Real 4k disks - what do you think the rollout timeline will be?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Keep in mind that just because a bigger TV will "fit" (because it's going on a wall and there's almost always plenty of wall space), doesn't mean that the average person will necessarily want a bigger TV (either for aesthetics or viewing preference). Although average TV sizes are continuing to grow, they will be constrained by the four walls it will be viewed. Not everybody is comfortable sitting inside a 1.5:1 seating distance to display size ratio.

Of course 4K is perfect for those with HT rooms and those who do enjoy large displays, and getting that "immersive" experience akin to sitting in the first few rows of a movie theater.

We shall see.

[AmishParadise]

Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove

Do they sell this model without speakers? Seriously, anyone that can afford one of these sets certainly is going to have an audio system in place already. Find it crazy that someone would spend that much money on the picture and ever have the need/want to use the built-in speakers. Think the set would look much better without them.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by cds1834

Do they sell this model without speakers? Seriously, anyone that can afford one of these sets certainly is going to have an audio system in place already. Find it crazy that someone would spend that much money on the picture and ever have the need/want to use the built-in speakers. Think the set would look much better without them.

I respect your views on the design of the TV, but as the owner of the 55" version of that set AND a nice 5.1 system, I can tell you that I love the speakers because they sound great. I don't have (nor do I want to have) my 5.1 system on all of the time, and the TV does a good job of providing quality audio and a VERY respectable faux-surround effect without rocking the foundations.

It's funny, as for the longest time the biggest complaint I heard about flatscreen TVs was how shitty the sound is - yet when someone rectifies that, complaints ensue about how it's not needed any more. Go figure.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I respect your views on the design of the TV, but as the owner of the 55" version of that set AND a nice 5.1 system, I can tell you that I love the speakers because they sound great. I don't have (nor do I want to have) my 5.1 system on all of the time, and the TV does a good job of providing quality audio and a VERY respectable faux-surround effect without rocking the foundations.

It's funny, as for the longest time the biggest complaint I heard about flatscreen TVs was how shitty the sound is - yet when someone rectifies that, complaints ensue about how it's not needed any more. Go figure.

Ideal for lounge personally speaking. Have projector for serious stuff lol.

[AmishParadise]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I respect your views on the design of the TV, but as the owner of the 55" version of that set AND a nice 5.1 system, I can tell you that I love the speakers because they sound great. I don't have (nor do I want to have) my 5.1 system on all of the time, and the TV does a good job of providing quality audio and a VERY respectable faux-surround effect without rocking the foundations.

It's funny, as for the longest time the biggest complaint I heard about flatscreen TVs was how shitty the sound is - yet when someone rectifies that, complaints ensue about how it's not needed any more. Go figure.

Well that's good. I certainly respect your views as well. In my case even at very low volume levels I've just always preferred the audio to be handled by an audio receiver and external speakers, irrespective of the audio format offered and how many speakers I may be using at the time. I personally have not used built-in speakers on any "primary" display I've owned since the DVD format was originally introduced. I would prefer this set without the speakers which in turn would reduce the width of the set and improve the aesthetics as well per my tastes. To each his own of course.

[keb33509]

Originally Posted by cds1834

Do they sell this model without speakers? Seriously, anyone that can afford one of these sets certainly is going to have an audio system in place already. Find it crazy that someone would spend that much money on the picture and ever have the need/want to use the built-in speakers. Think the set would look much better without them.

Yes, they sell it without speakers, but it is active 3D not passive, if that matters. The one without speakers I mean.

[AmishParadise]

Originally Posted by keb33509

Yes, they sell it without speakers, but it is active 3D not passive, if that matters. The one without speakers I mean.

I watch 2D only so that doesn't matter. Thanks! :-P

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Not everybody is comfortable sitting inside a 1.5:1 seating distance to display size ratio.

name me one person that is not comfortable going to the cinema to watch a movie because it is too immersive and the screen is too big.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

name me one person that is not comfortable going to the cinema to watch a movie because it is too immersive and the screen is too big.

Obstacles when non exists. That's how I see it. Sets are so slim now they take up far less space.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

name me one person that is not comfortable going to the cinema to watch a movie because it is too immersive and the screen is too big.

While I def agree with you, that special feeling you get is not how I want to watch all the time, if that makes any sens to you. Stuff like hockey I like big, yes, but wouldn't watch using a pj setup for example. Since I don't have room for a dedicated HT I prefer going normal "big". Right now I sit at around 9' from a 60" and think it's the perfect compromise. Though, mind you, it's still a 60" which is more that the average so maybe my opinion is to be taken with a grain of salt, but the reasoning stays the same.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

2025

You got the resolution blues?…

SMPTE JAM 2013 - Resolution Blues - YouTube

[bobbydrugar]

Again only talk of resolution?? I want 4k for expanded color gamut to rec 2020. I want a faster HDMI spec for higher bit rates, I want UHD for true 1080P split view for viewing 2 different 1080P sources at the same time. The upgrade from 1080P to 2160P is nice and all but not hardly the whole picture.

Now for my vote I would say 2015 is the likely target as they are just now finalizing the for lack of better term HDMI 2.0 Spec. As of yet they have not even decided on the Codec for delivery (seems to be between Sony with their eyeIO and the open H.265). This is shaping up to be a software based war for lisencing dominance and could take some time to hammer out before we even know what the actual spec will be.

so ya 2015 gets my vote

Thanks,
T

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by bobbydrugar

Again only talk of resolution??...

Hardly, as I’ve been discussing 4K enhancements in great detail since even before March of this year…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...te#post7325076

With visual illustrations when I’ve got the time to post a pic with a description…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ic#post8182385

And enlightening folks as to the value of increasing ‘nits’ (not gnats) back at the beginning of the month…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...rs#post8228840

You've got to start somewhere though.

