• 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?

Flint said:
Now our tablets and micro-devices will have low power consuming, high performance 4K video support:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/11/20/qual ... -ultra-HD/

Does this make 4K more interesting to you guys?
Click to expand...

I would say price is my determining factor for my HT having a 4K display.

For tablets and other portable devices...the low power consuming processor and thereby
less drain on battery/life becomes important. Having said that, I don't think 4K video processing
capability would be a main reason for me to choose a specific tablet. I just don't use my tablet
enough for that type of...use.
 
I agree about price being the factor.

I feel absolutely zero desire to replace a functional HDTV with a 4K set. If my Mitsubishi RPTV craps the bed and a 4K set of a similar size is within $1000 or so, I might well seriously consider it. Thing is, that's going to require some major component changes. Since I run all my sources through my Denon 3808CI receiver, it will mean a new receiver as well- one capable of handling those signals. There's at least another thousand bucks, more if I decide to go separates.

If something happened to my existing gear I might well try to build in some 4K capability (if the receiver dies, any new one would need to be 4K capable) since it is appearing this one might have some legs (as opposed to 3D, which may well be coming off life support shortly). However, unlike with HD, this isn't going to be something that I will be setting up at every TV in my house (we went all HD a few years ago). 4K is probably going to remain in the same category as decent surround sound capability- you'll put it into your home theater, but you won't necessarily install it into more than one room in the house.
 
If they don't cost anymore than my JVC cost me, when it is time to go 4K I will be all over a new PJ.
 
Flint said:
Okay, folks...

Amazon is not shooting all their original shows in 4K.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/new ... k-ultra-hd

Who's buying a 4K TV now?
Click to expand...

Just got an email this morning from Amazon for a Samsung 65 inch 4K display that was just shy of $4000. I didn't think that was too bad of a price, but still not ready to shell out that kind of money.

Since streaming is probably going to take over physical disks before these sets are an everyday item, what is the bandwidth required to stream 4K?
 
Huey said:
Just got an email this morning from Amazon for a Samsung 65 inch 4K display that was just shy of $4000. I didn't think that was too bad of a price, but still not ready to shell out that kind of money.

Since streaming is probably going to take over physical disks before these sets are an everyday item, what is the bandwidth required to stream 4K?
Click to expand...

If using exactly the same encoding and compression, 4K theoretically should take 4 times the bandwidth of standard 1080p video and 6 times the bandwidth of terrestrial formatted 1080i video.

But, things are never that simple. At the higher resolutions encoders can employ more loss to the signal without the eyes seeing it, so in reality the bandwidth requirements are as little as 2x more than common 1080p. But, we also have massive advancements in encoding and compression technologies happening every day. For instance, there are high end streaming compression tools out there today which can switch compression engines every few seconds to always be using the most ideal compression algorithms for the signal. Some compression engines are tuned for high motion video like fire, sea surface, or panning shots while others are more highly tuned for chromatically monotone images like Brother Where At Thou where all the colors were shades of brown and yet others are better for high contrast images - and so on. If the streaming compressor can change compression engines on the fly, the resulting output will be the most efficient and lowest data rate. There is also a tech with cleans up the video signal from all the camera noise and such which makes any compression engine run massively more efficiently - like 90% more effectively.

As these techs are implemented the bandwidth needed for any video stream will be significantly reduced over time.

When ATCA terrestrial HDTV was launched the required bandwidth was nearly 20Mbps. Today the same perceived quality can be sent over the internet in under 4Mbps and is tracking to get under 2Mbps in 12 to 18 months. Adding resolution isn't as hard on existing bandwidth as one might think.

The problem with bandwidth in our networks isn't that one high resolution video may require 2 to 8 Mbps consumption, but that more and more people are watching movies at the same time in the same area over the same signals. User growth is more concerning than single video bandwidth growth.
 
At a $1k price point, my next display purchase would be a 4K. I have no idea of Polaroid's quality level, but if some of the big boys can produce near that price point (sub $2k), I'm in on my next display for sure. Having said that, I will not be in the market for a new display until one of my current displays craps out or I purchase a new house and need new toys.
 
webweaver
For the record, I own 2 Polaroid TVs (47" and 32" LCDs). They are not bad TVs. The 47" I purchased about 5 years ago from Walmart. I made the purchased based on price and the screen quality (that day at Walmart the Polaroid had what appeared to me to have the brightest and "clearest" screen ). I purchased the 32" used of of Craigslist about 2 years ago. :laughing:

Both TVs have served me well, with a few issues. The control box went out on the 47" about a year ago. I ordered a replacement from shopjimmy.com for $65 and the TV is completely restored. The 32" has a built in DVD player that did work, so I ordered a new one from shopjimmy for $40 and it works for some DVDs, but most movies will stop or skip. The integrated DVD player is junk.


Rope
 
Now Youtube has a royalty free enhanced 4K encoder so you can watch kitty videos in revealing 4K resolutions.
 
While you're in Vegas, keep an eye out for any possible 4K OLEDs. I could see jumping once both techs are available at a decent price.
 
CES 2014 report on 4K TV, also known as UltraHD.

It is official, "4K" is the new "HD."

There wasn't a single TV manufacturer not showing multiple variations of 4K, including Curved Glass, LED, IPS, OLED, and Projectors. In fact, in most booths nearly all of the TVs were 4K models. I am pretty confident in predicting that by 2015 most of the TVs for sale in the retail stores will be 4K models.

They all looked amazing, but the OLED models from Haier, Samsung, and LG were the best. As you would expect, Panasonic and Sony had the most accurate and gorgeous 4K TVs, but they are not as sexy as the trendier brands.

So, the question is not whether you are going to buy a 4K TV. The question is when?
 
Flint said:
...the OLED models from Haier, Samsung, and LG were the best.
Click to expand...

:banana-dance: Did they have any "projected" pricing?
The only thing I've seen on my tech forums was a couple blurbs about the Roku TVs, which was hardly an advancement. :|
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top