Sony to launch 4K TVs this month and a 4k-mediaplayer

Darren Hodgson

2013-04-16 15:12

I'm about as interested in 4K TVs as I was 3DTVs, i.e. not interested at all. I cannot see 3D so that technology was a waste for me plus I hate the idea of having to wear glasses to view it anyway. And 4K will be pointless for about 5 years as there won't be much in the way of actual 4K content for years. I read that 4K movie downloads will be in the region of 100 GB too so I think it'll remain an elitist tech for the forseeable future. 3DTVs have been around about, what, five years now and the amount of 3D content is still sparse. I think that is a good indicator of how long 4K will take before it becomes practical. Most people won't care about 4K and the only reason they own 1080p and/or 3DTVs now is because they were the only ones on offer when they bought a new TV. A lot of people I know don't change their TVs whenever new technology comes out, they only do so when their old ones break down and they have to buy a replacement.

#4577928

Loobyluggs

2013-04-16 15:49

Sooo, cheap 4k displays for PC's in one or two years? 😉 About time if you ask me.

What would be the point? Reference monitor for 4K editing/color correction? Unlikely, but so long as the color space is correct, the resolution of the screen is mostly unimportant - and most would have access to a 4K projector for client visits anyhow. Gaming? Not unless games companies are prepared to invest in creating 4K texture maps would it be worth it, and as rightly pointed out above me; graphics cards have limitations currently. As do graphics engines, and I question the speed/performance currently of a games engine and graphics card. Browsing the net? the majority of websites do not have resolutions above a certain amount, or do they offer more than 16.7 mill colors - hence why lots of websites have massive blank areas on the screen, because they were designed to cover 1024x768 tablet users and said 'screw it' to anyone above that baseline. two years? Try 2020 for mainstream 4K to overtake 1080P - and by then it'll be 10K, making 4K seem 'so 2013'. RED Camera company has already made a 6K cinema camera LINK.

#4577943

Anarion

2013-04-16 16:27

What would be the point? Reference monitor for 4K editing/color correction? Unlikely, but so long as the color space is correct, the resolution of the screen is mostly unimportant - and most would have access to a 4K projector for client visits anyhow. Gaming? Not unless games companies are prepared to invest in creating 4K texture maps would it be worth it, and as rightly pointed out above me; graphics cards have limitations currently. As do graphics engines, and I question the speed/performance currently of a games engine and graphics card. Browsing the net? the majority of websites do not have resolutions above a certain amount, or do they offer more than 16.7 mill colors - hence why lots of websites have massive blank areas on the screen, because they were designed to cover 1024x768 tablet users and said 'screw it' to anyone above that baseline. two years? Try 2020 for mainstream 4K to overtake 1080P - and by then it'll be 10K, making 4K seem 'so 2013'. RED Camera company has already made a 6K cinema camera LINK.

Websites aren't an issue, that's easily fixed with scaling. Also upscaling 1080p content to 4K is really straight forward and would probably look better due to dense pixels than on native 1080p screen, pixel doubling without fancy scaling would look good. The faster we reach 4K the better because the would force GPU makers to do something for higher resolution performance.

#4578233

Loobyluggs

2013-04-17 02:02

Websites aren't an issue, that's easily fixed with scaling. Also upscaling 1080p content to 4K is really straight forward and would probably look better due to dense pixels than on native 1080p screen, pixel doubling without fancy scaling would look good. The faster we reach 4K the better because the would force GPU makers to do something for higher resolution performance.

Disagree. We need to get to wherever were going naturally and organically. We don't need 4K monitors for prosumer or consumer markets yet, we just don't. The issues it raises now will be reduced in time, but to race there for no reason other than its a bigger number is misdirected.

#4578319

Xendance

2013-04-17 07:10

What would be the point? Reference monitor for 4K editing/color correction? Unlikely, but so long as the color space is correct, the resolution of the screen is mostly unimportant - and most would have access to a 4K projector for client visits anyhow. Gaming? Not unless games companies are prepared to invest in creating 4K texture maps would it be worth it, and as rightly pointed out above me; graphics cards have limitations currently. As do graphics engines, and I question the speed/performance currently of a games engine and graphics card. Browsing the net? the majority of websites do not have resolutions above a certain amount, or do they offer more than 16.7 mill colors - hence why lots of websites have massive blank areas on the screen, because they were designed to cover 1024x768 tablet users and said 'screw it' to anyone above that baseline. two years? Try 2020 for mainstream 4K to overtake 1080P - and by then it'll be 10K, making 4K seem 'so 2013'. RED Camera company has already made a 6K cinema camera LINK.

Gaming and programming. I want more screen estate and/or higher PPI. And "investing" into creating texture maps at 4096x4096 is a non-issue since most are already done at such resolutions (or bigger) and just scaled down to meet the limitations. I don't understand why you're so hesitant of having bigger displays.

#4578473

Loobyluggs

2013-04-17 12:32

Gaming and programming. I want more screen estate and/or higher PPI. And "investing" into creating texture maps at 4096x4096 is a non-issue since most are already done at such resolutions (or bigger) and just scaled down to meet the limitations. I don't understand why you're so hesitant of having bigger displays.

Increase in texture size is pointless unless the polygon/nurb it is painted onto is also increased in complexity. Extreme example would be a highly detailed 4k map of someone's head painted onto a cube. So it's more work. As for you wishing to have a 4k monitor, they are out there already if you want them for your computer, they are just very expensive and until software/hardware makes use of them; ultimately pointless.

#4578643

Koniakki

2013-04-17 17:18

I believe something similar happened when 1920x1080/1200 came out and the majority of Users/Consumers where still(and do) using 1024x768 or 1280x1024. Do we ultimately need 4k Monitors/TV's? No! Do we want them? YES! 😀

#4578671

sounar

2013-04-17 17:50

Not until our graphics cards can surpass 2560x1600 res.

Wait our graphic cards can't support more than 2560x1600?..im confused as I remember i had running 5760x1200 on my previous setup with a 6970

#4578676

Darkest

2013-04-17 17:55

He's probably talking about processing power for gaming and the like.

#4578685

sounar

2013-04-17 18:02

He's probably talking about processing power for gaming and the like.

Hmm depends what you are playing really i remember running BC2 at that resolution with 6970 and it was playable...but I just realized that is not a 4k TV, its a 2160p TV. A 4k resolution would be much higher, no?

#4578697

Koniakki

2013-04-17 18:15

Hmm depends what you are playing really i remember running BC2 at that resolution with 6970 and it was playable...but I just realized that is not a 4k TV, its a 2160p TV. A 4k resolution would be much higher, no?

Emm, no? I quote wiki: "2160p is an alternative name for 4K UHD" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2160p

#4578702

Mufflore

2013-04-17 18:22

Heh yeah, just to confuse everyone, they switched from using vertical resolution descriptors (ie 1080p = 2K horizontal) to using horizontal (ie 4K, 8K). Dur.

#4578713

Koniakki

2013-04-17 18:36

Heh yeah, just to confuse everyone, they switched from using vertical resolution descriptors (ie 1080p = 2K horizontal) to using horizontal (ie 4K, 8K). Dur.

Do you believe(just saying) they just made a draw and chose it randomly by luck? 😀 Pure marketing. Bigger numbers as the ones mentioned in your post sounds better to the consumer in this area. = More buys/profit.

#4578757

Xendance

2013-04-17 19:41

Increase in texture size is pointless unless the polygon/nurb it is painted onto is also increased in complexity.

Umm, no, it wouldn't be pointless. What you just said makes no sense. It's pointless when the texel density in view space of the texture is greater than 1 (for example when a surface is further away from the screen). Or what do you mean? Higher resolution sculpts to bake from?

#4579054

Loobyluggs

2013-04-18 03:38

Umm, no, it wouldn't be pointless. What you just said makes no sense. It's pointless when the texel density in view space of the texture is greater than 1 (for example when a surface is further away from the screen). Or what do you mean? Higher resolution sculpts to bake from?

I gave an extreme example of what I meant.

#4579258