4K TVs now on display at Best Buy…viewers were fascinated but...

N

Nicholas Natteau

Veteran
I was just in Best Buy the other day when I noticed a number of people crowding around the latest Sony 4K televisions, a 65" for $7,000 and a 55" for $5,000. As I've never been to NAB, it was my first time up close to a 4K TV and the picture was stunning. Those two 4K TVs were definitely attracting more attention than all the others in the store, if only because people were marveling at how close you get to the screen and still not see pixels.

If I'm not mistaken Sony's first 4K TV was an 85"(?) priced at an astronomical (for a TV set) $25,000. Now we're seeing 4K available for $7,000 and $5,000. Perhaps no one will be buying 4K TVs for some time to come, or perhaps if the prices continue to drop as in 4K for $4K, people will begin buying into it. Or perhaps too many viewers are sufficiently happy with full HD 1080p to ever want to spend several thousand more for 4K. Time will tell. But it was very interesting to see how much attention those 4K displays were getting.

But 4K youtube videos aside, since no TV channel I know of is yet broadcasting in 4K, how well does HD content (broadcasts and Blu-ray DVDs) upscale on these 4K TVs? Do they look soft or pixelated? If so, then I don't think most consumers will buy 4K TVs until 4K content is as widespread as HD.
 
Last edited:
Nicholas Natteau said:
I was just in Best Buy the other day when I noticed a number of people crowding around the latest Sony 4K televisions, a 65" for $7,000 and a 55" for $5,000. As I've never been to NAB, it was my first time up close to a 4K TV and the picture was stunning. Those two 4K TVs were definitely attracting more attention than all the others in the store, if only because people were marveling at how close you get to the screen and still not see pixels.

If I'm not mistaken Sony's first 4K TV was an 85"(?) priced at an astronomical (for a TV set) $25,000. Now we're seeing 4K available for $7,000 and $5,000. Perhaps no one will be buying 4K TVs for some time to come, or perhaps if the prices continue to drop as in 4K for $4K, people will begin buying into it. Or perhaps too many viewers are sufficiently happy with full HD 1080p to ever want to spend several thousand more for 4K. Time will tell. But it was very interesting to see how much attention those 4K displays were getting.

But 4K youtube videos aside, since no TV channel I know of is yet broadcasting in 4K, how well does HD content (broadcasts and Blu-ray DVDs) upscale on these 4K TVs? Do they look soft or pixelated? If so, then I don't think most consumers will buy 4K TVs until 4K content is as widespread as HD.
Click to expand...

Most consumers are happy heck..with their DVD's, not everyone has blu-ray either. The industry just recently switched to Digital TV and HD not long ago.

4K has its benefits for producers in reframing, stablizing and cinema projection but being on the consumer and realistic side, its going to be a very long time before 4k becomes mainstream.

Consumers are not like 10 years ago where they jump on everything that's hyped, most just choose not to believe the hype anymore. 4k is hype...and will be for a long time to come.
 
People would be happy with a black and white television if everyone still used them. A time will come when they will either stop making DVD's or you will have to buy a DVD Blu-Ray combo pack.
 
androbot2084 said:
People would be happy with a black and white television if everyone still used them. A time will come when they will either stop making DVD's or you will have to buy a DVD Blu-Ray combo pack.
Click to expand...

Eeek... I can already see those awful products before me on the discount shelves of various discount stores.

Happy to see progress move along. I don't know a single person who doesn't own a bluray player, but I don't think hard copy delivery is the future. The ones to come up with internet lines faster than 100/100 at a feasible price tag will make the ball roll faster. I want stream as my main resource for tv and /or internet video... and I don't mind if it was 4K.

I stand by my bold statement that 4K is right around the corner, and my even bolder statement the broadcast companies are going to lose this war big time (unless of course they are just sitting around waiting for some innovative people to start up something nice and ahead of their time and just buy them out.)
 
If Broadcasters were smart they would have anticipated the 4K revolution a long time ago and they would have coincided the roll out of 4K televisions with 4K broadcasting but instead they wait for the 4K televisions to arrive and they want us to wait 4 years before they offer 4K broadcasting.
 
androbot2084 said:
If Broadcasters were smart they would have anticipated the 4K revolution a long time ago and they would have coincided the roll out of 4K televisions with 4K broadcasting but instead they wait for the 4K televisions to arrive and they want us to wait 4 years before they offer 4K broadcasting.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that work both ways though? Surely these manufacturers should wait for the 4K infrastructure to be ready before trying to sell people a technology in these times of little spending?

