future 4k tv/monitor with current GPUs

[Rusty0611]

There you go psychodil

I was going to bore you with a load of GPU power and VRAM chit chat even though I knew it was a dangler for a bite but Mal did it for me.

 

[psychodil]

There you go psychodil

I was going to bore you with a load of GPU power and VRAM chit chat even though I knew it was a dangler for a bite but Mal did it for me.

I knew you must have been itching to reply

You did well resisting, well done

 

[Mal X]

finally the best tv right now is the Mitsubishi Laservue 70'' 1080p, it's flipping excellent.

but you cant get it here in the uk, you'd need to import it and use a transformer, plus i dont know how reliable it is because Mitsubishi are pretty dodgy when it comes to tvs, they're like JVC

 

[ChileanLlama]

but that aint 1080p, it's interlaced from 720p, it's not nearly as good.... you'll never see 4k normal BBC TV in your lifetime, no way; it's far too large a filesize to transmit, far too great an investment.... the BBC wont go near it, i very much doubt you'll even see 1080p tv either.

Yep, that's exactly where I was going. HD TV is transmitted at 720P not 1080P, which is about twice the file size. If Sky aren't doing 1080P yet, it's going to be a long time until they are able to do 4K, so less reason for TV transmission to drive adoption.

 

[Mal X]

Yep, that's exactly where I was going. HD TV is transmitted at 720P not 1080P, which is about twice the file size. If Sky aren't doing 1080P yet, it's going to be a long time until they are able to do 4K, so less reason for TV transmission to drive adoption.

not only that, the BBC are miles behind Sky, they're not interested at all in 1080p, it's far too much for them to invest in

you wont see 4K tv as a normal transmission medium for at least another 30 years, let alone this 8K tv rubbish, it's all pie in the sky.

but 4K tv will be fine for normal tv... that's ok and it will be excellent for gaming too, but only at a tv size over 60'', because at 50'' you wont notice much difference, 4k and 8k are for supersize TVs only, this is because 1080p is no good on really large screens

 

[Kaapstad]

Yep, that's exactly where I was going. HD TV is transmitted at 720P not 1080P, which is about twice the file size. If Sky aren't doing 1080P yet, it's going to be a long time until they are able to do 4K, so less reason for TV transmission to drive adoption.

The problem with getting normal HD off the ground was not the availability of TVs it was as I said earlier the TV broadcasting companies draging their feet agreeing standards and upgrading equipment. This went on for years and I think it will be the same this time round with 4k.

 

[krooton]

With 30" probably being the upper limit of comfortable monitor use, wouldn't 1440p with 8X AA offer little discernible difference from 4k screen without any AA, given the smallest 4k screens being massive and needing you to sit many feet away to work as a monitor?

 

[ChileanLlama]

The problem with getting normal HD off the ground was not the availability of TVs it was as I said earlier the TV broadcasting companies draging their feet agreeing standards and upgrading equipment. This went on for years and I think it will be the same this time round with 4k.

Yep, not disagreeing with that aspect. But I'm coming at it from a material/content perspective from now onwards.

If there's no content readily available for 4K and no one transmitting it what's the driver? As TV is not even on 1080p yet, I just can't see it being widely adopted any time soon, I think it's likely to remain quite niche for a long time. Not sure it will be the 30 years Mal X mentions, but who knows?

 

[james.miller]

but that aint 1080p, it's interlaced from 720p, it's not nearly as good...

1080i still has a horizontal resolution of 1920, i doubt there is much 1080i content derived from 720p at all as that would mean upscaling the width of the frame by 50% before interlacing it - that wouldnt make for a very good picture. The likelyhood is it's derived from 1080p content and just interlaced.

 

[andybird123]

as mentioned above, the driver for most new technology in TV's is not content driven, it's purely the fact that they start giving it away for free... long before large scale adoption of blu-ray or "HD" content on TV, the TV's themselves were larger and cheaper than similar CRT's so CRT's stopped being produced

similarly with new stuff like 3D or LED... early adopters paid extra but these features are now in TV's that are the same price as those without that tech 1-2 years ago, there is very little decent 3D content around even now, but all the highend TV's have 3D in them for free alongside the other "good quality" image features / audio etc.

when 4K TV's are marginally more expensive than non-4K TV's then they'll be everywhere regardless of how close we are to having 4K content widely available

whilst current HDMI is fine for 4K as TV's have post processing to upconvert low FPS to high FPS pictures, this adds massive lag which is not suitable for gaming, so they either need to actually make 300mhz HDMI part of the standard and include them in TV's or they need to add display port... but even then PC monitors with 4K panels will be loads more expensive than a similar TV just as a decent 1080p monitor (even using the same panel from a TV) is more expensive than a larger 1080p TV

riddle me this, display port is a non-fee charging version of HDMI yet HDMI TV's are cheaper than display port monitors that in all other ways are basically identical... in fact the monitors have LESS computing power inside them as they don't need the post processing or tuners that TV's do, and no speakers and...