Singulus announced that they have successfully produced a test batch of triple-layer Blu-ray discs. Each layer has been further optimized to store 33GB, up from current Blu-ray's 25GB. The press release specifically mentions 4K movies as a possible use case for the 100GB discs.
If someone is excited about 4k and doesn't plan on buying a screen larger than 100 inches, then that person has no clue what 4k is about and how it will not help them if they buy a screen that's only 42 inches.
Depends how close you sit to the screen, plus colour is better with higher resolution, you may notice better colour detail even if you don't notice better pixel resolution detail. (Not sure if you quoted the exact numbers for optimal viewing distance, if so I'm sorry, without citing a source you seem to have just plucked those numbers out of the air.)
Anyway, you are looking at it from a negative viewpoint; the poisitive veiwpoint is that 4K enables screens 4x the size with the same level of detail (scaled up).
I know exactly how 4k works and what benefits it brings, and how it only brings benefits to less than one-tenth of one percent of the mass market audience.
Yes, I am looking at it from a negative viewpoint, because it's a tech that's not really relevant for consumer use.
"Depends how close you sit to the screen"? Yeah...you have no idea what you're talking about and morons like you will waste your money on it. Believe the hype, it's your wallet.
Last edited by GONNAFISTYA on Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If that's your thing. I'm not excited and don't see the point either, if it becomes the new standard in a few yrs though it would be better, even marginally.
Last edited by losCHUNK on Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[color=red] . : [/color][size=85] You knows you knows [/size]
So unless you are going to argue that a 35" screen is not good enough for HD (it looks great compared to 576p to me), I think you are mistaken about the screen needing to be 100". Also isn't there a 70-something inch 4K TV on the market; or are they all bigger than that?
I doubt TV manufacturers are going to sell 4K TVs that give the same picture as 1080p TVs, so your concern is misplaced, I think
obsidian wrote:
DTS wrote:plus colour is better with higher resolution
It is, it's like having more, multicoloured subpixels.
GONNAFISTYA wrote:If someone is excited about 4k and doesn't plan on buying a screen larger than 100 inches, then that person has no clue what 4k is about and how it will not help them if they buy a screen that's only 42 inches.
afaik they don't make them smaller than 55"
I've watched 4k on a 65" from 10ft away and it was very noticeable
GONNAFISTYA wrote:If someone is excited about 4k and doesn't plan on buying a screen larger than 100 inches, then that person has no clue what 4k is about and how it will not help them if they buy a screen that's only 42 inches.
afaik they don't make them smaller than 55"
I've watched 4k on a 65" from 10ft away and it was very noticeable
No you didn't notice it, GFY knows all about the technology and he says it has to be 100" so you must have been hallucinating
Seriously, I said 72", you watched 65" and said it was very noticalbe; who's right?
GONNAFISTYA wrote:If someone is excited about 4k and doesn't plan on buying a screen larger than 100 inches, then that person has no clue what 4k is about and how it will not help them if they buy a screen that's only 42 inches.
afaik they don't make them smaller than 55"
I've watched 4k on a 65" from 10ft away and it was very noticeable
Yeah...and with the average 65" 4k screen costing as much as a car, exactly how many consumers do you predict will buy it?
It's a useless tech that only benefits a few....much like the stock market.
in other news: someone on the internet has noticed that new technology often has a high price when launched due to initial shortage of production facilities, need to recoup development costs and uncertainty about the strength of the future market - but hasn't noticed that if/when the market becomes strong, the price tends to fall, often quite dramatically
How many people buy a 65" television today? At much lower prices than $5k?
Yeah....nobody.
What part of the statement "the average consumer will get no benefit from the new tech" do you not understand?
Several of my friends run those 90" Mitsubishi DLPs and my projector shoots onto a 120". I'd upgrade to a 4K unit as the price came down but it is pretty much at the bottom on my priority list (unless my 1080P dies).
Last edited by bitWISE on Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GONNAFISTYA wrote:
How many people buy a 65" television today? At much lower prices than $5k?
Millions. I mean seriously, maybe not in the slums where you live but the BestBuy around here hardly has any TVs under 50". While I agree that $5k for a 65" is a premium price when you can get a 1080p 65" for around $1500 these days..its definitely not that unreasonable for new tech.
I can remember walking into a Circuit City and seeing a 30" 720p HDTV for $10,000 10-12yrs ago....look at them now.
How many people buy a 65" television today? At much lower prices than $5k?
Yeah....nobody.
What part of the statement "the average consumer will get no benefit from the new tech" do you not understand?
Several of my friends run those 90" Mitsubishi DLPs and my projector shoots onto a 120". I'd upgrade to a 4K unit as the price came down but it is pretty much at the bottom on my priority list (unless my 1080P dies).
Yeah, apparently GFY is unfamiliar with middle class suburbanites in America.
GONNAFISTYA wrote:Just read this and stfu already...
Hm; the argument is totally valid. Buying media on physical devices is dying out fast. The only times i get a CD or DVD is when my parents get me some stuff for christmas.
But it does not adress the technical aspects of 4k vs 1080p. Neither does it adress the consumers experience.
The upside of 4k blu-rays is that i will find them ripped on irc.
On the other hand: With the internet speeds google is working on 4k streaming is allready on its way.