You can argue that internet is ready to stream 4K, but at what cost (both in server terms and in the amount of compression needed). I have a 100mb connection and still get the occasional buffering on the likes of Vimeo.
 
Last edited:
The Broadcasters had fair warning years ago with the introduction of the Red One and now we have consumer 4K cameras. The broadcasters argued that the digital transition happened too recently in 2009 but the truth is that the switch to high definition started 30 years ago in 1983 with the introduction of ATSC.

The broadcasters simply dragged their feet. During the 1980's the broadcasters said let's wait for digital rather than implement analog high definition. When digital 720p was invented the broadcasters said let us wait for the super computer to be invented so that 1080i can be deinterlaced and converted to 720p along with cross conversion of 18 other obsolete formats. When the super computer was invented the broadcasters waited for the price to drop before installing the digital tuners in new televisions. When the price of the super computer dropped the broadcasters demanded that the convertor boxes be crippled to output only a low definition signal so that the older HD ready televisions would not work and had to be thrown away. Today we have high definition television only because high definition televisions are the only televisions you can buy and all of these televisions have free high definition tuners.
 
I do not know your background androbot, but your views seem a little out of touch with reality imho. Broadcasters are a business entity. They do not want to spend money that does not have a return on investment - like any business. Changing a broadcast format is a huge thing. So much stuff has to upgraded or at least made to be compatible. For you to say that the RED One came out so the guys at ESPN should go replace all of their production trucks and gear is just not in the ballpark.

4k is bleeding edge. There are a lot of people that barely have HD. Broadcasters have to serve everybody to make money. If they chase tech they lose money.

Whoever makes the great content will get the eyeballs. Until Netflix or any other internet entity can make a "Game of Thrones" or show me the Indy 500, they will be exactly what they are, an alternative.
 
I agree with Bassman2003

Yeah, talk to any regular person,( I have...not gear heads) like my step father, my co workers, my girlfriend...and mention 4K. Guess what they'll say: What is that?
Contrary to an earlier poster, I don't know a single person WITH blu ray. So while it will come, I think it will be slow and niche for a while, until people's other tvs NEED replacing...or they package the 4K tvs with some other type of improvement.

SD big screens were huge, heavy, and had the 4:3 aspect ratio. Modern HD tvs are light, 16:9 and are just better in so many ways. A 4K tv looks just the same in every way except for the resolution improvement with no content to watch in 4K. Try to sell that to the average joe. The manufacturers need to get crafty to sell this to people.
 
androbot2084 said:
The Broadcasters had fair warning years ago with the introduction of the Red One and now we have consumer 4K cameras. The broadcasters argued that the digital transition happened too recently in 2009 but the truth is that the switch to high definition started 30 years ago in 1983 with the introduction of ATSC.

The broadcasters simply dragged their feet. During the 1980's the broadcasters said let's wait for digital rather than implement analog high definition.
Click to expand...

You say "broadcasters" like it's some unified entity like the NFL or Viacom when it's actually a hodge-podge of independent stations, affiliate stations and owned & operated stations that run the gambit from big stations serving huge markets like NY and Chicago to tiny stations serving middle-of-no-where South Dakota. Some stations have large budgets, some stations have small budgets, but all stations are making less now than in the past. And that's just in the US. To make a 'global standard' like what HD has become you have to work with other countries to decide on what should be frame rates, frame sizes, aspect ratio, etc.,.

Laying out the game plan for HD might have started 30yrs ago, but the actual process did not as the technology to make it just wasn't commercial viable until much, much later. Various forms of have been created since the '60s but having something work in a lab and having something viable for real world use are not the same thing. For example, one reason the switch took so long is that some pieces of the broadcast chain (like communication satellites designed to carry an SD signal) were not upgradeable and were cost prohibitive to replace so technology had to reach the point where an HD signal could be compressed down into the same amount of bandwidth of an SD signal. This was not possible until digital compression became viable (more specifically, MPEG-2). It's like not all these companies can just turn on a dime, replace the gear they use (transmitters, routers, remote trucks, communication satellites) and expect consumers to either keeping buying new TVs or keep buying new converter boxes in a vain attempt to try and keep up with Moore's law. IP delivery is inherently more flexible and always will be. No OTA b'cast station can compete let alone win that race.


