I don't understand the point of 4k

Once UHD bluray becomes widespread then you'd be crazy not to upgrade to UHD TV...

oh really????

how many people actually buy blu rays?

i own about 3 and thats because i got one for free and the other was part of a launch ps3 console bundle. the other i bought because we needed something to watch that night.

so that's since blu ray launched i've bought about 3 of them.

the reason why because it will be superceded with time. i own about 400 dvd's and when blu ray came out you realised how stupid it was to buy physical media and now they just sit there.

i feel sorry for the guys who have ploughed thousands into blu rays.

no doubt 8k media will be out in 10 years time. then 16K, etc, etc.

buying physical media has became a thing of the past, digital media is the future.
 
Once UHD bluray becomes widespread then you'd be crazy not to upgrade to UHD TV...

You'd have to be crazy to pay the prices they'll be asking for them, that's for sure.

Most people still buy DVDs rather than Blu-rays, UHD Blu-ray or whatever isn't going to become particularly popular any time soon.

buying physical media has became a thing of the past, digital media is the future.

People have been saying this for years yet physical media sales are still massive business for retailers.
 
oh really????

how many people actually buy blu rays?

i own about 3 and thats because i got one for free and the other was part of a launch ps3 console bundle. the other i bought because we needed something to watch that night.

so that's since blu ray launched i've bought about 3 of them.

the reason why because it will be superceded with time. i own about 400 dvd's and when blu ray came out you realised how stupid it was to buy physical media and now they just sit there.

i feel sorry for the guys who have ploughed thousands into blu rays.

no doubt 8k media will be out in 10 years time. then 16K, etc, etc.

buying physical media has became a thing of the past, digital media is the future.

You aren't everyone.

8K won't a home thing, 16K definitely won't be.
 
You aren't everyone.

8K won't a home thing, 16K definitely won't be.

Well that's a dim statement... of course they'll make it to the home... AND whatever succeeds them :confused:

I buy physical media because of the massive improvement in quality over a stream... for both audio and video fidelity.

I tend not to buy things at launch, unless it's a film we really want to see... although even then, launch prices are cheaper than going to the cinema and we have a better setup at home than most cinemas.

2/3 of my collection I paid an average of £3-5 per disc in various sales. For some that I've wanted to buy without waiting, I tend not to pay more than £10 for a 2D disc or £15 for a 3D disc.

Does anywhere offer a good downloadable 3D service? I can't think of any... I think your only option for 3D is physical media... For the pirated 3D downloads... their quality, even in the best encodes, is MUCH worse than blu-ray, thanks to the half-resolution used (although still better than your average Apple TV / Netflix / Amazon stream quality).
 
Last edited:
Since when has 7680 been 8000? Or 15320 been 16000?

"8K" and "16K" will be cinema standards, not home standards. So no, they won't become home mainstream.
 
Since when has 7680 been 8000? Or 15320 been 16000?

"8K" and "16K" will be cinema standards, not home standards. So no, they won't become home mainstream.
You're ruling 8K and 16K forever, are you? That's brave.

For the better part of 100 years the best we could hope for in British home TV technology was 405 line/625 line TV. The last 15 years we have seen the arrival of progressive scan, 720p, 1080p and now 4K. Who could have predicted ten years ago that a 32" 1080p flatscreen TV would be available for £99, or that 4K TVs could be had for under £300?

One could make a compelling argument about the diminishing benefit of progressively higher resolutions, but that's not stopping consumers buying 4K TV now. So if history is our guide then it's unlikely that consumers will change their habits in the future.
 
Last edited:
Since when has 7680 been 8000? Or 15320 been 16000?

"8K" and "16K" will be cinema standards, not home standards. So no, they won't become home mainstream.

That's incredibly dimwitted of you... of course they will... I'll happy take a bet on it, but I have a funny feeling you wouldn't pay.

I too am frustrated about the mis-nomenclature, however you seem to have completely confused the issue.

True 4k is 4096x2160 pixels... UHD is 3820x2160 pixels... UHD =/= 4k

=/= means "does not equal" ;)
 
I have no doubt that we have some excellent TV's capable of superb picture qualities these days, but the simple fact is, they fell on their face.

Law of diminishing returns is one part, as a majority had already invested heavily in 1080p and Bluray after seeing their DVD colection get relegated to the 50p per movie charity bin status, I still shudder at a few of the past TV's I had and their cost, the two Toshiba 40" rear projection models being the most horrific.

It was the same with plasma screens, initial costs were sky high yet lower priced models got better or bigger.

But here we have UHD, 4K, or whatever label you prefer, and the prices of that have dropped considerably, to the point that there is barely a thought of buying a 1080p display when more resolution costs just a little more.

But they were released with no content, no benefit. I was about to invest in the technology when it first came out, I was simply waiting for this new better than Bluray format to appear, but it never did, the majority of film buffs waited, it still did not happen, those of us into media PC's, still no content.

So these lovely high resolution TV's sit in store rooms, losing value, being bought by a majority simply because it's bigger and shinier, not due to any ability to enjoy that technical merrit sadly.