[bobbydrugar]

Sorry penton wasn't casting dispersions on any one in particular but it seams that there must be 4 or 5 of these 4k threads running around right now and they almost all seem to devolve into the argument of "but 4k is not noticeable on smaller screens" blah blah blah. Strangely all the threads keep mentioning the standard as 4K and few have even noticed that it should actually be called UHD or 2160P.

You should also check out the thread started by Canada titled what Joe kane wants from new UHD spec I think. it links to an interview on Home theater geek over on twit.tv that was uploaded today. very informative.

Found the thread https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...93#post8312193

Thanks,
T

[Brightstar]

what about this 65inch panasonic ?

Panasonic L65WT600 Ultra HD Fernseher HDMI 2.0 Eyes On - YouTube

[phansson]

Hey Penton, long time no talk! Hope life is treating you well....

How do you see the 21:9 being implemented in 4k/ HDMI 2.0? That was an interesting addition to the 2.0 standard....I was all ways disappointed anamorphic wasn't added to the original Blu Ray standard. I know we are a small crowd, but damn my setup would look good with an honest to goodness 1080 lines of information for 2.33 movies.

[Penton-Man]

Ah phansson , you’re probably one of the few people on the internet forums who remembers that I alerted folks to Paramount flipping to HD DVD during the later days of the Blu-ray/HD DVD format war before it was ‘officially’ announced or even leaked by ‘deadline.com’.

My, that feels like a century ago, doesn’t it? What’s happened since then, in regards to Paramount Pictures? Garrett Smith (formerly the man-in-charge of mastering over at Paramount) has recently teamed up with ETC (see page 1 of the pdf here - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...se#post8250728 ) as well as Matt Cowan rejoining the group but I’m sure that was covered in one of the trades within the past couple of weeks so it’s not like the info is exclusive but, interesting nevertheless.

To answer your how life is treating me question…I’m surviving….a little over a year after life-changing surgery but unfortunately (or fortunately?) not captured in 4K like were these other types of operations…http://cinescopophilia.com/first-4k-...med-in-monaco/

As to the 21:9 question, we’ll see. It certainly won’t hurt.

[phansson]

Yes, those days seem long gone by....I remember being "giddy" when you informed us that Paramount was flipping. I was a BluRay fanboy and it was fun in those days arguing with the "reds". It would have been nice to have a true Blu-Ray Anamorphic option though!!

I haven't been hanging around here much over the past year or so, working has taken up to much time. Glad to see your "life changing" surgery was a success! You should have filmed it in 4k for posterity!

Did you ever have a chance to watch the Hobbit in the higher frame rate? We do not have a cinema around here offering that. If you did, how did it look???

I am going to wait by the 4k sidelines this time and see what pans out before I jump in. A new projector is on the horizon for me, but the offerings at the moment don't really make me too excited unless you want to drop some HUGE coin!

Nice hearing from you Penton, have a good one!

[vargo]

Originally Posted by phansson

Hey Penton, long time no talk! Hope life is treating you well....

How do you see the 21:9 being implemented in 4k/ HDMI 2.0? That was an interesting addition to the 2.0 standard....I was all ways disappointed anamorphic wasn't added to the original Blu Ray standard. I know we are a small crowd, but damn my setup would look good with an honest to goodness 1080 lines of information for 2.33 movies.

HDMI has always supported 21:9. I have a 21:9 monitor sitting on my desk right now connected via HDMI 1.4. What HDMI supports is not the same as what consumer electronics companies and content providers choose to implement.

I don't see anamorphic 21:9 being part of any future consumer video standard. It was important in DVD because there was a mass transition from 4:3 sets to 16:9.

If anamorphic 21:9 had been part of Bluray spec it would have provided a benefit to <1% of customers and impacted negatively on PQ for the other 99%

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

While I def agree with you, that special feeling you get is not how I want to watch all the time, if that makes any sens to you

No it does not make sense to me. It would be like someone saying I like being hungry most of the time because I don’t want that special feeling of having eaten enough, or someone saying I want my boss to pay me less but once in a while I get paid what I should be getting so that I have the special feeling where I don’t have to worry about paying my bills that month. Don’t get me wrong, there can be legitimate reasons with going smaller:

Economic: I would rather spend less and get that smaller TV

Source: that VHS looks like crap so a smaller screen means the crap is less noticeable (I used VS so that I don’t PO anyone)

Location: sometimes you want to see it something in a particular room (for example I don't have a big screen in my home office or the kitchen and in the kitchen I watch the news while eating and in my office I sometimes have a TV playing while I am on my PC in the evening)

Even Esthetics: (which I understand but I think is nuts) I don’t want the screen to look big in the room/it needs to fit in that place...

and maybe others

But not that you don’t want to have that good special feeling all the time (why wouldn’t someone want something good all the time if they can help it) especially when something by default is only a pleasure?

Since I don't have room for a dedicated HT I prefer going normal "big"

OK, but the discussion was not what you want, but if it is uncomfortable watching a screen closer than 1.5 screen size.

Now I am not trying to convince you to go bigger, but, if you don’t mind me using this as a bit of a soap box (because it is a bit of a pet peeve), a person does not need a dedicated HT to have a big screen or a projector. I do have a dedicated HT, but I also have a projector (my old one) in my bedroom shining on my white wall. One of my BIL’s HT (with projector) is also his home office where he works every day. One of my other sisters has a projector (and a TV) in her living room, when they watch films the inconspicuous projector on the book case in the back of the room goes on and the screen rolls down from inside the ceiling (so when it is up it is just a slit in the ceiling). Lastly one of my friends has a projector HT/spare bedroom combo (a Murphy bed between the screen and the first row of seats.)