- Mar 10, 2003
- 438
- 23
the 4k tv's have fallen in price dramatically this year, but there is hardly any content. i'll be in the market for one once there is more 4k content.
Anyone have a 4k Ultra HD television? Help
- Jul 29, 2001
- 20,945
- 11,084
I believe the NBA is already experimenting with filming games in 4K. They were the first league to do HD broadcasts. It was in Japan, like, in the early '90s.
John Wick
formerly jayzonmytoes
- Oct 5, 2006
- 7,273
- 3,065
i have a 4k
- Oct 13, 2001
- 161,842
- 144,281
Why not wait until they normalize? Want to be the first one on the block to have one? I say just wait.
- Apr 3, 2014
- 3,903
- 5,011
4K isn't a gimmick. To say 4K is a gimmick like 3D is like saying Nintendo 64 is a gimmick like Virtual Boy to someone who wanted to upgrade to Nintendo 64 from a SNES back in 1997. 3D tried to put a different spin on a viewing experience - they wanted to offer a DIFFERENT experience. 4K wants to present the viewer with the SAME experience, just with more detail/color. I don't see how the two can be compared. 4K is just common sense - make better TVs. The same way that 1080p TVs made today have better picture than 1080p TVs made in 2008, even though they are both 1080p.
There will be nothing but 4K TVs sold in stores 10 years from now. Unless 8K TVs start being made as well.
HOWEVER...
With all that said, 4K is definitely nowhere near as big of a leap as HD was over standard definition. For starters, 1080p had 6 times as many pixels as the old standard definition. 4K only has 4 times as many pixels as HD. And that's only the technical leap/numbers. The more organic leap, in terms of human visual experience is much smaller. I've seen 4K myself and while it's definitely better than HD, it's certainly not a night and day difference. It's called "diminishing returns" and is most apparent in video game industry, but also applies here:
And the leap from 4K to 8K will be even less noticeable, and so on and so on. Not to mention the fact that HD and the introduction of flat screen TVs pretty much came at the same time which helped sell HD TVs even quicker to those who wanted a more aesthetically pleasing TV in their living rooms than the huge old box TVs. Now with 4K, they are still basically the same flat screen TVs in terms of design (even though some of them are curved, stupid IMO). So even though stores will start selling nothing but 4K when the technology becomes cheap enough, I doubt people will LOOK to buy a 4K TV until their old 1080p TVs break down.
There will be nothing but 4K TVs sold in stores 10 years from now. Unless 8K TVs start being made as well.
HOWEVER...
With all that said, 4K is definitely nowhere near as big of a leap as HD was over standard definition. For starters, 1080p had 6 times as many pixels as the old standard definition. 4K only has 4 times as many pixels as HD. And that's only the technical leap/numbers. The more organic leap, in terms of human visual experience is much smaller. I've seen 4K myself and while it's definitely better than HD, it's certainly not a night and day difference. It's called "diminishing returns" and is most apparent in video game industry, but also applies here:
And the leap from 4K to 8K will be even less noticeable, and so on and so on. Not to mention the fact that HD and the introduction of flat screen TVs pretty much came at the same time which helped sell HD TVs even quicker to those who wanted a more aesthetically pleasing TV in their living rooms than the huge old box TVs. Now with 4K, they are still basically the same flat screen TVs in terms of design (even though some of them are curved, stupid IMO). So even though stores will start selling nothing but 4K when the technology becomes cheap enough, I doubt people will LOOK to buy a 4K TV until their old 1080p TVs break down.
Last edited:
- Jun 26, 2005
- 8,471
- 1,902
i wonder
do any of you actually read about new tech OUTSIDE of NT?
ill post an article on why OLED > 4K
why 4K is an old car with new tires
sadly most tech consumers are highly ignorant but are the driving force in what survives in the market
id be willing to bet that even tho OLED is the real future of television, since 4K is marketed better and thats what consumers know, 4K will come out on top.
ah well
do any of you actually read about new tech OUTSIDE of NT?
ill post an article on why OLED > 4K
why 4K is an old car with new tires
sadly most tech consumers are highly ignorant but are the driving force in what survives in the market
id be willing to bet that even tho OLED is the real future of television, since 4K is marketed better and thats what consumers know, 4K will come out on top.
ah well
- Jun 26, 2005
- 8,471
- 1,902
Why Ultra HD 4K TVs are still stupid
Geoffrey Morrison
As we all expected , the big news at CES this year was Ultra HD 4K displays. It seemed that every TV manufacturer had one, ranging from massive LED LCDs to midsize LED LCDs to midsize OLEDs.
We've talked about this before , but now with more info, and definitive product announcements, let me explain in exacting, excruciating detail why 4K TVs are still stupid .
Allow me to start with the most important point:
1. I love 4K
It is my fault for trying to make a nuanced argument on the Internet. I have a 102-inch "TV" and sit 9 feet from it. I would love to have 4K. When I expand out to fill the full 10-foot-wide 2.35:1 screen, I can see pixels with some projectors. I look forward to more 4K projectors. Projectors are not TVs; 4K TVs are a waste. This is because...
2. The eye has a finite resolution
This is basic biology. The accepted "normal" vision is 20/20. In response to my previous articles on the stupidity of 4K TVs, many people argued they had better vision, or some other number should be used. This is like arguing doors should be bigger because there are tall people. Also, just because you have better vision, doesn't mean most people have better vision. If they did, it wouldn't be better, it would be average.
