TV is about to reach it's... Zenith....

I don't get why everyone hated on in-home 3D. It seems like the next logical step - we have crystal clear pictures, the only bit that's lacking is depth. But OH NO we couldn't have something cool, and so it went away.

>>58445944

Implying stupid consumers won't buy 16K 240fps or whatever cause they don't know shit and only look at the TV Wich has the highest numbers..

The TV market knows this and they'll milk it for as long as possible.. is all about da Benjamin's.

>>58447587
because it was horrible compared to movie theatre 3d and caused nausea in a great many people.

all i want is a dumb tv with good input lag times for muh vidya.

current TV is ok for lag but takes 30 seconds to boot because of smart shit i never use

>>58447817
This.

This is marketing in a nutshell. All you have to do is wave "new" in front of their faces and they'll buy it.

Personally, I'll probably never buy anything above 4K. For a while I had a 1080p, but I recently upgraded to 4k. For games with poor optimization (looking at you Arkane Studios and Dishonored 2) I'll drop down to 1440p. I thought people were kidding me when they said that there wasn't much difference between 1440 and 4k, but I kind of see it now.

Plus, you can barely fit 4k in most PC screens as is. I was dumbfounded when I came across 20 inch laptops with 4k screens. You can't even appreciate that. It's a gimic.

>>58447587
if it was anything like the 3DS's 3D, then it fucking sucks and it detracted from the experience

I don't want directors to give 2 shits about making some gook tech look worthwhile

When I was at the mediamarkt (a elektronics store here in Europe) some store salesman told me that the tv I was looking at didn't use hz this is bullshit right? Never heard of a display technology that doesn't have a set refresh rate

>>58448375
This will work way less once the baby boomers die off.

Of course you always have a few careless individuals, but nothing like baby boomers where it's so disgustingly blatant while I pay their healthcare I won't ever get fucking kek.

>>58445944
>In 10-15 years we will have TVs that are 8K and run at 120fps
More like 5 years

>>58450373
more like 2 years. It didn't take long for them to take 4k and bring it to 120hz+. With 8k on the horizon who knows how long it will take.

Protip: Whether or not it's a tv, the "entertainment viewing platform" is not going away. As a species we're set to spend more and more time on it as our need to contribute to society diminishes.

>>58450322
That Jew was jewing ya

>>58445944
>TVs that are 8K and run at 120fps
and will still be inferior to plasmas from ten years ago (from now, so 20 years ago if you go into the future) running past 600hz refresh rates and near full 180 viewing angles

resolution doesn't fucking matter. the dpi in your phone is far larger than an 8k tv will ever be.

we need better colour reproduction, faster refresh rates, better viewing angles.

not
>hurr durr 30hz refresh rate but muh larger number!!! aka resolution; which isn't noticeable anyways bcus you're not 2 inches away from the fucking t.v

>>58450762
>faster refresh rate
but all i watch is film anyway

>>58445944
>liquid image
HAH what a faggot, why go to liquid form when plasma is the ultimate state of matter for your entertainment needs.

>will the human eye even be able to tell that it's not real?
omfg you're a stupid fucking faggot OP. human eyes have been fooled by the optical illusion we call t.v ever since they started displaying 24fps motion pictures.

"holodecks" are going to be the dumbest gimmick, very small niche crowd will be able to actually utilize it outside of "muh fashion statement! im rich, look at this useless shit i have!"

>>58448375
>you can barely fit 4k in most PC screens as is
LOL you do realize 5 inch phones have that are 4kt? or are you just as retarded as the faggot op...

didn't carmack envision a 1Khz display or something

>>58445944

Resolution gains aren't being driven by consumer demand. There's no massive game-changing difference between 4k and 1080p that makes it so. We're seeing 4k and 8k and higher because the move to high-bandwidth serialized interconnects in commodity hardware means the limiting factor in display resolution is now purely lithographic, and we're a long way from reaching submicron pixel sizes. In 10-15 years expect 'nanopixels' to be the norm not because we want them but because there's no reason why we can't have them.

>>58450869
This. the best tv will always be the same % of CPI and the cheapest tv will always be the same % of CPI, as technology advances the specs of the tv change but that's just how it works.

>>58450869
>10-15 years expect 'nanopixels'
no fucking way. resolution is already a fuckhuge problem idiots keep falling for.
nothing can play your games at 4k, you need retarded hardware constraints to stream it.

while it does nothing of benefit as nobody is sitting within the view distance of a comparably sized screen to differentiate between 1080p and 2160p. fuck resolution. give us better response times, better color accuracy, and higher viewing angles. not hurr durrrr the numbuuur is bigguurrr so i buys it yarrrr

there's more to image quality than resolution and frame rate.

>>58451252
well, color depth/range i guess
what else?

>>58450815
not him, but holy shit you are dumb. Like mentally retarded dumb.

OLED/QLED powered HDR is gonna be bretty gud.

>>58451304
black levels, being able to reproduce more colours,
viewing angles, brightness, glare, weight and power consumption to a lesser extent.

>>58451362
LED is fucking aids.
OLED is even worse, shit dies faster than plasmas, and LCD fags managed to kill plasma with that bullshit "it'll survive longer than a plasma!"
then you have to consider the cost... oled isn't going anywhere viable in the foreseeable future.

File: 798.png (306KB, 593x540px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 593x540px

>>58451320
>state a fact
>"OMG YOU SO RETARTED"

>>58450780
svp

>>58451036
you just went full pirate at the end

>>58450717
>our need to contribute to society diminishes.
it's not diminishing
and people thinking it is aren't helping

>>58445944
>but with 8K 120fps, will that really even be necessary

I think if you're sitting a normal distance away (like 10 feet), you don't need much more than 4K, and I think 8K might be overkill, because of the limits of human vision.

For monitors, I think the limit is something like 10K or 12K if I remember correctly. (Assuming you're sitting a normal distance away.)

>4k this
>8k that
why do people not discuss pixel density? This is the important factor for image clarity and can render AA useless.

>>58447587
Because all the 3d content feels like a gimick. On top of that people don't want to wear 3d glasses just to watch a movie, especially people who already have glasses.

3d wont catch on huge until there is a wide push for glasses-less 3d.

>>58451320
4k phones exist and are stupid though.

>>58445944
>Zenith
That's a Samsung, lad.

>>58451666
all those rrrrrrrrrr

>>58450762
I want you to understand how ironic it is that you're whining about big number marketing bullshit, then pointing to big number marketing bullshit to show why your opinion is right and the market direction is wrong.

Plasmas can't display 600hz, that's an internal mechanism necessary to display 60fps video. IPS and plasma angles are very similar.

Humans can see 245 fps max so 250 fps 8k

>>58451965
>why do people not discuss pixel density?
because we have clearly demonstrated pixel density is a nonissue (imagine getting the same ammount of pixels on a 4inch phone on a tv)
then try to imagine what the hardware would have to be capable of just to display those pixels.
GPUs can't keep up, bandwith to transfer the data can't keep up, and storage medians to host content on it can't keep up.

4K TV are already useless, why they keep doing this?

>>58448375
>You can't even appreciate that.
>>58452068
That's that OP was trying to say. And he's right. Put an 1080p and a 4k phones side-by-side and you'll see the difference only with a magnifying glass

>>58445944
>In 10-15 years
>we will have TVs
lel

>>58445944
The human eye can't see more than 24fps anyway, so we're already way beyond the limit. Refresh rates above 24 are just a meme

>>58450322
Most salesmen in Mediamartk or Saturn are complete idiots. I once bought a sim card and the guy did not even manage to copy my name from my passport into his computer.

Meanwhile, human eyes can only see 60 fps so all this is worthless

>>58445944


is oled a meme?

about to pull the trigger on lg 55 inch oled for 1800 bucks

>>58451568
The Plasma TV in my house is one of the first Samsung models, it was fucking great, we still have it. It's like what, 10 years old, maybe more who knows? And now is that it's starting to have some signs of failure.
Quality is honestly pretty great, I would like to see them in the future.