-Andrew
 
As nifty as 4K sounds, people will buy 4K sets when (1) they feel the impulse to upgrade (they have to have the latest consumer tech) and they have enough discretionary income to do so; (2) the sets cost no more than comparable current TVs and they haven't bought one recently; or (3) they are compelled to because most new content (via streaming, broadcast, or physical media) is 4K. The first is happening now, and the second will take a couple of years (the Seiki being the exception, although the Seiki 4K 50-inch TV costs nearly twice as much as 50-inch 1080p set by the same manufacturer). The third may take five to ten years.
 
androbot2084 said:
The Broadcasters had fair warning years ago with the introduction of the Red One and now we have consumer 4K cameras. The broadcasters argued that the digital transition happened too recently in 2009 but the truth is that the switch to high definition started 30 years ago in 1983 with the introduction of ATSC.

The broadcasters simply dragged their feet. During the 1980's the broadcasters said let's wait for digital rather than implement analog high definition. When digital 720p was invented the broadcasters said let us wait for the super computer to be invented so that 1080i can be deinterlaced and converted to 720p along with cross conversion of 18 other obsolete formats. When the super computer was invented the broadcasters waited for the price to drop before installing the digital tuners in new televisions. When the price of the super computer dropped the broadcasters demanded that the convertor boxes be crippled to output only a low definition signal so that the older HD ready televisions would not work and had to be thrown away. Today we have high definition television only because high definition televisions are the only televisions you can buy and all of these televisions have free high definition tuners.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this hogwash from????????

As someone who has nearly 40 years of broadcast experience, all I can say is you really haven't a clue!

What is your actual broadcast experience other than assembling snippets of dribble together from the internet?
 
David W. Jones said:
A 50' Seiki UHDTV can be had for $1299.
Click to expand...

I've had mine for about a month now (paid $1199 or so from Tiger Direct)... I use it for two things; all day use as a 50" 3840 by 2160 PC desktop (I'm typing this post on it right now) and 4K footage review of C500 and other material via conversion to Cineform codec. I love it.

It's very impressive for NLE editing (a full 1080p preview window above your timeline) and for photo editing and compositing work. I love Lightwave and Modo and Digital Fusion on it.

The Seiki doesn't have all the internet connectivity and "junk" that drives up the cost of the other 4K monitors. It doesn't do 1080p upscale well, you'll need a "scaling" Bluray player or the like for that.

Regards,

Jim Arthurs
 
4k is not around the corner, it is here now, and making only a very small splash. The problem of scant content means its current benefit is only niche, and the major use is upscaling. In a recent Cnet article, consumers were more drawn to full HD OLED panels, the alternative 4k presentations while good, were judged to be of marginal benefit for screen sizes 55 inch and below.

Rather than a wave of the future, I think it trickles in over a time of delivery fragmentation, thus a little sooner over broadband and internet, perhaps generation skipping to 8k for satellite and broadcast.

If you can find uses and enjoy 4k now, that's doing well. No doubt 4k has benefits for digital cinema but as a home technology, it's going to get competition from smaller, personal convenience based solutions like ipad and tablets.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
I agree with Bassman2003

Yeah, talk to any regular person,( I have...not gear heads) like my step father, my co workers, my girlfriend...and mention 4K. Guess what they'll say: What is that?
Contrary to an earlier poster, I don't know a single person WITH blu ray. So while it will come, I think it will be slow and niche for a while, until people's other tvs NEED replacing...or they package the 4K tvs with some other type of improvement.

SD big screens were huge, heavy, and had the 4:3 aspect ratio. Modern HD tvs are light, 16:9 and are just better in so many ways. A 4K tv looks just the same in every way except for the resolution improvement with no content to watch in 4K. Try to sell that to the average joe. The manufacturers need to get crafty to sell this to people.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
i think 4k screen will get a great success but not in video first.

I think lots of photographere were waiting for a way to display their pictures in big size with a decent resolution.
cheap 4k screen is just that.
Lots of virtual fish tank too....
 
Seiki will be coming out with a 65" and a 37" (could be 39" though) at the end of the year. If they have display port, and are under $2000, and $800 respectively, I'll probably pick at least a 37" up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top