Try this. Go to the beach (or a big sandbox, or a baseball diamond). Sit down. Start counting how many grains of sand you can see next to you. Now do the same with the grains of sand by your feet. Try again with the sand far beyond your feet (like, say, 10 feet away). The fact that you can see individual grains near you, but not farther away is exactly what we're talking about here. The eye is analog. Randomly analog at that. So of course some people are going to see more detail than others, and at different distances, but 20/20 is what everyone knows, and it is by far the most logical place to start any discussion.
Is there some wiggle room thanks to variances in how people see? Yes, of course. Here's an awesome chart:
Carlton Bale
Let's skip ahead a step. Getting bogged down in the specifics misses the big picture. The eye does have a finite resolution, and if you want to argue it's better than 20/20, you're still conceding the point. You're just saying that smaller 4K TVs are viable. How much smaller? Well, not 50 inches. Probably not 60 inches, either. These are the sizes people are buying. Most people are buying even smaller TVs. Which leads to...
3. 84-inch TVs are never going to be mainstream
Never. Ever. Never ever. Like I said earlier, I have a 102-inch screen. I've also reviewed an 80-inch Sharp LCD. And let me tell you, it dominates the room. It's massive. There is a significant difference between a screen (effectively, the wall), and a Device of Unusual Size. Enthusiasts might be OK with this thing in their room, but most people won't. Ask your spouse. Ask your spouse's friends. Screen sizes have been inching upward, but not linearly with price. More specifically, the prices of big-big screens have fallen much faster than their sales have increased. I don't know what the upper limit is for what the average consumer decides is "too big" for their room, but I'm positive there is an upper limit, and this limit is far smaller than screens that need 4K.
I should clarify what I mean by "TV." I'm specifically talking about the televisions we know today. When OLED becomes something you can paint on your wall, or so paper-thin it hangs like a poster, then absolutely people will get bigger screens (presuming they're cheap). However, this is years (decades?) away. This future awesomeness is different than TVs of today. Will we still call them "TVs"? Yeah, probably, but their presence in the room will be radically different, hopefully because these future wafer-thin "TVs" won't have a presence in the room. They'll be part of the wall.
4. Viewing distance hasn't changed with HD, why would it change with UHD?
In the old days of 480i CRT tube TVs, people sat roughly 9 to 10 feet away from their TVs. There were good reasons for this (scan lines). Modern TVs offer significantly better resolution, so people can sit closer. Except...they don't. Most people still sit the same distance from their TVs as they did before.
Could people sit closer? Sure. A lot closer, actually. This ties in exactly with point No. 3. Sitting closer would be like getting a bigger screen, as it takes up more of your field of view. Just as people aren't getting as big a TV as they could, people aren't sitting closer, either.
So they can sit closer now, but don't. Why would anyone assume that because of UHD, people would suddenly sit closer. It doesn't make any sense. And just like with No. 3, I don't think most people would want to sit closer. Some of you might want to sit 5.5 feet from a 84-inch screen, but you are a tiny minority.
And speaking of viewing distance, this is precisely why comparisons to the Retina Display iPad are specious . The viewing distance is rather different between a TV and a tablet. Or, as President of DisplayMate Technologies Corp. Raymond M. Soneira says, your TV is already a Retina Display.
5. Why 4K?
Ah, now this is an interesting question. It's clear many seem to think TV manufacturers are some sort of altruistic entities that only do new things if there's a benefit to the consumer. How adorable, but no. Ultra HD isn't the "new technology" it appears. Modern TVs are made from huge sheets of "motherglass." From this big piece, companies slice up smaller pieces to make televisions. It's easier (read: cheaper) to make a big piece and cut it into smaller TVs.
Originally this was in case there was a problem with part of the glass, the rest could still be sold as TVs. When you read about "yields" as part of TV manufacturing, this is largely what they're talking about.
But manufacturing has gotten really good, so most of these pieces of motherglass are fully used. Instead of slicing up one piece of motherglass into four 42-inch 1080p LCDs, what if you just kept the whole thing as one piece? What would you have? You'd have an 84-inch TV. Use the exact same (or similar) drive elements/electronics and all the various bits, and you've got a 3,840x2,160-pixel, 84-inch UHD TV. Hey, wait .
You see, TV companies are pushing 4K because they can. It's easy, or at least easier than improving the more important aspects of picture quality (like contrast ratio, color accuracy, motion blur, compression artifacts, and so on ).
6. 4K is easy to market
OK, so 4K is easier to manufacturer than an actual new technology ( OLED ), but there's more to it than that. Ultra HD is an easy sell. It's a number, greater than another number; therefore it's "better." In the confusing world of televisions, simplifying "superiority" down to a single number is marketing gold.
This is just like megapixels on a camera. An 18-megapixel camera does not necessarily take better pictures than a 16-megapixel camera. I guarantee my SLR takes better pictures than a "higher-resolution" point-and-shoot. Numbers are easy to understand, and for nonenthusiasts, distilling a TV down to a single number is desirable. This was rampant in the early days of 1080p. I actually heard people say "I don't know what 1080p is, but I know I'm supposed to want it." And looking at a spec sheet in BigBuy, 1080p is more than 720p, so it's better, right? 4K is an easy sell: it's higher than 1080p. It's also an easy demo...
7. 4K makes a great demo
Our own Matt Moskovciak tweeted this at CES:
I'm a 4K TV skeptic from a real-world image quality perspective, but I could see them selling -- they have a wow factor from up close #ces
-- Matthew Moskovciak (@cnetmoskovciak) January 8, 2013
Exactly. Take a look at the picture at the top of this post. Better yet, look at this one:
Dennis Burger
Sexy bald head aside, when people talk about seeing 4K, they are way closer than they would normally be. Up closer, yeah, 4K looks amazing. This is, of course, how they'll sell in stores. People will walk right up to the screen and go "Wow!" This ignores points Nos. 2 and 4, but try to explain either one to a nonenthusiast. It looks neat, it has a number greater than another (point No. 6), and I'm sure it will sell.
Eventually...
8. The lack of content is not the problem
So much coverage has focused on the lack of 4K content. This is not the issue. It was years before HDTVs had meaningful amounts of content. Presuming points No. 2, 3, and/or 4, quality upconversion can add some detail to 1080p content, making it appear a little sharper than nonupconverted 1080p on a like-size 1080p screen. Again, this is presuming you're close enough to see it. Upconverted content is not the same as real 4K content , but it's a step.
There are other, better uses for Ultra HD TVs as well. Passive 3D is far more pleasing to watch than active 3D , but you lose half the vertical resolution (i.e. 1,920x540 pixels per eye with 1080p). This is still the case with passive 4K TVs, but you can afford to lose it. Passive Ultra HD TVs are still greater than HD resolution, at 3,840x1,080 pixels per eye.
This also opens up possibilities for viewing two different programs on the same TV. Using polarized glasses that block the same lines for each eye, two different 3,840x1,080-pixel programs could be enjoyed by different people on the same couch. So the Missus could watch the game while you watch "The Bachelor" (presuming you have two cable boxes or an antenna). This is somewhat possible now (though this is half-HD resolution) and Samsung demoed a prototype version at CES , so this isn't strictly a 4K thing, but it is an interesting use.
9. There are bigger issues
My biggest complaint about Ultra HD is what it doesn't address. Resolution is not the most important aspect of picture quality. Nor, as we've discussed, is it even a problem with current picture quality. How about improving contrast ratio, color, and compression artifacts ? These all have a significantly greater effect on picture quality than resolution.
I'll add another problem to the list of things 4K doesn't address: motion resolution. All LCDs suffer from motion resolution problems, in many cases, losing upward of 40 percent of their visible resolution when anything on the screen moves. All announced (and most of the previewed) Ultra HD displays are still just LCDs, with all of that technology's shortcomings . These so-called "next-generation" televisions will still have poor off-axis picture quality and mediocre contrast ratios. They'll likely have poor picture uniformity, too, as many models are edge-lit. True, they all have higher refresh rates, but without motion interpolation, higher refresh rates do little to fix motion blur. If the drop in resolution with current LCDs is any indication (and No. 5 shows it is), these "2160p" TVs will resolve something like 1,296 lines with motion.
Perhaps this is why nearly every demo at CES of 4K and 8K TVs showed slow pans and still images. Check out "What is refresh rate?" for more on motion resolution.
Will some models offer methods to combat motion resolution that don't cause the dreaded Soap Opera Effect, like black frame insertion? Many will, yes, but not all.
10. Ultra HD OLED
Sony and Panasonic previewed 4K OLED TVs at CES last year. Since OLED does address the contrast ratio issue, I have no problem with 4K OLED. When I saw LG 4K OLEDs at the CEDIA Expo, they looked amazing. This is because OLEDs create a better overall picture, regardless of their resolution.
During the CES lest year I tweeted the following:
55-inch 4K or 55-inch OLED? Duh, OLED. 4K is just better tires on an old car. OLED is a whole new car.
-- Geoffrey Morrison (@TechWriterGeoff) January 8, 2013
You see, I want us all to have a new car, not just get stuck with our aging Pintos or fermenting Omni GLHs with a slapped-on set of shiny new Pirellis. (And I'll leave it up to you to decide which one of those is LCD and which is plasma.)
11. There are no standards
This is, perhaps the biggest problem with Ultra HD displays available right now/soon. HDMI 1.4, the most common standard, allows for a maximum of 4,096x2,160 pixels at 24fps. Granted this is slightly higher than the 3,840x2,160 of the current crop of Ultra HD displays, but it is not enough to do 4K 3D . It's not enough to do higher frame rates, either, which may or may not come into play ( though with computers , it certainly will).
HDMI 2.0 will offer more bandwidth, so higher resolutions and frame rates can be transmitted over everyone's favorite cable, but that will require different transmitter and receiver chips. This won't be a software upgrade, many of the current Ultra HD displays are already obsolete. Remember, this isn't as simple as swapping out a new cable; the hardware in the TV won't be able to accept the higher data rates. I don't hear any manufacturer mentioning that upgrade path for their $20,000 televisions.
When there is a final standard, who knows what it might have? Maybe they will improve some aspect of color (either in better color depth or in a wider color gamut or both). These Ultra HD displays won't be able to take advantage of that, either.
12. 4K TV is inevitable
When I first starting pointing out most people didn't need 1080p TVs (in the age of 720p flat panels), I knew -- and said at the time -- that 1080p was inevitable. I was just trying to save people some money. That's all I'm trying to do here. Nothing I say will have any effect on what the corporate giants decide to force on us mortals. I'm just trying to point out that increasing resolution in itself is not the improvement in picture quality it "appears" on paper. I'm trying to point out that even when these TVs come out, your money is better spent elsewhere. What I want is better, cheaper TVs and better picture quality for everyone. So thank you to everyone who made personal attacks against me for pointing out what should be obvious (that your favorite TV company is not your boyfriend).
(Here down, 11/13/14 Update!)
