Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mr Skrunts]

Most of us by now have a flat screen TV of the 1080p spec, having a nosey around on the net i see the 4k spec TV screens are being offered by more retailers and keeping the 16:9 aspect ratio.

So where is it all heading as I am getting confused with it all (not difficult in my case )

I have seen 4K and 8K TV mentioned but Phillips have also brought out a 21:9 TV which is probably what some of the films that's I have tried to watch recently are broadcast in (Sadly I couldn't read the credits on the left and right hand side of the screen )

But how long will it be before broadcasters catch up and will they try to charge us yet again for the higher spec just like they did with the HD.   

ma@.confused.oof

[chrisgixer]

Simply put its 4x1080p ish, at 4000p. Just more detail.

Pointless at the moment as there's no content available. Although Sky will start broadcasting this year. Apparently.

If it's taken on to its full extent, 4k is very impressive, in quality and cost.

[aaronjb]

21:9 TV which is probably what some of the films that's I have tried to watch recently are broadcast in (Sadly I couldn't read the credits on the left and right hand side of the screen )

21:9 is so-called 'cinema aspect' and is what films are (or at least almost always were) filmed in - if your TV is chopping off the left and the right side, turn off 'zoom' or whatever the mode is called. You should have black bands at the top and bottom of your screen, not be losing the left & right of the frame - unless of course the TV station has already (poorly) made that choice for you.

For some reason when widescreen TV came about 16:9 was chosen as the de-facto format.. which meant that at it's inception most TV content had black bars down the sides and half the films had black bars top & bottom


While I do love my 1080p, I don't see me going for a 4K TV all that soon - at my viewing distance (~5m) and screen size (70") I can't see pixels with 1080p. 4K would just be bragging rights.

Unless someone wants to lend me £600,000: http://www.costco.co.uk/view/product/uk_catalog/cos_1,cos_1.1,cos_1.1.7/142976

[Kevin Wood]

What we know as 1080p is 1920 x 1080, 4k is 3840 × 2160 and 8K is 7680 × 4320.

I don't expect to see much broadcast TV in these formats as the TV broadcast bands have been squeezed recently to make way for more 4G phones. The "HD" they are currently broadcasting is pretty heavily compressed (compare the picture quality to blue-ray some time). Making a meaningful attempt at broadcasting 4k means they'd have to cut some of those fascinating shopping channels. I doubt many "ordinary" consumers would appreciate the difference either.

As to blue ray and streaming delivery, then maybe. As I've said before, though, you're going to need a huuuge TV, and have your nose touching the screen to notice.

I guess the TV manufacturers are hoping this'll be the new HD Ready Full HD 3D Smart TV \ <insert latest sales buzzword here> that'll make everyone rush out and buy a new set they don't need.

[Kevin Wood]

That said, I do hope a lot of mugs punters buy them as, once the panels are nice and cheap, I quite fancy one of them as a computer monitor.

[Marks DTM Calib]

16:9 was chosen as the widescreen aspect ratio as at the time of concept, there were many different ratios and it was the best fit for all of them e.g. it was a compromise format. Now, its the standard aspect ratio for bradcast images.

As for 4k etc, this I suspect is being driven by ever larger panel sizes as if you look at HD on a 60 inch screen you can see the pixels like you used to on the older CRT units......plus of course the industry needs to keep coming up with new 'better' formats to drive demand for the 'latest thing'.

Probablem is that if you consider broadcast 'HD', you dont actualy today get 'HD', you only get 'HD'ish.....so the bandwidth for 4k will be challenging.....although TV is likely to move over to streaming based predominantly over the next ten years.

[chrisgixer]

Hmmm. I wonder, how many have actually seen 4k in action?

It is impressive. No, it really is. Although binoculars are obviously cheaper.

[Kevin Wood]

Hmmm. I wonder, how many have actually seen 4k in action?

Anyone who's been to a cinema in the last 5 years or so probably has.

It is impressive. No, it really is. Although binoculars are obviously cheaper.

There's a difference between watching carefully prepared demo footage streamed locally with very low compression while you're standing 3 feet away from the TV in John Lewis, as opposed to in a real living-room environment. It's a moot point at the moment, as you can't get content. Until you can get physical media with 4k content, or are able to stream it, there's not much point.

[CaptainZok]

Hmmm. I wonder, how many have actually seen 4k in action?

Anyone who's been to a cinema in the last 5 years or so probably has.

It is impressive. No, it really is. Although binoculars are obviously cheaper.

There's a difference between watching carefully prepared demo footage streamed locally with very low compression while you're standing 3 feet away from the TV in John Lewis, as opposed to in a real living-room environment. It's a moot point at the moment, as you can't get content. Until you can get physical media with 4k content, or are able to stream it, there's not much point.

The point is willy-waving down the pub/ on forums isn't it?

[Kevin Wood]

Hmmm. I wonder, how many have actually seen 4k in action?

Anyone who's been to a cinema in the last 5 years or so probably has.

It is impressive. No, it really is. Although binoculars are obviously cheaper.

There's a difference between watching carefully prepared demo footage streamed locally with very low compression while you're standing 3 feet away from the TV in John Lewis, as opposed to in a real living-room environment. It's a moot point at the moment, as you can't get content. Until you can get physical media with 4k content, or are able to stream it, there's not much point.

The point is willy-waving down the pub/ on forums isn't it?

Oh, yeah, that's right. Got to keep up with the Joneses, you know.

[chrisgixer]

Thought not.

[aaronjb]

Oh, yeah, that's right. Got to keep up with the Joneses, you know.

I have a friend who really is Mr Jones .. it's thanks to watching his setup that I now own the same TV and same Arcam decoder & amplifiers.

Keeping up with the Joneses really is expensive

[tunnie]

I've been to some 4k demo's it really is incredible, no other word. They filmed some of the 2012 Olympics in it, 100 meter final for one (which is what I saw) The detail is that good is even from the finish, they could easily spot that guy who threw a bottle in. Very, very impressive, but.

It won't happen, we simply don't have the broadcast capability yet, it would take up far to much bandwidth. It's several years off at least before investing IMHO 

[Marks DTM Calib]

Agreed, until there is a media source which supports the resolution then its of little impact (similar to Full HD and Blue ray).

Of course 4K also makes sense for 3D applications to.

Streaming wise, rule of thumb you need four times the bandwidth, about 12-20Mbs.....which is do able on a fibre to the curb line

[tunnie]

Agreed, until there is a media source which supports the resolution then its of little impact (similar to Full HD and Blue ray).

Of course 4K also makes sense for 3D applications to.

Streaming wise, rule of thumb you need four times the bandwidth, about 12-20Mbs.....which is do able on a fibre to the curb line

There is enough trouble delivering a 800 Kbs stream to customers 

Highest 'standard' at the moment is around 1.2 Mbs, so again it's way off on that too.