A 4K PC/TV : how much are you willing to pay for it?

mac4K said:

If such a 42" 4K PC/TV would enter the market I would be willing to pay 3000$-4000$ for it. And you?

Click to expand...

Honestly no. For multiple reasons. I'm the biggest Apple fanboy there is, but Apple has a track record of updating their hardware at a very fast pace, with older hardware not getting all the "cool" things the new one gets.

Beyond that, $4000 is just too much for a TV. And honestly the increased pixel density doesn't matter at all to me. 1080P is fine, and with my viewing distance, and that I usually watch all my content on AppleTV 2, I usually only see at best 720P. Honestly, to me, having extra pixels, or a slightly clearer picture just doesn't matter to me.

I'm more interested in spending money on making the whole viewing a movie less of a pain in the butt, and I'm more interested in making the whole thing seamless and/or integrated.

JUST MY OPINION.

^^

I'm inclined to agree, I can't imagine what this device will actually cost in the UK when it is finally released.....Options on screen sizes? We don't know, but the prospect of replacing my perfectly good Toshiba smart TV with a hugely expensive Apple flat panel with things I already own built in? I doubt it.

As nice as the end product may look, it's unlikely to appeal to people who already own ATV's Mac's etc...Unless of course they happen to be wealthy..

There is already a Toshiba 4K TV on the market, but it is 55". http://eu.consumer.toshiba.eu/en/products/tv/55ZL2

Sharp have announced a 32" 4K screen as one of the sizes they are starting to produce IGZO panels at.

So 4K is on the way, but there is a compromise if you wish to use the same screen as a monitor and TV. Large screen size is more important for the TV, but more compact with a higher pixel density is better for the monitor.

$4K for a 42" 4K display? - no way. Without 4K content available, the only current reason I see for 4K displays is for 80"+ displays and projectors. At current normal HDTV sizes that most people have (42"-65"), good 1080p source material is not really resolution limited. A top tier blu-ray looks breathtakingly sharp on my 55" Sony XBR - upscaling that to 4K isn't going to make a huge difference at any normal viewing distance. A projector with a 120" screen is a different story.

My opinion is the only market for small (and 42" is small by current HDTV standards) 4K displays would be for people that want to use them for computer displays as well as TV's at viewing distances much closer then normal TV viewing in a living room environment. It would not be of any interest in a home theater environment except to the spec-obsessed.

Question: are movies even filmed in a format that could successfully upscale from bluray quality to 4K?

mac4K said:

I think we have entered a period where many of our different old electronic devices are becoming more and more integrated. For instance I use my Sony Cybershot photocamera primarily to make movies. I use my smartphone for GPS, taking pictures, making 1080p movies, playing music, checking email... oh yes, and for calling.

Click to expand...

I can understand integrating as many things as possible into a mobile device - that way you can make calls, browse the net etc etc wherever you are.

But the idea of having a TV, phone, computer and whatever integrated into one doesn't make sense to me. It means everything has to be done on the sofa and if one member of the house wants to check their email, no-one else can watch TV.

I suspect I used to think the mobile phone couldn't be improved, but then along came Apple and changed that, so I'm looking forward to being proved wrong. But at the moment I can't see that Apple are going to revolutionise the TV industry. Furthermore, you can buy yourself the most amazing 4k screen but if the programmes available to watch on it are rubbish, what's the point. No amount of resolution can make-up for poorly made programmes/films.

----------

radiogoober said:

Question: are movies even filmed in a format that could successfully upscale from bluray quality to 4K?

Click to expand...

35mm can be telecined to whatever you want, a lot of films are shot in digital 2/4K these days.

khollister said:

My opinion is the only market for small (and 42" is small by current HDTV standards) 4K displays would be for people that want to use them for computer displays as well as TV's at viewing distances much closer then normal TV viewing in a living room environment. It would not be of any interest in a home theater environment except to the spec-obsessed.

Click to expand...

Exactly. If I were to build a home theater today, I'd be fine with a 1080P screen and a very nice sound system. If anything, I'd splurge on a big Synology NAS with a ton of storage to hold all the content, and splurge on the delivery of the content to the theater.

BTW: I mean a normal person's home theater. Not the magnificent stuff like on avsforum.com (how on earth do those people do that? it's truly fascinating. it's art!)

----------

mac4K said:

I think we have entered a period where many of our different old electronic devices are becoming more and more integrated. For instance I use my Sony Cybershot photocamera primarily to make movies. I use my smartphone for GPS, taking pictures, making 1080p movies, playing music, checking email... oh yes, and for calling.

So it will be the same for the larger devices like PC's, monitors and TV's, I think. They all three share much of the same characteristics, and ask to be integrated.

Click to expand...

I agree 100% that things are converging. Without a doubt. I have the Samsung 650 series 52" TV, so it doesn't really have any apps on it. I've never played with a TV that has apps on it, but if I could click one button on the remote and get Pandora up and going without any trouble, that'd be great, or if I could browse Netflix like I can on the AppleTV, that'd be great too.

The problem is that people simply cannot be expected to routinely upgrade TVs. I would make a one time purchase if the company swore on their life that every app and new update will be pushed to the tv, and promised a 10 year (I'm exaggerating) full refund if they renege on their guarantee.

I'm not sure if I'm convinced that all the technology needs to be in the firmware of the TV. I don't see why it can't be outside of the TV in a small box, like the AppleTV. I understand the impossibility/difficulty of displaying content on top of channels if the technology is in the box (for example, the complete failure of the GoogleTV.) But I'm sure the geniuses-that-be could figure out a way to accomplish this.

