-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The future is here: Sony 4K TV to cost $25,000
- Thread starter Nibel
- Start date
SpinningBirdKick
Banned
The problem with 4k TV is the same as with Blu Ray: you still have to watch shit content on it.
You can't polish a turd.
You can't polish a turd.
Aquamarine
Member
kobashi100
Banned
so is HD TV broadcasting gonna move to 4K?
isnt most HD TV only broadcast in 720p @ the moment?
i see no point in a 4k Television!!
also please correct me if I am wrong but didnt Sony once say that the PS3 would run games @ 1080p standard?
isnt most HD TV only broadcast in 720p @ the moment?
i see no point in a 4k Television!!
also please correct me if I am wrong but didnt Sony once say that the PS3 would run games @ 1080p standard?
Gouty
Bloodborne is shit
blitzcloud
Banned
question:
wouldn't it be better to make 4 borderless screens, each with their own processor and everything, just connected mutually?
It sounds still cheaper than that.
wouldn't it be better to make 4 borderless screens, each with their own processor and everything, just connected mutually?
It sounds still cheaper than that.
See for yourself:
Setting aside that the differences between 1080p and 4k don't pop nearly as much as from 480 to 1080, this is a pretty misleading graphic, given that the last image is really the one that's in 1080p for me... and the first two are just simulations of lower resolutions relative to 4k.
But the whole debate about 1080p to 4k is that at a functional viewing distance (35 degree FOV on your retina), there are very little perceptual gains moving from 1080 to 4k.
If you have excellent eyesight, you may be able to notice clarity from slightly further distances, and there'll be finer lines in areas of high contrast (hair that catches the glint of light is the largest beneficiary of increased screen res)...
But you're going to be playing spot the differences when doing A-B contrast tests. And if you're just straight up using it, you might not even realize the differences unless you're explicitly aware of it!
I look at 4K tv's in 2013 the same way I saw HDTV/EDTV in 1998. It is the toy of the rich. In the last 10 years many people have upgraded to the tv they will use for the forseeable future - that is , at least 10 years. Should something happen that requires the purchase of a new TV in the meantime it will be a cheap replacement, not some fancy 4K sporting wundervision.
SDTV is 0.3 megapixels , EDTV was 0.4 megapixels
The official broadcast HDTV standard is about 0.9 megapixels. For most people going from SD to HD was a phenomenal increase , especially given the vastly increased screen size made available. The sony coined term- Full HD , in comparison is basically 2 megapixels. Again, here the jump from old fashioned SD quality dvds to say a bluray is pretty large- roughly 6 times as many pixels.
Ultra HD/4K is 4 megapixels. I'm not saying things won't head in this direction eventually but it's going to be much harder to appreciate the difference in fidelity offered by double the resolution. It's about the same jump as 720p to 1080p but you also need an enormous screen to take real advantage of it , or sit extremely close. On top of that, for the next few years HDTV will still be relegated to 720p, a resolution that will now be heinously upscaled to the same extent a dvd is on a 1080p set.
I'm not at all opposed to 4K or even 8K resolutions, more detail is pretty much always better but I think it's much better suited for a format where each pixel get's proper visibility- like for example a high end digital projector at a movie theater.
SDTV is 0.3 megapixels , EDTV was 0.4 megapixels
The official broadcast HDTV standard is about 0.9 megapixels. For most people going from SD to HD was a phenomenal increase , especially given the vastly increased screen size made available. The sony coined term- Full HD , in comparison is basically 2 megapixels. Again, here the jump from old fashioned SD quality dvds to say a bluray is pretty large- roughly 6 times as many pixels.
Ultra HD/4K is 4 megapixels. I'm not saying things won't head in this direction eventually but it's going to be much harder to appreciate the difference in fidelity offered by double the resolution. It's about the same jump as 720p to 1080p but you also need an enormous screen to take real advantage of it , or sit extremely close. On top of that, for the next few years HDTV will still be relegated to 720p, a resolution that will now be heinously upscaled to the same extent a dvd is on a 1080p set.
I'm not at all opposed to 4K or even 8K resolutions, more detail is pretty much always better but I think it's much better suited for a format where each pixel get's proper visibility- like for example a high end digital projector at a movie theater.
8k is enough for retina resolution for a VR headset... a fully encompassing field of vision. You basically need new cinematography techniques to get the most benefit out of that kind of resolution.
Kung Fu Grip
Banned
Actually it's 8 megapixels.
3840x2160= 8,294,400. Exactly 4x 1080p. I think we should've got the full 4096x2160. But the numbers don't work well with 16:9 i think.
Kung Fu Grip
Banned
I posted that info already above.
yurinka
Member
Which was the price of Sony's FullHD tvs half a year before the PS3 announcement. Just curious.
Sony's message : PS4 + 4K TV = Time to get 4 jobs!
AstroNut325
Member
Um... Wasn't Avatar shot and mastered at 2K? Not a good comparison.See for yourself:
Canis lupus
Member
NemesisPrime
Banned
4K... lol... so bad 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9774380.stm
8K is the new HD!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9774380.stm
8K is the new HD!
Just saw this TV at the Sony Store today. I was impressed. It will take a while, but I imagine all TVs at least 42" and above with eventually be 4K. It will start at 84" and slowly trickle it's way down to smaller sizes.
Would love to have that TV, but of course it's $25,000 and there is no content to support it.
Would love to have that TV, but of course it's $25,000 and there is no content to support it.
The Spoony Hou
Member
Sony is dead.
What the hell, what does this have to do with any thing?
Trolling much?
That doesn't necessarily mean that the studios will be so quick to give consumers a 4K version of a film to own/possess
Besides that, films shot for decades on 35mm film have enough resolution to easily surpass 1080p/2K (it's closer to 3 or 3.25K if I remember right, but most are just scanned at 4K now anyways) so the content has always been there.
