4K Is More Important Than 3D
October 04, 2012 | by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
The next generation of premium TVs may promote 4K image quality over the 3D experience.
View this entire articleView this entire article
Back to top
7 Comments (displaying chronologically) Post a comment
Posted by Thomas  on  10/04  at  10:53 AM

I have to disagree. Interest in 3D has steadily been increasing due to more and more titles being shot natively in the format. Also, successful post-conversion such as Titanic, Alice in Wonderland, and the upcoming holiday releases of Pixar’s Up and Finding Nemo. 4k, when within the average consumer’s reach, will be an important enhancement for 3D, allowing two complete high resolution images without the need for active shutter glasses. I see the two technologies running in parallel, as opposed to one being more important than the other.

I don’t think we will see consumers getting more excited about 4k than they have 3D. 3D is an exciting, immersive technology even with its many limitations. The higher resolution of 4k will produce few benefits to the average consumer. The need to accommodate very large television sets to see the noticeable advantages of 4k will be a major roadblock. Not to mention, the only content will be seeing in the near future will be upscaled 1080p until there is a feasible way to easily distribute native 4k content. So maybe it is turning into a primary focus for tv manufactures, I just don’t believe it should be….yet.

Posted by CaW  on  10/04  at  01:27 PM

3D wasn’t the big hit that CE makers wanted after a vast of majority of consumers upgraded their systems to 1080p displays.  Now it is on to the next thing to hype… 4k and make consumers without feel inadequate.  The problem with 4k is going to the be the same issue 3D currently has… little compelling NATIVE content.  I thoroughly enjoy using my 3D theater room but there are only a handful of titles with 3D done well. 

Another problem 4k has that 3D has… you need to have an image large enough to appreciate it.  4k won’t be truly appreciated until you have 100-inch+ display.  4k on a 50-in TV @ 8ft away is not going to be any better viewing wise even with native content.

4k is hype.  We saw that it took BD five to six years to get a significant consumer base.  Don’t count on native 4k content anytime soon and when it does show up expect the same high priced premiums like BD had initially.

Posted by lotusguy  on  10/05  at  02:15 PM

Think about the advantage of combining 3D and 4K.  Now we can have full HD passive (1080p to each eye) without the temporal distortion caused by shutter glasses. This is the best of all worlds.  Now about that 3D content…......

Posted by CaW  on  10/05  at  02:48 PM

While I agree with you.  To really appreciate 3D you need a large screen and even with 4k projection, the same limitation exists.  To use passive polarized or ‘super anaglyph (Dolby)’ glasses you need the following:
1. Two separate light paths with with filters and
2. A screen that retains polarization if the polarized option is chosen or a color correction box if Dolby is chosen.

Sorry but a 4k panel at a size that would get me excited would be astronomically priced.

Again 4k and 3D need extremely large screens to be fully appreciated.

Posted by Karanwatson  on  10/12  at  02:26 AM

Know days we have 3-D television but the effect is not that hard because we need a large screen .

Posted by Andrew  on  10/21  at  09:03 PM

I have zero interest in HD content upscaled to 4K, just as I have no interest in non-HD content upscaled to my current HDTVs.  90% of what I watch comes off Blu-Rays for a reason; I often wait for TV seasons to end and the shows to come out on Blu-Ray simply to watch them on my TV at the best possible quality.

On the other hand, I’d be willing to upgrade to the very best 1080p image I can get, as that’s the resolution that actual content comes out in.  Outdated LCD and Plasma technology should be supplanted by OLED displays, which have the advantages of both while suffering from fewer drawbacks than either.

When significant content is available at 4K resolutions (if that ever happens), then I may consider buying a 4KTV.  At which time, the 4K sets will be vastly superior to the primitive first-generation models on display right now.  It makes no sense to pay a premium for a TV when there’s no content for it, when you’ll be able to get an even better version of the TV sometime down the road and have access to content right away.

4KTVs right now is nothing more than industry desperation.

Posted by Grant Clauser  on  10/22  at  08:18 AM

Andrew, I don’t disagree with some of your points, except the one about 4K being a result of industry desperation. 4K (now called Ultra HD) is a technology advancement. That’s what this industry does—it makes things, bigger (or smaller) louder, faster…  Sometimes the buggy comes before the horse, as it did with HD, 1080p and now Ultra HD. This is nothing new. Product and technology moves it fairly predictable cycles. Of the manufacturers want to sell more products, but engineers get board if they don’t have new things to develop. Once you’ve got something great (like 1080p TVs) the first thing they’re going to ask themselves is “What’s next?” 4K is what’s next.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

  • News
  • Cool Homes
  • Blogs
  • Photo Galleries