I dunno. I'd just rather replace a $100 box than a $4000 tv.

And to answer the original question of how much I'd pay for a 4K panel, I don't think I'd buy one at any price. Content it much more important to me (same reason I don't have Sky TV - why anyone pays £60 per month for hundreds of channels of bought-in rubbish and tonnes of repeats is beyind me).

As it is I can barely see a difference between 720 and 1080 on my 42" plasma.

radiogoober said:

Question: are movies even filmed in a format that could successfully upscale from bluray quality to 4K?

Click to expand...

Quite a few analogue films have been digitised at 4K, and a lot of filming is now done on RED 4K cameras, and many cinemas project at 4K. There is 4K content, but currently no consumer delivery system for it.

And that comes back to the original question. I wouldn't pay more for a 4K TV, but I would love a 4K monitor although I haven't put a figure on how much it is worth to me. When we see HiDPI monitors for Macs, there will inevitably be 4K screens at some point.

Until we see 4k contents flooding the media, 4k TV has no relevance in my life, or anyone's life. Not too long ago, we were struggling to get HD contents and it's going to be far worse with 4k because of the bandwidth and storage requirement is simply unrealistic. It'll die in a year, although I'm far more excited about the tech than 3D TV, which isn't exactly hot in the market, either.

No point in buying a 4K TV until there's (lots of) content for it. That's assuming you're using it to watch TV/Movies.

mac4K said:

If you use your 'screen' as a monitor for gaming or computer applications, you will notice a huge difference between your "full HD" resolution and "quad HD" 1440/1600x2560 and certainly with "quad full HD" 2160x3840.

Pictures at 1600x2560 give a totally different experience compared to "full HD", and once you have seen them, you will know that even 4K will not even be enough to view pictures from your 12MP photocamera in portrait mode in 'full resolution'.

Click to expand...

While I share your enthusiasm, we are quite a few years off from that tech, 4-5 probably. First, we need the displays at an affordable price and second, we need graphics cards to use them efficiently.

Gamers are the craziest bunch, who cares if the latest game does 137 fps if your iMac is stuck at 60p? Oh wait you have a great Samsung/Sony HDTV that does 120hz, but wait it doesn't take 120 input, at most 60, or even worse 30p

This is all bs marketing and if you can tell the difference between a 42" 1080p and 4k for 3 meters away then you have incredible eyesight. I'll double check with my friend who is an eye doctor. PM me if I forget to respond.

My 30" Dell monitor died recently and while it was a great computer monitor, even though it was calibrated, it was a lousy video display compared to modern TVs. There is far more to a good picture than pixel count. Refresh time, colour depth and accuracy and video processing are all just as important. I would not pay anything for 4K because in my living room application, a big 1080p plasma is as good as it ever needs to be. Then there is the issue of content. All TVs work best with content at their native resolution. We are a long way off a time when space and bandwidth will make 4K a viable format for home content. More pixels is only better if you can actually see the difference, but unless you have a truly monster screen, you won't.

mac4K said:

Maybe your 30" Dell was an old model? Because the U3011 is one of the very few monitors that have a native 10 bits panel (better than Eizo's 8+2) with 99% Adobe gamut. So they have deep color and wide gamut.

And if you think there is no difference between 1080p and 4K, you just have to watch a few clips like these on a U3011:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVcGDWA93PU&feature=related
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnM0E81P8UE&feature=related

The eye candy that comes at you is just amazing, especially the details you see in architectural structures are striking. And that 'only' on a down-scaled 2560x1440 resolution, where you 'miss' like maybe 50% sharpness/info. But to enjoy all of this eye candy, indeed you have to move to within a distance of 1.5 meter of the 100PPI screen. To have the same sensation on a 4K screen from 3 meters away, the size of the screen would have to be something like 85" or more.

Click to expand...

LOL, that 4K clip just froze my Macbook Pro.

I would happily pay about £2500-3000 for a 4K TV or projector. That would purely be used to watch films though.

mac4K said:

At the moment I am using a Dell U3011 30" monitor as my PC monitor AND as my TV screen.
The ideal monitor/TV for me would then have to have a 4k panel at 100ppi, which would mean 1,5 times the size or about 42"-45".
I imagine when Apple would produce such a TV/monitor and add a PC with high-end graphics inside it, the thing would be an instant hit.

If such a 42" 4K PC/TV would enter the market I would be willing to pay 3000$-4000$ for it. And you?

Click to expand...

IMO, as people have already said theres no point in 4K TVs if there is no content. Also, no GPU to my knowledge can output a single 4K signal.

I would spend the money on a nice HD projector or a good high end HD TV with minimal motion blur etc.

mac4K said:

If such a 42" 4K PC/TV would enter the market I would be willing to pay 3000$-4000$ for it. And you?

Click to expand...

Not a chance. There is no 4k content available. When you can get an excellent 65" 1080p Panasonic plasma for $1500 I would never pay twice that for such a small display. I have a 50" currently and it feels too small for movies, 42" would be even more painful.

Plus, when it comes to new technologies, OLED is going to be bigger and come sooner than 4k. LG and Samsung will release 55" sets this year. Absolutely amazing contrast and infinite black levels on OLED. Combines all the good qualities from lcd (thinness, weight, energy) and plasma (motion, color, viewing angle) into basically a perfect picture.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/9/2693969/lg-55-inch-oled-tv-first-video-pictures/in/2473459