tv 4K TV sets will Arrive 2012

rockerrockstar

rockerrockstar

4K TV sets are coming out this year. There is virtually no content that displays at 4k yet available for the sets yet. They will also be very expensive. I guess that means Bluray will probably be replaced with 4K resolution films in the future on a new format. Anyways, below is a link to an article on it. How do you think this will effect indie film making?

http://weblogs.variety.com/technotainment/2012/01/4k-sets-officially-arrive.html

I was reading another article that said you should buy a 2011 set before the higher prices of the 2012 come out. At near the end of the year is when the 4k sets come out. Most people will probably just buy the 1080p sets. Sony and Samsung are going to try to keep retailers from pricing below what they say. They are changing rules to keep them from discounting the new sets. That is why they recommend buying the 2011 sets before they are gone.

the soruce
http://shopping.yahoo.com/articles/.../is-now-your-last-chance-to-get-an-hdtv-deal/

"Another TV technology we expect to hear more about during CES is "4K" resolution, which promises up to four times the number of pixels as current 1080p HDTVs. While there are several different 4K resolutions, including "true" 4K x 2K (4096 x 2160), LG's "ultra definition (UD) TV has a resolution of 3840 x 2160, which is a direct multiple of the current 1080p (1920 x 1080) resolution. During CES, LG will be offering demos of its 84-inch UD TV, a 3D-capable Smart TV. The set will also have controls that allow you to adjust the depth of 3D image, plus a new 3D Sound Zooming sound system that LG claims can rival many home theater systems. LG is also unveiling a newly designed gesture-based Magic Remote that has added voice control to its bag of tricks.

While there is little 4K content available to consumers, we expect to hear more about some A/V receivers and Blu-ray players that are capable of upscaling 1080p content to quasi-4K resolutions, much the way 480p content is currently upconverted to 1080p in many players and TVs."

Here is the source

http://news.consumerreports.org/electronics/2011/12/ces-2012-tv-sized-oleds-are-on-the-way.html
 
Last edited:
They've been talking about this for a couple of years, and so far online is their preferred 4k content delivery system, starting with YouTube that already lets you upload and watch 4k content of you have the hardware for it.

If you haven't seen a 4K monitor in person... It's beautiful. Saw a few last year at NAB, it's like looking through a window.
 
I've been holding out on buying a tv for my living room - 7.1 in wall surround sound in, in wall sub - all cables ran to were the tv will be - but no tv... just can't pull the trigger, but im getting close, hearing things like this keep me from buying one, everytime you think you found the perfect one, you get news of something coming down the pike that is 4 times as better.
 
I hear 4K is going to be expensive. It may not be affordable for many more years. So maybe you should get a new one now. I hear sony and samsung are going to up their prices for the 2013 tvs.
 
PS4 is rumored to be able to output in 4k. That means not only 4k games, but hopefully 4k movies for download possibly.
 
RED has been developing discs that will render Blu Ray obsolete. They've been working on them for awhile now.
 
rockerrockstar said:
How do you think this will effect indie film making?
Click to expand...

I feel like not that much.. For the first few years there'll be people who will go 'check out my skateboard video, it's totally as good as a feature film because i shot it in 4k man' but it won't really affect the state of the industry. That said, I wonder when we go too far? 4K is by far more than enough resolution and can only really be played at IMAX theatres, so when are we satisfied? Are we really going to be sitting around in 10 years time talking about the new 28k resolution TVs? I personally am happy with the quality of HD, and the only resolution that I think is really worth it is holograms ;)
 
Again, if you haven't seen 4K closeup on a 42" or so monitor, it's breathtaking. You can absolutely 100% see the quality difference between it and 1080p... when you get a 4k signal.

There's always going to be new tech and new standards and if you hang back on the old stuff you become more or less irrelevant. And yes, in the next 10 years or so 8K-16K and beyond is a logical next step (and holograms, with you there!).

When Jurassic Park came out in the 90's, everyone flipped because the 3D looked so real, just like the original king kong in the 30's where it was technologically mind blowing haha. Watch it now, and it's ok, but it's not realistic by today's standards. Just like Avatar will look a lot less realistic in 15 years.

I'm glad 4K is trickling down finally. I remember when HD first came out, about the same time as DVD players, and it was gimmicky and "unnecessary" and there was no content besides the fish aquarium demo and a set cost $4000. Now, 10 years later you can find a small HDTV for $100 easy and watch over the air HD content for free, and 98% of new content is being produced at HD or higher resolutions.
 
PaulGriffith said:
Again, if you haven't seen 4K closeup on a 42" or so monitor, it's breathtaking. You can absolutely 100% see the quality difference between it and 1080p... when you get a 4k signal.

