4K displays announced at CES 2011
- Thread starter jeff_rigby
- Start date
Silent_Buddha
Legend
You do realize that 1080p was introduced as a potential standard for HDTV all the way back in the mid 1990's?
It was over a decade before broadcasters had to start offering digital broadcasts (in the US). It was even longer before we started seeing 720p/1080i broadcasts becoming even somewhat common. Even up until 2010, most digital broadcasts in the US were SD resolution as most TVs in the US were still SD sets. So approximately 15 years from introduction to potentially supplanting SD sets in the US.
It isn't as if HDTV's set the market on fire and immediately took off. It was a slow drawn out process.
I expect that 4k adoption might be slightly faster, but I have my doubts as to whether the push for 4k in homes will be more or less successful than the rather lackluster showing that 3D has had.
Personally, I hope it's faster as I want high PPI computer displays before I die.
But I'm still expecting at a minimum 5+ years before affordable 4k displays "might" hit the market. There will obviously be early adopter sets available at early adopter prices, but it's going to take a long long time before it hits mainstream.[edit] Oops. Actually the proposal for what led to the current HDTV system was originally submitted back in 1990. It was made a standard in the US in 1995. So almost 2 decades between proposal and potentially surpassing SD sets in households. 4k is in the first couple years of the proposal stage at the moment. And there is still no standard set for it.
Regards,
SB
Yeah I know that the initial conversion to digital, not just for viewers but for studios and networks and local TV stations, took a long time because TV ad revenues were hit by declining ratings and TV stations had hard time justifying the digital HD infrastructure.
Consumer equipment, especially displays, dropped in price rapidly, while Blu-Ray players are under $100 (though not as cheap as DVD players).
Supposedly, with the advent of HD content, a lot of movie masters were scanned and stored at 4k, so there might be some 4k content to release relatively soon after playback equipment and displays are available.
Consumer equipment, especially displays, dropped in price rapidly, while Blu-Ray players are under $100 (though not as cheap as DVD players).
Supposedly, with the advent of HD content, a lot of movie masters were scanned and stored at 4k, so there might be some 4k content to release relatively soon after playback equipment and displays are available.
You do realize that 1080p was introduced as a potential standard for HDTV all the way back in the mid 1990's?
It was over a decade before broadcasters had to start offering digital broadcasts (in the US). It was even longer before we started seeing 720p/1080i broadcasts becoming even somewhat common. Even up until 2010, most digital broadcasts in the US were SD resolution as most TVs in the US were still SD sets. So approximately 15 years from introduction to potentially supplanting SD sets in the US.
It isn't as if HDTV's set the market on fire and immediately took off. It was a slow drawn out process.
I expect that 4k adoption might be slightly faster, but I have my doubts as to whether the push for 4k in homes will be more or less successful than the rather lackluster showing that 3D has had.
Personally, I hope it's faster as I want high PPI computer displays before I die.
[edit] Oops. Actually the proposal for what led to the current HDTV system was originally submitted back in 1990. It was made a standard in the US in 1995. So almost 2 decades between proposal and potentially surpassing SD sets in households. 4k is in the first couple years of the proposal stage at the moment. And there is still no standard set for it.
Regards,
SB
This means basically nothing in a digital world. The problems that TV networks have are broadcasting bandwith and production costs. However, I do not see any demand for 4K, 1080p is probably good enough for most. 60 fps 2k 3D on the other hand, that is something I would like to see!
Silent_Buddha
Legend
It still took well over 5 years before 1080p sets started to become affordable for mainstream consumers. Even now most 42-46" 1080p sets are priced out of the range of mainstream consumers. Hence why SD TV's have continued to linger on for so long in households. Many people just aren't willing to spend more than 300 or so USD for a new TV. But at least with the drop into the 500-800 USD price range, 1080p adoption has sped up.
I'd be really surprised if 4k hits that range in the next 7-8 years. Heck I'll be suitably impressed if 4k displays manage to hit sub 1000 USD pricing within 5 years of the first commercially available display. And considering we still haven't got an idea when the first commecially available display (other than the IBM T220/221 that was available ~10 years ago) will be offered for sale...
Regards,
SB
DuckThor Evil
Legend
I'm just hoping 4k projectors for under 3000€ come as soon as possible. Imo you have to have a large screen and/or short viewing distance for 4k to matter at all. For example I'm pretty sure that no one can tell apart 1080p and 4k picture from 3 meters away if the screen is 60" or maybe even larger. For anything smaller/further it brings nothing.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
For movie watching, absolutely. For computer generated images (like games) there are benefits with regards to rendering artifacts (aliasing for example) which can have its visual impact reduced with higher PPI.
If each individual pixel becomes like a subpixel when viewed at typical viewing distances that'll make some of those aliasing artifacts less noticeable.
For movies it's going to be nearly impossible to tell the difference for most consumer sized TVs at typical viewing distances, hence it's going to be a difficult push by HDTV makers.
For console gaming and PC gaming, the benefits will be more obvious (if the hardware can actually render fast enough in that resolution). Unfortunately for prices to decrease significantly and somewhat rapidly, we're going to need it to be a success in TV's. And I just have a hard time seeing that happening at anything other than a slow pace.
Regards,
SB
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Yeah agreed that gaming would benefit more, but even there I'd say rendering at 4k is going to hugely wasteful compared to 1080p + more work per pixel.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Well, we're finally getting to the point where at least enthusiast class cards are starting to easily render at 2560x1600 resolutions and even performance class cards doing somewhat well there depending on the game.
So it's a prime opportunity to introduce another niche level monitor class to get those early adopter/enthusiast dollars. GPU makers are likely salivating at this idea as it then makes those enthusiast class graphics cards and multi-GPU rendering setups much more attractive again.
But yes, I still don't see 4k being anything but a niche for quite a few years. I hope I'm wrong, but that's just how I see it.
Regards,
SB
So it's a prime opportunity to introduce another niche level monitor class to get those early adopter/enthusiast dollars. GPU makers are likely salivating at this idea as it then makes those enthusiast class graphics cards and multi-GPU rendering setups much more attractive again.
But yes, I still don't see 4k being anything but a niche for quite a few years. I hope I'm wrong, but that's just how I see it.
Regards,
SB
