3D Is Dead. Will 4k And 8k TV Make It?

jpm100 said:
80" screens look like ass at 1080p. That's the problem its going to fix.

Seems ridiculous now, but so did a 46" screen to people in the 90's.
Click to expand...

yep, every time I see a 70+" 1080p LCD it makes me cringe... the pixels are the size of my fist (ok not really but still)
 
3D comes and goes every decade. It will be back.

The HD jump happened for a few reasons: TV's shrunk considerably and no longer took up half the room, the content went from a blurry mess to sharp and crisp, and media types that came with it were a HUGE step up in both quality and usability. DVR's, surround sound tech, DVD/Bluray, computer hookups, hdmi....etc....all of those things helped usher in HD sets. The only thing 4K is selling at this point is quality and that alone is a relatively (compared to the previous jump) minor improvement with nothing else selling it so it will be slow going for the general population. For them, quality has reached its saturation point.
 
Dregan73 said:
I can actually answer this as i work for a cable company and i understand exactly how the cable system works, 1080p is possible on the current cable system however there is a problem and reason they use mostly 720p and some 1080i
it works like this a cable channel is 6mhz wide, cable use to be analog based and a tv channel would use the whole 6mhz space for that given channel, which is why cable system is slowly migrating to a all digital systems. some cable systems have both analog and digital but eventuly everything will be 100% digital, anyway with digitial channels you can fit 10 to 12 SD channels is that same 6mhz space, that's why when you have cable directly to a TV set and you tune something like 55.14 and 55.22 those are digital channels located on the same frequency on channel 55 in that same 6mhz space. anyway moving along you can fit 2 to 3 720p HD channel in that 6mhz space and maybe only 1 1080p would fit, and there lies the problem if all channels where 1080p you would not have very many channels to chose from there is only 125, not to mention channels used for broadband the current dosis 3 standard uses 8 channels for download and up to 4 for upload as well. I guess with better compression we can get there possibley but really the compression they use now looks pretty bad compared to say bluray, lots a compression artifacts if u pause and look for it. Another thing they can do is increase the QAM for more bandwith however that has problems to the higher the QAM then less room you have for error. QAM is kinda like comparing a CD to a DVD same media size smaller holes and dots to fit more stuff but more prone to skipping with scratches
Click to expand...

Switched digital video where the cable company only serves to us the channels we are actually watching should help, no? I know it's not used everywhere but I've been seeing more areas switch to this.

Wouldn't help for broadcasting, but seems really good for cable.
 
polonyc2 said:
I don't care if 3D, 4k and 8k don't make it...all I want to make it is OLED
Click to expand...

3D will likely be a continuing niche market. No real growth until a better tech is figured to deal with it's problems.

4K will be adopted, especially since 60"+ screens are becoming more common. No big rush on that until everyone has 15-16+mg connections for H265 content. Not a game changer now, but panel prices between 1080 and 2160 are not far apart.

OLED is the game changer, not just for quality, but also price. Current OLEDs are expensive, but the tech is almost there for really dirt cheap OLED panels. Four years down the road 100+" screens will be the common. I said in another thread we will head to the store, pick up a tube with our screen rolled up in it, grab a tuner/input box to go with it, get it home, unroll it, and put it on the wall like a big poster.
 
They're pointless technologies at most viewing distances. I'd prefer video engineers spend their time focusing on fixing more obvious issues, like screen uniformity and ghosting. But it's a lot easier for marketers to continue to sell people this stuff regardless of whether or not their eyes can actually resolve the differences.
 
4K is dumb on small screens. IMO.

But HDR is not. HDR delivered via HEVC/H.265 will be a thing. And it's cool.
 
If we're still seeing compression artifacts at 720P, there is no way we are ready for 4K. 4K is worthless until bandwidth improves a great deal.

I'm just happy I'm not watching analog NTSC. If any of my HD televisions die, I'll probably get whatever format is popular at the time. But I won't replace a TV just to get higher resolution.
 
josephclemente said:
If we're still seeing compression artifacts at 720P
Click to expand...

^^^ "I don't think I should have to buy things like Blu-ray in order to get quality, so I will just completely ignore that it exists."

