Is 4K a game changer?

[jdw89]

Originally Posted by Firecrackker

Are we going to be seeing everything released in 4K? Is there really a huge difference for 50" TVs? I haven't really tried out 4K yet so I was wondering what some of you thought.

1. No
1. Not a big difference unless you are sitting 2 feet in front of your screen

[spectre08]

As for the earlier post about UHD being destined to fail because it's expensive to buy the new equipment:

This is a non-issue.

People have to buy new equipment eventually anyways, even if it's just normal replacement.

3-5 years from now every TV in stores over a certain size, maybe as low as 36", will be 4K. Their pricing will be no different than 1080p tvs were just a few years ago.

UHD players will probably go for a premium for a while, it may be as much as 5 years before we see one under $100, but eventually they'll be as common place as 3D blu-ray players are now.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by spectre08

As for the earlier post about UHD being destined to fail because it's expensive to buy the new equipment:

This is a non-issue.

To who? They're trying to get $500 for a player. You thing a family of four with kids in school are supporting this thing?


There will be little support for this format, with price 200% higher for players, and 100% higher for media. It may exist, but it is the same game we saw with first 2-D, then 3-D. Too high, not enough content, and limited return dependent on gushing reviews for people who don't give a hoot.

Originally Posted by spectre08

People have to buy new equipment eventually anyways, even if it's just normal replacement.

They can do that right now for under $100. You really think they will pay over $500?

Originally Posted by spectre08

3-5 years from now every TV in stores over a certain size, maybe as low as 36", will be 4K. Their pricing will be no different than 1080p tvs were just a few years ago.

In that time frame, I'll expect a significant size increase. We've gone from 42", to 52", to 60" being a "big size". Now it is 65". In five years, it will be 80" (my 70" is from 2003), but to see a large set running maybe $1500, followed by a seldom used player at a third of that cost, is simply not going to happen.


Bleeding edge types should eventually learn. If they don't, it's their money, no worries. I learned all along - got my first player in 2006 - which barely plays anything.


The howls will be soon, and obvious. It will come from the studios, the marketers, and yes - the public. Expect every display model in the mass market stores to be drenched in spit as soon as they show up.

Originally Posted by spectre08

UHD players will probably go for a premium for a while, it may be as much as 5 years before we see one under $100, but eventually they'll be as common place as 3D blu-ray players are now.

While Blu-Ray languishes at slightly over 20% of the market, that's not good new. I only have one television that can play 4K, out of five - and one of those is a Kuro. We are looking at a format change, not player sales, and it's not going to happen at $500 for a decent player.

[Talleyrand]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

I think you mean "as much a game changer as Blu-ray was"

****ing LOL @ Blu-ray aficionados talking shit about 4K... you guys are as bad as the DVD peasants back in 2006 complaining about how "we don't need Blu-ray! DVD is JUST fine!"

Lol. Hate to say it bro, but not only was DVD fine back in 2006, it is still fine now.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by spectre08

3-5 years from now every TV in stores over a certain size, maybe as low as 36", will be 4K. Their pricing will be no different than 1080p tvs were just a few years ago.

I think you're overly bleak there. People on my twitter feed currently shooting music videos in 4k for sharing, mainly, on mobiles and Ipads and whatever else the youth use. It's currently very much a thing.

I keep seeing the same arguments here I did when BD first came out which seems to be - it's not going to appeal to a great many people and there's no real need for it. My life is full of things that don't appeal to a great deal of people and for which there's not a real need for and it's pretty sweet.

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by KRW1

I keep seeing the same arguments here I did when BD first came out which seems to be - it's not going to appeal to a great many people and there's no real need for it. My life is full of things that don't appeal to a great deal of people and for which there's not a real need for and it's pretty sweet.

I agree. Who wants to share a common interest with the great unwashed masses? How ghastly.

[shireguy]

Originally Posted by spectre08

As for the earlier post about UHD being destined to fail because it's expensive to buy the new equipment:

This is a non-issue.


UHD players will probably go for a premium for a while, it may be as much as 5 years before we see one under $100, but eventually they'll be as common place as 3D blu-ray players are now

and we can't wait til 4K discs will be as 'common place' as Blu-ray discs are at Walmart

then of course we'll be hanging out for Wallymart's 4K 'dump / budget' baskets - next to the DVD and Blu ones !! (oh.. and the Blu ones are only in 'higher income' areas - learn't that lesson on my travels)

Methinks that some people on this forum 'need' to go out shopping, get away from their PCs, and witness what consumers are buying, and what stock there is (and this is from an Aussie whom frequently comes to the US specifically for Blu discs.. and has come away disappointed !)

