4K TV Prices Are Falling Fast, Fueling Rapid Adoption

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,400
You really want a 4K TV, but even with the falling prices still can’t afford one? Patience, young Padawan, the prices are predicted to keep falling as demand rises, fueling more price reductions and as an added bonus, more 4K content from more sources will become available.

Prices fell even faster in North America. The average price for a 4K-capable TV fell by 89% in North America, dropping from $18,668 in 2012 to $1,986 in 2014.
 
The prices aren't bad. You can get a 55" 4k TV for $700. It's a Seiki so...

The problem with 4k monitors is that they lag badly I hear. And majority are running at 30 fps, which doesn't sound like a good exchange over 1080p 60fps.
 
wake me up when Vega builds a 3@4K 120Hz eyefinity/surround setup with lightboost
 
The problem is that these are LCDs, and LCDs look like ass even at 60hz. That is why we have 120hz and 240hz interpolation in wide distribution for some time now, to blend the frames and improve LCDs ability to handle high-contrast motion.

At 30hz, they are going to be pretty much useless, and especially troubling is that a lot of these sets are edge lit to boot. So your dark scene performance and action performance looks like total crap, all in exchange for more pixels which depending on the size of the display and average 10-12 foot seating distance is completely unnoticeable.

Far more useful will be 4K projectors with nice big motorized 150" screens.
 
Now let's return back to reality, where 90% of people have never even heard of 4K.
 
Also, I wouldn't count those Seiki's in any these studies, those are absolute trash when it comes to anything other than resolution. You are still paying $4k+ for a good 4K TV of a decent size (60"+). Projectors do seem more interesting in regards to 4K since you would be more likely to notice it with those, or 80" TV's.
 
Too bad the majority of 4K TV's and Monitors are absolute shit. I mean why even bring to the market something that's crap for a low price? Doesn't change it and make it any less shitty. HDMI 2.0's long delay is partly to blame as are monitor manufacturers rushing 4K @ 30Hz. It's frankly embarrassing. I thought we would have learned from the HDTV debacle of segregating the 720p and 1080p market unnecessarily instead of a unified product. At least we're not dealing with that.

I give it another 2-3 years before the crap models are flushed out and we actually start getting some decent 4K screens.
 
First generation of most products aren't what you really want anyway.
 
I've yet to see a 4k monitor with enough picture quality difference to make me care. First generation..MEH. Let me know when they are in the $1000-$2000 range for 60-72" or so and I can see a real difference between it and the 1080P LED next to it.
 
Also, I wouldn't count those Seiki's in any these studies, those are absolute trash when it comes to anything other than resolution.

You clearly have no idea WTF you are talking about. The 50" Seiki (and its little brother) use a fairly nice VA Panel, that when calibrated look better then most of the $1000~$15000 Sony/Samsung/LG LCD 1080P sets. You get double the pixels with nice blacks for half the money. Not to mention the fact you get a true 120FPS @ 1080P (none of that fake Marketing BS) which makes fast motion sceens and sports look quite nice.

I suggest you head over to AVSforums and check out some of the user's that know what they are talking about. If it weren't for Seiki, we wouldn't have the price drops we are seeing know. You think Sony/Samsung/LG just decided to cut their prices by ~$15K+ just to be "nice guys"?:rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Curved 42-47" 4k@60Hz+ will be my next desktop monitor. More pixels is a waste at TV range, but at monitor range? Niice. I also want a smaller radius curve (more curved) than the current offerings.
Running 20-30-20 PLP right now.
 
Id like to get a midrange 4k TV next superbowl time frame to replace my panasonic TL55E50
 
You clearly have no idea WTF you are talking about. The 50" Seiki (and its little brother) use a fairly nice VA Panel, that when calibrated look better then most of the $1000~$15000 Sony/Samsung/LG LCD 1080P sets. You get double the pixels with nice blacks for half the money. Not to mention the fact you get a true 120FPS @ 1080P (none of that fake Marketing BS) which makes fast motion sceens and sports look quite nice.

Do they have dual link dvi or display port?
 
It would be great if 4K TV manufacturers would implement DisplayPort and therefore we won't have this 30Hz limitation would be great. Sure HDMI 2.0 can do 60Hz but there aren't any GPU's that has HDMI 2.0, whatever is taking NVIDIA or AMD forever to implement it, if ever.
 
Do they have dual link dvi or display port?

I think it drops the color depth to manage it, but it does do real 120hz 1080p with almost no latency and it looks great. I switch between 30hz 4k and 120hz 1080p on mine for different games since 30hz is really just to low for shooters.

I'm happy with my Seiki, it's a good looking panel with minimal processing, no smart TV bullshit, and low price. Their 60hz sets are going to be a big hit. If the price is the same or lower I may go ahead and upgrade.
 
4k below $2K at the expense of black levels, color accuracy, latency and uniformity?
No thank you.
Besides, you need a >50" to fully appreciate the increase in resolution.
 
I suspect 4K will be kind of the opposite of HD ... for HD most computer users were already at that resolution (or close to it) when the standard came out ... that made it an easy jump for computers to adopt quicker than homes ...

with 4K it is the opposite ... the ability to scale TV to 4K is fairly straight forward but computer users need a LOT of power to run 4K ... also, once we got above HD resolutions the installed base of users gets smaller and smaller the higher you go (1440P and 1600P have been available on computers for many years and still have low levels of adoption)
 
4K tvs do you no good when you can't get 4K content.

This.


most people still watch TV via cable or Satellite. and most of THAT content is still not true 1080p.


read a "provider streaming quality" report the other day, majority of internet streaming providers cannot provide a good enough stream for 4K content. wish I could remember where I saw that link!
 
4k below $2K at the expense of black levels, color accuracy, latency and uniformity?
No thank you.
Besides, you need a >50" to fully appreciate the increase in resolution.

I can't agree. I have been looking at a few sub $2k TV's at a few different stores, the picture quality really is better than 1080p TVs, especially for high motion scenes.
 
a.) incorrect that no one is offering 4K(see Sony)
b.) upscaling continues to improve
c.) yes, they make awesome computer monitors.
 
4k below $2K at the expense of black levels, color accuracy, latency and uniformity?
No thank you.
Besides, you need a >50" to fully appreciate the increase in resolution.

If you are buying LCD 4K is the way to go, most of the 4K sets have better uniformity and motion handling than high-end 1080p equivalents.

By next year or 2016 you'll probably only see 1080p on budget TVs, there won't be any high end 1080p option.
 
I'd like to see a 32-inch IPS 4K LCD monitor with DP1.3 and HDMI 2.0 be under $700. It'll be wishful thinking to see that happen any time in 2015, sadly.

2016-2017 seems like a possible timeframe for that to happen.

Since that is a long way out, I'd probably end up getting a TN 4K LCD monitor for $650 like the Asus one since it has a newer 4K scalar chip and a single 4K LCD tile.
 
I'd like to see a 32-inch IPS 4K LCD monitor with DP1.3 and HDMI 2.0 be under $700. It'll be wishful thinking to see that happen any time in 2015, sadly.

2016-2017 seems like a possible timeframe for that to happen.

Since that is a long way out, I'd probably end up getting a TN 4K LCD monitor for $650 like the Asus one since it has a newer 4K scalar chip and a single 4K LCD tile.

I think you will see that in 2015... maybe not from a name brand though. Guessing we'll see some offerings from Korean manufactures in the future.
 
I think you will see that in 2015... maybe not from a name brand though. Guessing we'll see some offerings from Korean manufactures in the future.

Imagine if Crossover or QNix entered the 4K market with an affordable 4K IPS display with DP 1.2a or 1.3 in 2015... For under $800.
 
If you're buying a 4K TV make sure you it has a new HDMI chipset that supports HDMI 2.0 and HDPC 2.2. If not, you won't be able to play some disks. I think some early adopters might be screwed, but I could be wrong.
 
4k below $2K at the expense of black levels, color accuracy, latency and uniformity?
No thank you.
Besides, you need a >50" to fully appreciate the increase in resolution.

Don't forget with 4K you can sit closer to the TV and therefore you can have a bigger screen at your typical 1080P viewing distance. However, as you said, it doesn't solve latency.
 
