times 1920 is = 7680 AND 4 X 1080 IS EQUAL TO = 4230

4K is NOT .... 7680 x 4230 ?

It's four times the total number of pixels, not the horizontal or vertical number.

I.e. 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels and 3840x2160 = 8,294,400 pixels, the latter is exactly 4x the former

 

[bigboss]

I'm near SURE that my Sony Blu-Ray player info said that Mine COULD /WOULD be able to Play 4K disks ???

Not possible. Sony S790 was released in January 2012. Ultra HD Blu-ray technology was licensed in mid 2015, and players had an expected release date of Christmas 2015, and the first 4K disc was released in March 2016. Nonody can promise compatibility of a technology whose standards hadn't even been set!

 

[Sliced Bread]

I think I can remember TVs being advertised as 4K even though it wasn’t exactly 4K because the HDMI inputs weren’t 4K, that was pretty shocking at the time, most people thought they were buying 4K TVs when all they were buying was a 4K screen. Same thing will probably happen with 8K TV. I know about not being able to keep track of all the improvemts, this year is the only year I haven’t upgraded since the Panasonic GT50 plasma, it’s just crazy the way TVs are at the moment with constant things being released.

Yes exactly. Best to wait until the spec is at least clear...and prices come down

 

[Alantiggger]

see here : https://www.whathifi.com/sony/bdp-s790/review

check the specs

This is as to WHY I myself Bought this actual Player tbh.

 

[bigboss]

That's what I'm saying. It only talks of 4K upscaling. It never said it could play a completely new format of 4K blu ray discs.

From the review:

"Sony BDP-S790: 4K support

4K, ultra high-definition is one of the hot topics at the moment, and the Sony can currently claim to be the only 4K upscaling player on the market. This means it can take a picture, be it standard definition or high-def, and output an image of 3840 x 2160 pixels to a compatible display."

It's another matter that the TVs themselves could upscale pictures to 4K, so this feature wasn't essential.