back to article OK, forget the 3D telly fiasco: 4K is gonna blow you away - say tech giants

We have mixed opinions regarding the merits of 4K TV viewing here at El Reg. It's something that we have covered in scientific detail. In short, the 4,000-plus-pixel resolution looks great for still images, but misses the point for moving pictures. Reality check aside, that hasn’t stopped world+dog at this year's IFA trade …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Piro

    What the hell? Samsung is talking such bollocks, world's largest my arse.

    Did everyone already forget about the 152" Panasonic plasma?

    Oh, right, I see, the 152" Plasma has a HIGHER horizontal resolution, actual 4K: 4096x2160.

    The Samsung is lower at 3840x2160.

    Oh come on, Samsung, that's just total horse shit. We made a large TV with a slightly lower resolution than the world's largest, so now we can claim it's the world's largest 4K TV?

    A new low.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      A new low

      Such phrases have no meaning in Samsung-land.

    2. Boothy

      Re: What the hell? Samsung is talking such bollocks, world's largest my arse.

      <Pedant mode>

      Quote: "world’s biggest Ultra HD TV"

      Ultra HD is defined as being 3840 x 2160

      The Samsung is 3840 x 2160 and therefore is a Utra HD TV.

      The Panasonic is not 3840 x 2160, therefore is not a Ultra HD TV (it's got more pixels in width).

      Therefore the quote above is accurate, as the Panasonic is not a Ultra HD TV there isn't being compared against in the comment above.

      </Pedant mode>

      But it's still Samsung mincing words.

      Yes it may be the largest 'Ultra HD' TV in the world, but it's not the largest 4K TV * in the world. A case of the letter of the law, rather than the spirit I think.

      The Panasonic is actually better than Ultra HD TV resolution (slightly wider), so is not only a larger TV, but higher definition too!

      * There are quite a few 4K resolutions, for example CinemaScope etc.

      1. Piro

        Re: What the hell? Samsung is talking such bollocks, world's largest my arse.

        I realise the details, but it is definitely not in the spirit of such a statement.

        Also, Ultra HD was defined as an 8K resolution before 4K. But now the branding has degraded.

        1. DougS Silver badge

          Re: What the hell? Samsung is talking such bollocks, world's largest my arse.

          Well, if people are dumb enough to pay for a 4K TV that 95% of the public will be unable to see the difference in, maybe they can repeat the trick 10 years later and get them to pay for an 8K TV that 100% of the public will be unable to see the difference in.

          Even though HD is very visually noticeable for most people, I remember seeing stats a few years ago that fully 1 in 3 people had things configured incorrectly so that their HDTV was in fact displaying SD (i.e. cabled wrong, cable/satellite box misconfigured, or viewing the SD version of channels instead of the HD version)

          I fixed two friends setups over the past few years, one hadn't seen what the big deal was about HD but immediately noticed the difference when I fixed it, the other had been bragging about his HD setup and pretended not to notice the difference when I fixed it probably because he was embarrassed at bragging over something he didn't even have.

          I expect very few 4K sets will ever display 4K content given how many people couldn't even manage the HD transition where the difference on screen was so easily discernible!

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. Atonnis


    It still just doesn't quite come up to be worth the price.

    Jeezy-Creezy, I can't yet get a 1080p download from any of the online video services. Who gives a shit about 4K at insane prices with no content?

    I just want to buy, download, and have it stored in my local-network collection. Once I can do that I'll consider starting to look at 4K - and if I want to get a movie in 4K that is TRUE 4K and I already own a license, I want to pay a small upgrade fee, not rebuy the movie all over again.

    1. Test Man

      Re: Meh...

      "It still just doesn't quite come up to be worth the price.

      Jeezy-Creezy, I can't yet get a 1080p download from any of the online video services. Who gives a shit about 4K at insane prices with no content?

      I just want to buy, download, and have it stored in my local-network collection. Once I can do that I'll consider starting to look at 4K - and if I want to get a movie in 4K that is TRUE 4K and I already own a license, I want to pay a small upgrade fee, not rebuy the movie all over again."

      Then don't. The rest of us who want to or can do will do.

      I've always thought it silly when self-indulgent people who can't progress with technology complain about the others who do.

    2. ThomH Silver badge

      Re: Meh...

