4K worth it?

[Taylordown]

So I know that there is a ways to go before there are any true 4K dislay options that are “reasonably” priced, but like anything else i think it will.   

My question is, if they do get a 4K projector or TV under $10k, is it worth it?

I have heard the argument that in order for 4K to be truly appreciated the viewer either needs a huge display or needs to be pretty close to the screen to be able see the extra pixels due to the archminute limitations of the human eye.

anybody have any thoughts?

[babgvant]

At some point in the future 4K will make sense for large displays, but my understanding is that it’s best to wait until the HDMI spec is changed and devices can support > 4K@24Hz (4K@48, 4K@60Hz, etc.) formats before even considering it.

[phoneguyinpgh]

I remember reading an article earlier this year about the math of being able to notice the difference in resolution, I don’t remember the exact figures, but the author infered that you would need a display the size of the side of a house to notice a difference sitting 15 feet away. 

4K and 8K are what movie theaters use, I don’t think you will be able to notice that increase in resolution in your average living room or game room.

I personally think this is just more marketing to get people to buy a new TV.  Since 3D hasn’t really taken off the way HD did, they will now offfer SUPER-HD!!(4k)  And then SUPER-DUPER-HD!!(8k)

Also, 4K will require more processor power for new codecs (I think it’s H265) that will have to squash the data stream more and still need more bandwidth wether delivered via OTA, Sat, cable or SUPER-BluRay disc.  Oh, and new BluRay players too.  What about the surround sound standard, will we increase to 12~20 audio channels?

I personally am content w/ 1080p and would be more than satisfied if the vendors just worked on making the best 1080p display they could.  Pick one thing and do the best you can at it.

[babgvant]

Most people sit too far away or have displays too small to take advantage of the increased pixel count; 4K is not a tech that makes sense on a 50″ TV. That said, if you want a big display and are going to watch it from a reasonable distance it is very worth it. Yes, the CE industry is trying to sell you new kit (that’s why they exist), but this is no different than the upward trend (480->720->1080->3D) in resolution and display capability. There were plenty of naysayers for that too.

 

[Aaron Ledger]

The argument for 4k is a bit more dubious than it was for 1080p. With 1080p, we actually have native content and 1080i which can scale perfectly to 1080p with static images. Even if technically the eye can’t resolve pixels at some viewing difference, it can still make plenty of sense to get a 1080p display if you care about the effect of scaling artifacts.

Since we don’t have too much native 4k content yet, the scaling argument goes out the door. Don’t get me wrong, I’d still take a 4k display in a heartbeat if it scaled typical content well. There are always times when I am sitting closer than my normal viewing position for some reason and 4k would help in those times. I would also be in the market if I had a closer viewing distance and large display area e.g. closer than 9′ distance with a 65″ or greater display.

[babgvant]

[quote=Aaron Ledger]

I would also be in the market if I had a closer viewing distance and large display area e.g. closer than 9′ distance with a 65″ or greater display.

[/quote]

I think this is the key for 4K (large display + proper viewing distance). I would love to have a 75″ PDP (crossing my fingers for CES :)), but at that size I suspect that a 1080p resolution would be an issue at that size unless you are really far away.

Content will come, the ecosystem for delivery just needs a little more development and a few years to get there.

[PAPutzback]

I thought one of the big reasons for 4k was that currently 3d displays get the 1080 p resoultion cut in half so going to 4k would bring the resolution back up to around 1080P.

 

From about.com

Also, 3D TVs and Video Projectors currently in use that employ the Passive Polarized Glassesmethod of viewing, resolution of the resultant 3D image is cut to 540p (960×540 pixels) for each eye, which is 1/2 1080p resolution. In comparison, the same TV displays a 2D image in 1080p resolution.

However, by employing a 4K resolution panel or screen, 3D images viewed via Passive Polarized Glasses can be displayed with 1080p (1920×1080) resolution for each eye. The additional bonus is that when viewing 2D images on the same TV, the viewer will see a full 4K resolution image.

[Techbutton]

I just got 3D TV but the 4K stuff at last years CES was nice.. but it will be a while before that even comes close to price for mass consumerism….

[Aaron Ledger]

I thought one of the big reasons for 4k was that currently 3d displays get the 1080 p resoultion cut in half so going to 4k would bring the resolution back up to around 1080P.

It is a reason though anyone seriously wanting 1080p per eye could go with an active 3D tech currently.

[Author]

Posts