Value - 4K Pricing

[Drucifer]

 

[Ramy]

Sears has a Toshiba 4K TV for $1000 that is 58", but it is not 3D.

 

[Kraven]

Futureshop Canada, LG 55" 4K 1200$

4K prices have dropped faster than then original LCD back in the day

 

[mike123abc]

Futureshop Canada, LG 55" 4K 1200$

4K prices have dropped faster than then original LCD back in the day

LCD manufacturing has had the ability to easily produce 4k for quite a long time in large sizes. It has simply been a matter of chipsets that could process the image. I see 1080p quickly going away, since 4k sets will only be fractionally more expensive to produce before long.

 

[gadgtfreek]

I'm tempted to jump in this year, but the 4K spec isnt done yet. I guess you still get the enjoyment of higher resolution, but I imagine anything before 2016 will be lacking the final stuff that UHD blu-ray comes out with for player specs. The more I read, the more agitated I get.

 

[tigerfan33]

I jumped in last year knowing things haven't settled and don't regret at all.
Depending how you will use the tv the most could answer your question. Newer specs with HDR and wider color gamut will need material along with the tv that will display them. Netflix supposedly will stream 4k material with HDR later this year. 4k Blu Rays may or may not use HDR/wider color gamut to start.
I use mine primarily for Directv and streaming.
I've said it before. 4k will get a big bounce with sports. I've seen 4k World Cup on YouTube that were mind blowing.

 

[Drucifer]

. . . .

I've said it before. 4k will get a big bounce with sports. I've seen 4k World Cup on YouTube that were mind blowing.

When I can track a hockey puck the same as if I was at the game is when I know TV has reach it zenith.

 

[gadgtfreek]

I jumped in last year knowing things haven't settled and don't regret at all.
Depending how you will use the tv the most could answer your question. Newer specs with HDR and wider color gamut will need material along with the tv that will display them. Netflix supposedly will stream 4k material with HDR later this year. 4k Blu Rays may or may not use HDR/wider color gamut to start.
I use mine primarily for Directv and streaming.
I've said it before. 4k will get a big bounce with sports. I've seen 4k World Cup on YouTube that were mind blowing.

I'm kinda leaning towards not caring about the HDR and wider color gamut, I would probably prefer to let that shake out another couple of years, and hopefully OLED is cheaper in larger sizes. I'm kinda looking for something to get into it now, knowing I may change displays in 2-3 years (2017?). I would like to be able to get into 4K blu-ray when it launches, just for the resolution boost.

What tv did you buy?

 

[tigerfan33]

I have the Samsung 658550.
If you don't care about HDR or wider color gamut this would be a good buy. Off angle is still not great but blacks are good and SHOULD be 4k Blu Ray compatible.

 

[Drucifer]

How soon does everyone think 8K will be the next big thing - my guess five years. Or about the life expectancy of today's 4K televisions.

 

[navychop]

Or maybe never.

 

[Ilya]

How soon does everyone think 8K will be the next big thing - my guess five years.

In Japan test 8K satellite broadcast is scheduled to begin next year. The full roll-out is being planned for 2020, the year of the Tokyo Olympics. Sharp already showed an 8K TV set prototype...

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I don't think we will see 8K in homes, but we will see it used in commercial uses such as billboards. The minimum screen size needed to see 8k is 110 inches.

 

[Ramy]

I don't think we will see 8K in homes, but we will see it used in commercial uses such as billboards. The minimum screen size needed to see 8k is 110 inches.

What? You aren't getting a 110 inch TV at home? LOL!

 

[jevans64]

I was looking at a 75" Samsung 8550. In the end, I couldn't justify the $6000 the set would cost. I'll put that money towards a new receiver when DTS:X gets finalized, which actually won't be much since an upgraded Denon AVR-5308ci still fetches a decent price on eBay.

 

[Ilya]

I don't think we will see 8K in homes, but we will see it used in commercial uses such as billboards. The minimum screen size needed to see 8k is 110 inches.

That's the size of my (PJ) screen right now. I am ready!

 

[mike123abc]

8K to me is like the 3D of 1080p. I do not see a lot of people rushing out to get it. Since most film content is not 8k worthy and of course video 8k are just showing up in the prototype category, the content will be even more limited than 3d. This combined with most people not being able to tell the difference why go to the extra expense? Even projector screens would have trouble being smooth enough to truly reflect 8k.

 

[Ilya]

I respectfully disagree. First of all, the film resolution is way higher than 4K. Anywhere from 6K for a 35mm film - all the way to an estimated 18K for a 70mm IMAX. Digital cartoons and CGI can be easily rendered in 8K too, so there is no problem with the source material quality.

As for why we would need such high resolution, the answer is simple - the screens are getting bigger and bigger. And there is no reason why this trend wouldn't continue. I think the future (and probably not so distant future) of TV is full wall-size screens. The entire wall will be one big screen. Why not?! Way bigger than 120". You think I am dreaming? Post back to this thread in 10-15 years from now!

 

[mike123abc]

There are limits on people's house sizes. 120" screen is already 5' high by 8.7' wide. A lot of wall space to find. 200" is 8' by 14.5. Remember 4k@200" is the same as 2k@100". I am sure they are going to come up with uses for 8k+, but to claim there is a great visual benefit of 8k over 4k at a normal movie/TV viewing distance that will drive the technology is a different thing. The average person would already have to be closer than 10' from a 150" screen to get the full 4k resolution effect. I do not think many will be sitting 3 feet away.

 

[Ilya]

The average person would already have to be closer than 10' from a 150" screen to get the full 4k resolution effect. I do not think many will be sitting 3 feet away.

They will not be necessarily sitting 3 feet away, but they will be walking 3 feet away in store show rooms or at Super Bowl parties and the 8K sets will have that WOW effect!
And I don't buy the "average person" argument in general. Most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p image. But go find 720p sets now.
Most people can't hear sound frequencies above 12 kHz or even 10 kHz. But we now have recording with sampling rates of 96 or even 192 kHz.
If you can make an argument that 8K doesn't make sense at 120" then you should be able to make a similar argument that 4K doesn't make sense at 50-60".
But guess what was the original subject of this thread? 50 and 58" 4k sets!

I think 8K will be to 4K, just like 1080p was to 720p. It will eventually replace 4K, whether the average person can tell the difference or not.
But no need to worry. We are still years away from that!