back to article Stick a 4K in them: Super high-res TVs are DONE

Only 6 per cent of broadband homes are "moderately" or "highly likely" to buy a 4K TV, and 83 per cent of consumers are completely unfamiliar with the term Ultra HD. LG 77EC980V Ultra HD 4K OLED TV LG's 77EC980V Ultra HD 4K OLED TV... pricey but beautiful These are the major findings from a new report from The Diffusion …

Page:

  1. Pastafarian

    Quantity not quality

    Broadcasters are only interested in quantity not quality. Look at the number of low bit-rate mono DAB stations.

    1. MJI Silver badge

      Re: Quantity not quality

      Or compare BBC on Freeview to the first days of OnDigital. I am sure BBC1 (in SD) looked better in 1999 than today. Back then BBC looked very DVD like compared to the over compressed mess we now have.

      Or early BBC HD on Freesat to BBC1 HD and BBC2 HD now on Freesat.

      All worse in the name of cramming more channels in.

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: Quantity not quality

        Or compare BBC on Freeview to the first days of OnDigital. I am sure BBC1 (in SD) looked better in 1999 than today.

        I suspect you're looking at it on a better and larger telly than in 1999 so any artefacts introduced by compression are more obvious. I find the artefacts are more of a problem than the lower resolution when comparing SD and HD.

        1. MJI Silver badge

          Re: Quantity not quality - Charlie Clark

          Actually the same TV for most of the time it was already poorer before DSO. About a year before DSO I went HD, and my HDTV is good at upscaling.

          32" Wega IDTV so well able to get the best from the transmission, and those early days had a much better picture, higher bit rates ect.

          Upscaled SD looks fine on my HDTV, just not as good as HD especially when the BBC used about twice the bit rate they use now.

      2. DrXym

        Re: Quantity not quality

        "Or early BBC HD on Freesat to BBC1 HD and BBC2 HD now on Freesat."

        A TV channel occupies a frequency with a bunch of other channels which together form something called a mux. The mux is a transport stream with audio, video, and data of all these channels mixed together. The channels in the mux all share from a fixed bandwidth and software / hardware attempts to compress each channel in real time to make best use of this space. Programmes in the channels might be hinted and channels might be weighted for quality.

        Channels can move from one mux to another as space is freed up. Channels on Sky / Freesat are constantly moving around. The BBC tends to keep its channels in the same mux but it still moves them. Until a few years back space was very constrained but new Astra satellites have been launched to supply more capacity.

        The BBC is also known to have switched hardware encoder because they were dissatisfied with the performance of their encoding at the bitrate.

        So anyway, even assuming there was a difference (and you'd have to have stream captures from then and now to say for sure), there are other reasons that quality has changed. Personally I think the quality of Freesat on BBC channels is generally excellent.

        I only watch Freeview when I'm in a hotel or something but in SD it's always falling to bits under heavy load. In part that's due to using MPEG-2 and in part due more channels squashed into less muxes. Freeview HD implements DVB-T2 which is more space efficient and HD channels use AVC. So picture quality has the potential to improve substantially over what it was.

      3. StooMonster

        Re: Quantity not quality

        Or early BBC HD on Freesat to BBC1 HD and BBC2 HD now on Freesat.

        IIRC they've dropped the resolution from 1920x1080 square pixels to 1440x1080 rectangular pixels, plus dropped the bit-rate from north of 20Mb/s down to about half that.

        The excuse was parity with Freeview HD and saying BBC was not going to favour quality on one particular platform.