13. Nooooope
Since I wrote this article nearly two years ago, there are vastly more 4K TV available. There's also a lot more marketing money hyping 4K. But the facts haven't changed, and what I wrote then still holds true: In smaller screen sizes, 4K just isn't worth the money.
This year's TVs still haven't fully sorted out HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2, not all have HEVC (H.265) decoding, and none have any of the potential drool-worthy benefits of Rec 2020.
Things like High Dynamic Range, which could drastically improve picture quality, are still being overlooked for the sake of the almighty resolution number.
And OLED! 4K is definitely slowing the coming of OLED, even if LG showed a few models this year.
Eventually all TVs will be 4K, just as all (or nearly all) of today's TVs are 1080p. That's just how it works. There will be 4K content too, eventually. Wait a year, and the shiny you've got your eye on now will be cheaper, better, and actually able to play back some real 4K content. Save your money.
14. Beware what you see
Vast numbers of commenters have mentioned something that's worth addressing. The showroom floors of Best Buy, Costco, and the rest, have never, in their history, been adequate places to judge the picture quality of a television. Yet somehow, with the advent of 4K, they suddenly are? Illogical, but many are holding it up as truth.
Watching an immaculate 4K signal (that you can't get at home), on a $5,000 television, while it sits among $800 non-local dimming LCDs running barely HD feeds, is not a far comparison. Nor is it indicative of what a 4K TV will look like in your home, running mediocre 4K streaming signals from Netflix or Amazon.
And along the same lines, ultra-high resolution tablets and smartphones prove my point about resolution, not disprove. The closer the screen is to your eyeballs (or the bigger it is), the more resolution you need. That's all I've been saying from the beginning.
15. More voices
I'm not the only one talking about this anymore, thankfully.
CNET's own David Katzmaier just wrote Is now the time to buy a 4K TV?.
Check out Chris Heinonen's 4K Calculator to see if you'd benefit from a 4K TV given the size of the TV you're considering, and where you're sitting.
The Wall Street Journal weighed in.
Cinematographer Steve Yedlin (Looper, The Brothers Bloom) wrote an interesting blog post about 4k..
And oh yeah, Consumer Reports did a side-by-side comparison: 4K content on 4K TVs, and the same movie on Blu-ray with a 1080p TVs. They found, "...yes--the 4K films did show a noticeable bump in image detail compared to their HD counterparts. But there's a caveat: These differences were not present on all movies, and were visible only when viewed less than 2 feet from the screen, and even then only on certain scenes. When I moved back about 7 feet from the displays, differences between 4K and HD content were not discernible to any meaningful degree."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Bottom line
Nothing I say will stop Ultra HD. Look no further than our own CES coverage for proof of that. TV manufactures are smelling margin like blood in the water. This is something they can do, now, and for a profit. So it's happening, whether it's necessary or not. Instead of improving aspects of the image that need fixing, we get 4K because it's easy to do, easy to sell, and easy to demo. Awesome.
So before you jump down my throat for being "anti-technology" or "anti-innovation," understand I just want better picture quality in the home, for less money, and Ultra HD 4K is not the best way to do it.
Got a question for Geoff? First, check out all the other articles he's written on topics like why all HDMI cables are the same, LED LCD vs. OLED, active versus passive 3D, and more. Still have a question?Send him an e-mail! He won't tell you what TV to buy, but he might use your letter in a future article. You can also send him a message on Twitter @TechWriterGeoff or Google+.
Geoffrey Morrison
As we all expected , the big news at CES this year was Ultra HD 4K displays. It seemed that every TV manufacturer had one, ranging from massive LED LCDs to midsize LED LCDs to midsize OLEDs.
We've talked about this before , but now with more info, and definitive product announcements, let me explain in exacting, excruciating detail why 4K TVs are still stupid .
Allow me to start with the most important point:
1. I love 4K
It is my fault for trying to make a nuanced argument on the Internet. I have a 102-inch "TV" and sit 9 feet from it. I would love to have 4K. When I expand out to fill the full 10-foot-wide 2.35:1 screen, I can see pixels with some projectors. I look forward to more 4K projectors. Projectors are not TVs; 4K TVs are a waste. This is because...
2. The eye has a finite resolution
This is basic biology. The accepted "normal" vision is 20/20. In response to my previous articles on the stupidity of 4K TVs, many people argued they had better vision, or some other number should be used. This is like arguing doors should be bigger because there are tall people. Also, just because you have better vision, doesn't mean most people have better vision. If they did, it wouldn't be better, it would be average.
Try this. Go to the beach (or a big sandbox, or a baseball diamond). Sit down. Start counting how many grains of sand you can see next to you. Now do the same with the grains of sand by your feet. Try again with the sand far beyond your feet (like, say, 10 feet away). The fact that you can see individual grains near you, but not farther away is exactly what we're talking about here. The eye is analog. Randomly analog at that. So of course some people are going to see more detail than others, and at different distances, but 20/20 is what everyone knows, and it is by far the most logical place to start any discussion.
Is there some wiggle room thanks to variances in how people see? Yes, of course. Here's an awesome chart:
Carlton Bale
Let's skip ahead a step. Getting bogged down in the specifics misses the big picture. The eye does have a finite resolution, and if you want to argue it's better than 20/20, you're still conceding the point. You're just saying that smaller 4K TVs are viable. How much smaller? Well, not 50 inches. Probably not 60 inches, either. These are the sizes people are buying. Most people are buying even smaller TVs. Which leads to...
