What "K" will you draw the line at?

[RFK]

I love the way 1080p looks on my panasonic plasmas, very filmlike.
I'll stay with 1080 bluray.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

As I said in the other thread, it may be restrictions due to climate change that breaks things. 4K and beyond on a big tv means high carbon footprint. Mobile at SD on WiFi is lowest. I think we will end up back in the Stone Age with all the restrictions. Maybe streaming will even die out because apparently, we can’t sustain all the video in use as the population grows.

Nightmare times ahead I feel. Especially if you love films on a big tv. It will be either do without, watch on a mobile screen or watch in SD (best case scenario of the three)

4K TV usage leaves very little in the way of a carbon footprint.

The biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions are transportation, power production, and industry; these three alone make up 78.4% of all such emissions. Commercial and residential power consumption COMBINED only account for 11.6% and that is mostly due to the cost of heating. If the government wanted to restrict our usage of anything it would be our car and our furnace.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sou...-gas-emissions

The energy star rating of a typical 65" 4K LG LED TV states that the annual operating cost is a mere $21 per year and it is a tiny $31 per year for the OLED model. The annual energy costs for your exact make and model of TV can be found online.

To put that in some perspective, I spent $1818.17 on electricity over the past year. The $21 per year cost of operating that 65" 4K LG LED TV is 1.16% of my total annual expenditure on power.

If I never turned my TV on again, I'd save a whole $21 over an entire year and it would do little to reduce my carbon footprint and the savings would barely buy me a large pizza. If I want to reduce my carbon footprint, I need to adjust my thermostat, not my TV.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

4K TV usage leaves very little in the way of a carbon footprint.

The biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions are transportation, power production, and industry; these three alone make up 78.4% of all such emissions. Commercial and residential power consumption COMBINED only account for 11.6% and that is mostly due to the cost of heating. If the government wanted to restrict our usage of anything it would be our car and our furnace.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sou...-gas-emissions

The energy star rating of a typical 65" 4K LG LED TV states that the annual operating cost is a mere $21 per year and it is a tiny $31 per year for the OLED model. The annual energy costs for your exact make and model of TV can be found online.

To put that in some perspective, I spent $1818.17 on electricity over the past year. The $21 per year cost of operating that 65" 4K LG LED TV is 1.16% of my total annual expenditure on power.

If I never turned my TV on again, I'd save a whole $21 over an entire year and it would do little to reduce my carbon footprint and the savings would barely buy me a large pizza. If I want to reduce my carbon footprint, I need to adjust my thermostat, not my TV.

Yes, but you are thinking from a single person’s point of view (or family). Think of all the millions of people who are becoming more and more demanding of online video each and every year. More and more internet usage is video.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Yes, but you are thinking from a single person’s point of view (or family). Think of all the millions of people who are becoming more and more demanding of online video each and every year. More and more internet usage is video.

Even if I increased the number of 65" LED screens being used five fold, the annual energy cost would be just $105 per year or just 5.5% of my total electricity expenditure for the entire year.

Our heating and cooling systems are what use the lion's share of the power in our homes; our TVs barely impact our power bill or our carbon footprint. It is simple math.

[Eschenpod]

256k

[The_Donster]

Hell, I think I pay more for gas/sewer/trash than my actual energy bill for a family of 4, but I’m still scratching my head on what this has to do with the topic of the thread

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by The_Donster

Hell, I think I pay more for gas/sewer/trash than my actual energy bill for a family of 4, but I’m still scratching my head on what this has to do with the topic of the thread

It has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Same fear mongering, different thread.

His silly worries gained no traction in the thread where they originated, so he is trying his luck here. I guess the reception that he received in the other thread was not warm enough for him.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

It has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Same fear mongering, different thread.

His silly worries gained no traction in the thread where they originated, so he is trying his luck here. I guess the reception that he received in the other thread was not warm enough for him.