      The move to 4k televisions will be a fantastic thing, because it'll mean that the standard panel resolution becomes 4k, to the massive benefit of every laptop that isn't the Retina MacBook or the Chromebook Pixel.

      For TV itself? Films are already that resolution without the hassle of needing to be redigitised, YouTube can stream in 4k and smartphones have been announced that can record in it. So there'll probably be a pincer movement on production television. I mean, it won't make much visible difference, but you can at least realistically see it happening.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Meh...

      I don't have any such problems with online video. Have you tried ?

  3. Denarius Silver badge

    more waste

    when there is something intelligent or funny to watch, then, maybe. Thats if I dont have a life and want something synthetic and pathetic. Until then, mere SVGA grade or less will do fine for viewing the latest propaganda pieces or Top Gear reruns.

    1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: more waste

      I don't see why intelligent or funny programming would be improved by more pixels, either. I rarely bother watching HD content now, even when it's available, because the HD channels are listed after the SD ones in the programming guide and I can't be bothered to scroll down to find them. I can't think of anything I've ever wanted to watch where HD would have increased my enjoyment.

  4. Graham Marsden

    All that resolution....

    ... won't make a crap programme any better!

    1. plrndl

      Re: All that resolution....

      Maybe not, but what a monitor!

  5. Dr_N Silver badge

    4K With Ambilight?

    Sure why not.........

    ... HOW MUCH !?!

    Not this year then.

  6. I think so I am?

    Could give a fly'sh*t

    My HD Project is still:

    - Cheaper

    - Takes up less space

    - Uses less electric

    - Very Portable

    - Can give an image from 30"-300"

  7. Paul Crawford Silver badge

    4k benifits?

    I kind of want 4k to succeed, not because it will make much difference to me TV viewing, but maybe it will put an end to the sh*t laptop monitor resolutions we have these days.

    1. Fuzz

      Re: 4k benifits?

      I appreciate your sentiment but why do you think that's going to happen?

      Most TVs sold now are 1080p but laptops are sold with "HD" screens that are 1366x768

      1. AndrueC Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        Re: 4k benifits?

        but laptops are sold with "HD" screens that are 1366x768

        Which is a lousy ratio for normal use. There's never quite enough vertical space and too much horizontal space. It's great if/when you want to watch a film or show but the rest of the time it seems a poor choice.

      2. Boothy

        Re: 4k benifits?

        As a business user of a 1366x768 laptop (Lenovo T420) I feel the pain! So glad I'm mostly at the office or at home where I have external monitors I can plug in (1600 x 1200 or larger).

        Only thing I leave (dual screen extended mode) on the 1366x768 is usually my web browser.

        They really should ban the use of lower than 1920 x 1080 on laptops.

        Although I'd still rather have 1920 x 1200, 16:10 so much nicer for PC use than 16:9.

        Issue I guess is so many people (i.e. non tech budget buyers, i.e. most people) don't even consider the resolution of the screen when looking at laptops. Just cost!

    2. Def Silver badge

      Re: 4k benifits?

      Nearly all Ultrabooks have at least 1080p screens now - even the 11"ers. I know, because I've been looking around with a view to picking one up in the near future.

  8. Mike Bell

    I can't see it catching on, for the reason that anything greater than HD resolution can't be discerned by the human eye in a typical domestic environment.

    Caravan-sized cinemas, like the one in Fort William, could maybe put such a thing to use, though.

  9. Syed

    World's biggest telly

    I dare them to show an episode of Embarrassing Bodies at the IFA.

    Actually, make that a double dare.

  10. Pete 2 Silver badge

    Don't judge a book by its cover

    In this case the cover is the TV. Whether it is 4K, 3D, 625 lines (yikes!) or even in colour.

    The "book", however is the content: the programmes, video games, films and is (hopefully) the reason why we bought the telly, in the first place. To watch them, not to dribble lovingly at the sight of an enormous screen.

    Now, it does seem that with every new revision of the "cutting edge", the technology improves but the programmes (and other stuff) do not. So we end up spending £100's or £1000s on spiffy new kit, only to turn it on and watch 40 year-old episodes of Dad's Army.

    Unless there's something completely immersive about 4K, and there is sufficient content made available specifically for it then there seems little point in upgrading - at least until the currrent telly has worn out.

