Why are there no 1080P HDR TV's

[vanished]

9 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Having HDR 1080p is like adding turbo to a four-cylinder vehicle to those manufacturers. I guess.

Not to nitpick but that's an incredibly common thing actually  

[Mira Yurizaki]

5 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Not to nitpick but that's an incredibly common thing actually  

Oh wait, you're right.

 

I was thinking of the Dodge Neon SRT when I wrote that. Nobody gave two poops about it.

[Hikaru12]

14 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

HDR is a "high end" feature, so it only gets shuffled into "high end" specs, like 4K. Having HDR 1080p is like adding turbo to a four-cylinder vehicle to those manufacturers. I guess.

 

Also few TVs are completely compliant with either HDR10 or Dolby Vision, as they don't reach the 1,000 cd/m^2 requirement. (EDIT: this may not be a real requirement... but yeah, there's no real point in having image contrast if your backlight isn't bright)

The max limit of 1080P where you can start to see the pixels to the point where it's distracting is around 120". Why then is 4K being touted as a higher spec especially when a lot of broadcasts are still shot in 720P?

 

The brightness thing is definitely an issue as HDR is foremost a dynamic contrast standard. Only a few select Samsung TVs can reach that peak brightness at the expense of the blacks. We are getting better with OLEDs doubling up on pixels so they can stack up to meet those requirements. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

6 minutes ago, Hikaru12 said:

The max limit of 1080P where you can start to see the pixels to the point where it's distracting is around 120". Why then is 4K being touted as a higher spec especially when a lot of broadcasts are still shot in 720P?

There's a difference between "I can see the pixels and it's annoying" vs "I can't see a difference at all between 1080p and 4K." For example, I'd argue my 27" 4K monitor is approaching "Retina" quality once you take account of the viewing distance, even though the original Retina display has a much lower pixel resolution.

 

And broadcasts have nothing to do with what makes a resolution "higher" spec or not. That's like asking why FLAC is higher spec when radios (OTA or internet) are broadcasting at the equivalent of something like a 128kbps MP3.

[Donut417]

On 3/22/2017 at 0:10 AM, Hikaru12 said:

4K is a huge scam unless you're sitting very close to your TV or can afford a massive screen or have a decent 4K PC monitor so why then the big push for 4K when 1080P still looks amazing and filming HDR on that would solve a lot of the issues we have now (using 4:0:2 on 4K content because it takes up so much space, bandwidth caps and streaming speedd delivery issues, etc.)? Is this simply a money grab or is there more to it than I'm missing? 

4K is not a scam. It just consumers want something they can see an touch today. How many cable providers have 4K? How many 4K blu rays have you seen? Me I have seen 1 4K blu ray for sale at Walmart. So why the fuck would I buy a 4K TV when there is no content easily accessible. Yeah you can get 4K from Youtube and Netflix to a degree, but Whats the point when you have capped internets. 

 

Like others have said. 4K is the new standard. TV manufactures have no reason to invest any more in to 1080P. I think 4K is going to take longer to take off then 1080 did. Hell I think they just decided on what standards are needed to do 4K over the air. I wont hold my breath waiting for that. Comcast has pushed 4K offering back again, plus we dont know what premium we have to pay. We dont pay for HD currently because of the expense, so why do I want to pay for 4K. 

[Ahoy Hoy]

Its new tech new tech goes on high models and works its way down. just got to wait a little.
Sony is bringing some tvs out this year. If you took two minuets in google.
https://www.technobuffalo.com/2017/02/03/sony-is-bringing-hdr-to-all-of-its-1080p-tvs/

[AshleyAshes]

I don't understand the declarations of 'Greedy' and 'Scam' and other things when new consumer 4K television prices are comparable to new consumer 1080p televisions.  While obviously '4K' can make consumers feel that their existing 1080p televisions are 'old and need replacing', when it comes to new purchases, TVs in the same feature and size class are pretty comparable be they 4K or 1080p.  ...Excluding the fact that in the high end, 1080p has basically stopped existing.  

[Mira Yurizaki]

4 hours ago, Donut417 said:

4K is not a scam. It just consumers want something they can see an touch today. How many cable providers have 4K? How many 4K blu rays have you seen? Me I have seen 1 4K blu ray for sale at Walmart. So why the fuck would I buy a 4K TV when there is no content easily accessible. Yeah you can get 4K from Youtube and Netflix to a degree, but Whats the point when you have capped internets. 

 

Like others have said. 4K is the new standard. TV manufactures have no reason to invest any more in to 1080P. I think 4K is going to take longer to take off then 1080 did. Hell I think they just decided on what standards are needed to do 4K over the air. I wont hold my breath waiting for that. Comcast has pushed 4K offering back again, plus we dont know what premium we have to pay. We dont pay for HD currently because of the expense, so why do I want to pay for 4K. 

To add to this, this is really a chicken and the egg problem. Either you create content that takes advantage of a new format first and hope someone makes a device for it, or you create the devices that can play the new format and hope people make content for it.

 

And traditionally in the electronics industry, the device comes out before the content. EDIT: Or rather, the device comes out with some content. It takes time for people to migrate to the new format.

[themctipers]

On 3/22/2017 at 0:27 AM, Hikaru12 said:

It's a shame the techy people don't end up being the consumers who go out and buy this stuff. 

 

 

Before you know it 8K will be the new standard before 4K even has anything out. It's almost buzzwords at this point just to get people to buy more shit that doesn't add anything remarkable to their viewing experience. Most people don't calibrate their TV's either so I guess it makes sense.

Before you know it 1440p will be the new standard before 1080p even has anything out. It's almost buzzwords at this point just to get people to buy more shit that doesn't add anything remarkable to their viewing experience. Most people don't calibrate their TV's either so I guess it makes sense.

 

[Hikaru12]

19 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

I don't understand the declarations of 'Greedy' and 'Scam' and other things when new consumer 4K television prices are comparable to new consumer 1080p televisions.  While obviously '4K' can make consumers feel that their existing 1080p televisions are 'old and need replacing', when it comes to new purchases, TVs in the same feature and size class are pretty comparable be they 4K or 1080p.  ...Excluding the fact that in the high end, 1080p has basically stopped existing.  

Not greedy in the sense that you can't get a 4K $400 TV (it'll look like ass but there you go) but greedy in the sense that you can't see 4K detail under a certain size. You just can't. 1080P is so tightly packed together that I can put it on a projector and as long as it's around 100" or so I still won't be able to see the individual pixels and still see 1080P detail. 4K is pointless unless you spend the money on a huge 65-75+ TV. 

 

And considering that most people watch their broadcasts in 720P and most TVs have poor upscalers it just looks terrible on 4K but if you were to have a shitty upscaler to 1080P it wouldn't be that noticeable. 

[AshleyAshes]

2 minutes ago, Hikaru12 said:

Not greedy in the sense that you can't get a 4K $400 TV (it'll look like ass but there you go) but greedy in the sense that you can't see 4K detail under a certain size.

I don't think that the word 'Greedy' means what you think it means...

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, Hikaru12 said:

1080P is so tightly packed together that I can put it on a projector and as long as it's around 100" or so I still won't be able to see the individual pixels and still see 1080P detail. 4K is pointless unless you spend the money on a huge 65-75+ TV.

Recommended size and viewing distance go hand in hand. If you're sitting away 15' from your screen, of course you're going to need a larger one to notice any difference.

[vanished]

I have rather decent vision but without my glasses I don't think I could tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 55" at ~10 - 12 ft away

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I have rather decent vision but without my glasses I don't think I could tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 55" at ~10 - 12 ft away

That's outside the recommended viewing distance anyway.

[Hikaru12]

On 3/24/2017 at 11:45 AM, M.Yurizaki said:

Recommended size and viewing distance go hand in hand. If you're sitting away 15' from your screen, of course you're going to need a larger one to notice any difference.

In order to make use of a 4K TV you literally need to be around the 5 foot mark. I don't know anyone who sits that close to a TV unless they're using it as a monitor.. 

[ARikozuM]

3 minutes ago, Hikaru12 said:

In order to make use of a 4K TV you literally need to be around the 5 foot mark. I don't know anyone who sits that close to a TV unless they're using it as a monitor.. 

That's if you're sitting a few feet away. If you're at your desk and the monitor is a foot or two away, 4K 24-27" is still an improvement when it comes to detail for games or movies.

[Mira Yurizaki]

7 minutes ago, Hikaru12 said:

In order to make use of a 4K TV you literally need to be around the 5 foot mark. I don't know anyone who sits that close to a TV unless they're using it as a monitor.. 

I do.

 

A lot of people do TV viewing layouts wrong. Well, I think they do.

[Hikaru12]

15 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

That's if you're sitting a few feet away. If you're at your desk and the monitor is a foot or two away, 4K 24-27" is still an improvement when it comes to detail for games or movies.

The problem with 27" 4K or anything smaller for that matter is everything is so smaller you have to use 150-200% display scaling which isn't built into every program and is inferior to Apple's way of doing it. The ideal size for 4K is 30-40" for a monitor.

 

15 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

A lot of people do TV viewing layouts wrong. Well, I think they do.

720P can be far out as 20 feet to see the difference, 1080P is around the 12 foot mark and 4K is pretty close ~5'. Unless you have a very small room less than 10' in size that seems a bit excessive. To each their own I guess. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, Hikaru12 said:

720P can be far out as 20 feet to see the difference, 1080P is around the 12 foot mark and 4K is pretty close ~5'. Unless you have a very small room less than 10' in size that seems a bit excessive. To each their own I guess. 

Even with a larger room, I wouldn't be putting the TV and couch against the walls on opposite sides. And in some cases, that doesn't make sense. If you were to have something like a living room or parlor that doesn't have a TV and is a room meant for socializing and relaxing, you wouldn't put the seats against the walls, would you?

 

Plus I don't see the appeal of having big spaces anyway.

[Hikaru12]

2 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Even with a larger room, I wouldn't be putting the TV and couch against the walls on opposite sides. And in some cases, that doesn't make sense. If you were to have something like a living room or parlor that doesn't have a TV and is a room meant for socializing and relaxing, you wouldn't put the seats against the walls, would you?

 

Plus I don't see the appeal of having big spaces anyway.

It depends on whether those walls have windows or not. Increments of 4' is a good size of putting the couch away from the walls. You want your seating in the center of the room (if you're using any sort of speakers) which is why I said the 10' figure would make sense if you're looking to sit 5' away from your TV but if you have a huge room saying 20' front to back then sitting 5' is not ideal as you're sitting too close at that point. Putting a huge TV in a small room makes the room feel claustrophobic as the TV seems to occupy the entire space. For projectors, this is great as it creates immersion but not for TV's.

[Mira Yurizaki]

\

3 minutes ago, Hikaru12 said:

You want your seating in the center of the room (if you're using any sort of speakers) which is why I said the 10' figure would make sense if you're looking to sit 5' away from your TV but if you have a huge room saying 20' front to back then sitting 5' is not ideal as you're sitting too close at that point.

I don't see how that does if you're the same distance away.

3 minutes ago, Hikaru12 said:

Putting a huge TV in a small room makes the room feel claustrophobic as the TV seems to occupy the entire space. For projectors, this is great as it creates immersion but not for TV's.

Then you don't get a huge TV for a small room. Projectors also have more of a problem with image quality during daytime viewing and depending on the model, they can be loud from fan noise. Plus unless you mount the thing, minor bumps screw with the image.