4K TVs.. waste of time?

[marioxb]

And guess what? This aint Einhander. Anyway, does anyone else think 4K and curved inward TVs are a waste? Personally, I don't think home TVs should look crisper/ "better" than movie theaters. I think theaters should be the end all, highest quality you can get. Plus, I already hate that "soap opera look" on regular HD tvs. It makes it look like a movie set, rather than an actual movie. I can't really even tell DVD from Blu Ray personally. But then I do wear contacts and am red/green color blind, meaning I can't see rainbows.

[larryinc64]

From a technical standpoint, almost nothing is shot in 4K resolution. All movies and TV shows are 1080p or lower currently, with probably a few expectations. Most game consoles are barely going at 1080p. I think some very powerful PCs can force 4K, but that's about it.

It's like 3D, it's useless. It may become the standard years from now, but 4K is only worth wile on huge TVs, hell 1080p is useless if the TV is small enough.

For a quick resolution lesson, the numbers represent the pixel height.

480p is 480 pixels tall, 1080p is 1080 pixels tall, 4K is around 4000 pixels tall. The higher the resolution, the smaller the pixels.

"p" or "i" represent interlaced of progressive.

If you can't tell DVD from Blu Ray, you do not need 4K.

[TDIRunner]

From a technical standpoint, almost nothing is shot in 4K resolution. All movies and TV shows are 1080p or lower currently, with probably a few expectations. Most game consoles are barely going at 1080p. I think some very powerful PCs can force 4K, but that's about it.

That was true when 1080p came out, and now it's just about standard.

It's like 3D, it's useless. It may become the standard years from now, but 4K is only worth wile on huge TVs, hell 1080p is useless if the TV is small enough.

Bolded part is key.  The same thing was true when HD first came out.  Before HD, 32" was about the largest TV you could get with a decent picture quality.  After HD, 44" was pretty much standard.  Now with 4K, even larger screens are possible without loosing quality.  It has a lot to do with how big of a TV you can fit in your living space. 

Like with any new technology, it's expensive to be an early adopter, especially since most media isn't in proper resolution to take full advantage.  But eventually, the prices come down.  At this point all that matters is whether or not it's worth it to you.

[KalessinDB]

Was just having this conversation earlier today.  It obviously depends on your biology since everyone's eyes are different, but in order for 4k to be truly worth it (this is of course assuming the content is 4k as well as the device), you need either a gigantic, room-filling TV (I personally find 40-50 inch to be perfectly large for the vast majority of houses built in the 70's-80's and before, more modern homes do often have larger rooms though) and/or you need to be sitting absurdly close to the television.  Various TV rating sites will post various charts, and consensus seems to be if you want to be sitting say 10 feet away from your set, you'd need a screen of approximately 78" to really make 4k worth it.

Me?  I don't want my TV to be 80" big, not by a long shot, and 10 feet away is pretty standard for me.  But other people may feel differently.

[Megatron]

Personally, I don't think home TVs should look crisper/ "better" than movie theaters. I think theaters should be the end all, highest quality you can get.

For me, theaters have always been crap pictures.  The IMAX ones are OK, but theaters are for SOUND.  Nothing compares to the epic boom of a good theater sound system, especially for films designed for it like Inception or Jurassic Park. 
As for picture, I remember seeing Man of Steel in Imax, NOT Imax 3d, and thinking this would look better on my TV at home.  Sure enough, it did. 
I like the crystal clear, 260 fps smoothness I get.  I like feeling like it's happening right in front of me.  That soap opera effect is called Image smoothing or something, and I love it - though that is a matter of taste.

However, for GAMES...I think 4k is a bit much right now until we get some hardware that can actually display it.  Now I have heard there are some PC games that do 4k, but I have yet to see anything like that. 

[Araden64]

4k just isn't practical right now, it'll take years for content to catch up to the resolution so you might as well wait it out till the prices lower for them.