TVs have a very long way to go with until it can reach the contrast level of real life. HDR is just a step on the ladder.

Also good 3D, and physical size. I think in the future we will transistion from TVs to head mounted displays as those can display screens of an arbitrary apparent size and shape without needing so much space.

File: Nichols1.jpg (18KB, 413x354px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 413x354px

>>58452263
sick trolling son

File: 1426227904201.jpg (21KB, 234x250px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 234x250px

>watch sports
>watch action movie
>watch anything
>notice choppy 24 fps

Just kill me already

>>58452446
Then explain why every movie is shot in 24hz.. It's because it's the perfect refresh rates for the human eye... retard

I'd love a TV with no smart features. My current 4K TV has a browser built in. Who the fuck browses the internet from a TV? Just let me use a IPTV box.

>>58452694
>My current 4K TV
Why did you buy a 4k tv?

>>58452652
It's because initially film was 12 fps because that was the bare minimum needed to animate gilm without it looking like shit. Once sound was added this was insufficient and they had to double it so audio synced properly with video

>>58445944
and they will still have laggy panels with 5 or more previous images at once.

>>58447817
>tfw tv channels are still 480p here
theres absolutely no reason for a normie to but this.

>>58452132
LOL no, they're not. plasma looks good no matter where you look at it from.
lcd will always look like shit when away from the small as fuck viewing angle.
without the cancer that is slow as piss response times, ghosting, light bleed and are actually capable of "true black" levels, there's literally no reason for anyone but someone who cares about battery life, to use lcd. hell even when you take power efficiency into consideration lcd still doesn't excell.

>>58451694
Automation says otherwise dipship

>>58452068
Can tell the diff in a VR headset. No screen door effect.

>>58445944
>In 10-15 years we will have TVs that are 8K and run at 120fps
No more than 5.

File: Nikon-D810-Image-Sample-2.jpg (2MB, 7360x4912px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 7360x4912px

RE: 8k television and video in the future.

8k is generally considered to be 7680×4320, which equates to about 33.2 megapixels.

Some issues are going to present themselves when production companies and individuals begin to attempt to produce content which is in 8k resolution and allows the full quality of that resolution to be achieved.

The problem is going to lay in the optics. In the glass. Most camera lenses will not let you get the full megapixel potential of your camera. You would have to pay several thousand dollars to get one lens that will be able to resolve 30 megapixels, and you would also need to use a tripod or steadicam and be a fairly skilled cinematographer (or photographer) to get a sharp image.

Now take into account how much of the content being produced now is being done by amateurs in places like youtube. Most people will not be able to afford the quality of glass in lenses that will allow you to achieve true 8k images. So even though the image recorded may be in 8k resolution, the detail will not be there because the lens is not sharp enough.

This will also effect the content of professionals. Shaky-cam might die, since it's next to impossible to get a true 8k image while handholding. The slightest bounce or jitter of the camera will create blur at 30 megapixels.

So even though the technology for 8k will certainly be around, I think it will be harder than many thing to find an image that is really much sharper than 4k, or even 1080p in many cases.

>>58450815
Oh yeah, I'm retarded, plus the people I know who write for tech magazines (ex. PC Mag) and other people who have been PC gaming since the SNES was considered "cutting edge."

No, you're apparently some kid who can't afford a nice 4K monitor to even see the difference. I'm looking at my monitor right now, and from playing Dishonored 2 for about 15 hours (would have more, but The Witcher 3) and occasionally switching between 4K and 1440p, I can barely see the difference.

As someone else said, you would need a magnifying glass to actually see those pixels on a phone screen. Both a 32 inch screen and a 10 inch screen can be in 4K, but you still have the same amount of pixels regardless of the amount of real estate.

Lastly, I went to school for this shit and took classes on the software and hardware of a PC. So, you can show off that you're some poor kid by calling me a retard, but you don't even have a fucking clue.

>>58451320
Kill yourself.