    2. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      Pssst!! The Chinese are here

      I bought a couple of 50-inch 1080p LCD TVs for Cdn$386 [!!!] each (US$360 equivalent, plus some taxes to fund our 'free' health care), including shipping [!!!]. Brand name is Changhong, or Chonghang, or something. Actually what happened is that I bought one, nervously, and when it arrived it was diverted by Her of the Indoors to a place of pride above the mantel. We thought that the picture was good enough, that I immediately ordered another one for the original destination. The picture has poor black levels, and it's only an 8-bit panel. Otherwise - LOL - picture quality is fine. But seriously, one can watch the usual HD helicopter-landscape shows and the images are drop-dead gorgeous. I've seen $1000+ TV that were not as good. And the power consumption of this TV is extremely low, off the bottom end of the Energuide/EnergyStar scale. And it has speakers that are loud for day to day use.

      Anyway - on to the subject at hand: 4K TVs.

      The same website via auction site had a similar 4K 50-inch TV, brand name Seiki, on (at times) for $600 with (at times) trivially cheap shipping (like $5). They're back up to $780 right now, but the message is clear...

      The Chinese are here. TVs are going to get cheap-as-chips. And they'll have the Black Levels sorted out by next year.

  2. Mage Silver badge

    aware of the benefits of 4K

    What benefits?

    1) Unless you are sitting about 2m from a 84" screen (4m from 160") or larger there is little point in more resolution.

    2) Where is the content?

    3) Hardly any broadcast or streaming does full quality existing 1920 x 1080

    4) Who wants an 84" screen in an ordinary room? A motorised screen and motorised zoom on a projector makes more sense above 40" to 56" for most homes.

    Most HD content made for TV is still framed for SD, usually far too close in framing.

    1. Badvok

      Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

      "1) Unless you are sitting about 2m from a 84" screen (4m from 160") or larger there is little point in more resolution."

      Speak for your(visually challenged)self, I am lucky that I have vision within the normal range for humans and so can see a difference at much greater distance than that. Perhaps you actually need to a) get your eyes tested, or b) actually go see a 4K screen showing 4K content.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

        Plus by paying $15k for a TV that only my superior human eyes can see, I'm not only demonstrating how much more awesome a human being I am, I'm also considerably richer than you.

        1. JeffyPoooh
          Pint

          Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

          "Plus by paying $1.5k..."

          Corrected your missing decimal point.

      2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

        Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

        The BBC recommended viewing distance for UHD 1 ("4K"), for maximum visual resolution, is 1.5x screen height. For ordinary HD it is 3x screen height. An 84" 16:9 TV has a height of ~41", or 1.04m so you'll get best quality from a 4K 84" screen at 1.5m, and beyond 3m you'll see no more benefit from 4K than from ordinary HD.

        1. Badvok

          Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

          "The BBC recommended viewing distance for UHD 1 ("4K"), for maximum visual resolution, is 1.5x screen height."

          And the BBC isn't biased in this having position at all, no sir, no way is it concerned about limiting the cost of bandwidth required to carry UHD signals and justifying the level of compression it will use like it did for HD.

          Actually the calculation is based on being able to differentiate between two vertical lines separated by a single pixel and is pretty much correct in that respect. However, I don't tend to watch many TV programmes or movies that comprise only vertical and horizontal lines. It requires a much higher resolution to accurately reproduce a 30° inclined, or curved edge, without visible anti-aliasing.

          (FYI, this is also why smartphone screens have gone beyond Apple's 'retina' limit which was based on the same miscalculation.)

          1. Mayhem

            Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

            Speaking as someone who actually has an 80" TV (non-4k) in the lounge, anyone sitting closer than about 5ft from the screen will have much more serious problems than differentiating pixels. Preferred viewing distance is 10-14 ft. You can however comfortably separate pixels @1920/1080 from about 2-3ft away with good eyesight.

            First things first, you *need* HD or blu-ray content to make the most of it - low res imagery looks horrible as the pixels are blown up to massive proportions. Particularly noticeable when streaming poor youtube content. The difference between SD and HD content from Sky is orders of magnitude, but there just aren't that many good HD channels.

            Secondly, gaming when closer than about 6-8ft away (which fills your vision) is pretty much a recipe for motion sickness. The brain has issues coping with that much stuff changing that quickly in your peripheral vision. Just moving a mouse around up close is a headache. I end up doing something else while the controller batteries recharge.

            1. Immenseness
              Coat

              Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

              The problem is though, now we all have (relatively) good quality TVs, what do the production companies do? "Ooh, look, we can blur the whole screen except for the lips of the person who is speaking, let's do that all the time.", or "Ooh, look we can use a depth of field 1mm deep and have someone whose face is side on with their nose in focus and their ear out of focus, let's do that all the time". Or "Let's shoot everything against a bright window/light with lens flare if possible, and no fill in lighting so the faces are grainy, if you can make them out at all"

              These effects are good, and have a place, but I feel sorry for the set dressers/costumiers who take the time to make a scene authentic and then all you see in the final piece is a blurry background that could have been anything, and don't get me started on "fight" scenes/car chases that consist of people doing not very much at all, while the camera is waggled around violently - it might be cheap, but it is no match for a properly choreographed and well shot scene.

              Then there is the sound - Sound effects and music really really loud - speech really really quiet and with the treble turned down so it is hard to make out, often both simultaneously. Oh, and don't forget to get the actors to mumble and whisper incoherently, especially when their faces are turned away so you can't lip read either.

              Sadly, no amount of decent telly fixes those, but if they transmitted stuff that demonstrated how good things could be, rather than transmitting blurry crap that looks equally bad on anything, they may have a chance in pushing the tech. Sorry, unintentional rant over. Mine is the one you can hardly see, hanging in front of that window with the sun streaming through it.

      3. No, I will not fix your computer
        Boffin

        Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

        @Badvok

        You're almost definitely wrong, and let me explain why, as this is simple physics/biology.

        What is normal range? lets say "good vision" is 20/20 (some people have better, say 20/10), but lets run with "good" - 20/20 vision is a visual acuity of about 60 pixels per degree of vision this means that at a distance of 1.5x the height your total view is 37 degrees, on a 2k (1080p) screen that's 30 pixels - ie. even below average eyesight can see the pixels, on a 4k screen that's 45 pixels per degree and unless you have "good" (above average) eyesight you probably won't be able to pick out the pixels.

        So..... if you look at a 1080p (2k) screen from a distance of twice the height you end up with about 60 pixels per degree, in other words 20/20 vision cannot pick out the pixels. for a 4k screen that's 90 pixels per degree - even 20/10 vision would in reality struggle to identify a difference as it's on the limit for 20/10 vision (the best vision ever measured is around 20/8).

        60 pixels per degree is a theoretical maximum for 20/20 vision, more correctly that is if each pixel is a contrast i.e. could you identify a line of one pixel; but films don't consist of one pixel lines, it's more likely to be "moving pictures", so the ability it identify a static pixel doesn't really mean much in practicality.

        Both physics and I agree that you're wrong, either that or you have the vision of a hawk (20/2).

        1. Badvok

          Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

          @"No, I will not fix your computer"

          "You're almost definitely wrong, and let me explain why, as this is simple physics/biology."

          Ah, yes the old, "can't see the pixels argument" - who on earth wants to see individual pixels? It is the visual effect that gets better with higher definition. The real world is made up of curves and angles and these appear better/clearer/sharper if the display doesn't need to anti-alias them. Higher definition means less anti-aliasing = better clarity.

          However, if you really are one of those people who likes to look at all the pretty individual pixels then your argument is sound.

          1. No, I will not fix your computer

            Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

            @Badvok

            >>Ah, yes the old, "can't see the pixels argument"

            Hmmm... maybe I should have explained more simply, let me summarise, then feel free to go back and re-read the technical bits;

            As soon as you can't make out the individual pixels, any further increase in resolution has no benefit;

            For 20/20 vision (good vision) looking at a 1080p/2K screen at any distance over 2x the height of the screen you can't identify individual pixels, so if you're any further away from the screen than twice the height of the screen it is physically impossible to tell if it's a 2k or 4k screen.

            So, for a PC monitor where the distances are closer, a 4K screen might be practical, for a home TV, unless you're really close, or it's really big, 4K could be pointless, note - Sony (who produce a lot of digital cinema equipment) have done several studies on this in relation to digital cinema, but the principles are the same (and with very big screens viewed at significant distances it's a little easier to understand).

            @El Reg - why not do an article on this? with pictures and everything? 4k is a bit Emperors new clothes for home video (bragging rights aside).

            1. Fibbles

              Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

              As soon as you can't make out the individual pixels, any further increase in resolution has no benefit;

              Just because you can't see the individual pixels doesn't mean they have no benefit. If you are too far away to see an individual pixel on a screen or dot in a print, you end up perceiving the average result of those pixels/dots. A higher resolution results in an average that is more accurate to the original source.

              1. No, I will not fix your computer
                Boffin

                Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

                >>Just because you can't see the individual pixels doesn't mean they have no benefit. If you are too far away to see an individual pixel on a screen or dot in a print, you end up perceiving the average result of those pixels/dots. A higher resolution results in an average that is more accurate to the original source.

                Yes, and no, the interpolation/antialias effect you're describing is very real, however, for this implied averaging to be relevant you must be able to achieve an effect not possible on their own, as pixel size itself is no longer relevant (as discussed above) then it's only colour and intensity, with a 24bit (True Colour) palate it's about 16 million colours, given normal humans can "only" identify approximately 10 million colours it's actually irrelevant if the screen is more accurate - normal humans can't tell the difference between 24bit (true colour) and anything higher (i.e. deep colour).

                I say "normal humans" because people (women and other people with two X chromosomes) who have an extra cone (tetrachromia) can see more colours (yellow-orange as I recall), but that's quite rare, and given that it's an extra cone (not just better fidelity) it wouldn't be an even colourspace so interpolating for a tetrachromat wouldn't be the same i.e. the normal 24 bit (8x8x8) couldn't simply be boosted to 27bit (9x9x9) as you're simply boosting fidelity on the traditional cones, you'd actually need to add a channel for the extra cone (8x8x8x8), which means you'd need to film in four colours and have that extra channel on the pixel.

                So, yes, absolutely - an increase in pixels to make up for for low bit depth can be useful, but not really relevant for 24bit displays.

    2. Steven Jones

      Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

      Personally, I don't see that my personal experience of a film is going to be much improved, if at all, by tiny perceptual differences like that unless I have a dedicated home cinema room. Even then, I'd gladly swap some sort of techno-fix for quality of writing, acting, plotting and screenplay. Measuring film quality by pixels strikes me as a strange game.

      It's reckoned that at 2m or so, you need a 55 inch screen or more to perceive any difference in 4K. As I sit 2.6m away that makes for something more like 75 inches. Far too big for my room. Really something for those with dedicated home cinemas.

      nb. the "streamers" ought to think about upgrading their HD bandwidths. If they want to use 10mbps+, then that's probably going to make a bigger qualitative difference to the "viewing experience" than heavily compressed 4K.

    3. Natalie Gritpants

      Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

      Never heard of anyone doing this but you could use a 4k screen to show 1080p with 30 bit per pixel colour. You have 4 24 bit pixels per source pixel and you can dither to get an extra 2 bits per channel per source pixel.

      1. Bod

        Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

        On the colour depth, with current 1080 TVs, many have deep colour or wide gamut, but the source, even in blu ray is not up to it. When setting up mine all the advice I read said to turn off the deep colour options because it was a waste, if not a harm. Blu ray players often handle deep colour, so do the TVs, but apparently most, if not all discs do not have the encoding. There's no advantage as the extra colour bit depth is not there. Deep colour settings on non deep sources can look a bit odd. Something you may notice with a deep colour monitor used on a computer and just go browsing the web. Colours too heavily saturated is often the case.