Remember, w e're talking about 4k "TVs" in general here, not JUST cable/Netflix/etc.
 
polonyc2 said:
I don't care if 3D, 4k and 8k don't make it...all I want to make it is OLED
Click to expand...

That life span though. Seriously, my OLED phone had noticeable changes in it's display intensity after 9 months. Areas that usually were black had better color and output.
 
This is like asking if a higher-megapixel camera or faster processor is going to "make it." Another piece of shit article by an idiotic blogger.
 
3D is gimmicky and useless but higher resolution is useful when using a large 40"+ display as in my case. 4K is the sweet spot since new single GPUs will be able to handle it with good frame rate. Also want AMOLED or equivalent for true black and unwashed out colors.
 
3D will be the standard when glasses free, perspective dependant 3D is possible.
(In other words, when 3D is presented the way out eyes are designed to interpret it)
 
dandragonrage said:
^^^ "I don't think I should have to buy things like Blu-ray in order to get quality, so I will just completely ignore that it exists."

Remember, w e're talking about 4k "TVs" in general here, not JUST cable/Netflix/etc.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. We're talking about 4K and 8K "making it" in the short term. Mainstream usage such as cable/Netflix/etc. plays a big role in that, and they handle 720P today with a lot of room for improvement.

Sure, 4K and 8K and higher will come around no matter what. Early adopters will be excited about it and buy, beta test and complain about the lack of good media. I'll buy the inevitable higher resolution TV when my current TV dies - hopefully the media will be out there when that happens.
 
SparkedFire said:
That life span though. Seriously, my OLED phone had noticeable changes in it's display intensity after 9 months. Areas that usually were black had better color and output.
Click to expand...

Phone screens are only intended to be acceptable for 1 year. Most phones have a 1 year warranty. They use cheap OLED in it.
 
Yep, the reason we havent seen big TVs is because the life of Blue OLEDS wasnt up to par.
It seems that is solved, but the proof is in the pudding.
I will get a 4K OLED once I know they are much better aging and the price isnt nuts.
 
I like how people are constantly trying to spread FUD about OLED. Killing plasma was not enough; now it's time to kill another superior display technology.

Areas that usually were black had better color and output. Let's think about how fucking stupid that sounds.
 
dandragonrage said:
Switched digital video where the cable company only serves to us the channels we are actually watching should help, no? I know it's not used everywhere but I've been seeing more areas switch to this.

Wouldn't help for broadcasting, but seems really good for cable.
Click to expand...

never heard of that feature before
 
Well, its sort of a chicken and egg scenario but in order for 4k+ TVs to catch on, there needs to be more content. And it seems like service providers are struggling to deliver (or intentionally sabotaging) full 1080p content as is; compression out the wazoo.
 
Well, the only reason I got a 4k TV was to get passive 3D in full HD. It works exactly as I wanted.
Also, not until I got the 4k TV was I able to really see just how good Blu-ray can be. I don't know why, but just as upconverting DVD-players made people doubt the benefits of Blu-ray since DVD could look so good on a HD set. I feel that Blu-ray never really looked as good as it does on the 4k TV.

There seems to be some synergy in this. Like you never get the full use of the previous greatest standard content until you get the newest best screen tech... or something...
 
People can shove their 4Ds and 3.9Ks.

I want a holo-deck, forget the rest of this shit.
 
here in CR some stations still broadcast in MONO sound for f$$#A sakes.... and the HD they claim to have is 480....
 
4K passive 3d will resurrect 3d at home. I love my passive 3d LG (1080) and will never not buy a 3d capable set.
 
There is an extra problem with 4k TV, and it is that there is no set standard.

That said, i wouldn't buy a 4k TV atm just because of that, and if you guys are considering one, please be diligent about it and investigate the lag of the one that seems to be winking at you, just so you don't end up getting screwed in the end with big display lag ruining the experience.
 
Aww man, I really like my 3D TV! It really adds something to certain flicks (e.g. Pacific Rim!). I try to see all action/sci-fi/fantasy movies in the theater in 3D. To me, it's not dead, not even close.
 
ShadowVlican said:
they should push wider colour gamuts and accuracy
Click to expand...
Why hello there. Have you heard the good news about HDR, our lord and savior?

