Global 4K TV Shipment To Hit 22 Million Units In 2017

[ChrisW6ATV]

Originally Posted by technicolor

I have heard there is no real payoff with these sets unless u get a 84" or bigger.

It is not the screen size itself so much as how close you sit to watch relative to the screen's size. The ideal distance for a 1080p display ( most current HDTV sets) in order to see all of the detail is about 1.2 or 1.3 times the width of the screen (not the diagonal number). So, a 46-inch diagonal set has a picture about 40 inches wide by 22.5 inches tall. The best distance to see that size screen is four to four-and-a-half feet away. You can also reverse these numbers and measure the distance from your couch, for example, to the wall or table where you will put your planned new TV. If that table or wall is nine feet away, the ideal size is a 92-inch diagonal screen. Most people do not watch screens this big, or this close (but I do!). Now, for 4K displays, double the screen size (or sit half as far away as measured above). Five feet away from a 100-inch screen-you will feel like you are EATING the display! But... Sit any further away, and most people will not see a sharper picture than with a 1080p screen.

[dieting]

If 4K gets people to like bigger displays, viewed closer, then I am all for it.??
_____________________________
Sign up with CLO-001 for getting C4040-109 testking courses exam and Pass4-sure. We also provide best Hodges University and Keiser University with guaranteed success.

[ChrisW6ATV]

Originally Posted by ChrisW6ATV

Now, for 4K displays, double the screen size (or sit half as far away... Sit any further away, and most people will not see a sharper picture than with a 1080p screen.

Now that I have seen a good 4K display in a friend's house (as opposed to store displays that are near-impossible to properly evaluate), I disagree with my previous statement. There is more to gain from a 4K (also called UHD) display than just higher resolution. The extremely fine pitch of the display picture elements makes even good-quality 1080i or 1080p content look more life-like at moderate viewing distances (about six feet or so from a 65-inch diagonal screen). It is essentially a similar effect to what you get in the super-detailed screens of some of the newer cell phones and tablets (what in Apple's case they call a "retina display", though other companies have similar or better displays). None of those small displays are ever used to their maximum resolution with individual picture elements likely, but they do look superior to similar-sized displays with lower (but still high) resolution.

[Jeffhs]

I wonder if 4K is going to make every other type of flat screen TV obsolete, as digital did with CRT televisions in 2009. My 19" Insignia FP has worked quite well since it was new in August 2011; I would hate to think I may have to give it up and get a new 4K set in another year or so.

I'm thinking 4K just might render today's flat screens obsolete in the blink of an eye, since television transmission standards keep changing every so often. I think this is just a way the TV industry has of getting people to buy new sets every couple of years, even if the one they have works perfectly well. I live on a fixed income and cannot afford to replace my TV so often, just because some organization comes up with a new, whiz-bang transmission standard that they think is so much better than the last one.

I do not think 4K will catch on any time soon (if ever) in homes. Digital signage, sports scoreboards, yes, but not in American living rooms, except as status symbols.

I don't see the practicality of curved 4K TV screens, either. Samsung has been beating the drum for its 4K UHD curved TV for some time (I see the ads in flyers in my Sunday newspaper), but I have yet to see any other manufacturer marketing a curved 4K display.

Sheeeesh! I wish the TV industry would quit trying to reinvent the wheel again, and again, and yet again. We got along for over 50 years with 4:3 NTSC television; the first improvement (color) was practical, but the next one, stereo sound, was not, IMHO. (The MTS stereo sound system built into my Insignia FP TV drives two three-inch speakers that face downward, so the speakers are talking to the top of my TV stand.) Now we have flat screen TVs with 70-, 80-, 90-inch screens, 700-watt-plus, 5.1 (?) channel sound systems, and who knows what else may be down the road..............?

BTW, some programs on NBC and ABC are apparently being transmitted with black bars at each side of the picture. My TV's zoom adjustments fail to zoom the picture to fill the screen. Is this a preview of some new transmission standard, such as 4K (!), that ordinary flat screens cannot process? An example is ABC's "Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown" annual special, telecast late last month, just before Christmas. I tried all four of my TV's zoom settings, but none of them zoomed the picture enough to fill the screen.

Some NBC programs telecast this year show the same thing. I honestly believe this may very well be the industry's method of telling people that the TV they have is obsolete, and to get the best possible picture (or, in some cases, any picture at all), will be to buy a new TV capable of decoding whatever new standard may be in vogue at that time. Now it's 4K, but who knows what's next? Look what's happening to 3D HDTV. These sets aren't being mentioned much anymore; in fact, that format could well be on its way out, as were 3D movies in theaters in the 1950s. Three-dimensional television has the same problem 3D motion pictures had: the viewer had to wear special glasses to get the full 3D effect. I believe that is what killed 3D television, as no one wants to wear any kind of special glasses just to watch a couple of hours of TV each evening. It's okay, I guess, for the first night of viewing, but I don't think anyone is going to put up with it for any length of time.

[centralradio]

TV's are getting better .Now I wish the content will get better.