Buying a 4K TV is pointless

The totally-official, off-topic, liable-for-purging board.
Post Reply
User avatar
Big Mac
Giant Space Hamster
Posts: 23841
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:52 pm
Gender: male
Location: London UK
Contact:

Buying a 4K TV is pointless

Post by Big Mac » Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:18 am

That's what Knowing Better are suggesting in this video called: You Don't See in 4K:
Knowing Better on YouTube wrote:Image

Many people are thinking about upgrading to the next video format - 4K. But does the human eye and brain even perceive and process things that clearly? Let's find out if the upgrade is necessary.
Have you got a 1080i or 1080p TV?

So have you migrated from DVD to blu-ray?

Are you planning to ditch it all and get a 4K TV?

And if you do get a 4K TV, what are you going to be able to watch on it?
David "Big Mac" Shepheard
Please join The Piazza's Facebook group, The Piazza's Facebook page and The Piazza's Google + community and follow The Piazza's Twitter feed so that you can stay in touch.
Spelljammer 3E Conversion Project - Spelljammer Wiki - The Spelljammer Image Group.
Moderator of the Spelljammer forum. My moderator voice is green.

User avatar
Morfie
Metamorph
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:48 am
Gender: male
Location: New Zealand

Re: Buying a 4K TV is pointless

Post by Morfie » Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:26 am

I had a 720p Plasma TV 50" for years, then bought the cheapest, ugliest 4K non-branded 65" I could find from a 1 day sales website sometime last year.
A few months later my daughter threw a teaspoon at it, leaving a little crack but causing horizontal and vertical issues.
Insurance came to the party (for once) and replaced it with a much nicer Sony 4K LED Smart TV.

From 720p Plasma to the 4K LED there was a massive noticeable difference. With 4K you spend the first few hours watching and wowing at the 4K Youtube videos they have.. and that's about it.
We don't have 4K TV here yet, and my Blu-Ray home theatre is not 4K so I can't play UHD discs.

If you want to buy a brand new TV over 43" you pretty much have to get a 4K TV here now.


PS: It still annoys me they sell TV's in inches. We have been metric since the mid-70's.

User avatar
Morfie
Metamorph
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:48 am
Gender: male
Location: New Zealand

Re: Buying a 4K TV is pointless

Post by Morfie » Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:33 am

and 8K will be out in a few years :)

User avatar
Angel Tarragon
Dawn Dragon
Posts: 8606
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 2:39 am
Contact:

Re: Buying a 4K TV is pointless

Post by Angel Tarragon » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:53 am

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about and hasn't done much if any research for his video. There are some people that 4K isn't for, as viewing it can give them bad headaches, and others might not be able to tell a difference between 1080p and UHD 4K...however there are those that can and do see a difference between HD and UHD.

And VHS being the start of the home media experience? That's a load of shit. Home media goes back 20 years before VHS with CED, Capacitive Electronic Disc, when it became mainstream. Those that had the money could invest before it went mainstream...going back to 1932 with 8 MM.

VHS degrading with use? Well all media degrades, whether because of per viewing or due to maximum shelf life, it doesn't make a difference.

VHS being a young format when it died? Hardly. Yes, DVD debuted in 1995 (he was off by one year), but VHS was around since the early 70s and became available for retail purchase in the mid 1970s. Consumer VHS had two and a half decades of before being dust in the wind. There is still a market for VHS collectors though, so even though the format is discontinued the lovers of it can even find VHS art and cases even for more recent releases. Lastly considering the surge in popularity of the format and the nostalgia for it, there are even releases in dvd/blu-ray in vhs style packaging (Stranger Things) as well as a handful of newer movies being released on VHS for vhs fanatics, such as the V/H/S movies.

"Anything before last year will never be in true 4K because it wasn't filmed in 4K." This is a myth. Simply untrue. While 4K cameras are 4K, older studio film cameras did record to film in a format that allows films to be released in true HDR 4K.

If you have the visual acuity to appreciate 4K and the money to throw at it, go right ahead. It's worth it for cinephiles. It won't be mainstream standard for another two years though, as the technology does need to improve for the optimal viewing experience and for support to take hold (streaming 4K isn't much of a valid option right now). If you want 4K but want to wait for tech to improve, wait at least six months for the tech to catch up, longer if you want to save money for tech to become better and cheaper. Support for the format on cable and on streaming services will take longer than 6 months to catch up.

32K is in development right now, but screen real estate the size of the Grand canyon is necessary for optimal viewing of it. Who knows what the future holds? Perhaps in the future cybernetic implants will be affordable to blue collar workers at some point, and an ocular implant may very well allow one to view their environment and entertainment much better than the human eye can perceive.

agathokles
Red Dragon
Posts: 7259
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 6:42 pm
Gender: male
Location: Milan, Italy
Contact:

Re: Buying a 4K TV is pointless

Post by agathokles » Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:32 am

I use a 4K monitor at work, and the difference with my second monitor (a somewhat smaller FHD) is very noticeable -- and it's an excellent solution when you need to have many windows open at the same time (programmers will understand the need...).
That said, the fact that quality of video will at some point surpass the human ability to perceive is actually going to be beneficial in the end. E.g., if you remember the 90ies, sound cards were needed to get the specialised computing power to process audio data -- much like todays' GPUs. Sound cards were costly (I remember a time were the Soundblaster we had was the most costly part of the PC), but then suddenly the ability of "premium" cards to provide an added value to the user became non-existent. Nowadays, you don't even have a separate sound card on most PC configurations -- Soundblasters and the like are still produced, but only the connoisseurs appreciate the difference. Everybody else just saves 150$. I expect the same will happen with increased video quality -- at some point, room space will become a limiting factor (at least in densely populated areas), so competition will progressively shift from quality to price.

GP

Post Reply

Return to “The Tabard Inn”