As for curved TVs, never buy them, they are just a gimmick and don't do anything.  I a reading an article where they asked Sony reps at CES why they didn't have curved TVs and they flat out said they made and tested some and saw no difference compared to regular flat screens.

[Blumpkin]

Exactly, internet speeds and media storage devices are not to a point where 4K can be supported. I expect it to be a few years until a 4K tv has any kind of use in a household.

[sheep2001]

I have seen some 4K demo's, and they do look fantastic.  I like the vibrancy and crispness - the difference for me going from HD to 4K is as clear as going SD to HD.  But, and its a big but, there isn't enough content.  Current infrastructure is not good enough for true 4k streaming.  A few online services have some content, but they use a lot of compression - added to the fact my internet speed isn't good enough anyway.

I think it'll be a few years before we see any real reason to go 4k - and by that time, the models currently on sale will be outdated.  IMO Much better to spend the extra money on a better HD TV at the moment than to fork out for 4k, for the 3 times you'll use it over the next 24 months.

[marioxb]

It just seems like they want to keep getting "better". It will probably never end. One day it will be 16k...

[monjici]

Yeah. it's still a bit early to adopt it. Thought ISPs are getting ready for this. In my region I can now have 940 mbits/s with FTTH. At 150$/month, share it with your neighbour and it's quite affordable

I wonder how upscaled BD look like on these.

[Arseen]

Yeah currently only advance in 4K TVs is that you can see whole 300DPI UGC cover on screen once.

As for TV I'd buy something like this: http://www.lg.com/ae/tvs/lg-105UC9T Ultrawide "5K" TV... or similar resolution Video Projector.

[palmer6strings]

The only thing I have personally seen that captures 4K video/images right now is the new Go Pro Silver and Black. Which I'm trying to get because it would help my life out quite a bit. But most of the stuff I record will only be viewed on a computer anyway lol.

[sheep2001]

Yeah. it's still a bit early to adopt it. Thought ISPs are getting ready for this. In my region I can now have 940 mbits/s with FTTH. At 150$/month, share it with your neighbour and it's quite affordable

I wonder how upscaled BD look like on these.

I can't even get close to 9 - let alone 940!

[CrimsonEnigma]

From a technical standpoint, almost nothing is shot in 4K resolution. All movies and TV shows are 1080p or lower currently, with probably a few expectations. Most game consoles are barely going at 1080p. I think some very powerful PCs can force 4K, but that's about it.

While the second part is true, the first part is most certainly not. Film studios have been shooting films in 4K resolutions for years. Hell, some are done in higher resolution now.

For a quick resolution lesson, the numbers represent the pixel height.

480p is 480 pixels tall, 1080p is 1080 pixels tall, 4K is around 4000 pixels tall. The higher the resolution, the smaller the pixels.

This is no longer the case. It's true that the "480" in "480p" and "1080" in "1080p" referred to pixel height, but "4K" refers to video around 4,000 pixels wide (I say "around" because there's actually no agreed-upon standard - some say it's 3820 pixels wide, others say it's 4096, etc.).

One thing that is true is that there is very little 4K content available right now. Netflix has a few 4K streams...but they look worse than 1080p Blu Rays. Sony and Samsung have proprietary players that only work with their TVs (actually, Sony might've made one that works with other company's TVs, but most of their models are Sony-exclusive). PCs can play games at 4K resolution, but need some serious horsepower to do so. Thankfully, 4K Blu Ray discs (not "mastered in 4K" and downscaled to 1080p, but actually carrying full 4K resolution files for use in 4K players with 4K TVs) were just announced a few days ago, so the content gap should be solved quickly.

[TDIRunner]

This is no longer the case. It's true that the "480" in "480p" and "1080" in "1080p" referred to pixel height, but "4K" refers to video around 4,000 pixels wide (I say "around" because there's actually no agreed-upon standard - some say it's 3820 pixels wide, others say it's 4096, etc.).

Right.  They are just rounding it off now because 4096 just doesn't roll off the tongue.