Why 4K is Stupid...
 

What do you guys think of this article?

I don't know enough about 4K yet, but it just sounds like the next big marketing trend for those of us that want to show off numbers to our friends, thinking those numbers make it a better product...

Why 4K TVs are stupid | TV and Home Theater - CNET Reviews

Interesting article....:scratch2:

I agree that 4K may be overkill for typical TV viewing conditions. However for immersive home theater systems it is not. The article assumes that human visual acuity is limited to a resolving power of 1 arc minute. However in bright light where the pupil diameter is smaller, human visual acuity can be 2.5 times better (0.4 arc minute) . Furthermore the article does not consider the need to sample at at least twice the spatial Nyquist frequency. Indeed if we followed the logic of the article we would limit audio sampling rates to 20 kHz instead of at least twice this to reproduce 20 kHz tones.
If, for example, we assume that a theater room screen subtends 20 degrees horizontal visual angle (20 degrees x 60 minutes/deg = 1,200 arc minutes) and that we would like at least 2 pixels per 0.4 arc minute with a bright screen image then we would want 2 x 1,200 / 0.4 = 6,000 pixels horizontally rather than the 4,096 provided by 4K displays.

---4K means more dead pixels! :eek:

:goodpost::thumbsup:

I find it interesting that originally, we measured television resolution by the number of HORIZONTAL lines.

We had 480, 720, 1080 horizontal by 640, 1080, 1920 vertical lines. 1080x1920 is Hi-Def.

NOW, all of a sudden, we have 4K--4000 plus or minus, counting VERTICAL lines, and the exact vertical count hasn't even had an industry standard yet. That makes it seem to buyers that the new TVs are much higher in resolution than they really are. Going from 1080 to 4K sounds like a tremendous improvement, BUT IT'S NOT.

The industry would be much more honest if they called the new Hi-Def standard 2K or 2160 (2 x 1080) or 2160 x 3840, so prospective purchasers could compare apples and apples, not apples and oranges.

Gary.......Now that the television manufacturers have reached market saturation on wide screen flat panels, sales have flattened. They must make us all feel we have inadequate displays to trigger another buying frenzy. 3D didn't do it, so they're hoping 4K will generate desire. I'm not taking the bait.

---You got that right Dan. ...Like we've said before, 4K is mainly beneficial for IMAX Theaters and the likes (people who have front projectors in their home and with a screen of at least 100" diagonal). ...And they'd better sit 8 feet or so from that screen to notice a difference.

Today we're good with a 1080p flat panel (60") that cost now only $499 and should last another 10 years or so. :)

I'd settle for 1080p cable, that might make the most difference in my daily viewing experience. As far as I know, comcast is still only broadcasting in 720p/1080i.

I think 4k is great for passive 3D implementations because it brings that back to FullHD.

The problem with active 3D is the flickering caused by active shutters which affects certain groups of people. So passive 3D seems to be the way. Plus it's cheaper to let all in the family enjoy.