ADVERTISEMENT

Don't Have a 4k UHD TV?

tjc3844

tjc3844

Post 'Til Your Fingers Bleed
Sep 10, 2003
34,922
612
113
You might want to wait. VESA has just finalized standards for 8K displays with a resolution of 7680x4320. That compares to current 4k TVs which have a resolution of 3480x2160. The 8k displays should hit the retail market by mid 2016. Apple will use the new standard in its iMacs starting early next year. 4k content is currently available through Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Video and it's amazing!
 
At this point, who gives a shit? It's already amazingly clear.

Oh and fake handle.
 
Cant think of a bigger waste of cash currently than a friggin 4K TV. They go down in price hundreds of dollars every 6 months. Enjoy those 3 stations that actually broadcast in 4K.
 
PrivacyBush said:
At this point, who gives a shit? It's already amazingly clear..
Click to expand...

I kinda agree. I have a 1080 Vizio that I bought in 2008 and a 1080 Samsung I bought in 2010. I just don't need a better picture than what I have. There are way more other things I'd rather spend money on right now.
 
FreddyShoop said:
I kinda agree. I have a 1080 Vizio that I bought in 2008 and a 1080 Samsung I bought in 2010. I just don't need a better picture than what I have. There are way more other things I'd rather spend money on right now.
Click to expand...
Like what?
 
I am trying to think of a camera system that can capture at 8K. I don't know if there is one. Certainly no one can/wants to edit at that resolution. I have yet to deliver anything in 4K except for specialized displays in museums and the like. Most networks barely want 1080 even now.
 
People once made these arguments for their rotary phones.
 
No content, 8k is what tech experts feel will be the next standard from today's HD, when is the last time Apple ever used a standard resolution in any of their screens..i'm calling BS, 3d tv is a bigger waste than 4k, at least 4k makes standard HD clearer.

I'd rather let content dictate what type of TV I should own. Until ESPN or one of the networks goes to the next iteration of HD, i'll wait.
 
sal02 said:
People once made these arguments for their rotary phones.
Click to expand...
So you agree with tjc that barely noticeable definition is going to drive the TV sales market going forward? Seems like integration with other tech products is more of a selling point. Otherwise I don't see a reason to go out and replace by 6 year old TV until it breaks.
 
PeterN said:
Did the curved sets ever gain traction?
Click to expand...
No, they are dumb. The TV display manufacturers need to stop it with these gimmicks and realize that all people want is large, clear, high-quality displays at a reasonable price. Not 3D, or curved displays, or weird backlighting, or internet connectivity that you can get with an Apple TV, or any of that stuff. A TV needs to be a big, high-quality computer monitor. That's it. Everyone is plugging cable boxes into them to provide content so fancy tuners are useless. Lots of people use aftermarket audio equipment as well, so stuffing expensive speakers in the TV is also useless. Just make a big, clear TV as cheaply as possible and you will sell them like hotcakes.

Of course, this effectively prices the TV makers out of the market since all of the innovation needs to come from whoever is making the panel. Oh well.
 
NickleDimer said:
So you agree with tjc that barely noticeable definition is going to drive the TV sales market going forward? Seems like integration with other tech products is more of a selling point. Otherwise I don't see a reason to go out and replace by 6 year old TV until it breaks.
Click to expand...
The selling point is that you can go on the newsgroup and brag that you are the first person to buy the latest "hot item."
 
We actually watched our first 3D movie on our 2 year old 3D TV the other night. Jurassic World. Verizon charged $8 as opposed to $4. It was different, but I couldn't watch all movies like that. Does anyone still make 3D content or did that fad go away.
 
gldendog said:
3D gives me a headache.
Click to expand...
I had a Samsung 3D TV which uses "active" glasses. It made my eyes hurt. Then, I got an LG 3D TV which uses "passive" glasses and it was pretty good. Not much 3D content available so they never really caught on.
 
1764467.jpg
 
tjc3844 said:
I had a Samsung 3D TV which uses "active" glasses. It made my eyes hurt. Then, I got an LG 3D TV which uses "passive" glasses and it was pretty good. Not much 3D content available so they never really caught on.
Click to expand...


Would it be too much to ask for you to provide a pic of you sitting around with these "passive" glasses on? Just wondering....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back