4K \ UHD New TV question

[T1berious]

I don't think I've got a problem with the TV's as such, it's more the lack of content and lack of support from any of movie houses till Q4 2015.

Plus will the terrestrial channels support it?

[JustinP1]

The Samsung comes with a hard drive with 4 movies and some documentaries IIRC in 4K.

However, if you are in the market for a new big TV today, what content is out there now is a bit of a moot point.

The choice you have is whether to get a 1080P or 4K panel. The former will limit your choice of sets, and will only have certain longevity.

The other consideration is on my set, doing the plasma to 4K LED comparison, the upscaling is very, very good. Of course naturally everything needs to be upscaled to 4K. On plain old Sky HD at 1080i, it's very good. On blu-ray it's absolutely superb.

When watching a film I'm watching a blu-ray at a viewing distance of 6ft on a 65 inch panel. Watching that you'd think things cannot possibly get better.

But of course, they will.

[TheInternet]

T1berious said:

Plus will the terrestrial channels support it?

On Freeview? Quite possibly never, but you might get it via web stream in a few years.

[StuH]

I think a lot comes down to personal preference. I've just moved our 65" ZT pana plasma out of the kids tv room and replaced with the new Sony 9005 4k LED. The wife and daughter much prefer the Sony with its higher brightness and vivid colours. However to my eyes even this latest 4k picture is a mile behind the plasma in things that are important to me, black levels, motion-handling and dynamic range. It's an inherent issue with LED that actual resolution drops way down during motion so any fast moving scenes are just soft and blurry ;(

Let's hope Lg's new 65" OLED is as good as the reviews are saying, and will take over where plasma left off. I just don't think I'll ever be happy with LED.

Edited by StuH on Tuesday 16th December 07:13

[T1berious]

TheInternet said:

T1berious said:

Plus will the terrestrial channels support it?

On Freeview? Quite possibly never, but you might get it via web stream in a few years.

And there in lies the rub.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate its all down to personal choice but a part of me still feels that for a format \ standard \ to actually be successful it has to appeal to the masses or if not appeal, be shoved down their throats come upgrade time (I doubt you can buy a mid range set or above without 3D for example).

However, with no terrestrial support, no content for at least a year is 4K in danger of being a niche product eventually trickling down like 3D?

I guess if Amazon jumped in with a 4K streaming service that would work.

[Magic919]

3D was always going to be a niche product, but I can't see 4K going that way. 4K looks great and I'd buy it. I wouldn't get 3D if I was paid to.

It's still very early days for 4K. There are a lot of changes required for broadcasters to implement it and those will take time.

[JustinP1]

Magic919 said:

3D was always going to be a niche product, but I can't see 4K going that way. 4K looks great and I'd buy it. I wouldn't get 3D if I was paid to.

I was a very early adopter with a 3D TV. It's OKish to watch the odd thing, but that's it. Gaming, well, that's great, but very underutilised.

The acid test for us has come not we've got the UHD screen is whether to rent a film in blu-ray, or 3D blu-ray.

After comparing the experience of the same film with both, 2D blu-ray upscaled to 4K is such a great experience anyway, the downsides of 3D and loss of PQ means that our choice now is actually have the non-3D version despite having the 3DTV.

[SeanyD]

In my opinion...

3D = Flash in the pan gimmick, never been overly impressed by it, it actually spoilt watching Gravity.

Curved = Flash in the pan gimmick, a fashion/status thing, but not really any technical benefit.

HD = A very good technology, which coupled with broadcasting 5.1 surround, is currently where things are at.

Smart = A very good technology, just needs to include 5.1 surround to be that bit better (youtube doesn't currently, but some of the dedicated/specific
apps do). Youtube has never looked so good these days provided you have sufficient bandwidth.

4K = Potentially big if broadcasting/streaming technology can deliver it.

...All in my humble opinion of course.

[TheInternet]

T1berious said:

However, with no terrestrial support, no content for at least a year is 4K in danger of being a niche product eventually trickling down like 3D?

I guess if Amazon jumped in with a 4K streaming service that would work.

You might get some films and a few series available online (now?), but for your common-or-garden BBC/ITV content it won't be for several years. Sky will probably have a film / sports offering much sooner.

[StuH]

TheInternet said:

You might get some films and a few series available online (now?), but for your common-or-garden BBC/ITV content it won't be for several years. Sky will probably have a film / sports offering much sooner.

Trouble is lack of bandwidth though. You only have to compare Sky HD and an equivalent BluRay to see how much quality is lost by reducing the bitrate to accommodate all those channels.

[JustinP1]

SeanyD said:

In my opinion...

3D = Flash in the pan gimmick, never been overly impressed by it, it actually spoilt watching Gravity.

Curved = Flash in the pan gimmick, a fashion/status thing, but not really any technical benefit.

HD = A very good technology, which coupled with broadcasting 5.1 surround, is currently where things are at.

Smart = A very good technology, just needs to include 5.1 surround to be that bit better (youtube doesn't currently, but some of the dedicated/specific
apps do). Youtube has never looked so good these days provided you have sufficient bandwidth.

4K = Potentially big if broadcasting/streaming technology can deliver it.

...All in my humble opinion of course.

Hmm...

Gravity at the cinema was about the best 3D experience there is in terms of adding to the narrative. Not seen it on the small screen, but would agree the impact would be less.

Curved screen? I've been to the Cinerama Dome in old Hollywood on three visits. That's been around for 50 years. That same concept of a curved screen is installed in new IMAX screens today.

I'd say it's always been a good idea, but it was difficult/impossible to produce until now. In the same way a convex CRT is not optimum, but we had to live with it until flat screen CRT and plasma arrived.