Its holy light delivers luminance and saturation orders of magnitude beyond conventional displays. HDR gives new life to old content, emulating the color space of other lesser screens to your liking, yet it may just as easily enhance contrast to new levels of existence. Indeed, the image you see of your favorite content is but a mortal shell for its true higher dynamic range soul. Imagine film that looks like film through a projector, without the heavy burden of physical projectors. See movies the way their directors intended, or in ways the director could only imagine. Take your pick, as digital HDR production methods have been in effect for the last 15 years and are now essentially universal. Even game engines have been downscaled from internal HDR renders for two hardware generations. Say goodbye to "bloom" forever, and embrace the unavoidable truth of glare and scattering within your own eyes.

Behold the glory.

ianken said:
4K is dumb on small screens. IMO. But HDR is not. HDR delivered via HEVC/H.265 will be a thing. And it's cool.
Click to expand...
Greetings, fellow believer!
 
I think a lot of folks are put off an 3D because it just doesn't look that good on a 1080p set. 3D really looks good on a 70"+ 4K set. The only thing I really hate about 3D is that the 3D glasses eat CR2032's for breakfast. I barely get 2 or 3 movies out of my glasses and God forbid I leave the batteries in the glasses and forget about them for a month.

Now. I think curved 4K TVs are a joke, especially if they are under 60". I wouldn't get a curved TV if there will be a lot of people watching at the same time. The off-angle viewing is pathetic on these curved TVs.

The main thing I'm concentrating on in the next 6 months is getting the audio up to snuff. Dolby Atmos and Barco Auro-3D are finalized and DTS MDA ( DTS:X ) should be finished by March. HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 should also be finalized by March. Denon and Marantz will be the only mainstream receiver manufacturers that will have units remotely capable of doing all three audio formats plus HDCP 2.2/HDMI 2.0. I'm confident that D&M will be able to because they added extra horsepower specifically to have some future upgrades. D&M already announced a free upgrade board for their X7200 and AV8802 and Auro-3D upgrade for $200. They should have enough resources to also offer DTS:X upgrade too BUT it might be DTS:X OR Auro-3D but not both along with Audyssey DSX and Atmos. Since DTS:X will most-likely utilize the same speaker positions as Atmos, it makes more sense to get that upgrade before the Auro-3D upgrade.
 
3D was DOA when it arrived. Having to wear glasses , weird problems with players and discs , the effect being poorly mastered by the studio.. all and more contributed to its death.

Once its glasses free however it'll make a comeback I believe. People really hate wearing active shutter glasses and passive glasses. Charging $5-10 more for a movie ticket for 3D as well? Fucking dumb.

I think 4K will happen slower than predicted. 4K Blu Ray will take years to have a worthy library. 4K broadcasts will happen but we still have most channels on cable being broadcasted at 720p so it will take a while. None of the ISP's want to supply the bandwidth demands of 4K when they won't even agree to 25 Mbps / 5 Mbps standard the FCC wants.

8K might as well be 800K at this point. The bandwidth requirements and demand just can't make it doable for well over a decade.

I think right now OLED is the hottest tech. It makes an IMMEDIATE impression with its contrast/color pop , its very thin profile , extremely light weight and very low power usage make it golden. I can see OLED's replacing LCD's finally where Plasma could not. 10 years from now OLED will be the standard. It'll be the convergence of all the grand CRT tech we've had to sacrifice (extremely deep contrast , excellent pixel response time) with the benefits of flat panel technology (low power requirements , no lead or mercury components , low weight) and merge them into what we've really wanted.

I think 4K will be OLED's tag along buddy forced on everyone.
 
The switch to 4k or 8k is no different than the change from SD to 720p & 1080p. it is going to be a slow process at first but will catch on, The cost of the tvs has already dropped to that of what a good HD tv would have cost you about 5 years ago for a comparable size. I got my 37" HD 1080P tv about 8 years ago and spent $1300 on it. Just saw a Vizio 4k 50" 120hz for $750 which surprising did have good picture quality. pay a little extra and $1000 would get you a 55" 240hz. Of course that isn't looking at the best of brands but still isn't bad. I think in a few more years once people are in need of new tvs that you will see that start to move more and more to 4k. That is what resulted in a lot of people making the switch. They were replacing old tvs, even if just to replace a large CRT with a smaller footprint of a LCD that they can hang on the wall. People like me with many year old LCDs will be forced before too long to replace our tvs when the backlight goes out. At that point, might as well upgrade which means moving to 4k or 8k or whatever else is within the price range of what the old one cost or cheaper that looks like a good replacement.
 