I think it'll be a while for me to update my PC for 4K. I'm using three 40" televisions at the moment, and running things at high frame rates is painful at 5870X1080... I can only imagine the power I would require to run 12288X2160 resolution :eek:
 
The problem is that these are LCDs, and LCDs look like ass even at 60hz. That is why we have 120hz and 240hz interpolation in wide distribution for some time now, to blend the frames and improve LCDs ability to handle high-contrast motion.

At 30hz, they are going to be pretty much useless, and especially troubling is that a lot of these sets are edge lit to boot. So your dark scene performance and action performance looks like total crap, all in exchange for more pixels which depending on the size of the display and average 10-12 foot seating distance is completely unnoticeable.

Far more useful will be 4K projectors with nice big motorized 150" screens.

What you are looking for is a plasma display its too bad they are being phased out for 4k LCD tv's with inferior dark scene performance and action performance!
 
Far more useful will be 4K projectors with nice big motorized 150" screens.

I can only go 135" in my room. :( I'm waiting for 4K to jump to that size, though. I'm at 106" now, and will be going to 120" in a few weeks (same projector, just changing zoom and throw distance). I bought a cheap projector to replace my broken one. Should get me through a few years until 4K is under $4,000 for a decent one, I'm hoping.
 
I think the biggest holdbacks for a real flood of "affordable" recognized brand name 4K TV's to hit the market are:
Manufacturers want to maximize profit by screwing over the customer with their artificially inflated prices like they do with every new and shiny thing they release.

But, they are missing that boat because:
* Most consumers have had to put up with recently shelling a shit-ton of money to get their current 720p/1080p HD setups.
* Most consumers don't understand the true differences between 720p, 1080p, and 4K, let alone DVD quality vs Blu-Ray quality.
* There is simply no 4K content available in mass quantity to entice consumers to shell out another shit-ton of money for the compatible hardware.
* There is no simple "plug and play" methodology to get 4K content delivered to a 4K display (like there is with 1080p), because we're still waiting on every Blu-ray player, streaming service, and even the damn connecting cables to become standardized and available as 4K capable mainstream products.
* Consumers, in large, are just now starting to understand that whole 60/120/240/480 Hz thing, and it took YEARS to get them there...and more Hz is better in their minds. "What, 4K is only 30 Hz and?!?!? I've already got 120 Hz, so FUCK THAT!"

Manufacturers really did put the cart before the horse with things like exhorbitant price tags, the 30 Hz limitation, and the lack of a 4K content infrastructure, thinking that it wouldn't be a problem.

...hence why 4K TV prices are dropping like rocks. Hopefully they are in the process of cutting their losses and will hopefully keep their heads out of their asses with the next gen of 4K compatible TV's and devices.

If they are smart, then they need to let the missed price gouging boat go and start transitioning the market like so:
1. EDUCATE THE CONSUMER BASE (always easier said than done, but even a little focused advertising effort here would be favorable to them).

2. Bring out the 4K @ 60+ Hz backwards-compatible cables to replace all existing non-compliant cables on the market so that people already have them...consumers need cables and are just apt to grab whatever is on the shelf/pegboard. If they already have it, then they won't be pissed off.

3. All Blu-ray players and other compatible media devices released from here on out need to be 4K @ 60+ Hz capable, with auto down-sampling to <= 1080p...consumers' old players break and/or they just want to upgrade to a smart-enabled player, and the sweet spot seems to be in the $90-120 range for a full-featured Blu-ray player. They already have the appropriate cables, so why the hell not?

4. Get the 4K media content out there! If people need a non-4K format for their older shit, then they should have to go to the bargain bins or online retailers for it, just like what today's Blu-rays have done to DVDs.

5. Focus on the next gen 4K @ 60+ Hz (overpriced) TV's...the final piece of the puzzle since the consumers already have the cables, already have players, and already have the media content ready to go.


That would be the ideal scenario that should have been closely followed from the get-go. Instead, they now have to try and do all of that going forward while performing some PR damage control for tainting the consumers' ideas and perceptions of what 4K is.
 
Back
Top