    There does seem to be one aspect of 4K that would make it a "must buy": the ability to get three or four ordinary TV programmes running as P-i-P at the same time. Then we might stand a chance of finding something decent to watch. Provided the picture quality isn't compressed to hell and back, just to get a number of channels down the satellite link.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Content is key - and doesn't really exist

    If I see the idiotic levels of compression of video on demand services and general TV offerings I cannot really force myself to create any enthusiasm whatsoever for an upscaled version of that rubbish whose man ability will be to display the shortcomings so much more accurately.

    4K feels to be a failure in resolution on the same scale as Alice in Wonderland was of 3D..

    1. stucs201

      Re: over compression

      Which is one reason I still prefer my HD films on a shiny silver disc than as a download.

  12. Tanuki
    Thumb Up

    Static display...

    If they brought out a version which fitted that sort of pixel-density into something with, say, a 25-inch diagonal - and it gave decent colour-balance - it'd be great for those of us whose main interest is in editing still digital images.

  13. Downside

    Roll on the cheap TRUE 4K PJ

    Sod you lot trying to download 4K movies, I want to play true 4K games on my XBONE/PS4/PC.

    And as for still versus moving, the bit you tend to concentrate on in an image is the non-moving bit, which does benefit from higher res.

    Yep, 4K for me please. Hurry up.

  14. Wize

    A large TV with that resolution might have a use other than High Res TV

    You could still watch normal HDTV but keep in touch with, say, the twitter feed on the program.

    Could appeal to viewers of anything from live football to Big Brother

    I sometimes do it at home with my tablet on my lap, manually refreshing it, but would be nice to have a self scrolling twitter feed down the side of the picture.

    In saying that, anyone know a nice auto scrolling twitter app for windows? Might have to write my own.

    1. Martin

      Re: A large TV with that resolution might have a use other than High Res TV

      Oh, FFS.

      So now, I'll not only be able to watch the footy with crap commentary, I'll also be able to see tweets from people at the match (or watching it on TV) saying "OMG - I'm at the match!", "That was never a penalty!","Clear penalty!","He should never have been sent off", "Blatant red card!" etc etc etc etc. That'll REALLY add to my enjoyment.

      1. Boothy

        Re: A large TV with that resolution might have a use other than High Res TV

        I already hate the twitter stuff they stick on at the add breaks, and that lasts just a few seconds! I really don't care if <Someone I don't know> thought <insert actors name here's> was <some meaningless dribble>.

        Even worse are the chat channels they seem to be setting up to discuss the program in real time with other viewers while the episode is airing. (Syfy channel I'm looking at you).

        FFS, if the program is good, you should be glued to the TV, not chatting with complete strangers and missing half the show. If the show is so bad that chatting is preferable, then watch something else, or better yet get out of the house and have a pint or something with real friends!

        I can just imaging people having to set up firewalls to block specific feed addresses in order to 'clean up' their TV streams!

        I predict 4k TVs with constant ticker feeds from Facebook updates, Twitter etc. etc. Announcing what you're watching to the world, and targeted adverts running along the bottom trying to sell you the box set of the TVseries or movie your watching. I expect unauthorised downloading of 'clean' rips will become more and more common.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A large TV with that resolution might have a use other than High Res TV

      Dear me. How sad.

  15. DrXym Silver badge

    4K TVs need 4K content

    I'm sure a 4K TV mounted on a wall or stand will look amazing even if it's only showing 1080p, 720p or SD content. But so too would an equivalent sized HD TV and for a lot less money.

    I see little reason to buy such a TV now. There is little content, the ink is still drying on relevant standards such as HDMI 2.0, HEVC and the price of sets is ridiculous. Wait a few years and the TVs will be cheaper, better and there may actually be something watching on them. Let some early adopter brag about a TV which cost an arm and a leg with nothing to show for it.

    About the only thing I see being available on 4K in the short term is some token support on the next gen consoles which are coming out - 4K picture viewing and suchlike. Maybe a streaming 4K video service turns up a while later (assuming it provides the bitrate to go with the alleged picture quality). It'll be years for HEVC enabled satellite / cable. Waiting is the safest option.

    1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

      Re: 4K TVs need 4K content

      How long does your TV last?

      We've had old tube TVs lasting 15+ years.

      My first gen Sony Plasma lasted 10.

      If we look at advancements in Networking as well as storage, along w 14nm lithography... We see faster delivery, cheaper and more efficient storage, and improvements in terms of CPU/GPU driving the video.

      Imagine your 4K tv having an interface to slot a card the size of a postage stamp, only thicker that contains your movie along with some digital rights tech to keep the studios happy.

      How far off is that? 3 yrs? 5 yrs? 10yrs?

      You may not want to junk your current set, but if you're in the market to buy a new tv... You will want to future proof it.

      Just saying...

      1. Marcelo Rodrigues

        Re: 4K TVs need 4K content

        "You may not want to junk your current set, but if you're in the market to buy a new tv... You will want to future proof it."

        No doubt about it - but there is a pesky thing called ROI. Think about it: Today a 4k TV costs... 5 thousand? How much a Full HD TV costs today? I'm brazilian, so I don't know the price for You. But, for the sake of argument, let's say 1 thousand.

        Question: When my FullHD get obsolete, will the 4k of the time be more than 1 thousand cheaper than the 4k of today? If the answer is "yes" or "it will cost exactly one thousand less", then it is better ROI to buy a FullHD today, and buy another one when the time comes.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

          Re: 4K TVs need 4K content


          When I bought my first gen Plasma, the set retailed in the US for 8,000.00. Today, I can get a better 42" TV for around $500.00 (USD) And of course if I want to get a much better set... I'd end up playing more.

          To me, it was worth it because I had a TV I could hang on the wall and even though it weighed a ton, it was still a fraction of the weight of a CRT.

          But here's my problem....

          If I did what you suggest... buy a cheaper TV and then when the better TVs come out, buy a new one... two things happen.

          1) Even today's signal would look better on a 4K than a FullHD set. (The set converts the image)

          2) Tomorrow, I would have to ask what I would do with the FullHD set that still works? I mean why buy a new set when the old one still works? (I tend to be the guy who buys something and uses it until it dies.)

          Mine's the jacket I have been wearing for 10 years because its still in one piece...

      2. DrXym Silver badge

        Re: 4K TVs need 4K content

        "You may not want to junk your current set, but if you're in the market to buy a new tv... You will want to future proof it."

        Buying a TV set which doesn't implement HDMI 2.0, doesn't implement HEVC decoding, doesn't implement any tuner which supports HEVC is is not future proofing. It's an open invitation to obsolescence. It reminds me of all those people who owned 480p/1080i TVs in the US that used component who became enraged, ENRAGED when consoles and media players ignored their setup.

        As a rule if you want future proof wait a few years after a standard comes out.

        As for your first gen plasma... I bet it doesn't do HD (or it wouldn't be 1st gen). But maybe you meant 1st gen HD. Then it probably doesn't do 1080p, or 24fps or HDMI 1.3. Things which came later in the HD lifecycle. And even in what it does do it probably has a sucky processor which makes menus and video source switching feels sluggish by modern standards. It probably also cost a small fortune and equivalent TVs were out a few years after for 1/2 the price.

        There are benefits to waiting. You save a lot of money and you enjoy a TV which has a robust implementation of the standards and therefore can withstand time better.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

          Re: 4K TVs need 4K content

          @Dr. Xym.

          It was the first gen Sony which did 1080i. And it died ~2yrs ago.

          Never had to worry about heating the room with the monitor on. (It was a monitor, no tuner which is fine with me because all of the tuning was controlled from the cable box and it had no speakers....

          I don't disagree with waiting. And that's part of my point. I bought the plasma because 1) I had the opportunity to get it at a great price (at the time) and 2) I needed a new television because my CRT was starting to die.

          I was mad about having to buy my current TV because I was hoping that my Plasma would have lasted until "42 OLED TVs hit the market.

          I agree 100% with your points... but when you have to buy a new set... do you buy one that's behind a bit on the curve, or the latest tech in your price range?

  16. Natalie Gritpants

    Would prefer higher framerate

    I'd be quite happy with 1080p48 or 1080i96, 1080p96 would be great. Not much point having four times the pixels if it means four times as much motion blur. Doesn't involve much more bandwidth either as you can keep the I frames at the same time interval and P frames change less when they are closer in time.

