Quake3World

Singulus announced that they have successfully produced a test batch of triple-layer Blu-ray discs. Each layer has been further optimized to store 33GB, up from current Blu-ray's 25GB. The press release specifically mentions 4K movies as a possible use case for the 100GB discs.

http://www.digital-digest.com/news-6375 ... ovies.html

Glad to know we won't have to wait too long for 4K. (There are already 4K TVs on the market, in case you don't know.)

If someone is excited about 4k and doesn't plan on buying a screen larger than 100 inches, then that person has no clue what 4k is about and how it will not help them if they buy a screen that's only 42 inches.

Depends how close you sit to the screen, plus colour is better with higher resolution, you may notice better colour detail even if you don't notice better pixel resolution detail. (Not sure if you quoted the exact numbers for optimal viewing distance, if so I'm sorry, without citing a source you seem to have just plucked those numbers out of the air.)

Anyway, you are looking at it from a negative viewpoint; the poisitive veiwpoint is that 4K enables screens 4x the size with the same level of detail (scaled up).

I know exactly how 4k works and what benefits it brings, and how it only brings benefits to less than one-tenth of one percent of the mass market audience.
Yes, I am looking at it from a negative viewpoint, because it's a tech that's not really relevant for consumer use.

"Depends how close you sit to the screen"? Yeah...you have no idea what you're talking about and morons like you will waste your money on it. Believe the hype, it's your wallet.

Would make 3d viewing better n all, no ?

If that's your thing. I'm not excited and don't see the point either, if it becomes the new standard in a few yrs though it would be better, even marginally.

DTS wrote:plus colour is better with higher resolution

A quick comparison shows that going from a 35" 1080p screen, a 72" screen would be an upgrade suited to 4K.

http://displaywars.com/35-inch-16x9-vs-72-inch-16x9

So unless you are going to argue that a 35" screen is not good enough for HD (it looks great compared to 576p to me), I think you are mistaken about the screen needing to be 100". Also isn't there a 70-something inch 4K TV on the market; or are they all bigger than that?

I doubt TV manufacturers are going to sell 4K TVs that give the same picture as 1080p TVs, so your concern is misplaced, I think

obsidian wrote:

DTS wrote:plus colour is better with higher resolution

It is, it's like having more, multicoloured subpixels.

lol now he's arguing about HD on small screens...where there's a clear benefit regardless of screen size.

Give it up. You are discussing something you clearly do not understand.

No, I do understand. You need glasses.

Awesome retort. Based on reality and everything.

Your icon has glasses

Seriously, though; how can you say that when you quadruple the resolutiuon, quadrupling the screen size is not enough?

GONNAFISTYA wrote:If someone is excited about 4k and doesn't plan on buying a screen larger than 100 inches, then that person has no clue what 4k is about and how it will not help them if they buy a screen that's only 42 inches.

afaik they don't make them smaller than 55"

I've watched 4k on a 65" from 10ft away and it was very noticeable

DTS wrote:Your icon has glasses

Seriously, though; how can you say that when you quadruple the resolutiuon, quadrupling the screen size is not enough?

Just read this and stfu already...

shaft wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:If someone is excited about 4k and doesn't plan on buying a screen larger than 100 inches, then that person has no clue what 4k is about and how it will not help them if they buy a screen that's only 42 inches.

afaik they don't make them smaller than 55"

I've watched 4k on a 65" from 10ft away and it was very noticeable

No you didn't notice it, GFY knows all about the technology and he says it has to be 100" so you must have been hallucinating

Seriously, I said 72", you watched 65" and said it was very noticalbe; who's right?

shaft wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:If someone is excited about 4k and doesn't plan on buying a screen larger than 100 inches, then that person has no clue what 4k is about and how it will not help them if they buy a screen that's only 42 inches.

afaik they don't make them smaller than 55"

I've watched 4k on a 65" from 10ft away and it was very noticeable

Yeah...and with the average 65" 4k screen costing as much as a car, exactly how many consumers do you predict will buy it?

It's a useless tech that only benefits a few....much like the stock market.

DTS wrote:No you didn't notice it, GFY knows all about the technology and he says it has to be 100" so you must have been hallucinating

Seriously, I said 72", you watched 65" and said it was very noticalbe; who's right?

Keep digging that hole of stupid everyone knows you live in.

GONNAFISTYA wrote: Yeah...and with the average 65" 4k screen costing as much as a car, exactly how many consumers do you predict will buy it?

It's a useless tech that only benefits a few....much like the stock market.

65" 4k TV's are around $5k now and falling

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-XBR65X850A-6 ... B00ES5YZCW
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN65F9000 ... B00DV51DYS
http://www.amazon.com/Toshiba-65L9300U- ... B00DG0977S

shaft wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote: Yeah...and with the average 65" 4k screen costing as much as a car, exactly how many consumers do you predict will buy it?

It's a useless tech that only benefits a few....much like the stock market.

65" 4k TV's are around $5k now and falling

How many people buy a 65" television today? At much lower prices than $5k?

Yeah....nobody.

What part of the statement "the average consumer will get no benefit from the new tech" do you not understand?

in other news: someone on the internet has noticed that new technology often has a high price when launched due to initial shortage of production facilities, need to recoup development costs and uncertainty about the strength of the future market - but hasn't noticed that if/when the market becomes strong, the price tends to fall, often quite dramatically

more at 11

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

How many people buy a 65" television today? At much lower prices than $5k?

Yeah....nobody.

What part of the statement "the average consumer will get no benefit from the new tech" do you not understand?

Several of my friends run those 90" Mitsubishi DLPs and my projector shoots onto a 120". I'd upgrade to a 4K unit as the price came down but it is pretty much at the bottom on my priority list (unless my 1080P dies).

GONNAFISTYA wrote: How many people buy a 65" television today? At much lower prices than $5k?

Millions. I mean seriously, maybe not in the slums where you live but the BestBuy around here hardly has any TVs under 50". While I agree that $5k for a 65" is a premium price when you can get a 1080p 65" for around $1500 these days..its definitely not that unreasonable for new tech.

I can remember walking into a Circuit City and seeing a 30" 720p HDTV for $10,000 10-12yrs ago....look at them now.

bitWISE wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

How many people buy a 65" television today? At much lower prices than $5k?

Yeah....nobody.

What part of the statement "the average consumer will get no benefit from the new tech" do you not understand?

Several of my friends run those 90" Mitsubishi DLPs and my projector shoots onto a 120". I'd upgrade to a 4K unit as the price came down but it is pretty much at the bottom on my priority list (unless my 1080P dies).

Yeah, apparently GFY is unfamiliar with middle class suburbanites in America.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Just read this and stfu already...

Hm; the argument is totally valid. Buying media on physical devices is dying out fast. The only times i get a CD or DVD is when my parents get me some stuff for christmas.

But it does not adress the technical aspects of 4k vs 1080p. Neither does it adress the consumers experience.

The upside of 4k blu-rays is that i will find them ripped on irc.

On the other hand: With the internet speeds google is working on 4k streaming is allready on its way.

shaft wrote:Yeah, apparently GFY is unfamiliar with middle class suburbanites in America.

... where a big tv is considered a status symbol.

I paid $4,000.00 for my 720p 65" Plasma 10 or so years ago. So $5,000.00 isn't so bad.