Read more: http://techland.time.com/2012/08/29/sony-to-sell-ultra-hd-4k-tv-set-in-u-s-stores/#ixzz24y2jPQJN Obviously the first generation of sets are going to silly priced and content is going to be thin on the ground but we can look forward to people complaining that they don't want it and they will not be switching from bluray/dvd.
It'll be interesting to see, but right now I'm perfectly happy with my current HDTV. It's already a pretty gigantic upgrade from the picture quality I grew up with.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither Blu-Ray nor broadcast cable can support resolutions like this, can they? So why would I want to buy a set that has nothing to 'feed' it?
I won't be rushing to upgrade anytime soon. HD and Blu-ray does just fine don't really see a need for SHD. The change from DVD to BR appears to have been slower than the change from VHS to DVD.
This. At such a resolution, even the best satellite channels that hit up to 20 mbit/s would look like crap, BDs wouldn't have the capacity to store a whole movie without turning down the bitrate so much that all the extra pixels are wasted on artifacts, and internet streaming just plain sucks at any high resolution unless you have FTTH or something.
You could buy four 42-inch sets for about $2000, someone needs to sell a special mount and a player with four HDMI outputs.
I can safely say the broadcast industry will not be moving in this direction any time soon in the U.S.I believe the price on this is $25k. I can get a nice 90" set from Sharp for half that and it looks damn amazing. Maybe Sony should concentrate on tvs they can actually sell so they can make some money.
Surely there also comes a stage at which the change in resolution becomes too subtle for the human eye even to detect? How much better than current HD screens can tv get?
The first generation is always expensive - the first bluray player was $1000 and the first HDTVs were about $7000.
I suppose they could make it so it's crystal clear even with your nose pressed up against the screen or something. But I certainly don't have any desire to watch TV that way. Lol
Hah - not quite there yet, the next standard after this has just been agreed - it's 8K (which according to wikipedia is about the same level of detail as the 15/70mm used for imax) but we will not see that until at least 2020. Oh and it uses 22.2 speakers.
Old news... They already aproved 8K http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19370582 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ccFCLT0O8
The BBC had a demo of the Olympics in 8k(7680 × 4320) with 22.2 sound, which I got to see in Glasgow. The picture was amazing on the 15m screen, not quite like being in the crowd more like being in the corporate box with glass between. The sound was what I thought was the stand-out, when the crowd were cheering and clapping it was like being there. Not sure how I'd fit 24 speakers in my place though. The BBC demo was using according to the leaflet I picked up 330 megabits per second.
I don't see this going anywhere. TV manufacturers love it cuz we all need a new TV but I doubt the average schmo can spot a 1080p from a 4k with a 42 inch screen. Im still stuck at 720p and dont feel nay urgency to upgrade. Also the content issue. No reason to buy a TV with nothing to watch on it.