That doesn't necessarily mean that the studios will be so quick to give consumers a 4K version of a film to own/possess
Besides that, films shot for decades on 35mm film have enough resolution to easily surpass 1080p/2K (it's closer to 3 or 3.25K if I remember right, but most are just scanned at 4K now anyways) so the content has always been there.
The only way consumer grade 4k will be available is if the Bluray standard evolves. H.265 is 50% more efficient, and BDXL is twice the storage data of a 50 GB disc. A 1080p 50 GB Disc would need 4 times the space for 4k in H.264. In H.265, you can save 50% space, and the disc size will double. So its a perfect storm.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
I just want the D!
I don't doubt that technically it will become easy to deliver 4K content, just that studios would be so willing to give consumers what are essentially master-quality copies of their (very) expensive property. In the end I suspect they'll get dragged into it by other non-movie content such that they'll have to release stuff in 4K just to keep pace.
Tarin02543
Member
I just want my affordable OLED. When will I be able to buy mine?
Next year! Complete with color degradation and image retention! If they cant get it together with phones and tablets, how can they with 55 inch tv's? I can't wait for the shitstorm coming to Samsung.
What you actually want is CLED. OLED has too many headaches over hte long term.
You know I had no Idea whites on an oled uses the blue diode, on full blast, which has terrible life.
doniewhalberg
Member
Well, that's the thing about 4k though isn't it? Even at 50"-55" sizes, your eye can barely even see a difference with 4k, from what we already have, it physically can't see that extra detail until you start pushing the tv size up to the 80s. HD was received by the mass population because we had enough room in our living rooms for the tvs and because we could actually see the difference from standard definition. I don't really think the average British living room really comfortably houses an 84inch tv and still look like a nice room for having people in to visit without the tv dominating the room. And if the average person isn't going to go anywhere beyond the 50s, and can't see a difference at that size in the shop, how is the thing ever going to take off?
They clearly aren't about to start changing the average living room size, so I kind of see a cultural block for 4k, if any of that makes sense. I mean, I'd love one, but there's no way in hell my partner would let me put an 80inch tv in our front room, and that pretty much applies to everyone I know, so I kind of wonder about 4k. Sure for the hardcore consumer, or families with a really big home it'll be great, but that isn't going to be anywhere the mass penetration they would want to reach.
Kung Fu Grip
Banned
Studios are already giving us master quality stuff with bluray. A lot of films are shot in 2K resolution. Bluray is pretty close to that. Especially 2.35:1 films:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions
EDIT-
Digital Cinema 2K 2048 × 858 2.39:1 1,757,184
Digital Cinema 2K 1998 × 1080 1.85:1 2,157,840
Academy 2K 1828 × 1332 1.37:1 2,434,896
Full Aperture Native 2K 2048 × 1556 1.32:1 3,186,688
Digital cinema 4K 4096 × 1714 2.39:1 7,020,544
Digital cinema 4K 3996 × 2160 1.85:1 8,631,360
Academy 4K 3656 × 2664 1.37:1 9,739,584
Full Aperture 4K 4096 × 3112 1.32:1 12,746,752
IMAX Digital[20] 5616 × 4096 1.37:1 23,003,136
Toy Story 1 and 2 was re rendered at a higher resolution (1080p) than what was in theaters. I think the same thing was done for finding nemo.
Still, I don't think we will ever get true master quality films at home because of compression. Uncompressed films use terabytes of space.
As for 4K. We won't be using the DCI standard anyway. We're using 3840x2160p. I wish we would have gotten true 4K at 4096x2160p and 17:9 TV's.
thelurkinghorror
Member
The quality of the panel matter a lot.
yurinka
Member
Like they did with 3D, Sony is planning to cover everything about 4K : pro cinema cameras, home cameras, home projectors, cinema projectors, tvs, bluerays, movies, games, consoles etc.
It's just a matter of time, maybe 4K will be trivial at launch of PS4/720 but won't be in 5 or 7 years from now.
I think that during the first years of these consoles they are going to target 1080/3D/higher framerates as one of these Sony rumors said. Full HD tvs are pretty common now, and all the ones in the stores are 3D too so in a couple of years the number of people with 1080p+3D tvs will be decent enough.
Yeah buying a 720p set at all is a bad idea. My 21" iMac is 1080p, and you can be sure I would tell the difference if it was 720, even if I sat back a few feet.
The Spoony Hou
Member
Sony doesn't have much in reserve right now, any investiment they make now must give return, or they'll be in a dire situation. It looks like they are investing lots of money in those 4k TVs, and I believe those will flop hard on their faces. And I don't think Sony can survive that.
Just wait for CES in a few weeks, everyone is going to come out with a 4k TV
Don't know if this is about making money, or proving to investors that they can keep up with the field.I'm expecting someone to show off a sub $15k 4k tv at CES, bring on January!
metareferential
Member
4k hdtv and a quad-sli and we're good.
That's gaming done right.
That's gaming done right.
CrunchyFrog
Member
The Spoony Hou
Member
Unless 4k TVs cost the same as a normal HD TV, I doubt it will sell. I really believe this is the end for Sony.
Yes, but a few high resolution promotional renders from the movie were released, that's were the 4K source comes from. For instance:
Full-res pictures make a better case for 4K, but 4K pictures would need a new format and codec to retain that much detail.
In any case it's not really a proper comparison, as the other two are downsampled from the 4K picture.
Chittagong
Gold Member
Damn, 80" TV for £3.5K, definitely will get an 80 incher next year. This one doesn't seem to have 3D... Anyone use 3D at home? Is it essential? PC, PS3 here.