Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 70% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 55 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 23 Apr 2012 12:31:37 BDT
Has anyone heard about the schedule for the introduction of 4k HD that is 4096 x 2160 pixels. It seems to me to be a little way in the future for home entertainment as TV players and media have still be developed to make it a commercial reality. I think the technology will first appear for projection ofr movies in movie theaters. Any info would be welcome

Posted on 23 Apr 2012 14:45:07 BDT
they is one 4k tv its a glass free 3dtv but its about 7000 pounds . i heard that it it will be sometime till we get them as a blu ray at 4k would need like 5 - 10 discs for 1 film

Posted on 23 Apr 2012 17:04:59 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Apr 2012 17:05:11 BDT
C. Gould says:
That and the fact that you'd need a proportionately larger screen to see the resolution benefits. Think we're a way off yet as 1080p hasn't even achieved full market penetration.

Posted on 23 Apr 2012 18:34:31 BDT
J. Bunker says:
Don't have space for a 24 foot screen in my house! I think I'll make do with 1080p but I can see this making a difference for the passive TV crowd.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Apr 2012 22:52:04 BDT
Cerberus says:
C. Gould

There's no need when a 32" CRT tv with fully wired gold plated scart and dvd gives yo....... lmfao.

Posted on 24 Apr 2012 10:39:56 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Apr 2012 10:41:44 BDT
lol
I don't care tbh, blu-ray can't really be topped HD wise atm and I certainly won't go back to two grand for the player that can play the next format to that standard (on which my blu's will probably look like bo11ocks...)

Posted on 26 Apr 2012 17:55:14 BDT
Ken says:
haha i just got a 1080p telly and thought i was 'future proof'!

Posted on 26 Apr 2012 18:34:59 BDT
Bourne1886 says:
I've just coughed up £1000 for a new tv, can't afford a new one!
When will the new tv's be on the market?

Posted on 26 Apr 2012 22:07:13 BDT
John morris says:
For the screen sizes most people use 4k will have little benefit.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2012 02:02:53 BDT
Agreed but it may have implications for people with home theaters. I cannot see free to air or pay TV operators transmitting 4K material at the moment. Here in Australia the free to air is 1080i or 720p with the horizontal pixels on 1080i broardcasts restricted to a value less than 1920 in order to save bandwith so they can stuff more SD channels on to their transport stream. As for fox tel
they do run hd channels which I think are a mixture of 1080i and 720p. Also there are are problems with the present hd media for
home presentation of movies and tv shows which have a 50G limit for dual layer BD disks and would have to be increased to support a 4k hd material movie length presentation or perhaps we could have an intermission while changing disks,

Posted on 27 Apr 2012 04:21:47 BDT
Bob Drake says:
Saw a 4K video camera (JVC Pro, then prototype, now released) driving a 47" 4K monitor (4 HDMI inputs, each controlling 1/4 screen). The picture was stunning.

Posted on 27 Apr 2012 13:24:53 BDT
John morris says:
To be fair I have a home cinema with a 110 inch screen,but I still do not see a huge benefit over my current 1080p setup.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2012 13:44:49 BDT
Bob Drake says:
As with the new iPad with its Retina Display, with 4K you really do not see individual pixels. I can see 1080p pixels on a 47" display.

The new version of Apple's Final Cut X will allow direct editing of RED 4K files. Canon, Sony, RED, and others have 4K cameras.

I saw Casablanca on the silver screen last night here in NYC, and it had been scanned at 4K. Beautiful, flawless "print."

Ready or not, HD is now 4K.

But I agree, I'll be sticking with 1080p for a long while.

Posted on 27 Apr 2012 13:58:26 BDT
Cerberus says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U7e_quvkPQ&feature=related
Your reply to Cerberus's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2012 14:27:03 BDT
Bob Drake says:
And what source are they using for "8K"? The blue-violet laser used in Blu-ray is the shortest wavelength laser possible for a disk. Would multiple lasers be reading multiple layers of a disc in synch? The throughput will require multiple HDMI cables (JVC's solution) or an entirely new cable. (As I said, the 4K picture I saw was a quad array of 1080p pictures from four HDMI cables.) And what about 3D 4K or 8K requiring even more data. Boggles the mind.

Posted on 29 Apr 2012 21:34:29 BDT
C. Gould says:
You must have Steve Austin's bionic eye if you can see individual pixels on a 47" screen from any sort of reasonable viewing distance!

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Apr 2012 11:56:51 BDT
truthsetter says:
It is NOT 4K it is 2K !

Posted on 30 Apr 2012 11:58:41 BDT
truthsetter says:
The marketing propaganda has brainwashed people into misreading a pixel map. The number on
viewer/reader right is the real scientific resolution. So it is 2K not 4K.

Posted on 1 May 2012 10:58:32 BDT
Cerberus says:
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels

In reply to an earlier post on 1 May 2012 11:39:25 BDT
C. Gozlan says:
go to this site, you will get more info here.
http://www.techradar.com/news/television/tv/why-4k-isnt-ready-to-replace-hd-1065703

Why 4K isn't ready to replace HD

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 13:43:13 BDT
Bourne1886 says:
Have gone to the site and read all about it. Looks like it will be a while yet before it takes off let alone replace BR and HD. Disc capacity will be an issue by the sounds of it.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 May 2012 00:11:40 BDT
Mavrick says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 29 May 2012 04:17:19 BDT
AJR says:
2k is basically the same as 1080p. That's because 1080p specifies the vertical resolution (1080 lines / progressive), but 2k specifies the horizontal resolution (1920 pixels, rounded up to 2k).

4k is the next (big) step, doubling the horizontal resolution to 4k. There are multiple versions, with various resolutions. It's a bit of a mess at the moment.

I think we'll see 4k in cinemas first, because it makes the most difference on really big screens. I suspect it will take a while to reach the home.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 May 2012 12:40:36 BDT
C. Gould says:
Good luck with that James. I've been trying for years to get people to use the correct initialism, but it just isn't happening...

Posted on 29 May 2012 15:40:08 BDT
Cerberus says:
I thought it was called bLUe-RaYz DVD DiSk ? lol
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the high definition discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Participants:  22
Total posts:  55
Initial post:  23 Apr 2012
Latest post:  10 Aug 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions