Reviews - 4K TV but no 4K content? Don't Worry, Sony has you covered

Quote:

---

For $25,000 we would certainly hope so.

---

Read more.

.... Lucky I held back before taking the plunge... Almost bought this last week with the hope of some Quidco cashback :P

Quote:

---

much of the product's advantages mute

---

Surely many of the product's advantages are moot?

Quote:

---

Sony is promising that its product will ship with the first ever 4K content delivery system

---

It's coming with the internet! Shock horror.

even back when 1080p tvs first arrived - there was no content for it and look at it now.

yep but it took darn near ages for 1080p content to become relatively common and by that time much better and cheaper 1080p tvs were available, making the purchase of an initial HD tv a bad move (poor quality, expensive and money that could have earned more interest in the bank in the meantime).

The same will happen with 4K quite possibly.

If you remember the first HDTVs they were awful - non native HD resolutions (1377x786 was common), lacked connections like component and even HDMI(!), questionable HDCP support, little support for 1080p (remember 'HD ready' meant minimum compatibility of 720p or 1080i, rarely ever options for 5.1 audio pass through etc).

I doubt the move to 4k will be quite as bad but why take a $25,000 risk with no content? I find it hard to believe Sony have much 4k content from other studios - that too is a punt on the unknown!

The Hobbit is being filmed in 4K. So when this comes out at the end of next year you'll have something to watch then.

1080p48 is going to be much more noticeable for most people than 4k HD.

The thing with 4k is, it's going to take a MINIMUM of 10 years to take off. Joe public has been able to buy a £300 HD TV for a number of years now and that TV will show a noticeable difference in picture quality than their old CRT. How long until they can buy a 4K screen for that? Now, will they notice the PQ difference over their "old" HDTV?

And that's before they iron out the glitches.....Sky has tested it and say that football was blurry and they need 120FPS @ 4K to stop it......how much bandwidth is that going to be!!!

There are lots of AV amps out there at the mid-range (£400+) that do 4k upscaling. I know it's not the same as pure 4k, but it's a start. Doesn't mean I'm going to pay $25,000 for 1st release tech though...

Up-scaling....especially from 1080p to 4k...is useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaithis

Up-scaling....especially from 1080p to 4k...is useless.

---

Question is, have you seen it? I spent a good long time watching an upscaled 1080p blu-ray on both the 4k projector and 4k TV and it did a really good job. It is far from being useless.

Also, I did mention this TV quite some time ago. :p

http://forums.hexus.net/tvs/261425-s...br-84x900.html

I'm waiting for ultra hi-def :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleepyhead

Question is, have you seen it?

---

I do not need to see it, I understand the tech and I understand PQ.

There are 2 possibilities:
1. It does the same "upscale" as the TV does 1:4....takes each pixel and makes a 2x2 block out of them
2. It tries to extrapolate detail into the extra pixel space. This causes distortion.

Hence I call it useless. just like DVD upscaling.....it works as long as your open to placebo effects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by borising

I'm waiting for ultra hi-def :P

---

4K is a UHD standard :)

If content delivery has a cost to the distributor and the 4K TV's are out of the reach of the mass market the content will be slow in coming. Toys for the well off do not make good business sense. It's a matter of PR pride for now.
Give it time sure but look at PC monitors as a window of truth but in vice versa. 2560x1600 res is still ashamedly expensive and those roots may lie in the lack of need to develop such sizes en masse. If consoles scaled up to 1600p then perhaps we'd see more but 720p console scaling has held back much of the PC market.
Likewise, a $25000 TV will not make distributors rush out to invest in delivery systems. Not until there is mass adoption of the hardware (which I know, is a circular argument).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaithis

I do not need to see it, I understand the tech and I understand PQ.

There are 2 possibilities:
1. It does the same "upscale" as the TV does 1:4....takes each pixel and makes a 2x2 block out of them
2. It tries to extrapolate detail into the extra pixel space. This causes distortion.

Hence I call it useless. just like DVD upscaling.....it works as long as your open to placebo effects.

---

This - you can't 'make up' the extra pixels and suggesting so is daft.

4k is going to struggle - what media will it come on? Or how will content be delivered when we still struggle to get 1080p capable pipes to joe public (without stupid caps) ? I'm open to being persuaded on it's worth but as someone who isn't interested in 3DTV i'm not sure 4k will make enough of a difference 10 feet away in my front room to warrant the huge outlay.

How much space, in terms of GB, does a 4k movie take up? I can imagine the 4k version of LOTR being like the days when Beneath a Steel Sky came on floppies!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smudger

How much space, in terms of GB, does a 4k movie take up? I can imagine the 4k version of LOTR being like the days when Beneath a Steel Sky came on floppies!

---

unless they come up with some new fancy compression, I would expect it to use roughly 3 times the space of 1080p at the same framerate. The size issue is going to get made worse by substantially higher framerates though.

At 100FPS, I can easily see 4k HD movies using 250GB. Even at 48FPS (what looks to be becoming the new standard) they will use at least 100GB a film.

We will need a new disk standard as there are way too many internet connections that cannot even handle a full quality Bluray streaming as it is.

They can't even decide on a working group to come up with ideas for a delivery method yet, it's gonna be a year or two before we see 4K (or 2160p as many say it should be) as a viable format in the home, it needs to get further adopted in the cinemas first. The bonus it does have over HD when it came out is there's no shortage of cameras to record it, RED, ARRI, and SONY have mainstream cameras out there being used now that can shoot 4K, the new Sony F65 due out soon has an 8K sensor outputting 4K RAW. Sony has just announced a new codec a few weeks ago for 4K video, but as said the delivery medium is the killer they need to sort, as an indication 60 mins of 4K RAW at 24fps is 1TB :eek: So while the £60k price puts it well in the hiring realms for indies it will need some serious gear for editing the footage.