        1. StooMonster

          Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

          There's no advantage as the extra colour bit depth is not there.

          You are correct that broadcast television and Blu-ray's codecs only support 8-bit per channel colour, i.e. 24-bit colour

          Where extra colour bit depth is useful is if your screen is upscaling material, such as SD up to native HD resolution as extra colours on 30-bit or 32-bit mean smoother scaling (can tween colours) and thus less banding and such artefacts.

          This obviously doesn't work if say you use your Sky HD box to upscale SD channels to 1080i in 24-bit before it send them to display, which is why picture quality fans have Sky HD set to AUTO output so screens can better scale (with more colours) SD to HD.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

        If one pixel has 256 levels of intensity (8 bits), and you have a cluster of 4 pixels that you can control individually, doesn't that only gives you 1024 levels of intensity (= 10 bits)?

        1. the spectacularly refined chap

          Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

          If one pixel has 256 levels of intensity (8 bits), and you have a cluster of 4 pixels that you can control individually, doesn't that only gives you 1024 levels of intensity (= 10 bits)?

          10 bits per channel. Multiply by three for red, green and blue channels.

    4. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

      This is exactly the same argument that happened when SD was being supplanted by HD.

      At the time, we had a really nice 53-inch SD TV capable of awesome picture quality (within the limits of 480i). Our satellite receiver would receive SD and HD signals, and down convert the HD to 480i for viewing on our big SD TV.

      Here's the thing. The HD transmissions, even when down-converted to 480i SD, *always* looked better than the SD transmissions. Even on a 480i SD TV.

      Same thing with 4K. We now have an Apple TV gadget connected to our 50-inch 1080p TV. We can go onto YouTube and search on "4K" videos. They always look better than the normal HD videos, even when down-converted (presumably at YouTube) to 1080p.

      Conclusions: You don't need to have a 4K TV to reap the benefits of videos made in 4K. There's more to video quality than just the pixel count at the display. I wonder if the people making 4K videos are simply going to more beautiful locations?

    5. Bigbird3141
      Boffin

      Re: aware of the benefits of 4K

      Due to the rules of optics, I understand the eye can resolve a pixel spacing of c0.3 minutes.

      84" screen is 1.04m high: pixel spacing is therefore 262um, giving a maximum viewing distance of c3m.

      (I have assumed square pixel spacing)

  3. Mr C

    " were perfectly comfortable with the televisions they currently use"

    pretty much this

    HD is already in a very good spot, so much so that it becomes hard to justify the price between a good 'regular' HD set and the cheapest 4K one.

    Unless they come down in price 4K isn't going to go anywhere

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: " were perfectly comfortable with the televisions they currently use"

      I agree on the price bit.

      It's one of those "if it's for free, I'd not turn it down" things.

      4K looks very nice, and gives a softer clearer image, as for matter of fact, the TV has more to actually work with to create an image.

      But is the return for investment, is the result worth the extra cost? It's almost there.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: " were perfectly comfortable with the televisions they currently use"

        The thing with any supposed improvement in TVs is that you rarely see it demoed in the place you'd actually be likely to use it, i.e. your front room, making any improvments are very difficult to gauge as you are so familiar with your current systen in this particular context, viewing distance etc, and the mind tends to edit out inadequacies over time; it looks 'good enough'.

        My TV until 3 years ago was a 50 quid Argos 14in CRT job that must have been pretty much the last model sold in the UK that had CRT. The tube was actually slightly squint, but after a couple of years the mind had edited this out and probably done a bit of image enhancement to boot, so the whole thing seemed quite acceptable. I eventually persuaded my girlfriend a new 32 inch LED was a good idea by the simple ruse of buying one, begging for forbearance and insisting she wait a week before decapitating me for the loss of what at first appeared to be half the living room space. By the end of the week, the new TV had shrunk to normal proportions and she admitted - as I was - to being rather ashamed we'd put up with the other for so long.

