Slickdeals.net

Slickdeals.net (http://slickdeals.net/forums/index.php)
-   Deal Talk (http://slickdeals.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Seiki 50" 4k LED TV at TigerDirect 3840x2160 - $1199.99 shipped (http://slickdeals.net/f/5961362-seiki-50-4k-led-tv-at-tigerdirect-3840x2160-1199-99-shipped)

tooloud10 04-10-2013 05:51 PM

Seiki 50" 4k LED TV at TigerDirect 3840x2160 - $1199.99 shipped
 
65532 Attachment(s)
Here we go...by far the cheapest I've seen a 4k LED TV.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applic...No=7674736

Now $1199.99 after $100 coupon code TJM88351

wikipost 04-10-2013 05:51 PM

This post can and should be edited by users like you :)
 
Also available through ShopNBC for same price (+tax?) but includes two year extended warranty:

http://www.shopnbc.com/Seiki_50_S...7-325.aspx

The Seiki Brand Reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr...1266092011

Dont forget shopdiscover 5%

This post can be edited by most users to provide up-to-date information about developments of this thread based on user responses, and user findings. Feel free to add, change or remove information shown here as it becomes available. This includes new coupons, rebates, ideas, thread summary, and similar items.

Once a Thread Wiki is added to a thread, "Create Wiki" button will disappear. If you would like to learn more about Thread Wiki feature, click here.

Beradon 04-10-2013 05:52 PM

umm Wow... that's an amazing price for a 4ktv... No matter the brand.

SlikRick 04-10-2013 05:55 PM

Glad to see 4K is bringing out newer manufacturers setting the prices low from getgo .. but what's the point of buying this TV when there is no 4K content available to consumers. I suppose you could hook up a top of the line video card and run it at its max resolution, but then again, any movies you watch will be 1080P.. I don't know if there is some way to upscale 1080p to a 4K, like we used to do 480p to 1080i (looked terrible though).

JiNaMoN 04-10-2013 05:56 PM

i wants but i can't has :(

wasabi_fu 04-10-2013 05:59 PM

umm....resolution 3840x2160 ....I thought 4K was relative to 1080p ...meaning the 2160 isn't 4K ....

Glacier101 04-10-2013 05:59 PM

I'm curious... how does standard 1080p stuff look on this? Does it look better, or does it look all stretched out and unfocused?

Xevv 04-10-2013 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788464)
umm....resolution 3840x2160 ....I thought 4K was relative to 1080p ...meaning the 2160 isn't 4K ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

swunder 04-10-2013 06:00 PM

Wow this is a bizarre tv.... 4k for 1300 bucks?! Would think that is pretty much unheard of.

But yeah... wtf are you gonna do with this thing for the next ~5 years?

tooloud10 04-10-2013 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788464)
umm....resolution 3840x2160 ....I thought 4K was relative to 1080p ...meaning the 2160 isn't 4K ....

Sorry, but you're thinking wrong.

lfkai 04-10-2013 06:01 PM

It sounds like a nice product. I wish I have room for that.

Windows7User 04-10-2013 06:06 PM

I wonder how this would look for games i have 4 7970's in quad-fire.

nebody00 04-10-2013 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788464)
umm....resolution 3840x2160 ....I thought 4K was relative to 1080p ...meaning the 2160 isn't 4K ....

Multiply 1920x1080 by 2 and you'll get that resolution.

tooloud10 04-10-2013 06:07 PM

Netflix is saying that they will be streaming 4k "in the next year or two".
Sony will have a streaming box with ten movies included for $699 this summer.
YouTube streams in 4k.
Sony PS4 will support 4k.
Redray is a 4k movie streaming service but the box costs $1450.

It's coming.

wasabi_fu 04-10-2013 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nebody00 (Post 58788584)
Multiply 1920x1080 by 2 and you'll get that resolution.


Yes, yes, I know. 1080 ~= 1K, so times 2 doesn't = 4K to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooloud10 (Post 58788500)
Sorry, but you're thinking wrong.

Yep, I figured that out ....stupid marketing

blommer 04-10-2013 06:10 PM

4k is ~4000px wide and 4x the pixels of a "1080p" TV people.

afreeman1180 04-10-2013 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlikRick (Post 58788408)
Glad to see 4K is bringing out newer manufacturers setting the prices low from getgo .. but what's the point of buying this TV when there is no 4K content available to consumers. I suppose you could hook up a top of the line video card and run it at its max resolution, but then again, any movies you watch will be 1080P.. I don't know if there is some way to upscale 1080p to a 4K, like we used to do 480p to 1080i (looked terrible though).

Um... Sony is the only manufacturer with native content.

tooloud10 04-10-2013 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788618)
Yes, yes, I know. 1080 ~= 1K, so times 2 doesn't = 4K to me.



Yep, I figured that out ....stupid marketing

It's not marketing. Count the pixels, bro.

wasabi_fu 04-10-2013 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xevv (Post 58788482)


yep + characters to make slickdeals min of 5

travfar 04-10-2013 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlikRick (Post 58788408)
Glad to see 4K is bringing out newer manufacturers setting the prices low from getgo .. but what's the point of buying this TV when there is no 4K content available to consumers. I suppose you could hook up a top of the line video card and run it at its max resolution, but then again, any movies you watch will be 1080P.. I don't know if there is some way to upscale 1080p to a 4K, like we used to do 480p to 1080i (looked terrible though).

Full HD passive 3D.

Phenomenal price for a 4K TV. Phenomenal. I'm temped to buy but I remember being burned buying into HD early. I can see these selling or $200 in a couple of years.

nebody00 04-10-2013 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooloud10 (Post 58788656)
It's not marketing. Count the pixels, bro.

^ Yep.

When you double the pixels in both length and width you get 4x the increase... :)

wasabi_fu 04-10-2013 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooloud10 (Post 58788656)
It's not marketing. Count the pixels, bro.


Bro? I'm not your "bro". 1080p vs 4K is only twice as big in either direction ..that is marketing. Sorry you don't comprendo.

pjdavep 04-10-2013 06:14 PM

I wonder if this TV would support this?
http://www.engadget.com/video/viddler/42ee0d1f/

..which is the coolest leverage of 4K I have seen and I'm not even a gamer!

Later,
pjdavep

wasabi_fu 04-10-2013 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nebody00 (Post 58788676)
^ Yep.

When you double the pixels in both length and width you get 4x the increase... :)

Okay, but that still doesn't mean 4K is 4x1080p.

travfar 04-10-2013 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nebody00 (Post 58788584)
Multiply 1920x1080 by 2 and you'll get that resolution.

Making it 4 times the resolution.

Mako1215 04-10-2013 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788678)
Bro? I'm not your "bro". 1080p vs 4K is only twice as big in either direction ..that is marketing. Sorry you don't comprendo.

I guess they are adding 2+2=4?

tooloud10 04-10-2013 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788692)
Okay, but that still doesn't mean 4K is 4x1080p.

Once again, count the pixels. 3840x2160 = 4(1920x1080)

Put another way, it would take four 1080p televisions in a 2x2 matrix to equal the resolution and pixels of a 4k television.

Rtard 04-10-2013 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788692)
Okay, but that still doesn't mean 4K is 4x1080p.

My god did you ever take a math class in your life?

4k = 3840 x 2160
1080p = 1920 x 1080

Lets do some math:
3840/1920 = 2
2160/1080 = 2
2*2 = 4

Thus 4k is 4 times the resolution of 1080p. Ill try to explain this as if you were a 5 year old. If 2160 is twice the height of 1080, then 2 1080p tvs could be placed on top of each other to reach that number of pixels. If 3840 is twice the length of 1920, then 2 1080p tvs could be placed next to each other to reach that number of pixels. Now if the TV's are stacked 2 wide and 2 tall to reach the same number of pixels, how many 1080p tvs do we have in all to equal the same resolution as 1 4k tv? THATS RIGHT TIMMY, 4.

wasabi_fu 04-10-2013 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travfar (Post 58788696)
Making it 4 times the resolution.

I agree with this. Simple math. No marketing "we will use the big number now" ploy!

JustAnotherSlob 04-10-2013 06:22 PM

wasabi_fu has a point. 1080p was named after the vertical resolution (1920x1080), 4k is names after the vertical (3840x2160).

Now, it is 4 times the pixels of 1080p, but if they meant "4 times" it would be "4x" not "4k"

so, as he said, bad marketing (or perhaps better marketing than 1080p)

CSIG1001 04-10-2013 06:22 PM

Wow more junk from china , ill take a panny plasma over this any day

blommer 04-10-2013 06:22 PM

The "K" refers to the horizontal resolution.

1920 x 1080 is almost 2000 px horizontal so it's sometimes called 2K (but hardly ever when selling TVs)
3840 x 2160 is somewhat farther off from 4000 px horizontal but it's called 4K because it's easier to say.

Pixel math:

2K: 1920 x 1080 = 2073600 total pixels
4K: 3840 x 2160 = 8294400 total pixels

8294400 / 2073600 = 4

4K is 4 times the resolution of a 1080 TV.

wasabi_fu 04-10-2013 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rtard (Post 58788788)
My god did you ever take a math class in your life?


