Ultra 4K Tested by Sky

Tom Hanks

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10277864/Sky-in-ultra-high-definition-TV-first.html

Bye Bye 3D imo.

mackersdublin

Tom Hanks wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10277864/Sky-in-ultra-high-definition-TV-first.html

Bye Bye 3D imo.

Hence why Sky have stopped saying HD all the time when promoting forthcoming programmes. Just Sky Sports 1, not Sky Sports 1 HD in Ads and on Sky Sports News etc.

icdg

Moved to Satellite (and slightly renamed)

NIMAN

Stoke v West Ham !!

4k or not, you can't polish a turd.

Doodah7

And without doubt they will make sure that subscribers pay handsomely for it.

The upside might be that Sky finally get rid of their scandalous monthly HD charge...

homelink

I wouldn't get overly excited by 4k. There are plenty of articles about the human eye cant really detect too much of a difference when you talk about the average screen sizes used in the home today. Ultra Hi-Def only comes into it,s own when massive screens are used. I would be very surprised if People started rushing out to buy 100" TV's.:rolleyes: May be good for glasses free 3D though.

mackersdublin

homelink wrote: »

I wouldn't get overly excited by 4k. There are plenty of articles about the human eye cant really detect too much of a difference when you talk about the average screen sizes used in the home today. Ultra Hi-Def only comes into it,s own when massive screens are used. I would be very surprised if People started rushing out to buy 100" TV's.:rolleyes: May be good for glasses free 3D though.

You can buy Samsung or Sony (55" or 65") in the UK for £3,300 or £5,000

http://www.johnlewis.com/electricals/televisions/all-tvs/4k+led=screentype-alltvs-2054/c800005013

homelink

mackersdublin wrote: »

You can buy Samsung or Sony (55" or 65") in the UK for £3,300 or £5,000

http://www.johnlewis.com/electricals/televisions/all-tvs/4k+led=screentype-alltvs-2054/c800005013

Even at 65" the difference between 1080P & 4k As detected by the Human eye will be minimal. A screen could have a hundred times the resolution of hd but the eye isn't capable of telling the difference.

byte

The current HD broadcasts would look a bit better too if some weren't so heavily compressed.
4K might suit pubs or commercial premises that invest in very large 4K screens. Or indeed homes of the rich and famous that have space and bank balance to allow for 100" screens.

lertsnim

Some of the HD on Sky is ropey. As always broadcasters cram too much onto transponders.

NIMAN

So true. Broadcasts on satellite have always been less than they should have been in terms of quality, starting with SD.

Then they moved on to HD, but watered that down too, so its not as good as it could be, and now they are trying to sell us something else when they aren't even giving us the best HD they could.

TCP/IP

Guys the difference between HD and 4K even on a small screen like a 55inch is massive the clarity is unreal.
I would buy a 4K TV tomorrow if Sky could give me 4K Sky Sports and Sky Movies its simply unreal.
I really think that once Apple launch their new Apple TV (I mean proper TV not the current media box) and that will support 4K I would suspect that it will really take off. Come on Sky give us 4K.

homelink

This article may help anyone who is interested,
http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

TCP/IP

I like the calculator at the end of that article. But if you watch demos of 1080p side by side with 4K content the difference is very noticeable indeed.

Alun

TCP/IP wrote: »

Guys the difference between HD and 4K even on a small screen like a 55inch is massive the clarity is unrealy.

In what universe is 55" considered a "small" screen, unless you live in a barn?

TCP/IP

Alun wrote: »

In what universe is 55" considered a "small" screen, unless you live in a barn?

In the home cinema world 55 inch is not big at all.

homelink

spend 30k on building a room, 25k on a 100" tv and sit 3 feet away from it. Then you will see the difference.:):)

NIMAN

The Chavs already have 55" TVs in a tiny living room.

enfant terrible

byte wrote: »

The current HD broadcasts would look a bit better too if some weren't so heavily compressed.
4K might suit pubs or commercial premises that invest in very large 4K screens. Or indeed homes of the rich and famous that have space and bank balance to allow for 100" screens.

Yes I remember getting Sky HD on launch day and the BBC HD picture on launch was excellent for the World Cup.

Think the bit rate back then was over 30mbps.