Quake3World

bitWISE wrote:I have a projector instead of a TV but there are plenty of drawbacks.

TV sets:
- turn on way faster
- work well in all lighting levels/environments
- have better contrast/brightness/color
- last longer
- don't require you do run wires and mounts into your ceiling or install a screen (not that you need a screen, but it helps)
- don't require special room layout for the projector to get a clear throw with enough distance to create a large screen with the right aspect ratio and keystone
- usually have NTSC tuners for things like basic cable or OTA transmission
- currently there are no passive 3D projectors for the home market

In the end, I think you would get better image quality out of a TV set but size-for-size you're going to pay out the ass for it.

Transient wrote:Can you imagine a dead pixel in that monster? FFFFUUUUUU----

Ryoki wrote:Hah
We've been building our beamer setup for the last two weeks or so, every time i think we're about done i find myself ordering a better cable, or being insufficiently pleased with the positioning of the beamer and googling mounts or reconsidering the whole fucking layout of the room... it's in a working state since last weekend and goddamn it looks great, but once you get locked into this improvement process the tendency is to push it as far as you can.

How exactly does one distribute files that can run to hundreds of gigabytes? ... Given that uncompressed 4K footage has a bit-rate of about 600MB/s, and even the fastest solid-state drives operate at only about 500MB/s, compression isn’t merely likely, it’s necessary. ... Kotsaftis says manufacturers will probably begin shipping and promoting larger TVs. 'In coming years, 50-inch or 55-inch screens will have become the sort of standard that 40-inch TVs are now. To exploit 4K, you need a larger form factor. You’re just not going to notice enough of a difference on smaller screens.' The same quality/convenience argument leads him to believe that physical media for 4K content will struggle to gain traction among consumers. '4K implies going back to physical media. Even over the Internet, it’s going to require massive files and, given the choice, most people would happily settle for a 720p or 1080p file anyway.'

Eraser wrote:There was an article about 4K TV's and media posted over at Slashdot, and it basically came up with this very valid point:

Even over the Internet, it’s going to require massive files and, given the choice, most people would happily settle for a 720p or 1080p file anyway.'

Eraser wrote:For you and me probably not, but I think the majority of the Internet populace still has to deal with relatively strict bandwidth caps. Also, streaming is basically out of the question for most Internet connections, no?

Aside from that, I'd rather first see broadcasting companies deliver properly compressed 1080p signals to my home. Before 1080p is the standard, there's no real point in even considering the 4K upgrade.