3. 84-inch TVs are never going to be mainstream
Never. Ever. Never ever. Like I said earlier, I have a 102-inch screen. I've also reviewed an 80-inch Sharp LCD. And let me tell you, it dominates the room. It's massive. There is a significant difference between a screen (effectively, the wall), and a Device of Unusual Size. Enthusiasts might be OK with this thing in their room, but most people won't. Ask your spouse. Ask your spouse's friends. Screen sizes have been inching upward, but not linearly with price. More specifically, the prices of big-big screens have fallen much faster than their sales have increased. I don't know what the upper limit is for what the average consumer decides is "too big" for their room, but I'm positive there is an upper limit, and this limit is far smaller than screens that need 4K.
I should clarify what I mean by "TV." I'm specifically talking about the televisions we know today. When OLED becomes something you can paint on your wall, or so paper-thin it hangs like a poster, then absolutely people will get bigger screens (presuming they're cheap). However, this is years (decades?) away. This future awesomeness is different than TVs of today. Will we still call them "TVs"? Yeah, probably, but their presence in the room will be radically different, hopefully because these future wafer-thin "TVs" won't have a presence in the room. They'll be part of the wall.
4. Viewing distance hasn't changed with HD, why would it change with UHD?
In the old days of 480i CRT tube TVs, people sat roughly 9 to 10 feet away from their TVs. There were good reasons for this (scan lines). Modern TVs offer significantly better resolution, so people can sit closer. Except...they don't. Most people still sit the same distance from their TVs as they did before.
Could people sit closer? Sure. A lot closer, actually. This ties in exactly with point No. 3. Sitting closer would be like getting a bigger screen, as it takes up more of your field of view. Just as people aren't getting as big a TV as they could, people aren't sitting closer, either.
So they can sit closer now, but don't. Why would anyone assume that because of UHD, people would suddenly sit closer. It doesn't make any sense. And just like with No. 3, I don't think most people would want to sit closer. Some of you might want to sit 5.5 feet from a 84-inch screen, but you are a tiny minority.
And speaking of viewing distance, this is precisely why comparisons to the Retina Display iPad are specious . The viewing distance is rather different between a TV and a tablet. Or, as President of DisplayMate Technologies Corp. Raymond M. Soneira says, your TV is already a Retina Display.
5. Why 4K?
Ah, now this is an interesting question. It's clear many seem to think TV manufacturers are some sort of altruistic entities that only do new things if there's a benefit to the consumer. How adorable, but no. Ultra HD isn't the "new technology" it appears. Modern TVs are made from huge sheets of "motherglass." From this big piece, companies slice up smaller pieces to make televisions. It's easier (read: cheaper) to make a big piece and cut it into smaller TVs.
Originally this was in case there was a problem with part of the glass, the rest could still be sold as TVs. When you read about "yields" as part of TV manufacturing, this is largely what they're talking about.
But manufacturing has gotten really good, so most of these pieces of motherglass are fully used. Instead of slicing up one piece of motherglass into four 42-inch 1080p LCDs, what if you just kept the whole thing as one piece? What would you have? You'd have an 84-inch TV. Use the exact same (or similar) drive elements/electronics and all the various bits, and you've got a 3,840x2,160-pixel, 84-inch UHD TV. Hey, wait .
You see, TV companies are pushing 4K because they can. It's easy, or at least easier than improving the more important aspects of picture quality (like contrast ratio, color accuracy, motion blur, compression artifacts, and so on ).
6. 4K is easy to market
OK, so 4K is easier to manufacturer than an actual new technology ( OLED ), but there's more to it than that. Ultra HD is an easy sell. It's a number, greater than another number; therefore it's "better." In the confusing world of televisions, simplifying "superiority" down to a single number is marketing gold.
This is just like megapixels on a camera. An 18-megapixel camera does not necessarily take better pictures than a 16-megapixel camera. I guarantee my SLR takes better pictures than a "higher-resolution" point-and-shoot. Numbers are easy to understand, and for nonenthusiasts, distilling a TV down to a single number is desirable. This was rampant in the early days of 1080p. I actually heard people say "I don't know what 1080p is, but I know I'm supposed to want it." And looking at a spec sheet in BigBuy, 1080p is more than 720p, so it's better, right? 4K is an easy sell: it's higher than 1080p. It's also an easy demo...
7. 4K makes a great demo
Our own Matt Moskovciak tweeted this at CES:
I'm a 4K TV skeptic from a real-world image quality perspective, but I could see them selling -- they have a wow factor from up close #ces
-- Matthew Moskovciak (@cnetmoskovciak) January 8, 2013
Exactly. Take a look at the picture at the top of this post. Better yet, look at this one:
Dennis Burger
Sexy bald head aside, when people talk about seeing 4K, they are way closer than they would normally be. Up closer, yeah, 4K looks amazing. This is, of course, how they'll sell in stores. People will walk right up to the screen and go "Wow!" This ignores points Nos. 2 and 4, but try to explain either one to a nonenthusiast. It looks neat, it has a number greater than another (point No. 6), and I'm sure it will sell.
Eventually...
8. The lack of content is not the problem
So much coverage has focused on the lack of 4K content. This is not the issue. It was years before HDTVs had meaningful amounts of content. Presuming points No. 2, 3, and/or 4, quality upconversion can add some detail to 1080p content, making it appear a little sharper than nonupconverted 1080p on a like-size 1080p screen. Again, this is presuming you're close enough to see it. Upconverted content is not the same as real 4K content , but it's a step.