The curve is a benefit if the size of the screen and your viewing distance means that it fills a significant amount of your field of vision. It means that all parts of the screen are equidistant from you. If the screen is flat, than in effect this distorts the relative size of the outer edges.

I thought it was a gimmick too, until I saw one in the flesh, then have now begun to live with it. It is now entirely normal to me, and the flat screen looks strange.

That said, on smaller screens, unless you are going to be two or three feet away, the curve has little benefit.

[SeanyD]

JustinP1 said:

Gravity at the cinema was about the best 3D experience there is

Which proves the point, to me it looked awful, blury, out of focus, weak colours, almost black and white, the 3D itself was meh.

Each to your own though.

[Super Slo Mo]

Magic919 said:

3D was always going to be a niche product, but I can't see 4K going that way. 4K looks great and I'd buy it. I wouldn't get 3D if I was paid to.

It's still very early days for 4K. There are a lot of changes required for broadcasters to implement it and those will take time.

Yes, and HD took years to become mainstream, we were discussing it in 2004, but it was considerably later than this when it became relatively normal. The Olympics in 2008 was broadcast in SD from what I recall.

[MuffDaddy]

I wont be going to UHD next time. I don't even use the HD channels on the telly I do have. I will be going for size, but mainly because I get a massive discount so can man maths the extra inches.

[jesta1865]

JustinP1 said:

SeanyD said:

In my opinion...

3D = Flash in the pan gimmick, never been overly impressed by it, it actually spoilt watching Gravity.

Curved = Flash in the pan gimmick, a fashion/status thing, but not really any technical benefit.

HD = A very good technology, which coupled with broadcasting 5.1 surround, is currently where things are at.

Smart = A very good technology, just needs to include 5.1 surround to be that bit better (youtube doesn't currently, but some of the dedicated/specific
apps do). Youtube has never looked so good these days provided you have sufficient bandwidth.

4K = Potentially big if broadcasting/streaming technology can deliver it.

...All in my humble opinion of course.

Hmm...

Gravity at the cinema was about the best 3D experience there is in terms of adding to the narrative. Not seen it on the small screen, but would agree the impact would be less.

Curved screen? I've been to the Cinerama Dome in old Hollywood on three visits. That's been around for 50 years. That same concept of a curved screen is installed in new IMAX screens today.

I'd say it's always been a good idea, but it was difficult/impossible to produce until now. In the same way a convex CRT is not optimum, but we had to live with it until flat screen CRT and plasma arrived.

The curve is a benefit if the size of the screen and your viewing distance means that it fills a significant amount of your field of vision. It means that all parts of the screen are equidistant from you. If the screen is flat, than in effect this distorts the relative size of the outer edges.

I thought it was a gimmick too, until I saw one in the flesh, then have now begun to live with it. It is now entirely normal to me, and the flat screen looks strange.

That said, on smaller screens, unless you are going to be two or three feet away, the curve has little benefit.

except it's only a benefit like in imax if everyone is sitting and watching in roughly the same direction.

my telly is at an angle because the 2 sofas are almost at right angles to each other so we can all watch it, can't put it on the wall as then we would have to change the whole room round and lose furniture (i've tried it). so the angle compromise it is, and a curved screen would make it worse.

as i only bought my first 1080p telly last year i'll wait for 4k to mature first again

[TheInternet]

Super Slo Mo said:

Yes, and HD took years to become mainstream, we were discussing it in 2004, but it was considerably later than this when it became relatively normal. The Olympics in 2008 was broadcast in SD from what I recall.

Further to this, IIRC the first BBC HD was broadcast in 2006, the equivalent 4k broadcasts are still a long way off.

[Magic919]

BBC did some 4K trials this year.

[JustinP1]

TheInternet said:

Super Slo Mo said:

Yes, and HD took years to become mainstream, we were discussing it in 2004, but it was considerably later than this when it became relatively normal. The Olympics in 2008 was broadcast in SD from what I recall.

Further to this, IIRC the first BBC HD was broadcast in 2006, the equivalent 4k broadcasts are still a long way off.

I got our first HDTV in the summer of 2006, and Sky broadcast then.

That said, the only channels were BBC HD, Sky Sports 1 HD, Sky Movies HD, Discovery HD and that's pretty much it!

Although I would agree that 4k broadcast worth watching - by that I mean without the compression that would tarnish it to being not much better than HD - we are very possibly years off yet.

As I said before though, a 4k panel is worth buying for the upscaling. Think of a 4k broadcast when it comes as a free upgrade!

[Super Slo Mo]

Yes, that's probably right. The Olympics do tend to be a little conservative with regards to output and capture.

I don't remember exactly when SKY first started in HD, but they trailed it well before they started broadcasting, as will be the case with 4K. At the moment there are OB trucks being built and/or converted for 4K, but standards have yet to be finalised for distribution (particularly around methods of capture/transfer), and as yet there are no cameras being made available for testing, although again, no doubt that'll change quite soon.

Having said that, there'll be investment needed in new lenses etc anyway, again, I've not seen any broadcast spec 4K lenses yet, but I guess we won't until new cameras become available.

[hairyben]

StuH said:

Trouble is lack of bandwidth though. You only have to compare Sky HD and an equivalent BluRay to see how much quality is lost by reducing the bitrate to accommodate all those channels.

add to that, half the stuff I record on the sky+ is sd even when hd is available due to hdd capacity.

JustinP1 said:

I got our first HDTV in the summer of 2006, and Sky broadcast then.

That said, the only channels were BBC HD, Sky Sports 1 HD, Sky Movies HD, Discovery HD and that's pretty much it!

We dreamed of 4 HD channels... conservation area so no sky, virgin v+HD with one channel (BBC HD) which crashed if you tried to record anything.