50-55" 4ktv prices $1300(Seiki) - $5000 (Sony)

I am considering importing a 4k TV from the Chinese market later this year to prepare for next gen. $25,000 my @$$. I'm going for that 58"...Maybe 65". Never mind the opening of the vid. skip to about 1:30 mark for prices. Do you remember when the first 50" 1080p TV hit $2000. Probably, unless your Kon. Prices like this will drive down competition really fast as well. I can't wait. I know 4k capable 45-60fps "PC" would run just about $700 right now. With about 10 months until the EARLIEST possible releases for the PS4 and 720 I am becoming more and more sure that at least one of them will support 4k. Did this change your mind or am I being too hopeful?

Remember, doesn't matter if your TV is 4k if whatever you're using cannot output it correctly or at all. I've read that the current HDMI cables being used don't even support outputting that resolution.

fad.

N4G Adventure Part 1 - screw it

http://www.amazon.com/Acc...yport+cable+4k+support $15 and supports 4k at 60FPS and higher. HDMI 1.4a (or b is it?) supports 4k as well at 24hz.

ZoyosJD


http://www.amazon.com/Acc...yport+cable+4k+support $15 and supports 4k at 60FPS and higher. HDMI 1.4a (or b is it?) supports 4k as well at 24hz.

Well that's one obstacle already handled. Though I thought it was 1.2 that was not compatible. Either way, now you just have the issue of games etc being made to handle 4k. 

ZoyosJD


I am considering importing a 4k TV from the Chinese market later this year to prepare for next gen. $25,000 my @$$. I'm going for that 58"...Maybe 65". Never mind the opening of the vid. skip to about 1:30 mark for prices. Do you remember when the first 50" 1080p TV hit $2000. Probably, unless your Kon. Prices like this will drive down competition really fast as well. I can't wait. I know 4k capable 45-60fps "PC" would run just about $700 right now. With about 10 months until the EARLIEST possible releases for the PS4 and 720 I am becoming more and more sure that at least one of them will support 4k. Did this change your mind or am I being too hopeful?

Why would it change my mind? 

The first law of Discerning Consumerism states that one should never be the first in, nor the last out when it comes to new products. If you want to spend $2000 on a TV and then $400-600 for a new console right out of the gate, cool, but don't pretend the price has suddenly become super-customer friendly.

ZombieNinjaPanda

ZoyosJD


http://www.amazon.com/Acc...yport+cable+4k+support $15 and supports 4k at 60FPS and higher. HDMI 1.4a (or b is it?) supports 4k as well at 24hz.

Well that's one obstacle already handled. Though I thought it was 1.2 that was not compatible. Either way, now you just have the issue of games etc being made to handle 4k. 

1080p games upscaled to 4k lose their gritty texture elements, IMHO.  Things look too smooth.

cgoodno

ZombieNinjaPanda

ZoyosJD


http://www.amazon.com/Acc...yport+cable+4k+support $15 and supports 4k at 60FPS and higher. HDMI 1.4a (or b is it?) supports 4k as well at 24hz.

Well that's one obstacle already handled. Though I thought it was 1.2 that was not compatible. Either way, now you just have the issue of games etc being made to handle 4k. 

1080p games upscaled to 4k lose their gritty texture elements, IMHO.  Things look too smooth.

I don't mean upscaled, I mean native

 I'll wait for about a year after launch to get one, I'm sure prices will have dropped significantly by then.

@convas...general overarching question. Not like it was posed directly towards you. If you don't find enough value to warrant your purchase I totally understand that, but this is TECH we are talking about, not a Bugatti forever priced for the rich. It WILL continue to come down in price. The more relevant question in your case would be "Do you think the next consoles will support 4k, and at what time frame might it be relevant to you now that you understand that this may be within your price range in 5 or 6 years (or whatever your case may be)?" @CGOODNO...LMFAO...oh, your serious. In the first place, we are talking about machines that can natively produce 4k not just up-scaling. Have you even seen any native 4k content? @ZNP...exactly. 4k hardware, cables, and screens altogether for around $2000-3000 by the release of these upcoming consoles and then you can experience that quality for the next 7+ years. Totally worth it IMO. But others like @Rane can wait as they see fit.

I couldn't get passed how much that guy looks like Christopher Reeve.

ZoyosJD

Do you remember when the first 50" 1080p TV hit $2000. 

$2000 is far too much for a TV upgrade, regardless of the technology it possesses. If my current TV broke or could be resold with considerable value, only then would I contemplate spending $2000 on a TV. There are so many better ways to spend that money...

Hopefully it is a fad. I passed on 3D and I would have passed on HD if reading didn't become impossible while playing video games on SD TV's. 

Welcome to next gen:

B Man


I couldn't get passed how much that guy looks like Christopher Reeve.

Ha! I thought the same thing.

I don't think you understand upscaling there zoyos. An exmaple... Plasma TV (1080p native capable), HMDI 1.whateve (1080p native capable), PS3 (1080p native capable)... Actual game (720p Native)..... DOH!!!