There are other, better uses for Ultra HD TVs as well. Passive 3D is far more pleasing to watch than active 3D , but you lose half the vertical resolution (i.e. 1,920x540 pixels per eye with 1080p). This is still the case with passive 4K TVs, but you can afford to lose it. Passive Ultra HD TVs are still greater than HD resolution, at 3,840x1,080 pixels per eye.
This also opens up possibilities for viewing two different programs on the same TV. Using polarized glasses that block the same lines for each eye, two different 3,840x1,080-pixel programs could be enjoyed by different people on the same couch. So the Missus could watch the game while you watch "The Bachelor" (presuming you have two cable boxes or an antenna). This is somewhat possible now (though this is half-HD resolution) and Samsung demoed a prototype version at CES , so this isn't strictly a 4K thing, but it is an interesting use.
9. There are bigger issues
My biggest complaint about Ultra HD is what it doesn't address. Resolution is not the most important aspect of picture quality. Nor, as we've discussed, is it even a problem with current picture quality. How about improving contrast ratio, color, and compression artifacts ? These all have a significantly greater effect on picture quality than resolution.
I'll add another problem to the list of things 4K doesn't address: motion resolution. All LCDs suffer from motion resolution problems, in many cases, losing upward of 40 percent of their visible resolution when anything on the screen moves. All announced (and most of the previewed) Ultra HD displays are still just LCDs, with all of that technology's shortcomings . These so-called "next-generation" televisions will still have poor off-axis picture quality and mediocre contrast ratios. They'll likely have poor picture uniformity, too, as many models are edge-lit. True, they all have higher refresh rates, but without motion interpolation, higher refresh rates do little to fix motion blur. If the drop in resolution with current LCDs is any indication (and No. 5 shows it is), these "2160p" TVs will resolve something like 1,296 lines with motion.
Perhaps this is why nearly every demo at CES of 4K and 8K TVs showed slow pans and still images. Check out "What is refresh rate?" for more on motion resolution.
Will some models offer methods to combat motion resolution that don't cause the dreaded Soap Opera Effect, like black frame insertion? Many will, yes, but not all.
10. Ultra HD OLED
Sony and Panasonic previewed 4K OLED TVs at CES last year. Since OLED does address the contrast ratio issue, I have no problem with 4K OLED. When I saw LG 4K OLEDs at the CEDIA Expo, they looked amazing. This is because OLEDs create a better overall picture, regardless of their resolution.
During the CES lest year I tweeted the following:
55-inch 4K or 55-inch OLED? Duh, OLED. 4K is just better tires on an old car. OLED is a whole new car.
-- Geoffrey Morrison (@TechWriterGeoff) January 8, 2013
You see, I want us all to have a new car, not just get stuck with our aging Pintos or fermenting Omni GLHs with a slapped-on set of shiny new Pirellis. (And I'll leave it up to you to decide which one of those is LCD and which is plasma.)
11. There are no standards
This is, perhaps the biggest problem with Ultra HD displays available right now/soon. HDMI 1.4, the most common standard, allows for a maximum of 4,096x2,160 pixels at 24fps. Granted this is slightly higher than the 3,840x2,160 of the current crop of Ultra HD displays, but it is not enough to do 4K 3D . It's not enough to do higher frame rates, either, which may or may not come into play ( though with computers , it certainly will).
HDMI 2.0 will offer more bandwidth, so higher resolutions and frame rates can be transmitted over everyone's favorite cable, but that will require different transmitter and receiver chips. This won't be a software upgrade, many of the current Ultra HD displays are already obsolete. Remember, this isn't as simple as swapping out a new cable; the hardware in the TV won't be able to accept the higher data rates. I don't hear any manufacturer mentioning that upgrade path for their $20,000 televisions.
When there is a final standard, who knows what it might have? Maybe they will improve some aspect of color (either in better color depth or in a wider color gamut or both). These Ultra HD displays won't be able to take advantage of that, either.
12. 4K TV is inevitable
When I first starting pointing out most people didn't need 1080p TVs (in the age of 720p flat panels), I knew -- and said at the time -- that 1080p was inevitable. I was just trying to save people some money. That's all I'm trying to do here. Nothing I say will have any effect on what the corporate giants decide to force on us mortals. I'm just trying to point out that increasing resolution in itself is not the improvement in picture quality it "appears" on paper. I'm trying to point out that even when these TVs come out, your money is better spent elsewhere. What I want is better, cheaper TVs and better picture quality for everyone. So thank you to everyone who made personal attacks against me for pointing out what should be obvious (that your favorite TV company is not your boyfriend).
(Here down, 11/13/14 Update!)
13. Nooooope
Since I wrote this article nearly two years ago, there are vastly more 4K TV available. There's also a lot more marketing money hyping 4K. But the facts haven't changed, and what I wrote then still holds true: In smaller screen sizes, 4K just isn't worth the money.
This year's TVs still haven't fully sorted out HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2, not all have HEVC (H.265) decoding, and none have any of the potential drool-worthy benefits of Rec 2020.
Things like High Dynamic Range, which could drastically improve picture quality, are still being overlooked for the sake of the almighty resolution number.
And OLED! 4K is definitely slowing the coming of OLED, even if LG showed a few models this year.
Eventually all TVs will be 4K, just as all (or nearly all) of today's TVs are 1080p. That's just how it works. There will be 4K content too, eventually. Wait a year, and the shiny you've got your eye on now will be cheaper, better, and actually able to play back some real 4K content. Save your money.
