Support NeoGAF

[Loofy]

Any idea when the new HDMI standard that allows 60 fps comes out?

I think first half of 2013 is all we know.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

That's an ok setup for gaming. Not for regular PC usage.

nonsense. it works perfect. but the 47 is not my main. the 30 inch monitor is.

 

[bigtroyjon]

Five feet? Maybe?

That chair is maybe 2 feet away from the monitor, unless of course that keyboard/mouse is there for decoration and you don't actually use it.

 

[dino1980]

Gonna be some time before I upgrade to 4K. For me its not only the costs for a new 4K-tv but also a new receiver with hdmi 2.0. :/

 

[fizzelopeguss]

No way I would invest in a TV that is made by some company I have never heard of. I'll wait until the Samsung's and Sony's hit lower price in a few years and then upgrade.

Don't be one of those clowns that pays an outrageous premium for a badge, especially if most of these displays are gonna be using similar panels.

Fucking lol at samsung, just a decade ago samsung were considered a bottom tier shithouse brand.

 

[Barkley's Justice]

What do you think? 8K in 2016?

 

[neoism]

;___; ;_; ;_; goddamn it my tv just died was going to watch a little tv before bed and in made a buzzing noise and went black i can turn it on but it wouldn't turn off i have to unplug it


;_____;

 

[sweetvar26]

http://gizmodo.com/seiki/

The impressions on this tv have been great so far.

Seiki 50-Inch 4K TV Eyes-On: How the Hell Is a TV This Beautiful So Cheap?

Yesterday, Chinese OEM Seiki officially priced its 50-inch Ultra HD TV at $1500, making it the cheapest 4K television in the history of absurd resolution. It's cheaper even than the last round of super-cheap Chinese 4Ks we saw. The price is so low, in fact, and the brand name is so unfamiliar, that you have to wonder if this television was a joke—or worse—a piece of garbage. I'm one of the first people in America to see this mythical creature, and I'll tell you right now: I can't believe my eyes.

We got a chance to watch 4K content on Seiki's 3840 x 2160, 120Hz LED beast for about 30 minutes today, and it was totally breathtaking. Much of the footage was stock 4K so, you know, it was amazing and perfectly shot and calibrated. But even with that knowledge in mind my brain was bombed by the clarity and detail of the picture. It's hard to get over the thrill of squinting at a TV up close and not seeing a pixel or a blur.

While watching footage of a tokyo cityscape, I could see the tiniest details like, for example, a tiny train navigating its way through skyscraper canyons. I also watched a 10-minute clip of animated video designed to be representative of 4K video content, and it was totally enrapturing. The TV was only 50-inches, but the picture was so immersive that you could've told me I was in movie theater.

Now, this wasn't a full, formal test of the TV so we can't argue for sure that it's a keeper, but for a 4K, it is unbelievably cheap. Please remember, too, that there isn't a whole lot of 4K content out there, but a lot of big companies like Sony are planning to start delivering large amounts of it within the next year. 4K is a fairly safe bet for the future. Investing in a 4K panel doesn't seem as crazy today as it did a few years ago. The power of the television's 4K-scaling engine will also be a very important measure of its worthiness and we haven't seen any 1080p content on it yet.

Seiki also told us that there would be a one-year, no-questions warranty. The company is hoping to have a 65-inch 4K TV ready by mid-summer.

The TV is cheap in part because it doesn't come with any bells and whistles. It's just a straight up beautiful panel with three HDMI inputs. The simplicity is a clear rebuttal to Sony, Samsung, LG, et al, and we're willing to bet that Seike is right about one thing: People don't really care about connected TV crap and 3D or even a brand name enough to spend $25,000 on a TV. People just want simple, beautiful televisions they can afford. What good is a television the price of a sports car? Sure, at $1500, Seiki isn't gonna going to make any R&D money—but the company might actually sell some TVs. We're totally intrigued.

 

[Slappers Only]

what's the catch

Very little content to actually utilize it. 30hz. Seiki.

 

[VoxPop]

Seiki 50-Inch 4K TV Eyes-On: How the Hell Is a TV This Beautiful So Cheap?