Let me open my calculator (Texas Instrument Graphing) and double check it with my Casio calculator watch. 1080 x 2 = 2160. So, twice 1080 lines of resolution only gets me 2160 and not 3840, 4000, 4K, or 4320. :bulb: :bulb: :bulb:

Quote:

Originally Posted by blommer (Post 58788842)
The "K" refers to the horizontal resolution.

1920 x 1080 is almost 2000 px horizontal so it's sometimes called 2K (but hardly ever when selling TVs)
3840 x 2160 is somewhat farther off from 4000 px horizontal but it's called 4K because it's easier to say.

Pixel math:

2K: 1920 x 1080 = 2073600 total pixels
4K: 3840 x 2160 = 8294400 total pixels

8294400 / 2073600 = 4

4K is 4 times the resolution of a 1080 TV.


yep, all good here, except K means kilo or 1000. K does not mean horizontal resolution. 4K does mean around 4000 pixels in the horizontal direction.

thelnel52 04-10-2013 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788692)
Okay, but that still doesn't mean 4K is 4x1080p.

Imagine being in a sportsbook or bar where they have TVs stacked on the wall in a 2x2 grid. There, you have four TVs that recreate twice the vertical and twice the horizontal viewing area. Pixel-wise, that's what is happening here. A 1080p image, with no scaling, would take up just one quadrant of this TV.

sleeping 04-10-2013 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSIG1001 (Post 58788826)
Wow more junk from china , ill take a panny plasma over this any day


Seki is a samsung tv made in Canton, Michigan, USA.

wasabi_fu 04-10-2013 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rtard (Post 58788788)
My god did you ever take a math class in your life?

4k = 3840 x 2160
1080p = 1920 x 1080

Lets do some math:
3840/1920 = 2
2160/1080 = 2
2*2 = 4

Thus 4k is 4 times the resolution of 1080p. Ill try to explain this as if you were a 5 year old. If 2160 is twice the height of 1080, then 2 1080p tvs could be placed on top of each other to reach that number of pixels. If 3840 is twice the length of 1920, then 2 1080p tvs could be placed next to each other to reach that number of pixels. Now if the TV's are stacked 2 wide and 2 tall to reach the same number of pixels, how many 1080p tvs do we have in all to equal the same resolution as 1 4k tv? THATS RIGHT TIMMY, 4.

4K does not mean 4x, it means 4K ....meaning 4000 or some such number. K is for kilo.

Rtard 04-10-2013 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788866)
Let me open my calculator (Texas Instrument Graphing) and double check it with my Casio calculator watch. 1080 x 2 = 2160. So, twice 1080 lines of resolution only gets me 2160 and not 3840, 4000, 4K, or 4320. :bulb: :bulb: :bulb:




yep, all good here.

Oh my god you have to be joking. No real human is this obtuse. 1080 is the HEIGHT of the screen. 2160 is the HEIGHT of the 4k tv. Why do you comment on things you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about? Can you just look at your TV and take a guess which direction 1080 is and which direction 1920 is? Hint: The longer axis is the bigger number. Are you really not getting that 1080p measures the height while 4k measures the width and is a general 4 times the resolution of 1080p?

thelnel52 04-10-2013 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thelnel52 (Post 58788888)
Imagine being in a sportsbook or bar where they have TVs stacked on the wall in a 2x2 grid. There, you have four TVs that recreate twice the vertical and twice the horizontal viewing area. Pixel-wise, that's what is happening here. A 1080p image, with no scaling, would take up just one quadrant of this TV.

Although maybe I'm mistaken if the 4k refers to the number of horizontal pixels. I thought it was more like 4 * the standard.

Phoeniix 04-10-2013 06:27 PM

Would have to sit less than 2.5 feet from the TV for your eyes to see the full benefit of 4k on a 50" HDTV on a 2160p resolution feed vs sitting less than 6.5 feet to see the full benefit of 1080 on a 1080p feed.

jbrukardt 04-10-2013 06:27 PM

be aware it appears this can only do 4k2k at 30hz. If it could do even 60 id be all over it.

wasabi_fu 04-10-2013 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thelnel52 (Post 58788888)
Imagine being in a sportsbook or bar where they have TVs stacked on the wall in a 2x2 grid. There, you have four TVs that recreate twice the vertical and twice the horizontal viewing area. Pixel-wise, that's what is happening here. A 1080p image, with no scaling, would take up just one quadrant of this TV.


yes, yes, of course, but that wasn't what my issue with 4K is. K is for kilo and the "old" standard used 1080 or 1K resolution in a different direction.

CSIG1001 04-10-2013 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleeping (Post 58788890)
Seki is a samsung tv made in Canton, Michigan, USA.

Lol so you think this will make tv of the year? rofl

Inpact 04-10-2013 06:28 PM

This will cost $300 on black friday 2020

theagent 04-10-2013 06:29 PM

Aside from all the bickering in this thread, this is great news! Not interested in buying this, but it's great to see 4K at this price. By the time content is available, the big name's will come down in price.

tooloud10 04-10-2013 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788866)
Let me open my calculator (Texas Instrument Graphing) and double check it with my Casio calculator watch. 1080 x 2 = 2160. So, twice 1080 lines of resolution only gets me 2160 and not 3840, 4000, 4K, or 4320. :bulb: :bulb: :bulb:

But your argument centers on the idea that 4k claims to be four times the vertical resolution of 1080p. Nobody has made that claim. The actual claim is that 4k has four times as many pixels as 1080p. To differentiate televisions that have twice the vertical resolution and four times the pixels of 1080p, they call the new resolution "4k".

IOW, you've imagined the idea that 4k TV is supposed to be anything other than 3840x2160. I'm sorry their math doesn't work the way you want it to, but that doesn't make it any less true.

CSIG1001 04-10-2013 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inpact (Post 58788956)
This will cost $300 on black friday 2020

More like 2015

wasabi_fu 04-10-2013 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rtard (Post 58788908)
Oh my god you have to be joking. No real human is this obtuse. 1080 is the HEIGHT of the screen. 2160 is the HEIGHT of the 4k tv. Why do you comment on things you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about? Can you just look at your TV and take a guess which direction 1080 is and which direction 1920 is? Hint: The longer axis is the bigger number.

I have my TV lying flat on the ground with the screen facing towards the ground, so that the light doesn't bother me when I am sleeping. Which direction is that? Now, if I could just figure out how to direct the sound away from my ears, I can get a good nights rest.

Again, 4K is not 4 times (or 4x) 1080p, it is 2 x 1080p. The person that said 1080p was 2K was the closest one to actually getting it right. Rtard.

JustAnotherSlob 04-10-2013 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788866)
Let me open my calculator (Texas Instrument Graphing) and double check it with my Casio calculator watch. 1080 x 2 = 2160. So, twice 1080 lines of resolution only gets me 2160 and not 3840, 4000, 4K, or 4320. :bulb: :bulb: :bulb:




yep, all good here.

Wasabi fu,

I think the point they are making is

1080p = 2k (not used often) = 1920x1080

2160p (not used often) = 4k = 3840x2160

and yes, they have changed which of vert/horiz they are using.

But also, doubling each side of a rectangle will quadruple the area (which is NOT what the 4 in 4k means, after all 8k has lots more than 4x the pixels of 2k)

travfar 04-10-2013 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbrukardt (Post 58788938)
be aware it appears this can only do 4k2k at 30hz. If it could do even 60 id be all over it.

Ah... why? Full HD is only 30Hz. It's not like LCD flickers.

sleeping 04-10-2013 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSIG1001 (Post 58788946)
Lol so you think this will make tv of the year? rofl

I was pointing to your inaccuracy. I'll try to remember next time, not to do this. SD use to be a polite place.

00dahc 04-10-2013 06:32 PM

Sucky thing about YouTube 4K streaming is that it's so God damn slow. I can download a 480p video at 4MB/s.. as soon as I flip it over to 4K(or 1080p for that matter) it drops down to 150KB/s or so.

Dumb.

Glacier101 04-10-2013 06:32 PM

Guys, without getting all technical about pixels and semantics... can someone just say whether 1080p looks good on this or not? Has anyone seen 1080p running on these TVs before?

For example, when you are looking at a 480i signal on a 1080p screen, there are black bars on the sides and the video quality looks like shit. Does 1080p on this TV have the same look? Reps for a clear answer. :)

Xevv 04-10-2013 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glacier101 (Post 58789016)
Guys, without getting all technical about pixels and semantics... can someone just say whether 1080p looks good on this or not? Has anyone seen 1080p running on these TVs before?

For example, when you are looking at a 480i signal on a 1080p screen, there are black bars on the sides and the video quality looks like shit. Does 1080p on this TV have the same look? Reps for a clear answer. :)

Its the same ratio so it will just stretch evenly.

illuminati 04-10-2013 06:34 PM

What source will provide the 4k content? It's use less and "Seiki?" WTF I'd rather get a Westinghouse lol

itaintrite 04-10-2013 06:35 PM

Can't wait to see 3rd-tier manufacturers step up like Vizio did.

AkumaX 04-10-2013 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbrukardt (Post 58788938)
be aware it appears this can only do 4k2k at 30hz. If it could do even 60 id be all over it.

Omgosh nice catch. I would have at least expected 60hz...

wasabi_fu 04-10-2013 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooloud10 (Post 58788974)
But your argument centers on the idea that 4k claims to be four times the vertical resolution of 1080p. Nobody has made that claim. The actual claim is that 4k has four times as many pixels as 1080p. To differentiate televisions that have twice the vertical resolution and four times the pixels of 1080p, they call the new resolution "4k".

IOW, you've imagined the idea that 4k TV is supposed to be anything other than 3840x2160. I'm sorry their math doesn't work the way you want it to, but that doesn't make it any less true.


No, they claim a horizontal resolution, thus a shift in marketing, of 4K - which to most lay consumers will think they are getting 4K/1080p = 4 times. Again, 4K isn't 4X. 3840x2190 isn't the only "4k" resolution, just like 480p and 720p were considered HD resolutions. If a resolution is going to call itself 4K, there had better be 4000 pixels in at least one direction and preferably in the direction that 1080p had 1080 pixels. Other than that, it is just marketing.

kothapet 04-10-2013 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustAnotherSlob (Post 58788822)
wasabi_fu has a point. 1080p was named after the vertical resolution (1920x1080), 4k is names after the vertical (3840x2160).

Now, it is 4 times the pixels of 1080p, but if they meant "4 times" it would be "4x" not "4k"

so, as he said, bad marketing (or perhaps better marketing than 1080p)

Actually 4k is nothing to do with 1080p or Vertical resolution or number of pixels.
It is actually horizontal resolution.
1k = 1024
2k = 2048
4k = 4096

1080p (which is 1920 x 1080) is closer but smaller to 2k which is 2048 * 1080.

4k is twice the size in both directions to 2k. Also there is different variations of 4k.


Format Resolution aspect ratio Pixels
4K Ultra high definition television 3840 × 2160 1.78:1 8,294,400
Digital Cinema Initiatives 4k (native resolution) 4096 × 2160 1.90:1 8,847,360
DCI 4K (CinemaScope cropped) 4096 × 1714 2.39:1 7,020,544
DCI 4K (flat cropped) 3996 × 2160 1.85:1 8,631,360
Academy 4K (storage format) 3656 × 2664 1.37:1 9,739,584
Full aperture 4K (storage format) 4096 × 3112 1.32:1 12,746,752

Just read the Wiki's [wikipedia.org] posted earlier. Its not marketing. Its just another standard.

Strmtrper6 04-10-2013 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustAnotherSlob (Post 58788822)
wasabi_fu has a point. 1080p was named after the vertical resolution (1920x1080), 4k is names after the vertical (3840x2160).

Now, it is 4 times the pixels of 1080p, but if they meant "4 times" it would be "4x" not "4k"

so, as he said, bad marketing (or perhaps better marketing than 1080p)

Thank you,

I thought everyone posting was going mad, or I was.

4x != 4k.

wasabi_fu 04-10-2013 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustAnotherSlob (Post 58788986)
Wasabi fu,

I think the point they are making is

1080p = 2k (not used often) = 1920x1080

2160p (not used often) = 4k = 3840x2160

and yes, they have changed which of vert/horiz they are using.

But also, doubling each side of a rectangle will quadruple the area (which is NOT what the 4 in 4k means, after all 8k has lots more than 4x the pixels of 2k)


Bingo! ;)

jbrukardt 04-10-2013 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travfar (Post 58788998)
Ah... why? Full HD is only 30Hz. It's not like LCD flickers.

because the only way you're going to put this to any use is with a pc/htpc input as thats the only current way to get 4k content from a consumer perpective. 30hz for a monitor is not ok.

scrizz 04-10-2013 06:39 PM

http://www.stuff-review.com/wp-co...p-1704.jpg

this pic shows 1080p in relation to 4k

CSIG1001 04-10-2013 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AkumaX (Post 58789060)
Omgosh nice catch. I would have at least expected 60hz...


Basically you get 30fps max at 4k

travfar 04-10-2013 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbrukardt (Post 58789096)
30hz for a monitor is not ok.

Why not? You realize the standard for 4K is 30Hz right? So where are you going to get 4K content that isn't 30Hz. If you want to just use it as a monitor then set your GPU to 30Hz. LCD doesn't flicker.

nebody00 04-10-2013 06:42 PM

So does anybody know who makes the panels? One guy said Samsung but are there any links to prove that?

Xevv 04-10-2013 06:42 PM

How is this argument going on still? I linked the page that explained it all on page one...

Apparently since reading is too hard for most people heres the direct link to the damn picture on the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File..._4K%29.svg

Glacier101 04-10-2013 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xevv (Post 58789036)
Its the same ratio so it will just stretch evenly.

Do you know if it will look, um, fuzzy? Or will it look as sharp as a regular 1080p set does?
THANKS and repped

SKORPI0 04-10-2013 06:43 PM

Think of it, current 24"-70" HDTV screens having the same resolution of 1920x1080. It's the pixel density that counts. So a 24" screen would have denser pixels than a 70".
Same pixel density 35ppcm(88PPI) as a 25" (if there is such a screen size) at 1920x1080. So it's like putting 4 of those panels together to create a 50" screen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...el_density



drac 04-10-2013 06:43 PM

holy smokes...

My web connection can barely handle 1080p, much less 4k, which should be 4x the bandwidth

edit: oh wait, 4k is 30hz, so that's only twice the bandwidth

RonPaulFan 04-10-2013 06:44 PM

I'm hoping this brings down the price of high resolution ~30" monitors.

I use CAD at work but don't want to shell out $1000 for a 30" monitor when my 1080p 28" works fine for the money.

mydecember1985 04-10-2013 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Windows7User (Post 58788580)
I wonder how this would look for games i have 4 7970's in quad-fire.

Two should do you perfectly fine. It's a little over 8MP. My 2 6970s handle most modern games at 7680x1440. I have to dial down AA and AO, but that's just over 11MP. No need for AA over 2x at that res. FXAA is a great help compared to SSAA and such. Nowhere near the drop in frames.

Looking to upgrade to 2 680s if anyone knows of a good deal. ;)

scrizz 04-10-2013 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58789076)
Bingo! ;)

lol it still is 4 times the resolution.

1920x2160 would be 2 times the resolution or 3840x1080

http://www.onlinemathlearning.com...r-sat2.gif

:D

mydecember1985 04-10-2013 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonPaulFan (Post 58789176)
I'm hoping this brings down the price of high resolution ~30" monitors.

I use CAD at work but don't want to shell out $1000 for a 30" monitor when my 1080p 28" works fine for the money.

Use one of the 27" korean monitors for $300-$350. They're really amazing. Just make sure you have a DVI-D port. Using active DP adapters is a royal pain.

Phoeniix 04-10-2013 06:47 PM

I just don't get the need for 4k HDTV's a lot of people don't sit close enough to their TV's to enjoy the full benefit of 1080p tv or if they do they are watching feeds of 720p a lot of the time still.

wasabi_fu 04-10-2013 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrizz (Post 58789186)
lol it still is 4 times the resolution.

1920x2160 would be 2 times the resolution or 3840x1080

http://www.onlinemathlearning.com...r-sat2.gif

:D


I don't argue with simple math. Still 4K is marketing gimmick.

Xevv 04-10-2013 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glacier101 (Post 58789154)
Do you know if it will look, um, fuzzy? Or will it look as sharp as a regular 1080p set does?
THANKS and repped

Well the best I can give you on that is I use a 2560x1440 monitor. So when I watch something in 720p fullscreen it is being upscaled 4x the same as 1080 would be on a 4k tv.

I think it looks fine and not fuzzy. And Im sitting pretty damn close to my monitor. But thats just my opinion.

mydecember1985 04-10-2013 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drac (Post 58789168)
holy smokes...

My web connection can barely handle 1080p, much less 4k, which should be 4x the bandwidth

edit: oh wait, 4k is 30hz, so that's only twice the bandwidth

DVD and TV broadcasts are 30Hz. Bluray is 24. I really don't think anything is truly 60FPS unless rendered in real time like a video game or something.

travfar 04-10-2013 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drac (Post 58789168)
holy smokes...

My web connection can barely handle 1080p, much less 4k, which should be 4x the bandwidth

edit: oh wait, 4k is 30hz, so that's only twice the bandwidth

Well..... not quite. Full HD is 1080p at 30Hz. Also there's the matter of compression. That 1080p you get over the web is compressed to hell. The 1080i you get over cable is compressed to hell. 1080i broadcast is the best you're going to get along with bluray. So there's nothing that says people can't compress the hell out of 4K too.

EnzoFX 04-10-2013 06:51 PM

Sure, it'd add to games, but not as much as you'd think, considering games are barely designed for 1080p these days, and this is a tv, so you'd be further away, you'd lose some detail just by that fact alone =P. Best use for 4K, when you want to fit more content on a screen, like sreadsheets or desktop windows lol, but that's more of the business/industrial side of things prob.

CSIG1001 04-10-2013 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AkumaX (Post 58789060)
Omgosh nice catch. I would have at least expected 60hz...

Quote:

Originally Posted by nebody00 (Post 58789144)
So does anybody know who makes the panels? One guy said Samsung but are there any links to prove that?

These panels are junk... Period

travfar 04-10-2013 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mydecember1985 (Post 58789256)
DVD and TV broadcasts are 30Hz. Bluray is 24. I really don't think anything is truly 60FPS unless rendered in real time like a video game or something.

The something will be video you take yourself. Many cameras these days will do 1080p 60Hz.

authenticny 04-10-2013 06:52 PM

well i heard that there are bluray players that convert up to 4k? i wonder how this tv looks.

jbrukardt 04-10-2013 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Windows7User (Post 58788580)
I wonder how this would look for games i have 4 7970's in quad-fire.

trouble is you'll never get over 30fps due to the hdmi limit. I really really wish this thing had dvi or even displayport and id be all over it for a monitor

travfar 04-10-2013 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSIG1001 (Post 58789276)
These panels are junk... Period

Really? Who makes 'em. You must know to have deemed them junk. Link to spec sheet please.

scrizz 04-10-2013 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travfar (Post 58789306)
Really? Who makes 'em. You must know to have deemed them junk. Link to spec sheet please.


ikr....

reny49 04-10-2013 06:55 PM

Good job for 4k. Very surprised.
Same pixel density 35ppcm(88PPI) as a 25" (if there is such a size) at 1920x1080. So it's like putting 4 of those panels together to create a 50" screen.

MecroU 04-10-2013 07:01 PM

Wow, price has dropped. Too bad not much content.

bigpermie 04-10-2013 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rtard (Post 58788788)
Ill try to explain this as if you were a 5 year old. .

well....you DID see his avatar, right? :D:wave:

tooloud10 04-10-2013 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigpermie (Post 58789430)
well....you DID see his avatar, right? :D:wave:

Ha, I can't believe it took this long for someone to make that joke.:lmao:

cjlindman 04-10-2013 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Windows7User (Post 58788580)
I wonder how this would look for games i have 4 7970's in quad-fire.

what.

wannacry45 04-10-2013 07:04 PM

People, you will know 4k is around the corner when the first porn in 4k is out.
So far, no porn studios have said anything about 4k. Not that I am an expert, it's just that if there were any announcement, it would have been all over HungintonPost or CNN and etc.

9erHater 04-10-2013 07:04 PM

Needs a DisplayPort connector so I can connect it to my desktop.

travfar 04-10-2013 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wannacry45 (Post 58789464)
People, you will know 4k is around the corner when the first porn in 4k is out.
So far, no porn studios have said anything about 4k. Not that I am an expert, it's just that if there were any announcement, it would have been all over HungintonPost or CNN and etc.

Remember the outcry from porn stars when things went HD. Imagine their outcry at 4K. 4K may no be the best for up close and personal. For something like sports though, it would be great.

Phoeniix 04-10-2013 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nebody00 (Post 58789144)
So does anybody know who makes the panels? One guy said Samsung but are there any links to prove that?

A lot of their panels take samsung codes leading people to believe they use samsung panels or parts.

Everyone is going off on the resolution, but what good is the resolution if your eyes can't pick up the difference using it as a TV? I would probably need a 145" 4k TV in my bedroom to see the full benefit at around 10Feet.. for this screen 50" 2.5' to see the full benefit and 50" 1080p 6.5' (with 20/20 vision).

As for using it as a monitor this would be a beast size monitor. I thought using TV as monitors were always inferior, are there any downsides of using 4k tvs as monitors?

VladC 04-10-2013 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustAnotherSlob (Post 58788986)
and yes, they have changed which of vert/horiz they are using.

Filthy marketing scam.

alchi 04-10-2013 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoeniix (Post 58789504)
A lot of their panels take samsung codes leading people to believe they use samsung panels or parts.

Everyone is going off on the resolution, but what good is the resolution if your eyes can't pick up the difference using it as a TV? I would probably need a 145" 4k TV in my bedroom to see the difference at around 10Feet.. for this screen 50" 2.5' to see the full benefit and 50" 1080p 6.5' (with 20/20 vision).

Anything to get closer to the glowing warmth of precious precious television.

travfar 04-10-2013 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoeniix (Post 58789504)
A lot of their panels take samsung codes leading people to believe they use samsung panels or parts.

Everyone is going off on the resolution, but what good is the resolution if your eyes can't pick up the difference using it as a TV? I would probably need a 145" 4k TV in my bedroom to see the difference at around 10Feet.. for this screen 50" 2.5' to see the full benefit and 50" 1080p 6.5' (with 20/20 vision).

Simple. What happens when you are looking at something in real life and see something but it's too small to see what it is. You step up close to have a closer look. On HD when if you step up closer it might just be a blob. On 4K, you might be able to make it out. Say you are watching a football game and you want to see who that player is. Step up to the screen and look.

Trolololo 04-10-2013 07:11 PM

seems like Seiki wanted to jump ahead of everyone by selling cheap 4k TV first so it screw up everyone mind and jump on it

I like how even on Seiki website they don't even have this TV listed.

i went to CES early this year and already saw 8K TV its amazing to see it close in person.

or go to Las Vegas Aria check out their brand new electronic marquee, it has 11millions pixel and is the world tallest....

CSIG1001 04-10-2013 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VladC (Post 58789520)
Filthy marketing scam.


Exactly..

Invest in a good plasma for 1200.00

This is why panasonic is going to eventually stop making good plasmas . Why because korea and china releasing and mass producing junk like this to the consumer. People falling for specs and a overly bright picture with false black levels and poor color accuracy and response time

Mr.Ritz 04-10-2013 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooloud10 (Post 58788588)
Netflix is saying that they will be streaming 4k "in the next year or two".
Sony will have a streaming box with ten movies included for $699 this summer.
YouTube streams in 4k.
Sony PS4 will support 4k.
Redray is a 4k movie streaming service but the box costs $1450.

It's coming.

Great I can watch shitty movies in 4k

lAz1e 04-10-2013 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788692)
Okay, but that still doesn't mean 4K is 4x1080p.

Nobody ever said 4k = 4x1080.
4k = 4x THE RESOLUTION of a 1080 TV.
A 1080 TV's resolution is 1920x1080.

TVs have 2 dimensions, height and width. 4x1080 only means that theres 4 1080 tvs next to each other.. it just makes it a reallllllllllly long tv. That is only taking into consideration the pixels width-wise. You need to take into consideration the number of pixels height-wise.

1920x1080 is 1 TV. Put 4 of them together (so that it still forms a TV looking shape, not a super long hot dog shape) and thats what a 4k TV is.

nhuloan 04-10-2013 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.ritz (Post 58789592)
great i can watch shitty movies in 4k

lolol

jmecherul 04-10-2013 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSIG1001 (Post 58788826)
Wow more junk from china , ill take a panny plasma over this any day

I bought a Seiki 32in LCD for $100 last black friday, and it works perfectly and it looks even more perfectly. I have no issue with it. I use it as my computer monitor.

and, 4k refers to the number of pixels over what 1080p has

1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels

3840x2160 = 8294400pixels

8294400/2073600 = 4, hence 4K

kefe 04-10-2013 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlikRick (Post 58788408)
Glad to see 4K is bringing out newer manufacturers setting the prices low from getgo .. but what's the point of buying this TV when there is no 4K content available to consumers. I suppose you could hook up a top of the line video card and run it at its max resolution, but then again, any movies you watch will be 1080P.. I don't know if there is some way to upscale 1080p to a 4K, like we used to do 480p to 1080i (looked terrible though).

Not much out there but there are 4K content on streaming sites like Youtube and Vimeo.

CSIG1001 04-10-2013 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecherul (Post 58789674)
I bought a Seiki 32in LCD for $100 last black friday, and it works perfectly and it looks even more perfectly. I have no issue with it. I use it as my computer monitor.

and, 4k refers to the number of pixels over what 1080p has

1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels

3840x2160 = 8294400pixels

8294400/2073600 = 4, hence 4K

I will pass and own a real tv. This set wouldnt even make a good computer monitor for gaming . Just surfing the net , powerpoint and excell

jmecherul 04-10-2013 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by authenticny (Post 58789300)
well i heard that there are bluray players that convert up to 4k? i wonder how this tv looks.

All the new audio/video receivers do 4k upconversion. I can't speak how good they are because I do not have a 4k tv, but i just bought a last year model yamaha and had 4k upconversion

ubersanger 04-10-2013 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travfar (Post 58789306)
Really? Who makes 'em. You must know to have deemed them junk. Link to spec sheet please.

Seiki is a brand of the Chinese manufacturer TongFang. Chinese based BOE has been thier primary panel supplier, but BOE does not appear to manufacture 4K panels as of right now. Innolux seems to be the only company doing 50" sized 4k, so its a good bet that this is an Innolux panel. See this article about current 4K panel production:
http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/...n_2013.asp

A survey of available panels on Panelook indicates that indeed Innolux is the only one with 50" panels currently available. They offer two models, one 3d, one non-3d. Given that, most likely the panel used in this TV is this one:
http://www.panelook.com/V500DK1-L...17279.html

This is not a Samsung panel as Samsung does not make 4k panels in this size as of now.

CSIG1001 04-10-2013 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecherul (Post 58789754)
All the new audio/video receivers do 4k upconversion. I can't speak how good they are because I do not have a 4k tv, but i just bought a last year model yamaha and had 4k upconversion

Can someone point me to a direction who offers 4k content

JustAnotherSlob 04-10-2013 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecherul (Post 58789674)
and, 4k refers to the number of pixels over what 1080p has

1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels

3840x2160 = 8294400pixels

8294400/2073600 = 4, hence 4K


No, This was (I think) the point of the argument before. Per wikipedia, 8k is 7680 pixels × 4320 pixels (33.2 megapixels), which is ~16 x 1080p, yet it's 8k not 16k

The "k" is the horizontal resolution, not a multiple of 1080p (aka 2k).

aboynamedmatt 04-10-2013 07:26 PM

This might be a crappy panel but I'm almost in disbelief to see a 4k TV at this price. Just recently Sony was talking about introducing 'affordable' 4k TV sets at around the $5k mark and this is over 4 times cheaper. Pretty unbelievable if you ask me.

travfar 04-10-2013 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecherul (Post 58789674)
I bought a Seiki 32in LCD for $100 last black friday, and it works perfectly and it looks even more perfectly. I have no issue with it. I use it as my computer monitor.

and, 4k refers to the number of pixels over what 1080p has

1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels

3840x2160 = 8294400pixels

8294400/2073600 = 4, hence 4K

LOL. That would be 4x as in 4 times, not 4K as in 4096. 4K derived from the 4K standards which refers to the horizontal resolution. For some it's 4096 like for digital cinema. For others it's 3840 as in UHD, ultra high definition television. All are in that 4000 range.

ubersanger 04-10-2013 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSIG1001 (Post 58789786)
Can someone point me to a direction who offers 4k content

There isn't any. It takes too much bandwidth for current standards on broadcast/satellite/cable/online streaming. A single 4k movie requires a 120 gb hard drive and no one has come up with a good distribution method for selling/renting movies on hard drives.

8thMan 04-10-2013 07:27 PM

CNET article on 4K TVs:

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-3319...ll-stupid/

NoBantheSnowman 04-10-2013 07:29 PM

Front page this

travfar 04-10-2013 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubersanger (Post 58789776)
Seiki is a brand of the Chinese manufacturer TongFang. Chinese based BOE has been thier primary panel supplier, but BOE does not appear to manufacture 4K panels as of right now. Innolux seems to be the only company doing 50" sized 4k, so its a good bet that this is an Innolux panel. See this article about current 4K panel production:
http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/...n_2013.asp

A survey of available panels on Panelook indicates that inded Innolux is the only one with 50" panels currently available. They offer two models, one 3d, one non-3d. Given that, most likely the panel used in this TV is this one:
http://www.panelook.com/V500DK1-L...17279.html

Sweet. Good work. By the way, someone said Seki is in Michigan. It's not. It's in California. I think they were confusing it with Element which is in Michigan.

Emjay 04-10-2013 07:31 PM

There is nothing to watch in 4K people....Just photographs and images.

Go with brand name over 4K, my 1080P Samsung I got today makes a killing off of this one. Samsung>Seiki

Only with HDMI 2.0, which BTW isn't even out.... but will be out with the PS4 and the Xbox 720, can support 4K with 60fps. HDMI 1.4 won't even cut it.

wasabi_fu 04-10-2013 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lAz1e (Post 58789616)
Nobody ever said 4k = 4x1080.
4k = 4x THE RESOLUTION of a 1080 TV.
A 1080 TV's resolution is 1920x1080.

TVs have 2 dimensions, height and width. 4x1080 only means that theres 4 1080 tvs next to each other.. it just makes it a reallllllllllly long tv. That is only taking into consideration the pixels width-wise. You need to take into consideration the number of pixels height-wise.

1920x1080 is 1 TV. Put 4 of them together (so that it still forms a TV looking shape, not a super long hot dog shape) and thats what a 4k TV is.

Why so much explaining? Blah, blah, blah. 4K is simply ~4000 (meaning 4K with k being kilo) pixels in the opposite direction than the 1080 pixels that made up the 1080 in 1080i or 1080p. The rest is marketing nonsense.

jmecherul 04-10-2013 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travfar (Post 58789870)
LOL. That would be 4x as in 4 times, not 4K as in 4096. 4K derived from the 4K standards which refers to the horizontal resolution. For some it's 4096 like for digital cinema. For others it's 3840 as in UHD, ultra high definition television. All are in that 4000 range.

yes, i agree. it is a little bit of marketing with the 4000 horizontal resolution. 3840 is not truly 4k, but oh well. in this case the number of pixels do come in a multiple of a perfect 4

ubersanger 04-10-2013 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travfar (Post 58789936)
Sweet. Good work. By the way, someone said Seki is in Michigan. It's not. It's in California. I think they were confusing it with Element which is in Michigan.

Well Element is TongFang's other brand so they have the same Chinese parent company. They're kind of half right.

Shanpooks 04-10-2013 07:35 PM

lot of love in this room

tangcoral 04-10-2013 07:35 PM

This whole thread became a math lesson by 5 different instructors.

ray19905 04-10-2013 07:35 PM

Not a bad deal. I have seen one of this kind of television and all I can say is, it is definitively a good bargain.

preacherzson 04-10-2013 07:37 PM

Cool to see a manufacturer trying to price 4K into existence, but a 50" seems to be a waste of time per the CNET article some of the other articles on UltraHDtv.n e t.

"...Is there some wiggle room thanks to variances in how people see? Yes, of course. Here's an awesome chart:http://asset3.cbsistatic.com/cnwk...10x416.jpg
Let's skip ahead a step. Getting bogged down in the specifics misses the big picture. The eye does have a finite resolution, and if you want to argue it's better than 20/20, you're still conceding the point. You're just saying that smaller 4K TVs are viable. How much smaller? Well, not 50 inches. Probably not 60 inches, either.

CSIG1001 04-10-2013 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8thMan (Post 58789896)

Very well written article :worship:

Emjay 04-10-2013 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lAz1e (Post 58789616)
Nobody ever said 4k = 4x1080.
4k = 4x THE RESOLUTION of a 1080 TV.
A 1080 TV's resolution is 1920x1080.

TVs have 2 dimensions, height and width. 4x1080 only means that theres 4 1080 tvs next to each other.. it just makes it a reallllllllllly long tv. That is only taking into consideration the pixels width-wise. You need to take into consideration the number of pixels height-wise.

1920x1080 is 1 TV. Put 4 of them together (so that it still forms a TV looking shape, not a super long hot dog shape) and thats what a 4k TV is.

,
That's not true. 720P is about 1MP, 900P is about 1.5 (I'm rounding these off BTW), 1080P is about 2MP, 4K is about 8MP (all referred to here is a 16:9 screen). I'd take my Samsung Plasma any day over this 4K Led. Leds look plastic IMO.


So yes, 4K has 4X the amount of pixels then that of a 1080P 16:9 screen. 2MP X4 = 8MP....... which 4K has.

n3rdftw 04-10-2013 07:39 PM

yall got trolled hard.

the new "official" term is now Ultra HD btw

CSIG1001 04-10-2013 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by preacherzson (Post 58790088)
Cool to see a manufacturer trying to price 4K into existence, but a 50" seems to be a waste of time per the CNET article some of the other articles on UltraHDtv.n e t.

"...Is there some wiggle room thanks to variances in how people see? Yes, of course. Here's an awesome chart:http://asset3.cbsistatic.com/cnwk...10x416.jpg
Let's skip ahead a step. Getting bogged down in the specifics misses the big picture. The eye does have a finite resolution, and if you want to argue it's better than 20/20, you're still conceding the point. You're just saying that smaller 4K TVs are viable. How much smaller? Well, not 50 inches. Probably not 60 inches, either.

Not only that but the motion response time is piss poor. Whoever falls for this set , well im not going to say anything because id just offend people

geocacher99 04-10-2013 07:39 PM

Red ray player coming out at $1500...hopefully these prices fall fast

Shoryuken23 04-10-2013 07:40 PM

Do any PC games support this resolution? PC games support 2560x1440 and 1600 but not sure about this res. Sorry if this has been asked already. If they dont support the native res. would running the game in 1440 look decent on this tv?

primetime2113 04-10-2013 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleeping (Post 58788890)
Seki is a samsung tv made in Canton, Michigan, USA.

:lmao::lol: A TV that is made in America? Didnt think that existed, plus do they make them in Michigan and then just base their business location out of Diamond Bar, California since the mailing address is located there?

CSIG1001 04-10-2013 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoryuken23 (Post 58790146)
Do any PC games support this resolution? PC games support 2560x1440 and 1600 but not sure about this res. Sorry if this has been asked already. If they dont support the native res. would running the game in 1440 look decent on this tv?

Probably not since it isnt native res. also 30hz at 4k no thanks

seanleeforever 04-10-2013 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788464)
umm....resolution 3840x2160 ....I thought 4K was relative to 1080p ...meaning the 2160 isn't 4K ....

4k was a movie format, this has nothing to do with the naming of 1080 or 720 TV.

wasabi_fu 04-10-2013 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seanleeforever (Post 58790184)
4k was a movie format, this has nothing to do with the naming of 1080 or 720 TV.

oh really! sez u.

Pec 04-10-2013 07:43 PM

No display port?! boooooo

GoatSaver 04-10-2013 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoryuken23 (Post 58790146)
Do any PC games support this resolution? PC games support 2560x1440 and 1600 but not sure about this res. Sorry if this has been asked already. If they dont support the native res. would running the game in 1440 look decent on this tv?

At the price, you can imagine this tv is not going to be great at anything.

Sony's 4k sets upconvert any input signal, so any native 1080 source will look better than it would on a 1080 tv. Not sure if this display does any onboard upconverting.

There's an upconverting bluray player Sony launched last summer for $250.

Games do support 4k, but you need a couple cards to drive that resolution, a pair of 7970's will handle 4k pretty well.

Shoryuken23 04-10-2013 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoatSaver (Post 58790286)
At the price, you can imagine this tv is not going to be great at anything.

Sony's 4k sets upconvert any input signal, so any native 1080 source will look better than it would on a 1080 tv. Not sure if this display does any onboard upconverting.

There's an upconverting bluray player Sony launched last summer for $250.

Games do support 4k, but you need a couple cards to drive that resolution, a pair of 7970's will handle 4k pretty well.


I have a 4gb GTX 670. I guess I could SLI it. Wonder if Bioshock Infinite would look much better on this than my Samsung 1080 LED.

jmecherul 04-10-2013 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoatSaver (Post 58790286)
At the price, you can imagine this tv is not going to be great at anything.

Sony's 4k sets upconvert any input signal, so any native 1080 source will look better than it would on a 1080 tv. Not sure if this display does any onboard upconverting.

There's an upconverting bluray player Sony launched last summer for $250.

Games do support 4k, but you need a couple cards to drive that resolution, a pair of 7970's will handle 4k pretty well.


lol, i would rather use two 7970s for bitcoin mining than playing video game in 4k (totally out of the left field but had to make the comment)

ubersanger 04-10-2013 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubersanger (Post 58789776)
Seiki is a brand of the Chinese manufacturer TongFang. Chinese based BOE has been thier primary panel supplier, but BOE does not appear to manufacture 4K panels as of right now. Innolux seems to be the only company doing 50" sized 4k, so its a good bet that this is an Innolux panel. See this article about current 4K panel production:
http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/...n_2013.asp

A survey of available panels on Panelook indicates that indeed Innolux is the only one with 50" panels currently available. They offer two models, one 3d, one non-3d. Given that, most likely the panel used in this TV is this one:
http://www.panelook.com/V500DK1-L...17279.html

This is not a Samsung panel as Samsung does not make 4k panels in this size as of now.

I may have to correct myself. BOE does make 4k panels. In fact, they supply Samsung with a lot of them for the Chinese market. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find any spec sheets, data, or model numbers for whatever 4k panels they offer. This could be a BOE panel rather than Innolux. The darn panel market changes so fast, its hard to keep up with it.

z32tt 04-10-2013 07:52 PM

4k is so stupid for any screen smaller than 80"

Emjay 04-10-2013 07:55 PM

Good luck on your refresh rates for those who want this. 4K will not go well with the latest version of HDMI. I guarantee this one supports HDMI 1.4 since 2.0 isn't even out yet. For pictures you'll be fine though. To have a genuine 4K TV you need thunderbolt 20Gbs or HDMI 2.0.

Dlauth 04-10-2013 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecherul (Post 58790330)
lol, i would rather use two 7970s for bitcoin mining than playing video game in 4k (totally out of the left field but had to make the comment)


Yeah! another miner in here :)

Mysticman 04-10-2013 08:04 PM

From a hands on review of the 84" Sony Bravia XBR-84X900 3D LCD Ultra HDTV.

Quote: For those still unfamiliar, Ultra HD is the latest moniker for the consumer version of the “4K” high-resolution video format that comes out of the digital cinema realm. Technically speaking, Ultra HDTVs offer 3840 x 2160 pixel resolution, or exactly four times the number of pixels present in the existing 1080p standard, otherwise known as full HD. While plans are afoot to crank up development and home delivery of native 4K content to watch on the new displays, for the present and probably near future, most of the program material will be upconverted from 1920 x 1080 pixels. So a huge concern for reviewers and consumers alike is whether traditional HD can be scaled from 2K to 4K in a way that truly challenges the quality of native 4K,

Full review: http://www.hometheater.com/conten...ultra-hdtv

GoatSaver 04-10-2013 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoeniix (Post 58788936)
Would have to sit less than 2.5 feet from the TV for your eyes to see the full benefit of 4k on a 50" HDTV on a 2160p resolution feed vs sitting less than 6.5 feet to see the full benefit of 1080 on a 1080p feed.

A handy chart for everyone:
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

This chart is based on the notion that the human eye can resolve 1/60th of a degree of an arc, or 1 arc minute. Some studies have suggested that the human eye can actually resolve at 30 arc seconds (1/2 arc minute), in which case each distance on the chart would be doubled. I think the chart is pretty accurate for video, harder to tell the difference in resolutions of a moving image than a still one.

I'd go for a 4k ~30" as a monitor, but for a tv I'd want 60+ just so I could keep a normal feeling viewing distance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecherul (Post 58790330)
lol, i would rather use two 7970s for bitcoin mining than playing video game in 4k (totally out of the left field but had to make the comment)

Why not do both? Did you sell before the drop today? Pretty big correction, but given prices a few months ago it's not surprising.

GoatSaver 04-10-2013 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoryuken23 (Post 58790312)
I have a 4gb GTX 670. I guess I could SLI it. Wonder if Bioshock Infinite would look much better on this than my Samsung 1080 LED.

I doubt it, this is not likely to be a very high quality display, and if you value high refresh rate then the lack of DVI is a big setback. 2560x1440/1600 is a nice spot to be in for gaming right now, some nice displays in that space.

GoatSaver 04-10-2013 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by z32tt (Post 58790350)
4k is so stupid for any screen smaller than 80"

That doesn't make sense, whether or not 4k is of benefit depends on viewing distance and screen size. In the average dorm room, a 50" 4k would probably be just right as you'd be sitting only a few feet back.

JiNaMoN 04-10-2013 08:18 PM

I have a question. I can barely notice any specific pixels on my friends 720p 42 inch tv, let alone my 39 inch 1080p. My dad has the 70 inch sharp quatron in 1080p and movies are perfect and you really can't differentiate pixels. Why would i ever need 4k resolution? If it already looks super clear, what's the point? What I'm truly waiting for is a hologram projector or something like that, but i know these will take a long time to enter the average home. So again, why 4k vs 1080p? We could all see the divergence between 480p and 1080p but not so much if it goes any higher.

jmecherul 04-10-2013 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoatSaver (Post 58790514)
A handy chart for everyone:
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

This chart is based on the notion that the human eye can resolve 1/60th of a degree of an arc, or 1 arc minute. Some studies have suggested that the human eye can actually resolve at 30 arc seconds (1/2 arc minute), in which case each distance on the chart would be doubled. I think the chart is pretty accurate for video, harder to tell the difference in resolutions of a moving image than a still one.

I'd go for a 4k ~30" as a monitor, but for a tv I'd want 60+ just so I could keep a normal feeling viewing distance.


Why not do both? Did you sell before the drop today? Pretty big correction, but given prices a few months ago it's not surprising.

No time for gaming.

No, I did not sell. I do not have many BTCs. Just got a 7970 running here, but i do it mostly for fun. That was a bid drop, but it is around where it was hoovering 2 days ago.

Dudeskis 04-10-2013 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788692)
Okay, but that still doesn't mean 4K is 4x1080p.

*facepalm...

And this person votes....

nicedart 04-10-2013 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788906)
4K does not mean 4x, it means 4K ....meaning 4000 or some such number. K is for kilo.

Public school has failed you.

rebelx 04-10-2013 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788692)
Okay, but that still doesn't mean 4K is 4x1080p.

Huh? No one said it's 4x 1080p. Not sure if you're trying to justify the "4" in 4K, but that wouldn't make sense either since it was never advertised that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiNaMoN (Post 58790730)
I have a question. I can barely notice any specific pixels on my friends 720p 42 inch tv, let alone my 39 inch 1080p. My dad has the 70 inch sharp quatron in 1080p and movies are perfect and you really can't differentiate pixels. Why would i ever need 4k resolution? If it already looks super clear, what's the point? What I'm truly waiting for is a hologram projector or something like that, but i know these will take a long time to enter the average home. So again, why 4k vs 1080p? We could all see the divergence between 480p and 1080p but not so much if it goes any higher.

Back in the day, people thought 480p was "super clear."

GoatSaver 04-10-2013 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiNaMoN (Post 58790730)
I have a question. I can barely notice any specific pixels on my friends 720p 42 inch tv, let alone my 39 inch 1080p. My dad has the 70 inch sharp quatron in 1080p and movies are perfect and you really can't differentiate pixels. Why would i ever need 4k resolution? If it already looks super clear, what's the point? What I'm truly waiting for is a hologram projector or something like that, but i know these will take a long time to enter the average home. So again, why 4k vs 1080p? We could all see the divergence between 480p and 1080p but not so much if it goes any higher.

You likely don't sit close enough to notice the difference. We have a 43" 720 in our bedroom because from the distance we're watching from it's good enough.

Many people don't sit close enough to notice, which is why 4k will probably have a slower adoption rate than 1080 had. Many home theater buffs use the THX standard for viewing distance (screen size / 0.84) , from that distance the average person will be able to tell the difference between 1080 and 4k. So for this 50" tv that'd be 50 / 0.84 = ~5 feet away. The big Sony 84" puts you at 100" or 8.333".

RcketScientist 04-10-2013 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788816)
I agree with this. Simple math. No marketing "we will use the big number now" ploy!

Actually that's slightly incorrect. They switched from using the height to the width (1080h v. 3840w) and took some liberties in their rounding. The term 4k itself is not relative to 1080 and is a marketing ploy.

DQue 04-10-2013 08:33 PM

Do 4K HDTV make tits any bigger? If that's true, finally Hollywood has found its hail-Mary to put even more sex in its movies.

Emjay 04-10-2013 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dlauth (Post 58790468)
Yeah! another miner in here :)

Sorry to be Off in left field, but the hell is a bitcoin? And why is one worth over $100?

koven 04-10-2013 08:40 PM

2160p on a 50" ?? :lol:

azoiic 04-10-2013 08:42 PM

No wifi killed the deal for me. lol

HeinzCatSoup 04-10-2013 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788464)
umm....resolution 3840x2160 ....I thought 4K was relative to 1080p ...meaning the 2160 isn't 4K ....

wrong

jmecherul 04-10-2013 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emjay (Post 58791002)
Sorry to be Off in left field, but the hell is a bitcoin? And why is one worth over $100?

bitcoins is a form digital currency. not made by any government and you mine them by using computer resources. price was $14 at the end of December and shot up to $266 today before going down to $120 and now is at 170. an hr ago it was at $158. Some wild fluctuations.

do a google search and find out more.

ranova 04-10-2013 08:48 PM

im assuming this tv has hdmi 1.4 which is needed for 4k?

isleepwithgoats 04-10-2013 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8thMan (Post 58789896)

I dont think so.
Quote:

When I first starting pointing out most people didn't need 1080p TVs (in the age of 720p flat panels), I knew -- and said at the time -- that 1080p was inevitable. I was just trying to save people some money. That's all I'm trying to do here. Nothing I say will have any effect on what the corporate giants decide to force on us mortals
Witch please...

Lukkie 04-10-2013 08:58 PM

Whoa when did the future get here

Neo42 04-10-2013 08:59 PM

I want this to use it as a monitor on my desk at work. :bounce:

boourns84 04-10-2013 09:02 PM

LOL @ buying a media box for $650 with 10 movies...

I'm excited for this stuff but I need to give it a few years. I remember when dvd players were 400 dollars.

Mcdrew88 04-10-2013 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788980)
I have my TV lying flat on the ground with the screen facing towards the ground, so that the light doesn't bother me when I am sleeping. Which direction is that? Now, if I could just figure out how to direct the sound away from my ears, I can get a good nights rest.

Again, 4K is not 4 times (or 4x) 1080p, it is 2 x 1080p. The person that said 1080p was 2K was the closest one to actually getting it right. Rtard.

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make with your nonstop posts. I quit reading them after a couple pages. No one claimed that 4K is 4 x 1080p. It's 4K, as in 4000, as in the number you get if you round up the horizontal resolution. Do you want them to call it 2160p? I get that that would be more consistent, but it also sounds terrible. Yes, 2K would still be more consistent, but that's not what they're going with. Just accept it. 4K is a much more manageable title for the layperson than 2160p.

Anyway, a 50" 4K TV is a complete waste. Go ahead and think "bigger is better", but it's not true with a TV this small (ha, I can't believe I just called a 50" TV "small"). You really need a large room with a very large TV (>70") for it to matter. And even then, the difference is hardly noticeable.

4K makes a difference at the movie theater! Do not get duped into buying into it for your home! [filmmakeriq.com] Unless you have a seriously large TV.

travfar 04-10-2013 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emjay (Post 58791002)
Sorry to be Off in left field, but the hell is a bitcoin? And why is one worth over $100?

http://slickdeals.net/f/5942784-Forget-the-dollar-Bitcoins-are-the-real-safe-currency

teaberry 04-10-2013 09:11 PM

So what video card support that res today?

Jackeduphard 04-10-2013 09:12 PM

So not sure if this is real ... WTF?!?!??!

Neo42 04-10-2013 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teaberry (Post 58791426)
So what video card support that res today?

Probably anything w/ an HDMI1.4 or later port. Or Thunderbolt/Displayport. I have a GT 540M in my laptop. With a gig of ram I'd hope it'd do it. Wouldn't try to play any games at that res though.

EDIT: Crap, I'm wrong. It will only go to 2560x1600. Lame

SaneLemming 04-10-2013 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooloud10 (Post 58788588)
Netflix is saying that they will be streaming 4k "in the next year or two".
Sony will have a streaming box with ten movies included for $699 this summer.
YouTube streams in 4k.
Sony PS4 will support 4k.
Redray is a 4k movie streaming service but the box costs $1450.

It's coming.

The thing you're overlooking here is that pixels matter far less than bit-rate in these systems of delivery. Even when I watch the best bitrate of a HD stream from netflix right now the image is really overcompressed. More pixels won't help that...in fact, they could just make it worse.

To get a reasonable delivery of 4k content you'd really need something like a nationwide rollout of google fiber, and good luck with that... I know there are some real optimists that think that's coming, but yeah... I'm living in a world where ISPs have traffic shaping and caps, and are far more interested in squeezing more value out of their existing network than expanding it for better service.

There is a LOT more than just devices to plug into a TV to get native 4k content in wide distribution. Basically, you're going to be left with upconversion as your source for some time. While upconversion isn't really a bad thing...would anyone really say that it was upconverted dvds that sold them on 1080P, or was it the first time you actually saw that TV showing native content?

dowayne 04-10-2013 09:19 PM

Well i like the price and its better for us because that means the other manufactures will have to make their 4k tv's affordable because we have alternatives lol. Not sure if this up converts 1080p content like the lg's and sammy. Thats the only reason i would by a 4k tv today only if it can upconvert and as we see that we have two types of resolution just like 1080i and 1080p. I would like a lg though but i know the price will be a bit high

yanchu 04-10-2013 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSIG1001 (Post 58788826)
Wow more junk from china , ill take a panny plasma over this any day

Great price but the Amazon reviews on this brand are not encouraging.

Neo42 04-10-2013 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaneLemming (Post 58791530)
The thing you're overlooking here is that pixels matter far less than bit-rate in these systems of delivery. Even when I watch the best bitrate of a HD stream from netflix right now the image is really overcompressed. More pixels won't help that...in fact, they could just make it worse.

To get a reasonable delivery of 4k content you'd really need something like a nationwide rollout of google fiber, and good luck with that... I know there are some real optimists that think that's coming, but yeah... I'm living in a world where ISPs have traffic shaping and caps, and are far more interested in squeezing more value out of their existing network than expanding it for better service.

There is a LOT more than just devices to plug into a TV to get native 4k content in wide distribution. Basically, you're going to be left with upconversion as your source for some time. While upconversion isn't really a bad thing...would anyone really say that it was upconverted dvds that sold them on 1080P, or was it the first time you actually saw that TV showing native content?

Satellite TV can easily support 4 simultaneous 1080p streams, along w/ digital cable.. that's equivalent to 4k res.

But really, consumers don't need this res. Except for maybe as a computer display. And then we're talking crazy consumers (like me)

spydersdeals69 04-10-2013 09:23 PM

4K TV math lessons by high school dropouts and bitcoin chatter/douchebraggery all in the same thread? :omg:

Maybe the Mayans were right...or maybe I just wish they were. :(

teaberry 04-10-2013 09:24 PM

Yeah, I have the same in my m11x and it wont go beyond current 30" monitor res :hug: . I also have an ATI 6950 2GB in my desktop that can do two 2560x1600 output, but I don't think it can handle a single 4K output so that's why I was wondering.

While HDMI 1.4 may support up to 4K res, the manufacture of the video card has to implement the hardware that can push it. I don't know of any card that can do it, but I'm sure a Savvy SDer will prove me wrong. This is soooo tempting.

I take it back, looks like there are two cards: GTX 680 and ATI 7970 with ATI handling 4K a bit better. So another $400 for a vid card?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo42 (Post 58791512)
Probably anything w/ an HDMI1.4 or later port. Or Thunderbolt/Displayport. I have a GT 540M in my laptop. With a gig of ram I'd hope it'd do it. Wouldn't try to play any games at that res though.

EDIT: Crap, I'm wrong. It will only go to 2560x1600. Lame


isleepwithgoats 04-10-2013 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo42 (Post 58791286)
I want this to use it as a monitor on my desk at work. :bounce:



For sure. A monitor this size and resolution, albeit 60Hz, was 50.000$ until recently.

Neo42 04-10-2013 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teaberry (Post 58791628)
Yeah, I have the same in my m11x and it wont go beyond current 30" monitor res :hug: . I also have an ATI 6950 2GB in my desktop that can do two 2560x1600 output, but I don't think it can handle a single 4K output so that's why I was wondering.

While HDMI 1.4 may support up to 4K res, the manufacture of the video card has to implement the hardware that can push it. I don't know of any card that can do it, but I'm sure a Savvy SDer will prove me wrong. This is soooo tempting.

Problem is the bandwidth allowed by the connection. HDMI 1.4 will only do this resolution at a maximum of 30hz. I don't think any modern video card with a gig of ram would have problem rendering a desktop that size internally. Retina macbooks are close.

GoatSaver 04-10-2013 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mcdrew88 (Post 58791348)
I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make with your nonstop posts. I quit reading them after a couple pages. No one claimed that 4K is 4 x 1080p. It's 4K, as in 4000, as in the number you get if you round up the horizontal resolution. Do you want them to call it 2160p? I get that that would be more consistent, but it also sounds terrible. Yes, 2K would still be more consistent, but that's not what they're going with. Just accept it. 4K is a much more manageable title for the layperson than 2160p.

Anyway, a 50" 4K TV is a complete waste. Go ahead and think "bigger is better", but it's not true with a TV this small (ha, I can't believe I just called a 50" TV "small"). You really need a large room with a very large TV (>70") for it to matter. And even then, the difference is hardly noticeable.

4K makes a difference at the movie theater! Do not get duped into buying into it for your home! [filmmakeriq.com] Unless you have a seriously large TV.

Um... what's becoming the standard 4k resolution is exactly 4x 1080 displays, as many people have said. As in, 4- 1920x1080 TV's in a 2x2 array = 1- 4k tv.

Again, the screen size is but one variable, it's useless without viewing distance. The further away you sit, the bigger the screen you need to tell the difference between 1080 and 4k, but it's a linear relationship. A 30" 4k would be awesome for a computer monitor, a 4k 50" would be awesome if you sat 5 feet back from your tv. You only need a huge tv if you have a huge distance between you and the tv. If you're content with less than ideal viewing distance, then 4k at any size won't matter to you, but for those of use that do, cheaper 4k sets are exciting, because more will follow.

Windows7User 04-10-2013 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbrukardt (Post 58789302)
trouble is you'll never get over 30fps due to the hdmi limit. I really really wish this thing had dvi or even displayport and id be all over it for a monitor

Saw that, and i got sad :(

nahpungnome 04-10-2013 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleeping (Post 58788890)
Seki is a samsung tv made in Canton, Michigan, USA.

Seki is slang for little kid more or less in Korean, so maybe you're right :-)

avhokie 04-10-2013 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rtard (Post 58788908)
Oh my god you have to be joking. No real human is this obtuse. 1080 is the HEIGHT of the screen. 2160 is the HEIGHT of the 4k tv. Why do you comment on things you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about?


Height? It must suck to be so wrong.

Neo42 04-10-2013 09:41 PM

Hey, for anyone seriously considering this... shopnbc is selling for the same price but including two year extended warranty:

http://www.shopnbc.com/Seiki_50_S...7-325.aspx

Wish I had a way to drive the damn thing :(

lateniteSDer 04-10-2013 09:41 PM

lol @ comments.

"NO, YOU'RE A PIXEL!"

needgeech 04-10-2013 09:46 PM

K is a possible acronym/abbreviation for kilo, but not official. The main designated "K" in scientific terms is Kelvin.

The P from "1080p" is not official either. P, in scientific terms, stands for Phosphorous if anything.

Just bustin' your chops. Its late.

The easy way for me to think about this is that I could have 4 x 25" 1080p displays on this tv/monitor which makes it 4k or 4x X 1080p. . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788866)

yep, all good here, except K means kilo or 1000. K does not mean horizontal resolution. 4K does mean around 4000 pixels in the horizontal direction.


itsmeagain5789 04-10-2013 09:50 PM

Wow, I feel left out of the game. I actually had to google what 4k was....

illuminati 04-10-2013 09:55 PM

Oh boy.. I am really gonna show everyone with this "4k" TV everyone is gonna be so jealous.

Oh wait it's seiki....

SaneLemming 04-10-2013 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo42 (Post 58791602)
Satellite TV can easily support 4 simultaneous 1080p streams, along w/ digital cable.. that's equivalent to 4k res.

But really, consumers don't need this res. Except for maybe as a computer display. And then we're talking crazy consumers (like me)

Could, but won't. They're still operating with limited bandwidth that they'd rather split between many channels rather than a few with better quality.

Getting back to the point of bitrate...look at the 1080P they offer. It isn't much better than the netflix HD streams. Fast motion is blocky and any gradient (think of dark scenes) has banding. 4k won't help. People are just acting like throwing more pixels at it will make things sharper, but a lot of what makes your video look like crap is the compression used to get it to you. Trying to compress a larger image even more isn't going to make that better, and it's actually an exercise in stupidity when you realize that a lot of the source content will start off as 1080P, upconverted to 4k, then compressed again to something like 6mbps (I would not be at all surprised if they don't improve much from what streaming currently uses). Maybe they go wild and kick it up to something like 10mbps...still less than half of a bluray playing 1080P.

Basically, nobody will have a switch they just flip to give you a good 4k experience in the next year or 2 as the post I originally responded to suggested. I'm sure they'll offer crap looking "4k content" on a limited basis, but it'll still be stuff that'll look worse than if you just streamed 1080 at the same rate.

arashb 04-10-2013 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by needgeech (Post 58791926)
K is a possible acronym/abbreviation for kilo, but not official. The main designated "K" in scientific terms is Kelvin.

The P from "1080p" is not official either. P, in scientific terms, stands for Phosphorous if anything.

Just bustin' your chops. Its late.

The easy way for me to think about this is that I could have 4 x 25" 1080p displays on this tv/monitor which makes it 4k or 4x X 1080p. . .

This is slickdeals, science does not apply. That's why you can have 13 pages of people saying the stupidest thing like "4K = 4x 1080p"

vd853 04-10-2013 10:01 PM

woo, this could be my new computer monitor 0_0

wasabi_fu 04-10-2013 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenomeTuning (Post 58791088)
wrong


yes, you are :wave:

dtmamg 04-10-2013 10:05 PM

must be the "ultimate(almost) tech week". from $200 pioneer BR player, $600 pioneer 1552 and now this wow

Tnyc 04-10-2013 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasabi_fu (Post 58788906)
4K does not mean 4x, it means 4K ....meaning 4000 or some such number. K is for kilo.

So lets say if you sell TVs for BestBuy and a customer ask you "why do I need a 4K TV for?" You will tell them that it's sharper than the current HD TVs (assuming that its 1080p) because it has TWICE the number of pixel density? So then in a few long years, they will make 8K which is going to be TWICE the pixel density of 4K TVs?

pipdipchip 04-10-2013 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arashb (Post 58792070)
This is slickdeals, science does not apply. That's why you can have 13 pages of people saying the stupidest thing like "4K = 4x 1080p"

I was reading the first couple of pages of this thread and thinking "what idiots". At least it was entertaining. As far as I know, 4k isn't even a "marketing term". 4k is basically a slang word. "Ultra HD" is the marketing term that will be used.

It's amazing to see a 4k TV for this price. This honestly came out of nowhere. I can't wait to see some reviews of this set once some people get it. For those looking for native content, YouTube allows 4k content. Getting the video from your PC to the screen might be an issue at that resolution though.

lazybummm 04-10-2013 10:15 PM

does computer video card support 4k yet? anyway to output it?

solarisV 04-10-2013 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleeping (Post 58788890)
Seki is a samsung tv made in Canton, Michigan, USA.

I guess he meant US junk. People always think stuff made in the USA is good. Anyone can put together some crap in their garage slap a made in USA tag on it and people in the US will think its good stuff.

wasabi_fu 04-10-2013 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tnyc (Post 58792122)
So lets say if you sell TVs for BestBuy and a customer ask you "why do I need a 4K TV for?" You will tell them that it's sharper than the current HD TVs (assuming that its 1080p) because it has TWICE the number of pixel density? So then in a few long years, they will make 8K which is going to be TWICE the pixel density of 4K TVs?


By then, Best Buy won't be around. Did I get it right?

pipdipchip 04-10-2013 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazybummm (Post 58792202)
does computer video card support 4k yet? anyway to output it?

Most new video cards support 4k resolutions. HDMI 1.4 must be used to connect to the TV and you'll be limited to 24 frames because of the HDMI bandwidth limit. However, if you have an newer video card with HDMI 1.4 and a HDMI 1.4 cable, you should be able to display 4k content on your TV.

salviadog 04-10-2013 10:23 PM

Disregarding the terrible maths in this thread, I haven't been this excited about a specific technology in years. I don't care about how they market them, I don't care if my eyes can't see the difference from 100 yards away, I'm not even that interested in the 4k tv itself. The big picture for me is this will drive up the resolution for computer monitors and it will drive up bandwidth.

It will only be a matter of time before we see 27" 4K monitors for $300. How many years have we had to stare in awe at the $1000 Dell 30" with a paltry 2560x1600 resolution? Now we are all going to get a much higher resolution at a much lower price point. Sure it will take some time, but it will get there.

Back in 2010, netflix instant accounted for 20% of internet usage, and now they want to stream 4K. Every aspect of bandwidth will have to increase. Users will require more of it, ISPs will have to upgrade their infrastructures, servers will have to be upgraded to supply the bandwidth.

It's a great time to be a nerd!

daveleone 04-10-2013 10:24 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tnyc (Post 58792122)
So then in a few long years, they will make 8K which is going to be TWICE the pixel density of 4K TVs?

Sharp already made an 8K TV. Saw it at CES this year :)

Binar 04-10-2013 10:25 PM

Pricemistake , they forgot a 0 at the end

Speedtrain 04-10-2013 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveleone (Post 58792288)
sharp already made an 8k tv. Saw it at ces this year :)

aaawwwwww mannnnn!!!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:04 PM.


1999-2014