14. Beware what you see
Vast numbers of commenters have mentioned something that's worth addressing. The showroom floors of Best Buy, Costco, and the rest, have never, in their history, been adequate places to judge the picture quality of a television. Yet somehow, with the advent of 4K, they suddenly are? Illogical, but many are holding it up as truth.
Watching an immaculate 4K signal (that you can't get at home), on a $5,000 television, while it sits among $800 non-local dimming LCDs running barely HD feeds, is not a far comparison. Nor is it indicative of what a 4K TV will look like in your home, running mediocre 4K streaming signals from Netflix or Amazon.
And along the same lines, ultra-high resolution tablets and smartphones prove my point about resolution, not disprove. The closer the screen is to your eyeballs (or the bigger it is), the more resolution you need. That's all I've been saying from the beginning.
15. More voices
I'm not the only one talking about this anymore, thankfully.
CNET's own David Katzmaier just wrote Is now the time to buy a 4K TV?.
Check out Chris Heinonen's 4K Calculator to see if you'd benefit from a 4K TV given the size of the TV you're considering, and where you're sitting.
The Wall Street Journal weighed in.
Cinematographer Steve Yedlin (Looper, The Brothers Bloom) wrote an interesting blog post about 4k..
And oh yeah, Consumer Reports did a side-by-side comparison: 4K content on 4K TVs, and the same movie on Blu-ray with a 1080p TVs. They found, "...yes--the 4K films did show a noticeable bump in image detail compared to their HD counterparts. But there's a caveat: These differences were not present on all movies, and were visible only when viewed less than 2 feet from the screen, and even then only on certain scenes. When I moved back about 7 feet from the displays, differences between 4K and HD content were not discernible to any meaningful degree."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Bottom line
Nothing I say will stop Ultra HD. Look no further than our own CES coverage for proof of that. TV manufactures are smelling margin like blood in the water. This is something they can do, now, and for a profit. So it's happening, whether it's necessary or not. Instead of improving aspects of the image that need fixing, we get 4K because it's easy to do, easy to sell, and easy to demo. Awesome.
So before you jump down my throat for being "anti-technology" or "anti-innovation," understand I just want better picture quality in the home, for less money, and Ultra HD 4K is not the best way to do it.
Got a question for Geoff? First, check out all the other articles he's written on topics like why all HDMI cables are the same, LED LCD vs. OLED, active versus passive 3D, and more. Still have a question?Send him an e-mail! He won't tell you what TV to buy, but he might use your letter in a future article. You can also send him a message on Twitter @TechWriterGeoff or Google+.
- Sep 18, 2013
- 5,713
- 4,860
That article was written by an wannabee tech elitist
- Jun 26, 2005
- 8,471
- 1,902
says who? you?
- Editor in Chief of Home Theater Magazine
- writer for Sound and Vision Magazine
sit down Susan
ive been reading those magazines and his reviews/articles for over 10 years
this guy does this for a living apparently
but im supposed to get my tech info from shoe nerds on Niketalk
- Dec 13, 2004
- 75,054
- 63,026
What I disagree with is that OLED is better marketed, I just do not see it that way. I also do not see advertisements saying 4k > OLED.
From what I understand, OLED is just expensive. I thought it was obvious that OLED was the future and that was the next "big thing", I was personally waiting for it, then 4K arrived and OLEDs just never hit mainstream or got cheap enough for anyone to try. Now there is OLED 4k and I think most would agree that it is better than regular 4k but have they been able to drop the price on it to point where consumers can buy one and experience it? I mean at the beginning of the year 55" 4K's were going for no less than $4000 but now Vizio has some at $1400 range. Whether that is marketing or simply a huge leap in tech advancement, the point is it is working and selling.
If Vizio can release some OLED 4K at a $500 premium over regular 4k, then it would be more popular and might actually sell. Same with Sony, Samsung, etc... But sadly that isn't what I am seeing personally, I might have seen one or two OLEDs in my life max just visiting Best Buy and Frys.
In that regard, I am not sure the consumer is in control. 4K is what is fed to the masses and it is what you see showcased in stores so that is what the buyers see and experience.
I don't thin anyone is also defending that there are content out there, almost everyone I've seen post in NT (not just this thread) about the subject agrees it isn't to a point where it is beneficial to buy. There are just inquiries and there tends to be a few rude answers instead of informative ones (thanks for the article, helps capture what 4k's state, though I prefer it to be less negative
). I mean for the most part, this has been the suggestions I've seen the most, a quote from that article:
I have emphasized many times too that you would need at least 55" or higher to see a difference, just like anything smaller than 32" will not benefit much from a jump from 720p to 1080p.
I am not claiming to be a video-phile of any sorts, I am no expert on the matter but this is simply my experience. Just a casual buyer here but probably slightly more informed than most.
I just think that if the manufacturers really want to push OLED 4k down our throat as the next best thing, they could and would and the consumers will eventually buy it once the price goes down.
From what I understand, OLED is just expensive. I thought it was obvious that OLED was the future and that was the next "big thing", I was personally waiting for it, then 4K arrived and OLEDs just never hit mainstream or got cheap enough for anyone to try. Now there is OLED 4k and I think most would agree that it is better than regular 4k but have they been able to drop the price on it to point where consumers can buy one and experience it? I mean at the beginning of the year 55" 4K's were going for no less than $4000 but now Vizio has some at $1400 range. Whether that is marketing or simply a huge leap in tech advancement, the point is it is working and selling.