Cmdrmonkey said:
The only reason HDTVs caught on in a big way was because they were light and slim and could be wall mounted, where CRTs were gigantic, heavy, and had small screens. Your average consumer doesn't care about resolution. Most of them can't even eaily discern the difference in picture and sound quality between a DVD and a Blu-ray.
Click to expand...

This.

I remember with desktop LCD monitors first started to be ordered. People mainly wanted them because they were so space age and high tech looking. Typically the quality of the display was far inferior to the CRT monitor it replaced. But people always loved them for the slim form factor.
 
Exavior said:
The switch to 4k or 8k is no different than the change from SD to 720p & 1080p. it is going to be a slow process at first but will catch on, The cost of the tvs has already dropped to that of what a good HD tv would have cost you about 5 years ago for a comparable size. I got my 37" HD 1080P tv about 8 years ago and spent $1300 on it.
Click to expand...

There are many differences.
There isnt going to be much worthwhile media for a long time and there will be almost no broadcast material.
To appreciate the difference with 4K media in a living room you need to sit closer to the TV or get a much bigger TV, not always practical, desirable or affordable.
People have already bought into high definition and many are happy with it. A move to another higher standard not that long after they settled on 1080p BluRay and 1080p display is frowned on. Until they see a need for better a lot wont upgrade.
To replace your 1080p Blu Ray library with 4K wont be cheap.

8K will see even less traction because you need a huge TV to care about the resolution benefit and most living rooms wont have space.
Unless it comes with other must haves, 4K will continue to gain users for a long long time after 8K is released.


Just saw a Vizio 4k 50" 120hz for $750 which surprising did have good picture quality. pay a little extra and $1000 would get you a 55" 240hz. Of course that isn't looking at the best of brands but still isn't bad.
Click to expand...
They are not 120Hz or 240Hz @ 4K.
There is no connection standard that has enough bandwidth so TVs are not going to be made for a long time that can input such high freq at 4K, if ever.
It gets worse than this.
HDCP 2.2 reduces available bandwidth to the point that HDMI 2.0 can no longer support uncompressed colour at 4K 60Hz.
Moronic, but those are the cards we have been dealt.

I think in a few more years once people are in need of new tvs that you will see that start to move more and more to 4k. That is what resulted in a lot of people making the switch. They were replacing old tvs, even if just to replace a large CRT with a smaller footprint of a LCD that they can hang on the wall. People like me with many year old LCDs will be forced before too long to replace our tvs when the backlight goes out. At that point, might as well upgrade which means moving to 4k or 8k or whatever else is within the price range of what the old one cost or cheaper that looks like a good replacement.
Click to expand...
Goes without saying that some people who replace old kit will upgrade.
But many will stick with 1080p until there is a tangible benefit.

One thing that may push 4K is if most OLED TVs are 4K only.
If not many of these are released as 1080p, it is sure to help.


I am looking forward to moving to 4K, but I dont want to spend a lot, accept problems and then watch as other people get better products for much less.
I'm going to wait.
The only use I have for 4K right now is gaming and for that to be worthwhile I need to see single cards with enough power. A few years to go yet.
For some, the move to 4K right now has huge benefit. If you can afford it or it brings a good return, why not.
But it isnt for most... yet.
 
Nenu said:
There are many differences.
There isnt going to be much worthwhile media for a long time and there will be almost no broadcast material.
To appreciate the difference with 4K media in a living room you need to sit closer to the TV or get a much bigger TV, not always practical, desirable or affordable.
People have already bought into high definition and many are happy with it. A move to another higher standard not that long after they settled on 1080p BluRay and 1080p display is frowned on. Until they see a need for better a lot wont upgrade.
To replace your 1080p Blu Ray library with 4K wont be cheap.

8K will see even less traction because you need a huge TV to care about the resolution benefit and most living rooms wont have space.
Unless it comes with other must haves, 4K will continue to gain users for a long long time after 8K is released.

