By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - 4K UHD TVs are being adopted faster than HDTVs

Tagged games:

SvennoJ on 20 September 2016

As far as content goes, we still pay premium for 'HD' cable, 720p/1080i mpeg2 that looks worse than analog in fast action scenes. Plus a lot of channels are still SD! They're advertising to upgrade (pay extra) for their 3 4K channels (mostly sports) now, fuck good quality 1080p, pay more for shitty 4K cable!



Around the Network
pray4mojo on 20 September 2016
Ganoncrotch said:
KBG29 said:

Actually, if you go look at 4K HDR vs 4K vs  1080p, I think you would be surprised. If you look at the Z9D next to even the X940D which are both 4K HDR TV's the difference is unbelievable. 4K and high quality HDR is a much bigger jump than 480 4:3 to 1080 16:9. 1080 to 2160 is nothing special though without HDR. 

This is why Sony decided to drop out of the group and call market their TV's as 4K, and now 4K HDR. The whole HD, Full HD, Ultra HD naming is rediculous. 4K, 6K, 8K, ect. is the way it should be.

There where actually really cheap 1080p TV's back in the mid 2000's, they where just the highly superior rear projection TV's that died out to the crappy LCDs we have today. People where confused by the 3000 to 4500 hour bulb life and thought their TV was broke after 3 - 5 years, when in reality all they had to do was call up their manufacturer and get the 1st free replacement bulb which was standard on almost all of these TV's from respectable brands. 

It is tragic that we only have LCD/LED/OLED with crappy 20ms+ response times, and lower image quality, when we could have much higher image qulaity and as low as 4ms response times if we still had SXRD. A great example of consumers failing, and dragging down tech.

At the Bolded I always laughed that HD was just for High Definition, I mean it is completely subjective, High compared to ? We always have to remember that the Megadrive was the first HD console... HD compared to the NES of course but it still used the term High Def, need to put an actual number on things to show the increase.

Oddly doesn't have a HDMI tho!

Very good point! This is why I've chosen to always address things by resolution. I don't care if I come off as a weirdo. I'm going to call them 2160P televisions, not 4k or UHD.



Michelasso on 20 September 2016

I can buy the cheapest Sony 49" 4K/HDR television for 700€. Sure they are adopted faster now.



Ganoncrotch on 20 September 2016
pray4mojo said:
Ganoncrotch said:

At the Bolded I always laughed that HD was just for High Definition, I mean it is completely subjective, High compared to ? We always have to remember that the Megadrive was the first HD console... HD compared to the NES of course but it still used the term High Def, need to put an actual number on things to show the increase.

 

Oddly doesn't have a HDMI tho!

Very good point! This is why I've chosen to always address things by resolution. I don't care if I come off as a weirdo. I'm going to call them 2160P televisions, not 4k or UHD.

Do you say it as "twenty one - Sixty"? The same way we say "ten eighty" 4k does roll off the tongue a lot easier.



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

SvennoJ on 20 September 2016
Ganoncrotch said:
pray4mojo said:

Very good point! This is why I've chosen to always address things by resolution. I don't care if I come off as a weirdo. I'm going to call them 2160P televisions, not 4k or UHD.

Do you say it as "twenty one - Sixty"? The same way we say "ten eighty" 4k does roll off the tongue a lot easier.

It's 3.8K though :p
2160p can be both, Sony 4K projectors are 4096x2160, true 4K. Tvs are 3840x2160, not quite 4K. Lets go with Quad Full HD.
Next comes 8K dubbed as Super hi-vision. Guess you must be super high to buy one of those for the living room :)



Around the Network
pray4mojo on 20 September 2016
Ganoncrotch said:
pray4mojo said:

Very good point! This is why I've chosen to always address things by resolution. I don't care if I come off as a weirdo. I'm going to call them 2160P televisions, not 4k or UHD.

Do you say it as "twenty one - Sixty"? The same way we say "ten eighty" 4k does roll off the tongue a lot easier.

I say twenty one sixty "P" lol



ICStats on 20 September 2016

700,000 4k Blu-ray players to 15 Million 4k TVs is a miserable attach rate for now. 4k players need to drop in price.



My 8th gen collection

cmay227 on 21 September 2016
foodfather said:
A meaningless stat since 4k tvs are cheap, same price roughly as regular hd yet 4k content is no way near being adopted as high as blurays.

Actually 4k UHD Blu-rays are selling at a faster pace then Blu-ray did. Also faster then DVD as well.  4k UHD Blu-rays have only been on sale for 6 months as well.



SvennoJ on 21 September 2016
cmay227 said:
foodfather said:
A meaningless stat since 4k tvs are cheap, same price roughly as regular hd yet 4k content is no way near being adopted as high as blurays.

Actually 4k UHD Blu-rays are selling at a faster pace then Blu-ray did. Also faster then DVD as well.  4k UHD Blu-rays have only been on sale for 6 months as well.

Not surprising as there is no format war this time and players started at $400 instead of $1200. 4K UHD also started a lot more mature than blu-ray did (single layer discs, mpeg 2, lpcm 5.1) Blu-ray was launched early not to give hd-dvd too much of a headstart, which hurt early adopters as the early players could not read later discs.

DVD was in the same boat, very expensive early players with early discs still lagging behind in quality compared to Laserdisc. I had a few early discs that were straight transfers from VHS with subtitles baked into the video.

And those cheap 4K tvs only help ofcourse. 1080p tvs were damn expensive at the launch of blu-ray. Anyway with 15 million tvs, 700k players and only 500k movies sold, not exactly selling like hot cakes.

Btw that faster pace was reported in June for the first 3 months. It's not repeated anymore, probably because the ps3 launched in that time frame which flipped the hd-dvd - blu-ray format war completely upside down. I guess it's not outpacing it anymore.



cmay227 on 21 September 2016
SvennoJ said:
cmay227 said:

Actually 4k UHD Blu-rays are selling at a faster pace then Blu-ray did. Also faster then DVD as well.  4k UHD Blu-rays have only been on sale for 6 months as well.

Not surprising as there is no format war this time and players started at $400 instead of $1200. 4K UHD also started a lot more mature than blu-ray did (single layer discs, mpeg 2, lpcm 5.1) Blu-ray was launched early not to give hd-dvd too much of a headstart, which hurt early adopters as the early players could not read later discs.

DVD was in the same boat, very expensive early players with early discs still lagging behind in quality compared to Laserdisc. I had a few early discs that were straight transfers from VHS with subtitles baked into the video.

And those cheap 4K tvs only help ofcourse. 1080p tvs were damn expensive at the launch of blu-ray. Anyway with 15 million tvs, 700k players and only 500k movies sold, not exactly selling like hot cakes.

Btw that faster pace was reported in June for the first 3 months. It's not repeated anymore, probably because the ps3 launched in that time frame which flipped the hd-dvd - blu-ray format war completely upside down. I guess it's not outpacing it anymore.

Bluray players I agree were really high priced, but DVD players not so much. I got a launch RCA DVD player for $479 and the store which was a Montgomery Ward's only had around 15 DVDs. I got The Doors and Poltergeist. It was slow going on DVD releases the first year. And infant almost  nonexistent internet to help sales or spread knowledge of the format's availability. it's a lot easier now a days to launch a product of any kind.