Another sign of the technology design bracket living in cuckoo land, tv's with higher resolution than any content available to watch on them, 78" available for only £8999.99.

Just think of the money they would have made had an ultra high definition replacement for Bluray been released at the same time.
 
So? They'll make more money now as the people who want the 4k bluray will either have to buy a new set or a converter... if converter is even possible with HDCP protection.

It baffles me that they still bother with things like HDCP certification... any monkey can extract the files / re-encode the video :S

Just a licensing fee, I suppose...
 
It's true that I do regret buying so many DVD's in the early days and learnt my lesson there.

For me they became obsolete as soon as 1080p TV's were commonplace. Who wants to watch a low res DVD?

I probably had 1000+ DVD's. In now own about 30 blu-rays, and they've been available for about 8 years now, so I am very picky about which ones I get. Physical media is becoming more and more obsolete as compression technologies improve (x265)
 
You're ruling 8K and 16K forever, are you? That's brave.

For the better part of 100 years the best we could hope for in British home TV technology was 405 line/625 line TV. The last 15 years we have seen the arrival of progressive scan, 720p, 1080p and now 4K. Who could have predicted ten years ago that a 32" 1080p flatscreen TV would be available for £99, or that 4K TVs could be had for under £300?

One could make a compelling argument about the diminishing benefit of progressively higher resolutions, but that's not stopping consumers buying 4K TV now. So if history is our guide then it's unlikely that consumers will change their habits in the future.
You've completely missed my point...
True 4k is 4096x2160 pixels... UHD is 3820x2160 pixels... UHD =/= 4k

=/= means "does not equal" ;)

Yes... That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm pointing out that calling 3840x2160 "4K" is just going to get worse with time.

Hence my point that 7680x4320 isn't "8K" and 15360x8640 isn't "16K".

I fully expect 7680x4320 and 15360x8640 to be at some point resolutions available at home, but to call them 8K and 16K is beyond stupid.
 
If and when UHD Blu-ray players come in to wide distribution at affordable prices for the mass market then they will do what current BD players do. That is to say that they will handshake with the display chain equipment and then set their own output resolution according to the capabilities of all devices in the chain. For a 1080p TV only that means scaling UHD down to 1080p resolution and 8 bit colour depth unless the TV supports more.

This is part of the HDCP function; so it's a bit more than just a licence fee.
 
It might be stupid, but '2160p' and '4320p' doesn't really market quite as well as '4k' and '8k' which to a consumer is quite clearly 'twice as good' as the preceding tech.

Ultra High Def/UHD would be a better terminology for 4k, but still doesn't really mean anything to the average joe. It also doesn't help that '4k' and 8k are both called UHD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-definition_television
 
Well it's UHD-1 and UHD-2. As for being twice as good, it's actually four times as many pixels.

But we're talking about massive industry marketing companies, as if they couldn't have come up with something that's actually more representative without being a vague approximation.
 
You've completely missed my point...


Yes... That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm pointing out that calling 3840x2160 "4K" is just going to get worse with time.

Hence my point that 7680x4320 isn't "8K" and 15360x8640 isn't "16K".

I fully expect 7680x4320 and 15360x8640 to be at some point resolutions available at home, but to call them 8K and 16K is beyond stupid.

OK... I didn't realise you were wasting everyones time with a non-argument.

Well it's UHD-1 and UHD-2. As for being twice as good, it's actually four times as many pixels.

But we're talking about massive industry marketing companies, as if they couldn't have come up with something that's actually more representative without being a vague approximation.

And? What's your point? Both distinctions you've pointed out there are practically irrelevant, especially in the context of this chain of discussion...

Pi is approximately 3.14159... or would you prefer everyone quoted it to an infinite number of decimal places? That wouldn't work well, because anyone who tried to use Pi would then have nothing else to do for the rest of their lives...

In the context of the discussion, it was perfectly valid to use the terms 8k and 16k as we don't yet know what they'll be called when they come to market and relative to what's available at the moment, without going into flamboyant explanations for no good reason. I highly doubt 7680x4320 will be called 8k, it won't be called UHD-2... there will be a new way of referring to it... HyD, ID or just "is it a bird? is it a plane? no, its a new tv".

As far as the majority of people are concerned, 3840x2160 is 4k... the difference only matters to the people it actually matters to and they will know the difference... so it doesn't matter ;) I'm not missing the 256 extra horizontal pixels.

You wanna argue about twice or four times? Sure... go ahead... anyone who has a brain the ability to do 5-year-old level maths knows that they are one and the same thing, only relative to the dimensions you want to count. 4k->8k is twice as good in the x direction and twice as good in the y direction... shock, horror!
 
Last edited:
Bring back vhs I say.

Tapes actually still far-exceed the data storing capacity of disks.

You can buy 6.25TB tapes (maybe larger)... quite a bit more than even a 4-layer blu-ray (100GB)... that should be about enough to store one UHD film in uncompressed form. I know 1080p is about 750GB/hour uncompressed... so UHD should be about 3TB/hour.

Only about 20 quid each too... when you consider dual-layer blank blu-rays were that price for years, it doesn't seem so bad... and also that a 6TB HDD is 10 times the price.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom