Why the big fuss on 4K TVs?

[just4kix]

Why the big fuss on 4K TVs?

(sharing my own thoughts; if this has already been done before, please excuse and mods may delete the thread)

Today we see a glut of ads showcasing 4K or UHD TVs. But before you go broke, please do consider whether 4K TV is really worth it. I have read many article on this topic - a Google search on "Is 4K TV worth it" will yield interested expert views. I am only summing up what various experts have said.

4K Stuff is still long away
What the experts are saying is that 4K transmission and media is still a long time away - three years at least. The reason is plain enough. Some streaming content is available on Netflix and YouTube. But while FHD (1080p) requires a bandwidth of 3~6 Mbps, UHD (4K or 2160p) requires 10-16 Mbps. That is twice as much (naturally so). Most TV shows are still only recorded and edited in 1080p, only movies are commonly made in 4k. It will take a few years for production companies to upgrade their pipelines. It will take a few years for such infrastructure to be ready. It is a massive investment. Production of 4K media (discs) will also take time. Then there will have to be players capable of playing such media. It is not going to happen tomorrow. Maybe, as I said, 3-4 years down the line in USA but in India? We are still yet to get good 1080i HD with excellent bit rate. So you can take a guess.

Do not buy 4K TV to be future proof.
One may say that. But are we really being future proof? An article I read said that current 4K TVs are not future ready because they do not support 4k @ 60 frames per second and 4:4:4 colour sampling. This is not a problem with current FHD BDs @ 24 fps but not for the future. Secondly, many 4K TVs still do not have HDMI 2.0 support which may be required for receiving 4K bandwidth.

Will 4K really make a visual difference?
As per experts, the answer is "not really". They say, this is because of the limitations of the human eye. A chart says that 4K will make a difference only on very large screens such as 60" and above. First the media/source has to be true 4K (we have explored this point earlier). Then viewing distance will matter. 99% of the time, the viewing distance for most people is 7-10 feet. At 8', a 60" 4K TV will just about start making the difference felt. To really feel and notice the difference, you will have to sit closer, much closer. If you have an 85" TV and you are as close as 6-8 feet then and only then you will notice the real difference (and lest one forgets on true 4K source). For 40", you will have to sit at 5' or less, for 55" at 7' or less. And if you do sit this close, you will have to note that you will be blocking the view of a larger audience.

What about upscaling?
Upscaling is a buzz word to attract gullible customers. Upscaling content means that the upscaling hardware/software has to guess what lies in between for the extra pixels. It creates a blurry picture. It is the same reason watching standard channel on your current 1080p is blurry. This blur will be noticeable even at a reasonable distance. So you may have to move back. And at larger distances, the 4K losses significance.

Also to be noted - TVs on their own do not upscale, they merely adjust the resolution. It is like zooming in on a picture. Upscaling is done by media players including DVDPs/BDPs.

***

So to sum up - save your money. Stick to 2K or FHD for now.

 

[elangoas]

Very Good one, neatly summed-up...I think 4K Up-scaling is done by AVR too, in addition to BDP...

 

[hemantwaghe]

Why the big fuss on 4K TVs?



Will 4K really make a visual difference?
As per experts, the answer is "not really". They say, this is because of the limitations of the human eye. A chart says that 4K will make a difference only on very large screens such as 60" and above. First the media/source has to be true 4K (we have explored this point earlier). Then viewing distance will matter. 99% of the time, the viewing distance for most people is 7-10 feet. At 8', a 60" 4K TV will just about start making the difference felt. To really feel and notice the difference, you will have to sit closer, much closer. If you have an 85" TV and you are as close as 6-8 feet then and only then you will notice the real difference (and lest one forgets on true 4K source). For 40", you will have to sit at 5' or less, for 55" at 7' or less. And if you do sit this close, you will have to note that you will be blocking the view of a larger audience.

What about upscaling?
Upscaling is a buzz word to attract gullible customers. Upscaling content means that the upscaling hardware/software has to guess what lies in between for the extra pixels. It creates a blurry picture. It is the same reason watching standard channel on your current 1080p is blurry. This blur will be noticeable even at a reasonable distance. So you may have to move back. And at larger distances, the 4K losses significance.

Good point

Also will market be ready for better resolution and pay ( a premium) for it ? Or 1080 P is threshold..

A point want to make about music industry.

CD was supposed to be replaced by higher resolution SACD and DVD - A .. that was 1999 -2000

What happened is world is happy with MP3 and related formats. The biggest music revenues come from Streaming ,then by online sales - itunes is biggest music retailer. And a fraction of it comes from Hi Res music sales .. it seems world is happy with 128 KBPS MP3...............

 

[indy70]

IMHO broadcast is still not even full hd. It is 1080i. There is no absolute need for 4k and there is no bluray player as well to support in native 4k (not upscaling). Buy a projector for movie ??

 

[asliarun]

Here's the other side of the coin.

Caveat: I currently live in the US.

Vizio is offering a full array LED backlit 4k TV at $1k - $1.5k depending on size. And even a big size 70" is under $2k. Those are not cheap but hey, they are not unaffordable either. It is in the same ballpark as other high end 2k options.

I currently get 30mbps for which I pay $38 a month. I can also get higher bandwidth for a little bit of extra money. To me personally, if Netflix hogs 10mbps instead of 3mbps, it really is not a deal breaker. Worst case, I will pay 10 extra bucks a month and will get higher internet bandwidth.

4k samples in showrooms looks utterly gorgeous. To me, it is the next big step.
I understand this is a showroom recorded video, but wow!

I still have a old 42" LG TV that I in fact carried from India to US.
But if I will upgrade, spending on a big panel 1080p seems like an unwise choice to me.

Again, just my two cents. For what it is worth, 4k programming is rapidly coming. Already, many Netflix programs are being shot in 4k and many other channels are doing the same.

 

[BLASTO]

4k is close to scam.

2k OLED is the need of the hour. TV companies are pushing unwanted resolution hikes in old LED tech to make more money on their initial investments.

 

[just4kix]

Interesting pov, @asliarun. But, I was mostly talking from the Indian side of the shores.

 

[musicbee]

If we really have to make the argument against it then the argument must also be made against FHD TVs. There is hardly any FHD content from the Indian TV channels.

However, its not the content that drives sales, but availability and marketing, People have no other option, but to buy a FHD TV in plasma or LCD if they want a new TV.

4K is coming in 2015 (ok not India, but definitely in the US and with Blu-ray players and movies and online streaming content) and when that happens, that same strategy will drive the 4K sales. The leftover FHD sets will be dumped on 3rd world countries (like India) and after that the only option will be to purchase 4K TVs. Nevermind, we will probably watch SD content for the most part... but like I said content does not drive sales or marketing, content only follows.

I am also in agreement with @asliarun. I use both Netflix and Amazon Prime and FHD content is not lacking there and I'm sure 4K content will be big in 2015, so no reason not to jump on it.

OT - But I'm not sure who the experts are who claim 4K does not make a difference. Probably the same guys who said 1080P does not make a difference over 720P. Maybe its Apple, with their claims of Retina Display, but wait that's now Retina HD Display and of course they came out with the Retina 5K display for iMac, which all the reviews and reviewers are going bonkers over. I use a 2K display smartphone and it does make a difference compared to 1080P or 720P, yes even for small 5.5" screens. Its not just a matter of content, the existing content itself will become sharper, more clearer and offer excellent detail, the same as in the iMac 5K Retina display.

 

[just4kix]

People make too much differentiation between 1080i and 1080p. Granted that 1080i is not FHD but it is not as if 1080p is day whereas 1080i is night. Once again, the eye cannot make any significant distinction between the two formats. This is because of persistence of vision.

As also, I again agree with the experts that 720p to 1080p is not a big difference on small TVs (32" of less) at a distance of 8' (standard viewing distance). I spent an hour in a TV showroom to confirm and reaffirm this. At lesser distance, the difference in quality is perceptible. The only difference that I felt was with images showing sharp edges/corners and in extreme high contrast - like building close ups, flagpoles, text, etc.

I would advise waiting for OLED rather than 4K.

 

[htfan17]

People make too much differentiation between 1080i and 1080p. Granted that 1080i is not FHD but it is not as if 1080p is day whereas 1080i is night. Once again, the eye cannot make any significant distinction The only difference that I felt was with images showing sharp edges/corners and in extreme high contrast - like building close ups, flagpoles, text, etc.

I agree with your comments on 4K. However a slight disagreement on 720p vs 1080p. It is your view that the difference you saw on sharp edges/corners is not significant or day and night but for me thats exactly what it is. It is a significant difference in my opinion. I am able to see those difference in normal contrast too.