All work and no play.. makes odion go something something

Superman!...agreed...LOL. @Smokey...Guess what the limiting factor was...surprise. Hardware! Guess what we will soon be getting new revisions of...surprise. Hardware! When I said that "$700" price point for a "PC", I mean a the hardware costs $700 and can run BF3 NATIVELY at 4k with ultra settings at 45-60 FPS with only as much optimization as the PC version provides allthewhile running windows. To clarify I am talking about a setup that theoretically can natively support 4k at 60FPS with enough tweaking and code optimization for next gen games like the real-time Angi's Philosophy demo from SE.

um.. hold up. The limiting factor was not hardware, at least in my example, all hardware (TV, PS3, Connection Cable) were all capable of displaying 1080p natively, the limiting fact was software. Basically all well and good if things are capable of displaying at a super high resolution, but if the software is designed to be displayed at a lower resolution, it doesnt matter if the hardware can display 4k 8k, 2000k whatever, its still gonna look like crap. maybe i dont understand native resolution.

All work and no play.. makes odion go something something

ZoyosJD


Superman!...agreed...LOL. @Smokey...Guess what the limiting factor was...surprise. Hardware! Guess what we will soon be getting new revisions of...surprise. Hardware! When I said that "$700" price point for a "PC", I mean a the hardware costs $700 and can run BF3 NATIVELY at 4k with ultra settings at 45-60 FPS with only as much optimization as the PC version provides allthewhile running windows. To clarify I am talking about a setup that theoretically can natively support 4k at 60FPS with enough tweaking and code optimization for next gen games like the real-time Angi's Philosophy demo from SE.

4k TVs are just now emerging as the future, yet supposedly the new Xbox and PS consoles are already being built and almost ready for showing.  There is absolute zero chance those will support this TV considering 1080p was just emerging at the beginning of this current gen and yet at the END of this gen, the current consoles still don't support 1080p truly.

Come on Smokey...when it's rendered natively at a specific resolution that means it was designed to be displayed at that resolution without the need for AA or upscaling of any type to actually reach that resolution. http://dictionary.referen..com/browse/natively?s=t (basically where it belongs). Anyways, we did see native 1080p games like Super Star Dust and the only thing that kept all the games from looking that good was the hardware not being powerful enough._______ @B Man...Whats the biggest complaint about this gen? It has been too long. So we should be able to support a bigger jump in resolution than past generations. ***math*** 240p is 76800 pixels, 480p is 307200 pixels, 720p is 921600 pixels, 1080p is 2073600 pixels, 4k is 8294400 pixels. 240p *4 = 480p, 480p *3 = 720p, 720p *2.25 = 1080p, 1080p *4 = 4k. ***math over*** ps1 to ps2 was a 4x increase in resolution in 5 yr, 3 mon... ps2/xbox to ps3/360 was a 3x increase in resolution 5 yr 8 mon/4 yr... even if the PS4 were to release November this year it would be 7 full years for a increase of either x2.25 or x9. Applying Moore's law, the power difference should be x16 in comparison to the ~x8 difference between PS1-2,2-3/xbox-360. No matter which way you look at, even if you factor in prices, inflation, new optical formats, etc. 4k is completely reasonable for this time frame.

ZoyosJD


Come on Smokey...when it's rendered natively at a specific resolution that means it was designed to be displayed at that resolution without the need for AA or upscaling of any type to actually reach that resolution. http://dictionary.referen..com/browse/natively?s=t (basically where it belongs). Anyways, we did see native 1080p games like Super Star Dust and the only thing that kept all the games from looking that good was the hardware not being powerful enough._______ @B Man...Whats the biggest complaint about this gen? It has been too long. So we should be able to support a bigger jump in resolution than past generations. ***math*** 240p is 76800 pixels, 480p is 307200 pixels, 720p is 921600 pixels, 1080p is 2073600 pixels, 4k is 8294400 pixels. 240p *4 = 480p, 480p *3 = 720p, 720p *2.25 = 1080p, 1080p *4 = 4k. ***math over*** ps1 to ps2 was a 4x increase in resolution in 5 yr, 3 mon... ps2/xbox to ps3/360 was a 3x increase in resolution 5 yr 8 mon/4 yr... even if the PS4 were to release November this year it would be 7 full years for a increase of either x2.25 or x9. Applying Moore's law, the power difference should be x16 in comparison to the ~x8 difference between PS1-2,2-3/xbox-360. No matter which way you look at, even if you factor in prices, inflation, new optical formats, etc. 4k is completely reasonable for this time frame.

There's no chance in hell that 4k will be the AAA standard for next-gen consoles. A high end gaming computer with GTX 680 can barely run BF3 at 4k at 30 FPS.


If you think next-gen consoles will be pushing that kind of power, you're likely a bit delusional. 


4k will probably exist as 1080p did this generation. Low power games (indie titles and things) can be played at 4k without much issue, but next-gen AAA games will almost certainly be 1080p (if we're lucky)

4K is for people who have better than 20/20 vision and lots of spare change.
Those helmet-mounted doohickeys are a better investment than 4K TVs. 

Anyways, I'll be impressed if devs actually stick to 1080p next gen.
Edit: Dag nabbit panda