Well, it is actually. It’s the reason I don’t think it will be viable to go past 4K. As I stated in my post. The higher the res, the higher the cost on the climate. I think SD will be called for and small screens.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Well, it is actually. It’s the reason I don’t think it will be viable to go past 4K. As I stated in my post. The higher the res, the higher the cost on the climate. I think SD will be called for and small screens.

Not the question being asked.

Increased power consumption will have a greater impact on our climate if still derived mostly from fossil fuels. Population growth alone will increase power consumption no matter if we have TVs or streaming. Our screens use very little power compared to virtually everything else.

My TV will use the same amount of power no matter what I watch on it.

The question is: "What "K" will you draw the line at" not what "K" will be the last before the wicked government says that you can't have any more K's. The OP is asking what choice we each will make, not what choice might be made for us by the big bad gubbermint.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Not the question being asked.

Increased power consumption will have a greater impact on our climate if still derived mostly from fossil fuels. Population growth alone will increase power consumption no matter if we have TVs or streaming. Our screens use very little power compared to virtually everything else.

My TV will use the same amount of power no matter what I watch on it.

The question is: "What "K" will you draw the line at" not what "K" will be the last before the wicked government says that you can't have any more K's. The OP is asking what choice we each will make, not what choice might be made for us by the big bad gubbermint.

We won’t have a choice if it’s taken away. That’s my point.

Anyway, 8K will be the absolute limit. Improvements will come from smart features, designer builds, audio built into screens rather than the panel and other features. If we reach that far of course.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

We won’t have a choice if it’s taken away. That’s my point.

Anyway, 8K will be the absolute limit. Improvements will come from smart features, designer builds, audio built into screens rather than the panel and other features. If we reach that far of course.

The point is that your point was NEVER the question asked here in this thread.

No one is asking what choice would you make if you had no choice...sheesh.

[The_Donster]

LOL, I don’t think anyone is going to take away or shrink anyone’s flatscreens

[sapiendut]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The point is that your point was NEVER the question asked here in this thread.

No one is asking what choice would you make if you had no choice...sheesh.

He really likes his fancy and apocalyptic views doesn’t he? “In the future, all displays are tiny, SD, no physical media, coz gubbermint” — That will be the tagline for the movie Die Hurd - Dur Hurder.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

He really likes his fancy and apocalyptic views doesn’t he? “In the future, all displays are tiny, SD, no physical media, coz gubbermint” — That will be the tagline for the movie Die Hurd - Dur Hurder.

And then there's the sequel Die Hurd: Dur Nurf Hurder.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

He really likes his fancy and apocalyptic views doesn’t he? “In the future, all displays are tiny, SD, no physical media, coz gubbermint” — That will be the tagline for the movie Die Hurd - Dur Hurder.

Visit our usual thread for reasons behind my opinion about this.

[mjvmovieman]

1080k.

[The_Donster]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Visit our usual thread for reasons behind my opinion about this.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Well, it is actually. It’s the reason I don’t think it will be viable to go past 4K. As I stated in my post. The higher the res, the higher the cost on the climate. I think SD will be called for and small screens.

that does not make much sense.

Let me ask you this. what do you think has a higher carbon foot print and by how much? a DVD , a BD or a UHD BD?

what takes more gas a truck load of DVDs , BDs or UHD BDs?

[Jegærn]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

I’m not insinuating anything. Actually it is a fact that most don’t realize that by saying whatever format they are satisfied being considered as “great”, they are missing in the improvements the future will bring.

It’s not so much of the “k” but it’s the surrounding tech that the additional “k” brings to the table.

Just like the current 8K. It is not the K that matters, but one can’t get the high nit panel, better backlighting system and upscaling engine unless one gets an 8K TV.

Necessary? No. But saying current technology(or past) to be great is wrong. It is not an opinion, it’s not an insinuation, it is fact.

Why should we bother with 4/8k when everything goes online streaming? Doesn't help with a super 8k tv when netflix takes over the movie industri. Compressed crap!

[sapiendut]

You know that we can buy 4K physical media right?