Yesterday, Chinese OEM Seiki officially priced its 50-inch Ultra HD TV at $1500, making it the cheapest 4K television in the history of absurd resolution. It's cheaper even than the last round of super-cheap Chinese 4Ks we saw. The price is so low, in fact, and the brand name is so unfamiliar, that you have to wonder if this television was a joke—or worse—a piece of garbage. I'm one of the first people in America to see this mythical creature, and I'll tell you right now: I can't believe my eyes.

We got a chance to watch 4K content on Seiki's 3840 x 2160, 120Hz LED beast for about 30 minutes today, and it was totally breathtaking. Much of the footage was stock 4K so, you know, it was amazing and perfectly shot and calibrated. But even with that knowledge in mind my brain was bombed by the clarity and detail of the picture. It's hard to get over the thrill of squinting at a TV up close and not seeing a pixel or a blur.

While watching footage of a tokyo cityscape, I could see the tiniest details like, for example, a tiny train navigating its way through skyscraper canyons. I also watched a 10-minute clip of animated video designed to be representative of 4K video content, and it was totally enrapturing. The TV was only 50-inches, but the picture was so immersive that you could've told me I was in movie theater.

Now, this wasn't a full, formal test of the TV so we can't argue for sure that it's a keeper, but for a 4K, it is unbelievably cheap. Please remember, too, that there isn't a whole lot of 4K content out there, but a lot of big companies like Sony are planning to start delivering large amounts of it within the next year. 4K is a fairly safe bet for the future. Investing in a 4K panel doesn't seem as crazy today as it did a few years ago. The power of the television's 4K-scaling engine will also be a very important measure of its worthiness and we haven't seen any 1080p content on it yet.

Seiki also told us that there would be a one-year, no-questions warranty. The company is hoping to have a 65-inch 4K TV ready by mid-summer.

The TV is cheap in part because it doesn't come with any bells and whistles. It's just a straight up beautiful panel with three HDMI inputs. The simplicity is a clear rebuttal to Sony, Samsung, LG, et al, and we're willing to bet that Seike is right about one thing: People don't really care about connected TV crap and 3D or even a brand name enough to spend $25,000 on a TV. People just want simple, beautiful televisions they can afford. What good is a television the price of a sports car? Sure, at $1500, Seiki isn't gonna going to make any R&D money—but the company might actually sell some TVs. We're totally intrigued.

there's the catch

 

[Erasus]

Video of this by PCPer. They test 4k video, BF3, Crysis 2, Tomb Raider.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uXBu9nxLN78

GFX cards @ 4k
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-High-End-GPUs-Benchmarked-4K-Resolutions

 

[BigDug13]

there's the catch

1 year no questions asked for TV replacement is a catch?

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Very little content to actually utilize it. 30hz. Seiki.

The box and the video say 120hz?

 

[whitehawk]

The box and the video say 120hz?

As far as I know, the TV is capable of 120 but the HDMI standard is not.

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

As far as I know, the TV is capable of 120 but the HDMI standard is not.

So HDMI is 30fps only & VGA can go above?

 

[whitehawk]

So HDMI is 30fps only & VGA can go above?

I don't think VGA has an actual limit on the resolution it can output, but I think the image quality will be heavily degraded at 4K.

 

[Wag]

There was a Groupon on this display yesterday for $1199, so if it was this cheap already it will be again soon.

When the HDMI 2.0 4K displays hit (4K 60Hz), the old 4K 30Hz displays will be a dime a dozen anyways.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

there's the catch

Would you like one year of additional coverage for $200?

 

[Wag]

Would you like one year of additional coverage for $200?

That's why you have an Amex card. You get 1yr extended warranty coverage for free.

 

[Erasus]

So HDMI is 30fps only & VGA can go above?

No as I understand it, HDMI is 30fps at 4k. You can lower it to say, 1080p, and get 60/120HZ. 1080p still looks good on it for games. But for gamers its better to wait for the 2.0 spec

 

[TTG]

So, is there any appreciable advantage to watching/playing 1080p stuff on a tv like this versus a run of the mill Panasonic plasma? It's really tempting, but I don't have a gaming pc.