    1. stucs201

      Re: Would prefer higher framerate

      Not just frame-rate. Dynamic range is overdue for improvement too. Either of these would do more for realism than more pixels (not that I'd turn down more pixels if it was "as well as", rather .than "instead of").

      Of course 4K is (contrary to some other posts) easier to find content for. Plenty of films are shot at a suitable resolution (that version would just need distributed beyond the cinemas). However very few are shot at higher frame rates (I can only think of The Hobbit) and as for higher dynamic range, thats probably limited to still images from high-end cameras.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Would prefer higher framerate

      Having watched 50fps progressive 1080 video it's a proper jump forward compared to 3D or 4K. High frame rate even in movies for action etc is such an improvement of the pointless 24fps we've got stuck with and for TV it's a no brainer.

      H.265 should allow double the framerate with the same bitrate so hopefully more people will start using HFR progressive (or MBAFF to switch interlaced progressive frame by frame). I don't know how much work is required or how many studios have unused HFR abilities but I'd hope the tech is unused and not unavailable.

      1. James Hughes 1

        Re: Would prefer higher framerate

        What the above said.

        Increasing frame rate improves the picture to the viewer more than increasing resolution due to the issues mentioned. Doubling frame rate also means you need less than double the bits/s because the compression works better on images that are 'closer' together. So in fact with the move to H265, you can get double the frame rate plus some extra resolution in the same bits as H264.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why the hate?

    I don't understand all the hate for 4k, when you will hear the same amount of moaning when a modern 5" phone will not even have 1080p.

    Just see the thing as a whopping big monitor, and put the content on it that you want when 4k screens drop to normal prices (just like 1080p screens did) and HDMI 2.0 is available on all your devices.

    1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: Why the hate?

      Just see the thing as a whopping big monitor

      Some of us don't want a "whopping big monitor".

  18. davemcwish

    Subscription Media

    I suspect the ultimate aim of this is to wean us off physical media and go to streaming/downloads with the associated subscription payment.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Subscription Media

      Maybe so but until everyone gets FTTP, it ain't gonna happen.

      Until then, I'm sure Hollywood will appreciate you buying your movies all over again at the higher resolution...

  19. poopypants

    In the meantime,

    while we are waiting for prices to fall, there are other uses for this technology.

    For example, I live in a small country town that is closer to the Antarctic than it is to Paris, so it would be great if there was an art gallery nearby that had 4K screens on the walls. This would let me see images of some of the art I would otherwise have to travel halfway around the world to see. I could even zoom in on particular areas of a painting, something that in the Louvre would require a large magnifying glass and balls of steel.

  20. HMB

    Moving Image Difference

    Going back to a bit on what the reg has already said, but with a slightly different angle...

    When a shot in a film moves, the shot exposure gets smeared over time, this is motion blur. When the camera is in motion are we really going to be able to discern a difference between 1080p and 4K?

    I think 4K needs 50 fps progressive as a minimum requirement.

    Such a shame about the lack of interest in High Dynamic Range tech, but I expect that will come when the technology is ready to offer it economically. HDR tech would solve a lot of the OLED "colours look too intense" problems while allowing the display to show intense colours when they should be there (e.g. a red Neon sign in a movie).

  21. Wheaty73

    You are looking at it wrong

    A 4k TV doesn't need the content yet, what it needs is the ability to display multiple 1080p inputs on its screen simultaneously. THAT will be useful. And very Sci-Fi.

    1. Martin

      Re: You are looking at it wrong

      If a program is worth watching in 1080p, it's worth concentrating on.

      If you've got four programs on at the same time, you're not concentrating on any of them. If you're not concentrating on any of them, you don't really need it in 1080p.

      Unless all you want to do is impress your friends.

      1. Wheaty73

        Re: You are looking at it wrong

        Not sure why you think 1080p content is worth concentrating on - not everything is a movie. We have multiple screens now and cope quite well.

        Have you never watched picture in picture on a normal TV???

        1. Martin

          Re: You are looking at it wrong

          "Not sure why you think 1080p content is worth concentrating on - not everything is a movie. We have multiple screens now and cope quite well."

          Precisely. So we don't need super-mega-hi-def for multiple screens.

          "Have you never watched picture in picture on a normal TV?"

          Hardly ever. I find it damn irritating on the TIVO when I'm trying to program something and some rubbish I don't want to watch is twittering away in the top-right of the screen, and I can't switch it off. - and taking up space which could be better used by the menu app.

  22. envmod

    4K is old hat

    it's all about 16K resolution for me.

    1. The Indomitable Gall

      Re: 4K is old hat

      16K? You're havin' a laugh. You need to get the 48K model to play Manic Miner....

  23. GeorgeTuk

    Still loving my Toshiba...

    ...with 720p HD.

    Got it about 8 years ago and it still works just fine, a good all rounder. I have always found watching 3D and massive films at cinemas that after about 10 mins I forget it's all 3D and massive and stuff (bar Prometheus and Pacific Rim).

    It just doesn't interest me I don't think. Maybe because I don't watch big action movies that often.

    1. Abot13

      Re: Still loving my Toshiba...

      i have a 720P Samsung about the same age, hope that will keep going at least another 2 years then jump to 4K when the prices are reasonable and make the samsung the bedroom TV

  24. Sil

    Tiny screens

    These 110" screen are way too small and too cheap.

    I won't buy a luxury tv until I need to destroy a wall to be able to bring it in the house.

  25. jason 7

    Will they make a 32" version?

    I personally think they got the current HD resolutions all wrong.

    At worst it should have been 720p for standard broadcast TV and 1440p for Bluray. Lets dump the interlace stuff.

    That way it would be a simple clean 100% upscale/downscale depending on what TV you bought or what you wanted to watch.

    I currently have a 540p resolution TV (Sharp Perfect PAL) and 1080p stuff downscaled looks great on it. People often say what a great solid detailed picture it has.

    Decent picture for day to day use and streaming and ultimate effect for Bluray movie watching at home.

    Plus the 1440p would have helped with the larger screens that we now have. I would imagine 1080p's pixel density starts to wane over 45".

    Plus it would have made PC monitors better to use if we had 1440p as standard.

  26. AndrueC Silver badge

    Screw that. How about a reasonably priced sensibly sized OLED unit? Or is that the real reason behind this push - the manufacturers can't get the price down so they want to fool us into buying a bigger size to make up for their failings.

    1. Abot13

      most OLED screens come out of the production line bend, why else are there so many not flat screens for sale?

  27. TakeTheSkyRoad

    PC Monitor

    I think if I had the cash for a huge 50" 4K TV the first thing I'd do is try it as a PC monitor :)

    Plenty of desk space on a big screen means I can play FF14 (or pick your game, Civ 5 ?) in windowed mode and still have space to say surf the net. Especially important for games which are big and complex enough to need guides to make them easily playable.

    Hell, I could even have the PC loaded and use picture in picture to have the news showing in a box in the corner.

    Of course my work RDP session wouldn't be full screen but I could live with that.

  28. Dropper

    Early Adoption

    These prices are largely irrelevant to most of us. Even in the US your average viewer won't be seeing one of these until the prices fall to the sub $2000 range. These are for movie stars, sports stars, oil tycoons, the kind of people that carry $50,000 rolled up in an elastic band and blow the lot in Vegas in an hour. The TV I own cost $5000 at some point, or at least a version of it did. I bought it for $1000. I skipped 3D like the rest of you because it's a pointless gimmick, but 4K would be worth upgrading to once the 50" price falls within my budget. I figure the same is true for you guys in England, once 4K is realistic to own, you'll want it too.

    As for 8K, my guess is economics killed this one, although I find it strange because usually a leap forward in technology usually brings a difference in quality that blows the previous generation away. Progressive scan TVs with their VGA like resolution jumped to 1080p and I expected a similar move with the next generation of HD TVs.

  29. M Gale

    4k revolution? Bring it on!

    So that 1080p and 1200 screens drop to a sane price.

    Who knows? Maybe when this old 19" CRT from 1999 finally gives up the ghost, I might actually buy one. So possibly in a decade or two, when it becomes impossible to get an SVGA adapter or the tube fades to unreadability.

    What, using something until it wears out? I know, how unfashionable!

  30. dreddric


    4K is pointless, unless you want an oversized and overpriced digital photo frame!

    1. Pete 2 Silver badge

      Too small

      > an oversized and overpriced digital photo frame

      Wouldn't be any use.

