4K TVs

[ranjeetrain]

Guys, aren't we all missing something?

Has anyone ever said a Full HD TV at 42inch is too much? No, it's already the norm. Even if we buy a smaller TV (40/37/32 inch) we still want Full HD because Full HD brings an entirely new experience with Full HD sources.

A 4K resolution is same to an 84 inch TV as Full HD is to 42 inch. For the same aspect ratio the pixel pitch would be absolutely the same in both the cases. It is simple mathematics!

Did I figure it wrong? If not, the difference would be obvious between Full HD and 4K UHD. It will be obvious to one and all for 4K content and to most people even when upscaled 1080 content will be played. Specially keeping in mind the smaller living areas we have (compared to west).

My two paise.

 

[just4kix]

I would readily buy a 4K TV if it was reasonably priced. Now to define the word "reasonable". I will go with the same price difference in percentage terms as a 720p to 1080p TV. So if there is a 1080p TV for 80K, I will be willing to shell out 100K for the 4K equivalent.

But I still maintain that 4K TV has no advantage, especially at the 50" and sub-50" sizes. So it is pointless to spend on such a TV. The same advice I constantly give to 32" buyers, viz., save your money and go for HD-Ready.

 

[Santy]

A 4K resolution is same to an 84 inch TV as Full HD is to 42 inch. For the same aspect ratio the pixel pitch would be absolutely the same in both the cases. It is simple mathematics!

Again, it depends on distance. I can comfortably watch on my 32" TV at a distance of 4 feet. But I cannot watch at the same distance comfortably on my 100" projector screen. So I have to go back to say 10 feet at which distance I cannot appreciate even 1080p fully. 4k projectors may be good for 100" but what is the point of getting close to the screen only to be thrilled by the details, while you will eventually go back to your listening / watching position which is quite a distance away.

Though it is my speculation, even if mega size TVs become much affordable (assuming 4k makes sense at such sizes), I doubt if every home will get one because it could be massive and not practical for casual watching in a living room. Even if it is cheaper to make a super-sized SUV of say 50% more than the normal size, you won't probably buy it as it will not be comfortable to drive. Practicality is what I am emphasizing on.

I am not saying 4k will be a failure. It will become standard one day. But that will be because we could afford the technology not really because our eyes can appreciate the resolution. The vision is fixed at 20/20. The no. of sensors in the eyes are fixed. We do not cook a recipe exactly the same way everytime at home, but still the taste appears to be same, why? That is because we have limited taste buds. (OK that was wild analogy, just ignore if it makes no sense )

 

[deepakgang]

Rather than 4K TV, I was looking forward to true LED backlit technology like the ones of OLEDbacklits etc. But it seems to be 4k which the companies are keen to promote now

 

[viper08]

Rather than 4K TV, I was looking forward to true LED backlit technology like the ones of OLEDbacklits etc. But it seems to be 4k which the companies are keen to promote now

4K are easy to make and market than OLED.
Almost everything remaining same, its easier to increase the panel pixel density than altogether researching different tech and promote expenses.
Also people get more fascinated by figures (all types) easily

I am inclined towards OLED than 4K for better contrast, colours and portability.(flexi screens)

 

[MZB]

Sony 4k 55 ~ 2.9L
Sony 4k 65 ~4L
Sony 4k 84 ~16L
LG 4k 84 ~ 13L
Please note these are ~ (approx) prices

Vu 84" - 9L