There's always going to be new tech and new standards and if you hang back on the old stuff you become more or less irrelevant. And yes, in the next 10 years or so 8K-16K and beyond is a logical next step (and holograms, with you there!).
Click to expand...

Of course, but is it really worth it? A crap film is a crap film whether you shoot in HD, SD, 4K, 5K or 28K. A bad film will still be bad, bad lighting will be exaggerated, etc. A good film will be a good film regardless of the shooting/watching format. I've seen SD movies which I thought were incredible and I've seen 4K+ movies that I've thought were woeful.. At the end of the day, HD was developed to facilitate the much bigger screen resolutions of TVs. Are we really going to be putting TVs the size of a wall into houses in 10 years? Are we really going to be watching movies on 100m wide screens..?

Avatar will look a lot less realistic in 15 years.
Click to expand...
Avatar looked like a video game to me when it first came out anyway ;) (leaving aside the highly unoriginal and terribel writing)

I'm glad 4K is trickling down finally. I remember when HD first came out, about the same time as DVD players, and it was gimmicky and "unnecessary" and there was no content besides the fish aquarium demo and a set cost $4000. Now, 10 years later you can find a small HDTV for $100 easy and watch over the air HD content for free, and 98% of new content is being produced at HD or higher resolutions.
Click to expand...

HD, however, was necessary. As much as people may have said it was 'unnecessary', it was completely necessary to be able to deliver large televisions. The old SD 720x576 just didn't cut it on a 50" screen and so they had to develop HD. This is why I think 4K + is unnecessary as the only place you can really watch 4K in all its glory now is at IMAX. I somehow don't think that we're going to be getting IMAX sized TVs and if we are, where the hell am I going to fit it in my house...? :P

Extrapolating that to 28k (for example), you'd need a screen 7x as big as an IMAX screen to be able to really appreciate it..... I don't even thin k you could watch a film on a screen that big.. You'd be sitting in front of someone's super high resolution noise hairs, even though the shot is actually an MCU ;)

Food for thought though, is the fact that film is generally shot at 4K and most cinema lenses, and cinema periphery is designed for capture at 4k, projection at 2k (or 4k if IMAX). An overwhelming majority of cinema lenses struggle to not vignette on a 5D and Red Epic, let alone going higher than the Epic's 5k. I feel resolutoin may slow down as if you're RED, are you really going to come out with a 6k camera when no-one can use it because there's no lenses that will actually cover the entire frame size? And if you're Zeiss or Cooke, are you really going to spend all the extra time and money developing lenses for a format that may not take off for another 10+ years, if ever? Do you put your time, money, research, etc developing better lenses for the 98% of the market still shooting <4k, or do you put it into the 2% that might want to shoot 6k+ even though there's no camera to shoot 6k+ at this stage...
 
I've seen 4k at the cinema on IMAX and I've seen it on 42"... I like it better on 42". It's like looking through a window. Have you used an iPhone 4 or 4s? It's a similar size for resolution as the retina display. The retina display is fantastic!

There's always holdouts, but I see resolution loss on a 55" at 1080p. If you can see pixels, you can go higher res :) saying that 1080p is necessary vs 480p is similar to saying any higher resolution is. It's all the same logic.

Bring on the 4k!
 
This will be good. I won't expect it to be anything like the arrival of HD though, as these 4K displays will be priced in the thousands. I really want one though :P
 
IndieBudget said:
4k..I thought everyone was going to have 3D ???
Click to expand...

3D 4K anyone? :D

3D's the craze at the moment, then there's this. 3D's a lot more affordable however for the average household owner than a 4K screen. It'll be years before they make any real impact in my opinion, a bit like HD. I reckon most people who casually watch movies will not notice much difference, and won't bother to switch from Full HD to 4K.
 
I can see pixels on both my 22" and my 47", then again, I have 20/12 vision. I would love to have a 4K display.
On the other hand, I don't see the point of updating TV's to 4k resolution. There will be little to no support for probably 5 years. Many tv channels haven't even been able to upgrade their stations to full 1080, so how many are going to upgrade all their equipment to 4k capabilities? I can't even imagine ESPN going to 4k.
Now with that said, if you are going to double your new 4k tv as a computer monitor and are an editor then I see the worth in the investment.
 
TheLoganDaniels said:
I can see pixels on both my 22" and my 47", then again, I have 20/12 vision. I would love to have a 4K display.
On the other hand, I don't see the point of updating TV's to 4k resolution. There will be little to no support for probably 5 years. Many tv channels haven't even been able to upgrade their stations to full 1080, so how many are going to upgrade all their equipment to 4k capabilities? I can't even imagine ESPN going to 4k.
Now with that said, if you are going to double your new 4k tv as a computer monitor and are an editor then I see the worth in the investment.
Click to expand...

Your right. The first couple of years, only a few channels will support the 4K. This is why some people will wait a while, like what people did with HD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top