If Vizio can release some OLED 4K at a $500 premium over regular 4k, then it would be more popular and might actually sell. Same with Sony, Samsung, etc... But sadly that isn't what I am seeing personally, I might have seen one or two OLEDs in my life max just visiting Best Buy and Frys.
In that regard, I am not sure the consumer is in control. 4K is what is fed to the masses and it is what you see showcased in stores so that is what the buyers see and experience.
I don't thin anyone is also defending that there are content out there, almost everyone I've seen post in NT (not just this thread) about the subject agrees it isn't to a point where it is beneficial to buy. There are just inquiries and there tends to be a few rude answers instead of informative ones (thanks for the article, helps capture what 4k's state, though I prefer it to be less negative
). I mean for the most part, this has been the suggestions I've seen the most, a quote from that article:I have emphasized many times too that you would need at least 55" or higher to see a difference, just like anything smaller than 32" will not benefit much from a jump from 720p to 1080p.
I am not claiming to be a video-phile of any sorts, I am no expert on the matter but this is simply my experience. Just a casual buyer here but probably slightly more informed than most.
I just think that if the manufacturers really want to push OLED 4k down our throat as the next best thing, they could and would and the consumers will eventually buy it once the price goes down.
- Nov 6, 2012
- 4,758
- 1,409
Lol people are buying curved TVs but calling 4K a gimmick. I haven't looked at any 4K content on my TV yet (cable/internet being installed on Monday) , but if you see 4K in person you know its the truth.
Vizio will bring down the prices of 4K TVs. Copped my 60in P series for 1K.
Vizio will bring down the prices of 4K TVs. Copped my 60in P series for 1K.
- May 31, 2011
- 2,325
- 269
Ultra HD isnt a gimmick. Its a spec. Is there a diminishing return for the normal person? yes but why should we not try to achieve a higher benchmark? Displays are used everywhere and progressing screen technology will do nothing but good for technology
- Oct 10, 2013
- 43,425
- 42,998
Yup, prices for 4k are already reaching "normal" range. Might as well grab one if you're in the market for a new TV.
- Oct 18, 2017
- 2,701
- 5,723
I'll wait til the content is there first before I spend that type of cash.
- Dec 13, 2004
- 75,054
- 63,026
4K size is just crazy high, I remember trying to download one and it was like 45-50 GB?
I think I'll stick to downloading 1080p films at 4-5 GB each for now.
It's crazy watching 4k content on youtube though.
I think this is my favorite so far:
I think I'll stick to downloading 1080p films at 4-5 GB each for now.
It's crazy watching 4k content on youtube though.
I think this is my favorite so far:
Last edited:
- May 31, 2011
- 2,325
- 269
4K size is just crazy high, I remember trying to download one and it was like 45-50 GB?
I think I'll stick to downloading 1080p films at 4-5 GB each for now.
It's crazy watching 4k content on youtube though.
I think this is my favorite so far:
IT depends on the compression used. Also audio plays a big role as well. I can go on forever about file formats but there are differents between 1080p movies and their file sizes for a reason. Most people dont care to wonder the difference between a bdrip and a blu ray x264 rip but there are many differences
- Dec 13, 2004
- 75,054
- 63,026
Yeah I notice the difference. I used to download bdrips 720p that takes up about 1-2GB and you can definitely tell the difference in quality.
If I keep going this phase though, i'm gon' need another and bigger external hard drive. Once 4K becomes the regular, I'm gon' burn through so many external hard drives.
If I keep going this phase though, i'm gon' need another and bigger external hard drive. Once 4K becomes the regular, I'm gon' burn through so many external hard drives.
- Jun 26, 2005
- 8,471
- 1,902
....i posted that article from my phone earlier, i know it was alot to take on. im home now so i can cut and paste the important parts.
9 & 10.......now these points here are the most informative:
..and lastly (we dont believe you, you need more people)
9 & 10.......now these points here are the most informative:
..and lastly (we dont believe you, you need more people)
ice city fc
Banned
- Mar 6, 2013
- 5,031
- 2,109
If your first post had been more like your last, people would take you more seriously. Try not to sound like such condescending prick.
Thanks for the info.
- Jun 26, 2005
- 8,471
- 1,902
nah
you just sensitive
funny, RFX45 had no problems with what i said. probably because he's smart enough to venture outside of Niketalk for his tech info
i couldnt care less about your feelings
you dont like being called an ignorant consumer? then educate yourself
even the dude that wrote the article got called all kinds of namespeople are weird when it comes to info on tech
Last edited:
ice city fc
Banned
- Mar 6, 2013
- 5,031
- 2,109
Now I'm sensitive and in my feelings. Ok tough guy.
Do you even read the **** you type?
You look like a clown. Seriously though you obviously have some kind of complex man, you should really think about getting that checked out by a professional.
Do you even read the **** you type?
You look like a clown. Seriously though you obviously have some kind of complex man, you should really think about getting that checked out by a professional.
everysingletime
formerly amel223
- Apr 4, 2006
- 42,963
- 15,346
Now I'm sensitive and in my feelings. Ok tough guy.
Do you even read the **** you type?
You look like a clown. Seriously though you obviously have some kind of complex man, you should really think about getting that checked out by a professional.
That's just how he posts. Don't waste your time, bro.
- Jun 26, 2005
- 8,471
- 1,902
thats right.
- Jun 5, 2008
- 9,858
- 2,989
Just wait until oled's come out with 4k and go down in price. Your welcome
Last edited:
- Sep 1, 2008
- 15,257
- 4,641
How about curved TVs? Is that a gimmick? Anyone have one?