Your overpriced Best Buy stores can stock as much 4K stuff as they like - IMO unless these discs are MUCH cheaper than DVD, then it will go nowhere.

[truelies]

Don't think so, you can't see the difference if the TV is less than 80". I suspect UHD 4k will as popular as DVD and Blu ray.

[katiehlvr2]

Originally Posted by truelies

Don't think so, you can't see the difference if the TV is less than 80". I suspect UHD 4k will as popular as DVD and Blu ray.

I totally disagree. I have a 60 inch vizio 4k p series. I sit 8 feet away. Ive only watched 4k content from amazon and I can tell a huge difference.
I will be in line for the physical media no questions asked.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by shireguy

Methinks that some people on this forum 'need' to go out shopping, get away from their PCs, and witness what consumers are buying, and what stock there is (and this is from an Aussie whom frequently comes to the US specifically for Blu discs.. and has come away disappointed !)

That's often a common sentiment, but over Xmas in my local shopping centre I saw people cooing over a 4k display, visiting santa and buying sausages in the German Xmas Market.

Not sure what sort of lesson you can get from that but I do know I've not seen a large bluray section in any type of store for years. There's no JB Hi Fi or Best Buy* for us in the UK yet I can still buy vinyl, bluray and all sorts of 'obsolete' things with the greatest of ease and without having to visit another continent in person.

*We did have Best Buy for about 12 months but it was an absolute disaster for them. We just don't go shopping for stuff like that in the UK anymore not when there's the internet.

[Geoff D]

Continental markets are AWESOME. I usually buy so much processed meat I could open my own butchers, and the cheese stalls always take a hammering from me too.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Continental markets are AWESOME. I usually buy so much processed meat I could open my own butchers, and the cheese stalls always take a hammering from me too.

I get a middle-class mugging whenever I go past one too. "Go on, take all my money"

[renegadeviking]

Originally Posted by shireguy

and we can't wait til 4K discs will be as 'common place' as Blu-ray discs are at Walmart

then of course we'll be hanging out for Wallymart's 4K 'dump / budget' baskets - next to the DVD and Blu ones !! (oh.. and the Blu ones are only in 'higher income' areas - learn't that lesson on my travels)

Methinks that some people on this forum 'need' to go out shopping, get away from their PCs, and witness what consumers are buying, and what stock there is (and this is from an Aussie whom frequently comes to the US specifically for Blu discs.. and has come away disappointed !)

Your overpriced Best Buy stores can stock as much 4K stuff as they like - IMO unless these discs are MUCH cheaper than DVD, then it will go nowhere.

I read alot of Best Buy bankruptcy articles and I believe that bluray UHD is expensive. Its do better than HD-DVD, but it won't have the 10 year lifespan that bluray had. I still buy DVDs.

[ray0414]

I keep forgetting to share these pictures. i recommend saving them so you can make them larger and put them up side by side to compare.

but this is 4k vs 4k HDR. so they are BOTH 4k, yet extremely different!

Notice HDR has richer color, more depth, more dimension, better details in the background.

The texture of the smurfs face has lot more detail, and the grooves of his face has dimension and curves, giving it a more 3D look. The first time you see it, it's just insane looking.

the blue is incredible vibrant, look at the detail of the eyes and vibrancy of blue iris. 4k good, but HDR is the real game changer.

[C. Anton]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Correct. Hdr is a grading technique that uses expanded colors and you get brighter highlights and better black levels, a very basic explanation.

Here's an update, I bought a 43" Vizio 4K and the picture certainly looks better, now whether that's because the Toshiba I've been using is just an okay 1080p, I don't know. Bluray looks amazing on the new SamsungBDP, and even DVDs look great. The other night I watched The Fountainhead DVD and couldn't believe the quality of picture. It may all be in my head though, because nothing I've watched is 4K or remastered. Don't care, I'm happy with the purchase.

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Correct. Hdr is a grading technique that uses expanded colors and you get brighter highlights and better black levels

This is a bit misleading, the black level depends entirely on the display and has nothing to do with it or the content being HDR or not. And this is one thing that annoys me about HDR.