      A quick calculation shows that a 16:9 "4K" (i.e. 4,000 horizontal pixels) screen would only have a resolution of a piffling 9 MPix. Anyone who's willing to splurge the cost of this on a screen will certainly have a state of the art digital camera (or even phone) that has a far, far higher resolution than this screen could ever display.

      1. insanelysane

        Re: Too small

        That's true but at most viewing distances with 4K the acuity of the eye becomes the limiting factor. 9 MP is plenty for photo display.

  31. Mike Bell

    For anyone who thinks a 4K screen would be any use in their house...

    Check out the following graphic.

    Resolution Chart

    Going to be sitting less than 6 feet from your swanky new 110 inch display, are you?

    1. Stuart Halliday

      Re: For anyone who thinks a 4K screen would be any use in their house...

      Something wrong somewhere. Viewers are noticing a 50" 4K TV at 6" away looks much sharper and more detail than HD.

    2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: For anyone who thinks a 4K screen would be any use in their house...

      Huh. My parlor's small enough that I might actually notice the difference between 480p and 780p. Not that I care.

  32. Mike Flugennock

    Never mind decent 4K content...'s be nice to have decent content, period. I won't speak for the UK, but here in the Colonies it's pretty much wall-to-wall cookie-cutter reality shows as far as the eye can see, aside from the worse-than-worthless noise channels... uhh, news channels -- and the wife and I just can't see throwing down that stonking pile of cash for a TV set the size of Colorado just so she can watch Gordon Ramsay reaming out some failing restauranteur in glorious 4K.

    Luckily, most of what I enjoy, like Arrested Development and MST3K, doesn't require useless gobs of resolution. They're still great shows no matter what you watch them on.

  33. Tom 7 Silver badge

    The only improved coverage this will encourage

    is finer and smoother foundation from some mockboratory somewhere for the orange people.

  34. This Side Up

    message for logging-in purposes only. Other login pages have browser compatibility issues.

  35. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    trying to persuade us

    don't blame them, they can't help it, it's in their blood, it's stronger than their will (if that will hadn't been burnt out long by that time), etc. etc. If it's not another f... smart watch, it'll be a 4K television, or a beam me up pocket teleporter. All indispensably essential enhancements of our lives. Click / blink / think here to pay now and get 10% off your next purchase. And... it works.

  36. Oddb0d

    ...Philips with its 65PFL9708 65-incher LED TV featuring a 900MHz motion rate...

    Wow talk about well ahead of the competition.

  37. Stuart Halliday

    Just jump to 8K?

    With the Japanese giants already talking about 8K TV, why are we even bothering with 4K?

  38. Dick Emery

    Seen it. Looked great.

    Well I saw an 84" 4K TV at Selfridges. Looked great. Except it was shitty LED backlit LCD.

    I would much prefer faster framerates/refresh rates and OLED (if they can fix longevity and image retention issues).

    How else are we going to view The Hobbit in 48FPS?

    1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: Seen it. Looked great.

      How else are we going to view The Hobbit in 48FPS?

      I can do that now, but I can't read the text when I flip the pages that quickly.

  39. 080

    4k is just another fad that will become irrelevant quite soon just like 3D. I didn't realise why HD could look so good(still) and so bad(moving) and then I read the Reg article about frame rates and blurring to stop flicker, so now I see no point in buying a new TV until the frame rate is improved, but then the crap content on the majority of broadcast TV will have to improve hugely to persuade me to part with any cash.

    1. insanelysane

      Frame rate is not the issue at all - it is compression. Most so-called HD TV channels are so compressed and have so much detail destroyed that a pure 480p image would actually be clearer.

  40. godanov

    I have the money and need a big tv.

    Will NOT be buying, this is ripoff, worse than 3d or plasma

  41. Hans 1 Silver badge

    Hook it up to my computer ... that is why I want one ... but divide the price by 10 and I might think about it ... ;-)

  42. Chris Parsons

    There is always something better to do than watch TV... matter how big the screen is, dross will still be dross.

  43. insanelysane

    "900MHz motion rate"?

    I'm looking forward to 4K because I see lots of artefacts in HD so it would be nice to see the end of that, but even more because I would like to use it to display photos properly. I hope it soon becomes a computer/laptop monitor standard too.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019