• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

4K TV is real... who's getting one first?

:doh:
throwing-money.gif


I need to find new hobbies - bird watching perhaps - because tech gadgets are killing me!
 
Honestly, the next tv in my house will be networkable so I can control it with my android. I think the home theater generation is so fatigued with upgraditis that 4k will struggle to get a foothold for a long time.
 
I'll bite later if 4k sees mass adoption, but I'm tired of constantly paying the early adopter tax and I'm quite happy with 1080p for the time being. There are other tech trends that excite me far more than 4k.
 
Maybe we should let the broadcasters catch up and begin with broadcasting 1080p before they bite on the 4k cookie. The only programming I know of broadcast in 1080p are PPV events.

Rope
 
If it's hard to tell the difference between 750 & 1080 on a 50" set, how big would a 4k screen have to be to see significant improvement over 1080?

Even if the cost of a 4k can compete with PJ (& screen) prices, I see a very limited market.

Remember Kuro? Outstanding as it was, the market wasn't big enough at that price.........

Am I missing something? :think:
 
We are not talking about the perceptible difference between 480p and 720p or even between 720p and 1080p on the vast majority of home-sized displays. It is a very small increment of improvement at normal living room viewing distances unless your screen is absolutely massive and I mean north of 80 inches.
 
Orbison said:
If it's hard to tell the difference between 750 & 1080 on a 50" set, how big would a 4k screen have to be to see significant improvement over 1080?

Even if the cost of a 4k can compete with PJ (& screen) prices, I see a very limited market.

Remember Kuro? Outstanding as it was, the market wasn't big enough at that price.........

Am I missing something? :think:
Click to expand...

You're spot on!

The vast majority of viewers could give a hoot about quality, hence the cable companies increase the number of channels available for viewing instead of 1080p broadcasting.

Rope
 
Zing, I did a lot of field work birding. Figure 1.5K for a decent scope and at least half that for binoculars. Then the vest with all the pockets, a Tilly Hat and field books. A pretty penny if you are serious. Then the numerous trips to Central and South America.

Oh on the 4K... no way for me.
 
Haywood said:
We are not talking about the perceptible difference between 480p and 720p or even between 720p and 1080p on the vast majority of home-sized displays. It is a very small increment of improvement at normal living room viewing distances unless your screen is absolutely massive and I mean north of 80 inches.
Click to expand...

So the first adopters will be you guys replacing your existing PJ's with 4k versions.
 
hawk52 said:
Zing, I did a lot of field work birding. Figure 1.5K for a decent scope and at least half that for binoculars. Then the vest with all the pockets, a Tilly Hat and field books. A pretty penny if you are serious.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you don't have to rebuy any of that when HDMI 1.5 comes out... ;)
It's kinda funny how some hobbies are $$$ driven by obsolescence, others aren't:
- My kitchen tools, and my woodworking tools, aren't state-of-the-art but what I have will satisfy me until death do I part.
- My synth tools, when I was a musician, were hideously expensive to replace and went obsolete as fast as computers (which, in essence, they are); fortunately that was my one hobby that paid for itself.
- My photography tools; well, the lenses aren't state-of-the-art autofocus but since I don't use autofocus, they'll satisfy for the rest of my time here. Camera bodies are advancing as fast as computers (which, again, is what they now are) but I'm still using the D-200 I got in '07; am tempted to get one of the newer cameras with better light sensitivity (higher ISO) but is it worth the $$$? At this point, no; the original D-200 more than paid for itself just in leaving film/processing behind and I'm still happy with it.

EDIT: Oh yeah, 4K. I won't be adopting it. A few weekends ago I looked at the Apple Retina Displays compared to the 13" display in my Macbook Air, and frankly my eyes can't distinguish a difference. I'm worried that I'm gonna be legally blind in 5 years or so, the way my eyes are deteriorating... :(
 
Botch, with you all the way. I look at what I have and I'm set. At 61 what am I am upgrading to? My focus is on what I call my 2 year plan to improve curb appeal. That's when I sell. 5 year years from now I retire . My toys are what they are at this point. I'm ready to get out of the sandbox. Let the younger set get sand in their ass.
 
:handgestures-thumbup: :handgestures-thumbup: :handgestures-thumbup:
 
Haywood said:
We are not talking about the perceptible difference between 480p and 720p or even between 720p and 1080p on the vast majority of home-sized displays. It is a very small increment of improvement at normal living room viewing distances unless your screen is absolutely massive and I mean north of 80 inches.
Click to expand...

How small of an incremental difference? I stopped by the local BB with a Magnolia in it.
They have a 4K Sony demo going and another display (forgot who). 60" Sony and 55" other.
Looked noticeably better to me. On the Sony, had to switch it from a Blu-Ray movie to the 4K source
and it looked really nice.
 
Having said ^

I will wait for it to drop to the low $2ks and preferrably high $1ks before I get into those displays. But there will have to be complete and widespread 4K signal transmission from all carriers before I do adopti...and I have no problem waiting...but I am drooling.
 
My limited experience with 4K sets was that a 4K set displaying a 4K source was significantly better. The exames I saw were 55"-60" at distances between 8' and 14'.

My only real reservation is price. Once prices level off, and assuming I have the funds available, I'll explore upgrading my HT projector and LR display.
 
I've been presuming an up-converted 1080p source, since there currently aren't any 4k sources and I doubt there will be for awhile. I suspect it will be five to ten years before there's a lot of native 4k programming. Thus my contention that it makes little difference.
 
When I finally get to buy a house and can someday build a dedicated home theater, I will probably be very interested in a 4k projector.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top