To give u credit, for a 32 inch TV, yes I do admit i dont realise what exactly i am missing if i watch something first time on 1080i in any HD channel (with correct AR framing, no zoom) but again if i get a blu ray of the same content and start comparing for the difference, i am able to find it easily without much effort. That there is a concern for me. And for a bigger screen, e.g. for a projected image 60 inch or above that becomes much more a child's play.

720p and 1080i are virtually the same for me and they cannot replace the satisfaction true 1080p provides. But again thats just me.

On the topic, yes I am against 4K as far as this country is concerned. No DTH will get the bandwidth without a fight which will go for a decade i guess. All those 4K channel promotion by tatasky and D2H is just for marketing of 4K TVs nothing else.

 

[greenhorn]

because people have realized 3D TV is futile, and manufacturers need something to make older TV's obsolete

 

[asliarun]

One thing to think about is that cable is becoming more and more irrelevant as online services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, Google Play, Hulu Plus, Sundance, etc. have so many options between them. Especially at 20+ mbps speeds - which are becoming more commonplace.

My take on 4k content availability is a bit more bullish (India and US) because of this. Look at how internet speeds are growing in the big cities in India nowadays. I too am in the process of "cutting the cord" and using the internet exclusively for TV and movies.

Same thing with panel size. 55" will become the new 32" - I estimate next year in US, and shortly thereafter in India. This is also a function of manufacturing capacity and price. Vizio and TCL are already at $10 an inch up to 55" - which I think is the sweet spot in terms of pricing - regardless of country.

Even for OLED, it is worth noting that LG's new Gen8 factory will go online by the end of this year, and even though it is having starting trouble, it will mostly target 55". And it will continue to ramp up to several million units over the next 2-3 years. LCD big panel factories are also being currently limited by manufacturing capacity, not by demand. So - the next breed of factories will most likely focus exclusively on 4k as they need to be ahead of the tech curve, not behind it.

But why I am saying 55" (and above) is important is that it is sufficiently big where 4k makes a significantly and visible difference in picture quality.

 

[deba]

1080 resolution is more then enough for home viewing......4k needs even bigger projection which is very rare in normal sized room condition............

4K media may be coming in 2015:

http://www.cnet.com/news/4k-blu-ray-discs-arriving-in-2015-to-fight-streaming-media/

 

[rahuln]

I feel the compression is much bigger factor than HD vs 4K. If you watch Movies Now+ vs Star Movies HD or better yet the Discovery HD you can notice a massive degradation due to heavy compression by Movies.

Now if you compare that to 1080p BD, the difference is day and night, even for the uninitiated. Its the as bad as HD vs SD.

So for the broadcast media there is lot of room to for improvement even for 1080p. Unless we have good 1080p no point of talking about 4K, at least for broadcast media.

 

[mohit9206]

4K TV is useless in India for at least 5-7 years . What makes anyone think 4k will ever be popular here when no one even knows what blu ray actually means and 50% of tv sales are still CRTs.

 

[hemantwaghe]

450% of tv sales are still CRTs.

are you sure about the number? from where you got it? Please can you mention the source?

 

[just4kix]

50% of tv sales are still CRTs.

are you sure about the number? from where you got it? Please can you mention the source?

I don't think that CRTs sell in that many numbers. I am not sure of small cities and villages but CRTs are not even found in stores these days.

 

[hemantwaghe]

@mohit9206 please can we have source please?

Or it is Indian tendancyof quoting figures off thin air ? ( Fekna) ??

 

[ValarMorghulis]

A nice article on why you should wait before going for a 4K TV.

4K TVs Are Forked. You Should Wait Before You Buy One | WIRED

 

[sunilkm]

I came across this banner when I was recharging the D2H yesterday.
Videocon 4K Ultra D2H. Out of curiosity checked the preorder page and here it is:

What is 4K Ultra HD DTH?

Think nothing can beat FULL HD? Well, think again because here comes 4K technology. It delivers 4 times the picture resolution of 1080p Full HD, thats eight million pixels compared to the mere two million of Full HD.

If you think that in your 4K LED TV, you will automatically get all the channels in 4K quality, think again. Your 4K LED will be incomplete without a Videocon d2h 4K Ultra HD set top box. Our 4K ultra HD STBs are capable of delivering True 4Kp60, which completes your overall 4K experience

I am not sure what the 4K D2H will do without a 4K channel feed.
All the TV manufactures are creating hype with 4K display so why not D2H too..
Is it just to make the 4K TV Owners happy..?