The most exciting thing for me right now is not UHD content or HDR or expanded colors but OLED and I am anxiously waiting for the technology to mature and prices to come down.

I want LCD to die quickly so I can finally be rid of terrible viewing angles, poor black levels, bleeding backlight and all the various half-baked, fluctuating backlight control measures that are needed to get a decent picture (and still I can hardly even watch black and white content on my TV because the viewing angles and backlight control completely screw up the greyscale.)

Unfortunately HDR marketing is pushing on the maximum brightness output where LCD has the edge (nevermind that the black levels are probably going to be crap near any brighter object), which means the shift to OLED is going to be even more needlessly drawn out.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

This is a bit misleading, the black level depends entirely on the display and has nothing to do with it or the content being HDR or not. And this is one thing that annoys me about HDR.

The most exciting thing for me right now is not UHD content or HDR or expanded colors but OLED and I am anxiously waiting for the technology to mature and prices to come down.

I want LCD to die quickly so I can finally be rid of terrible viewing angles, poor black levels, bleeding backlight and all the various half-baked, fluctuating backlight control measures that are needed to get a decent picture (and still I can hardly even watch black and white content on my TV because the viewing angles and backlight control completely screw up the greyscale.)

Unfortunately HDR marketing is pushing on the maximum brightness output where LCD has the edge (nevermind that the black levels are probably going to be crap near any brighter object), which means the shift to OLED is going to be even more needlessly drawn out.

OLED needs way more time to mature

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

This is a bit misleading, the black level depends entirely on the display and has nothing to do with it or the content being HDR or not. And this is one thing that annoys me about HDR.

The most exciting thing for me right now is not UHD content or HDR or expanded colors but OLED and I am anxiously waiting for the technology to mature and prices to come down.

I want LCD to die quickly so I can finally be rid of terrible viewing angles, poor black levels, bleeding backlight and all the various half-baked, fluctuating backlight control measures that are needed to get a decent picture (and still I can hardly even watch black and white content on my TV because the viewing angles and backlight control completely screw up the greyscale.)

Unfortunately HDR marketing is pushing on the maximum brightness output where LCD has the edge (nevermind that the black levels are probably going to be crap near any brighter object), which means the shift to OLED is going to be even more needlessly drawn out.

The funny thing is the kuro nearly meets the lowest standard for black level for HDR. Haha. Actually, tweaked kuros do get to 0.0001ftl. Normal levels are 0.001 to 0.0005. Crazy.


I was wondering how are most LCD's going to meet this when their mll still isn't that good. I guess that's why it list both 0.05 and 0.0005 nits as a requirement.


I want OLED too. But i don't want to by from LG and while it's still new.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

This is a bit misleading, the black level depends entirely on the display and has nothing to do with it or the content being HDR or not. And this is one thing that annoys me about HDR.

The most exciting thing for me right now is not UHD content or HDR or expanded colors but OLED and I am anxiously waiting for the technology to mature and prices to come down.

I want LCD to die quickly so I can finally be rid of terrible viewing angles, poor black levels, bleeding backlight and all the various half-baked, fluctuating backlight control measures that are needed to get a decent picture (and still I can hardly even watch black and white content on my TV because the viewing angles and backlight control completely screw up the greyscale.)

Unfortunately HDR marketing is pushing on the maximum brightness output where LCD has the edge (nevermind that the black levels are probably going to be crap near any brighter object), which means the shift to OLED is going to be even more needlessly drawn out.

I do not find it misleading. the black levels ARE better with HDR content. Im not talking about uniformity blacks. but actual black levels that outline the picture and objects.

here are some pictures that i took comparing SDR to HDR with "the man in the high castle" on amazon. the blacks ARE blacker.

-the boat, obviously has a darker black. dont be confused by the appearance of lost detail, its still there in person.

-in the 2nd picture, you can see the stronger blacks all over the place. look at all the boarders of the signs/windows. this gives the overall picture a much stronger presence

please save the pictures and put them side by side to really see the differences and keep in mind that when viewing on an SDR monitor it wont be very accurate but does give you a "ballpark" of the differences.

I kept the "color saturation" at the same level for all the pictures just to show how big the difference is with the same settings. I can actually turn the color saturation down over 10 notches, and it still has more color and better definition and the "blacks" stay the same.

[dvdmike]

Pics off TV.....