 

[amdnv]

We need science to evaluate it. Forum opinions aren't worth anything in general. Neither are professional reviews (because none of them are professional).

Most regular users on the red forums are trustworthy reviewers, which shouldn't be surprising considering the prices they pay for all their 4K shooting equipment.
I read through all 43 pages of the thread, and the general consensus is so good that I'm now eager to buy one of these to replace my 30" monitor. Unfortunately, it's not available in Europe yet.

So HDMI is 30fps only & VGA can go above?

HDMI is 30 Hz at 4K. However, if you run the TV at 1080p it outputs 120Hz.

 

[dbztrk]

They managed to get 1080p at 120hz if anyone is interested.

http://www.blurbusters.com/4k-tv-for-only-1500-supports-1080p-120hz-and-720p-192hz/

 

[SMT]

Will be getting the 65 inch 2.0 HDMI for the family room then.

 

[Loofy]

So, is there any appreciable advantage to watching/playing 1080p stuff on a tv like this versus a run of the mill Panasonic plasma? It's really tempting, but I don't have a gaming pc.

1080p content on a 4K display will still give you better pixel density(Check out JVC upscaling 1080p to 4K) Im not sure if it'll matter at 50 inches though, and the panasonic may still look better(resolution isnt the biggest factor in image quality).

 

[SuicideUZI]

what's the catch

The catch is there isn't actually any material in that resolution to take advantage of it

 

[2San]

The catch is there isn't actually any material in that resolution to take advantage of it

There's PC gaming.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

720p

4k

Dat next gen feeling.

Maybe you are just being sarcastic, but I'll bite anyways (as lots of folks here prob wouldnt know) -


This won't look different unless you are watching it through a 2160x video. 4k simply looks like whatever resolution its recorded in, so that is why you cant see a difference. Basically, the weakest link decides the strength of the chain. This is true for so many technologies.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

There's PC gaming.

780 in SLI should be banging. But prop not for games like Rome 2 and BF4. Those games are prop another generation away.

 

[dbztrk]

Will be getting the 65 inch 2.0 HDMI for the family room then.

Have they stated that the 65 inch will have HDMI 2.0?

 

[amdnv]

Have they stated that the 65 inch will have HDMI 2.0?

HDMI 2.0 specifications have not been finalized. It is extremely unlikely that any of these displays will have HDMI 2.0.

 

[xJavonta]

Eww 30Hz?

This is why I wish DMDP was the standard and not HDMI.

 

[Fusebox]

So if my viewing habits consist primarily of Hulu, Netflix and Blu Ray then wouldnt a 4k set look worse than my current 1080P set because of all the up scaling going on?

 

[jackrubyn]

I watched that video in 240p on YouTube. Was not impressed.

 

[amdnv]

So if my viewing habits consist primarily of Hulu, Netflix and Blu Ray then wouldnt a 4k set look worse than my current 1080P set because of all the up scaling going on?

1080p should be upscaled perfectly, because 3840x2160 is exactly 4 times the resolution of 1080p. So every pixel just needs to be mapped to 4 display pixels, which does not result in a loss of sharpness or quality when compared to a native 1080p display.

 

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

$1099

 

[Various Artists]

Wow, ill def consider the 65 inch version. It would be great if it was below $2500

 

[JordanN]

Maybe you are just being sarcastic, but I'll bite anyways (as lots of folks here prob wouldnt know) -


This won't look different unless you are watching it through a 2160x video. 4k simply looks like whatever resolution its recorded in, so that is why you cant see a difference. Basically, the weakest link decides the strength of the chain. This is true for so many technologies.

You can still see the icons scale.

Obviously the screenshot isn't 4k but the monitor still is (which is what I was highlighting).

 

[RukusProvider]

So if my viewing habits consist primarily of Hulu, Netflix and Blu Ray then wouldnt a 4k set look worse than my current 1080P set because of all the up scaling going on?

Depends on the scaler and quality of the source material.

Something lower quality source material like Netflix even sourced at 1080p won't look as good a reference BluRay sourced at 1080p.