4K Resolution TVs

[Dim]

If anyone manages to get their hands on a 3840x2160, 84" TV, I would be very, very, pleased to see some gaming on it.

Seriously, I've never heard of anything sounding so amazing. Imagine BF3 at that resolution on ultra...

[ACK]

We can only hope to see something like that in CES and I bet that if it exists Linus will be definitely covering as detailed as possible.

[Badde]

Why not go straight to a 145" 8K 7.680 x 4.320 screen? :P

[Dim]

HA! I'd be content with 4K. Should last a while.

[Dodge]

There will be a commercial Samsung 4K TV at CES: http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/samsung-confirms-85-inch-4k-tv-for-ces-2013

I don't get the buzz though. 4K is useless in probably 99% of all living rooms: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/

[xaeleep]

With way too many channels not even broadcasting in full HD, seeing ANY channel broadcasting in 4K is going to take a while

[bartekxx12]

With way too many channels not even broadcasting in full HD' date=' seeing ANY channel broadcasting in 4K is going to take a while[/quote']

True but more and more people are getting access to Fiber Optic broadband, and in a lot of case you can get TV on demand on normal TV over that. Meaning it will be cheaper for them to transmit the 4K video

[Dim]

You guys were planning on watching TV on these? Oh, I was going to hook my computer to it ;)

[Draex]

There will be a commercial Samsung 4K TV at CES: http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/samsung-confirms-85-inch-4k-tv-for-ces-2013 I don't get the buzz though. 4K is useless in probably 99% of all living rooms: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/

Except that whole article's math is flawed he bases his numbers on the fact that normal healthy human vision is 20/20 when it actually 20/16 to 20/12. 20/20 is used as a cutoff when no further testing is needed.

Laser Eye Sugary can already be performed up to 20/8. Most decent corrective lenses correct to 20/15 or better.

Bottom line, at regular viewing distances (10 Feet) You will notice 4K over 1080P unless you have shit eyes.

[TheIceCreamMan]

Im actually really exited for 4K at home.

Lets hope it will drop in price soon.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]n370[/ATTACH]

[Alex]

I do suggest HD Projectors, there amazing

[w_km]

There will be a commercial Samsung 4K TV at CES: http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/samsung-confirms-85-inch-4k-tv-for-ces-2013 I don't get the buzz though. 4K is useless in probably 99% of all living rooms: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/

Dodge, with all due respect, your wrong. I use a 2560 x 1440p monitor and playing native 1440p video on it is amazing! Furthermore, our visual system can easily sense resolutions >1080p, even at great distances such as across one's living room. That article from CNET points out some good obstacles for justifying 4K into everyone's home, but does not accurately assess our capability and appetite for watching ultraHD content. Yes, my grandma doesn't need 4K, but that doesn't mean I can't benefit from it. Please never cite that article again, I've been redirected to it 1000 times an does not provide a valid argument against 4K.

[Taipeek]

Actually if you plug 4K to any mainstream GPU it will burn the GPU to hell. So if you are not running dual 680 or something like that you wont play anything on it. Especially not on ultra.

[Blankie440]

Has anyone seen the prices attached to those TV's! To many people that's close to a years wage. It will take on when there are more devices that can utilize that high of a resolution. Looks wicked though.

[Dim]

To be perfectly fair, Taipeek, if you can afford a $25,000 television, there should be no doubt you can afford a reasonably decent graphics card.

[Dodge]

There will be a commercial Samsung 4K TV at CES: http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/samsung-confirms-85-inch-4k-tv-for-ces-2013 I don't get the buzz though. 4K is useless in probably 99% of all living rooms: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/

Except that whole article's math is flawed he bases his numbers on the fact that normal healthy human vision is 20/20 when it actually 20/16 to 20/12. 20/20 is used as a cutoff when no further testing is needed. Laser Eye Sugary can already be performed up to 20/8. Most decent corrective lenses correct to 20/15 or better. Bottom line' date=' at regular viewing distances (10 Feet) You will notice 4K over 1080P unless you have shit eyes.[/quote']That depends on the size of your screen too. And I don't expect a lot of people to have a TV that's large enough to get any benefit from resolutions greater than 1080p.

[Dim]

There will be a commercial Samsung 4K TV at CES: http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/samsung-confirms-85-inch-4k-tv-for-ces-2013 I don't get the buzz though. 4K is useless in probably 99% of all living rooms: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/

Except that whole article's math is flawed he bases his numbers on the fact that normal healthy human vision is 20/20 when it actually 20/16 to 20/12. 20/20 is used as a cutoff when no further testing is needed. Laser Eye Sugary can already be performed up to 20/8. Most decent corrective lenses correct to 20/15 or better. Bottom line' date=' at regular viewing distances (10 Feet) You will notice 4K over 1080P unless you have shit eyes.[/quote']That depends on the size of your screen too. And I don't expect a lot of people to have a TV that's large enough to get any benefit from resolutions greater than 1080p.

I know lots of people with 40 inch televisions. Believe me, 1080p is astoundingly low resolution on a 40" TV. On 60" televisions, it's horrendous.

[Dodge]

1080p is more than enough for 40" at 10 feet, even with a visual acuity of 20/12. With 20/20 you could even have a ~70" TV.

[Dim]

Play a game like League of Legends on 1080p, then compare it to 2560x1600.

You SEE more. In a game like that, seeing more is a necessity. It's almost a bottleneck to have a 1080p monitor in a game like that.

You literally see more because they don't improve the quality, they improve your FOV.

[MartyniP]

I would love a 4K or 8K computer monitor! I would need to virtually split it though, I'm not sure having all those pixels just for firefox would be overly productive!

[Dodge]

Play a game like League of Legends on 1080p' date=' then compare it to 2560x1600. You SEE more. In a game like that, seeing more is a necessity. It's almost a bottleneck to have a 1080p monitor in a game like that. You literally see more because they don't improve the quality, they improve your FOV. [/quote']True, but that's actually more a problem of the game than a problem of your monitor. It is possible to set the FOV separately, except for slight difference because of different aspect ratios, if the gamedesigner wants to do it.

[Guest]

To be perfectly fair, Taipeek, if you can afford a $25,000 television, there should be no doubt you can afford a reasonably decent graphics card.

Not if you spend all your money an the TV and have nothing left to get a graphics card ;)

[MuZeVII]

I'm not particularly excited about these colossal 4K displays; The pixel density of an 84" 4K display is only the same as a 42" 1080p display, which is not fantastic. Come the release of smaller ~40" 4K TVs and sub 30" 4K monitors I'll be very excited.