        So anything higher resolution is unlikely to get much of a shout until the current set packs up or the price has dropped to the point that replacing it is a virtual no brainer. and even then it won't be of the kind of size touted in the article, because we really have reached the physical limit of what the room will take, and the smaller models will make the proper viewing distance to get the benefit too close to be comfortable.

        Additionally, as someone points out further up the page, the amount on compression for most UK broadcast TV takes a lot of the shine off the quality in any case. Anything not on one of the main channels tends to have the look of a bad webpage JPG circa 2001, with sound to match.

        1. rh587

          Re: " were perfectly comfortable with the televisions they currently use"

          "So anything higher resolution is unlikely to get much of a shout until the current set packs up or the price has dropped to the point that replacing it is a virtual no brainer."

          Yup, my parents had an ancient 17" CRT that they'd had second hand off my grandmother.

          That packed up the week before Christmas last year so an expedition to a suitable retailer was arranged with my little brother (on account of him being in at the time) and a 50" LG Smart TV duly appeared.

          In fairness, at that size, the HD Freeview channels are noticeably better than their SD counterparts. It's also nice to have all the iplayer/Netflix/Lovefilm-AmazonFilm stuff embedded. Nothing I couldn't set up with an RPi but my parents much prefer just driving it all off one remote rather than having a Wireless keyboard, etc and introducing them to Raspbian, etc. And clicking a button is simpler than jacking in their laptop to an HDMI, setting up the right screen type (mirroring/extended desktop/etc - always defaults to the one you don't want at that moment!), having to wake it up when it goes into hibernation halfway through the film, etc.

          Suffice to say, that TV ain't going anywhere until it physically dies. Not for 4K, not for nothing.

          All they need now is something decent to watch...

    2. joeW

      Re: " were perfectly comfortable with the televisions they currently use"

      Absolutely. If 4k takes off, I'll probably pick up a second hand one in 4 or 5 years time for buttons.

      Got a 4 year old 50" Panasonic 1080p telly last year for €300 for example. Apart from having a rather chunky bezel, it's great.

    3. big_D Silver badge

      Re: " were perfectly comfortable with the televisions they currently use"

      Yep, 300-700€ for a decent 32" - 46" 1080p TV is all most are willing to fork out.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: " were perfectly comfortable with the televisions they currently use"

        On the other hand, the people I saw marching out of ASDA a few years back with cheap 40" LCD TVs labelled as HD Ready will see an enourmous difference no matter what they buy. On closer inspection, those no-name HD Ready TVs were 640x480 panels (I kid you not!!)

    4. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      Re: " were perfectly comfortable with the televisions they currently use"

      "Unless they come down in price 4K isn't going to go anywhere."

      Nope. Unlike every other consumer electronics kit in history, 4K TVs are *never* going down in price. Well, except maybe for example that reasonably nice 50-inch 4K TV I saw being temporarily offered for Cdn$600 with nearly free shipping. Good reviews too. Too bad I had just stocked up on 1080p sets. But other than that, the 4K TV prices will *never* go down. Well, that's assuming that the Chinese don't start making such TVs, ...as they've already started. So, nope, never going to happen.

  4. James 51

    Lower power consumption, built-in fast wi-fi and a good range of ports. These are the sort of things I'd be looking for in a new TV. Would not pay one penny for 4K over HD. (I was going to put something in about the quality of the screens themselves but hope this will improve no matter what)

    How long before we see a 4K 3D TV?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      All the 4k TVs I've seen support Stereoscopes [3d], so what was the question? 3D is usually down to cheap refresh rate tricks or a polarisation sheet over the tv. It's not "hard" and it's not "future tech" it was possible back when the first cameras were ever made. :P

      1. James 51

        I was thinking more of the marketing department's attempts to push more tvs.

      2. This Side Up

        Stereoscopic?

        No, so-called "3D" TVs are merely binoccular. Move your head and the image doesn't change. You'd need holographic tv for real 3D.

        1. Charles 9

          Re: Stereoscopic?

          You mean volumetric. I suspect true 3D TV will first appear by borrowing a trick from the CRT days: rapid refresh. The main obstacle to getting a volumetric display done with a spinning LED plane is the refresh rate. To achieve a 30Hz volumetric display with 360 voxels circumferential resolution, the planar elements need to be able to refresh themselves at least 5400 times per second (to cover a 180-degree sweep in 1/30 of a second).

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Stereoscopic?

          @ This Side Up

          "No, so-called "3D" TVs are merely binoccular. Move your head and the image doesn't change. You'd need holographic tv for real 3D."

          Binocular is "real 3D". It's not as if you're going to get up of the sofa and walk around to see the back of the newsreader anyway, is it?

          My 80-year-old father bought a 3D TV a couple of years ago. Shortly afterwards I read about software for creating 3D photos, and he started off creating 3D photos, and then bought a Sony Bloggie3D camera, which, while not a particularly good camera, allows him to create 3D video as well as 3D photos.

          When you move your head left to right while viewing those 3D photos, you very definitely see items in the background "move" in the opposite direction. It's a quite convincing effect, though obviously limited to

          Given the paucity of 3D content available, the TV makers may have missed a trick by not hyping the availability of 3D photography, and making fairly basic dual-lense cameras available - they don't need to be multi-megapixel devices, anything over 1920x1080 is wasted anyway.

          1. Charles 9

            Re: Stereoscopic?

            Static stereoscopes are nothing new. I once viewed a topographical photograph using an old-fashioned stereoscope. Both implements were in the neighborhood of 50 years old. Stereo photography still exists, but it's more of a a specialty field since you need both the stereo camera and some form of stereoscope. TVs are not well-suited for this because of the flicker (which would still exist for still photography).

    2. Charles 9

      For me, it would be an Ethernet port (I wired my house), and not just a good range of ports, but one-button access to all of them. I've seen 4K TVs on display and I felt them to overkill (and this was at point-blank range, too). 3D gives me a headache, so forget that.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I believe the next hype-level inbound is '8k'.

      The hype is that at 8k your eye cannot tell the difference any more.

      For me, I just think 8k has nice natural-extension-upwards ring to it.

      Curved screens are a weird TV hype. 'Here's a screen where you *cannot* see all the action from all your furniture'. Really??

  5. The BigYin
    FAIL

    Speaking as a CRT user...

    ...I'm more interested in the quality of the programming rather than the number of shiny dots in front of my eyes. Cease the race to the bottom and deliver good shows (be that drama, documentary or whatever). Even the likes of Horizon are now little more than dumbed-down vacuous bullshit; hell, Nat Geo has "Ancient Nazi Alien Ghosts" or such cobblers on it as serious programming. Pathetic.

    When I can find a HD TV that is *JUST* a TV with not walled-garden, spying on your network "SMART" TV wank; I'll buy it. Or a SMART TV where I can install a new OS and make it actually SMART and serving me, rather than the OEM.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Speaking as a CRT user...

      Full HD, Freeview HD, no Smart... Wasn't that hard. Took me about 5 seconds..

      http://www.richersounds.com/product/tv---all/samsung/ue50h5000/sams-ue50h5000

      1. illiad

        Re: Speaking as a CRT user...

        yeah I have a small samsung.. But the menu system is a bit odd... works perfectly well though, no stoopid features, just good TV... :)

    2. SteveK

      Re: Speaking as a CRT user...

      You could just not plug it into the network?

      1. The BigYin

        Re: Speaking as a CRT user...

        "You could just not plug it into the network?"

        So I should pay for crap I don't use? No. How's about they just don't put the crap in there? I have no issue with the TV showing me local network content; it's the reporting back to big-brother and only letting consume specific on-line services I don't want.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like