They are not 120Hz or 240Hz @ 4K.
There is no connection standard that has enough bandwidth so TVs are not going to be made for a long time that can input such high freq at 4K, if ever.
It gets worse than this.
HDCP 2.2 reduces available bandwidth to the point that HDMI 2.0 can no longer support uncompressed colour at 4K 60Hz.
Moronic, but those are the cards we have been dealt.


Goes without saying that some people who replace old kit will upgrade.
But many will stick with 1080p until there is a tangible benefit.

One thing that may push 4K is if most OLED TVs are 4K only.
If not many of these are released as 1080p, it is sure to help.


I am looking forward to moving to 4K, but I dont want to spend a lot, accept problems and then watch as other people get better products for much less.
I'm going to wait.
The only use I have for 4K right now is gaming and for that to be worthwhile I need to see single cards with enough power. A few years to go yet.
For some, the move to 4K right now has huge benefit. If you can afford it or it brings a good return, why not.
But it isnt for most... yet.
Click to expand...

I did not mean that as people were going to rush out and buy 4k tvs for any reason. Like I said as it comes time for them to upgrade that is when you swill start to see the switch. I would argue that is a lot of what you saw with HD. I don't know many people that thought OMG I have to have that and rushed out and bought a new TV because they thought HD was special. People had a need to replace a tv or add a tv or get rid of an old CRT so they went with HD as that was their option. In doing so a lot probably went with the cheaper option which was 720p. Those that wanted to be special and have the newest thin rushed out to buy HD when it first came out. 4k is no different, some rushed out to buy the tv just because they are the new big thing. But in the end people will upgrade to them when technology pushes them to.

Right now the biggest issue is content. Like you said it is good for games. but that is about it. Netflix and a few others stream in 4k but you are going to need fast internet speeds. There still is no media so you can't upgrade Blu-ray to 4k as there is no 4k disc yet. You can get a few movies via USB hard drives but that isn't a good way to go forward and the selection is limited. That is one thing that is going to help prevent anyone from even considering jumping just because they can is the lack of content to view on their new tv. At least with HD you had hd movies out, you could already view hd stuff on your computer so you were just moving that over to the tv. with 4k you don't have consumer stuff out to push the standard for anyone yet.

As for the refresh rate that is good to know. I was just going off of the stickers / descriptions and that was what it listed. I haven't kept up with tv technology too much. I look at something that has good quality and go with that.
 
Dahkoht said:
I think you would be crazy to think that in 2-3 years more than 50% of the TV's being sold won't be 4k by default.
Click to expand...

Already happened. Around 60% of the 2015 lineups are 4K. In 2-3 years it wouldn't surprise me if every set is 4K aside from the absolute cheapest TV you can buy.
 
x3sphere said:
Already happened. Around 60% of the 2015 lineups are 4K. In 2-3 years it wouldn't surprise me if every set is 4K aside from the absolute cheapest TV you can buy.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Forcing it as a standard is how they sell TV's. Now they can relaunch Blu Ray in 4K which has the huge added benefit of being a turn off for pirates because of the massive file sizes. They can charge more to license 4K content to content providers and so on.

The industry that's been built up thanks to 720p/1080p HD content is not going to settle with status quo.

You'll have a really hard time finding a 1080p TV that isn't a total piece of junk that's new in 2-3 years. So it would be smart now to actually buy the best one you can afford because otherwise you'll get the pleasure of upscaling all of your 1080p content to 4K and trust me it doesn't look nearly as sharp doing so. 720p looks butt fucking ugly at upscaled 4K.
 
dandragonrage said:
Switched digital video where the cable company only serves to us the channels we are actually watching should help, no? I know it's not used everywhere but I've been seeing more areas switch to this.

Wouldn't help for broadcasting, but seems really good for cable.
Click to expand...

DSL providers here use SDV video because they're limited to a 25-40mb (or less) copper pair (depending if plain pots or VDSL2). Switched digital is a necessity because of bandwidth limitations, whatever is leftover from TV is your internet. Also there's a nasty little delay switching channels. When you have hundreds of qams pushing 36mb'ish each SDV isn't really necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top