Viewsonic will also be doing a 32 inch 4K monitor too: http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/9/3858124/viewsonic-24-inch-android-display-4k-monitor-prototype Also DisplayPort 1.2 had about 17Gbit/sec of bandwidth which is more than enough for 4K with 10 bits per channel at 60Hz. HDMI 1.4 too has the necessary bandwidth. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
I guess you are the guys who used to turn off the turbo button because your computer was too fast for you.
Dells 30inch monitors have been the same price for years theres just no reason to suggest that a 4k screen will drop in price below whats already out there. At least to the point where most could even consider it. Anything above £300 is still more than most would pay for a screen.
U3011 uses a 10-bit panel. way over the top for nothing, as professionals who would use 10-bit color, would simply buy a professional monitor. 10-bit panels aren;t cheap... already 8-bit panels are expensive as it is. Also, There is no competition on the 30inch market. So you have nothing to drive the price down. Moreover, low demand also plays a part in the high price.
I think I got my 24" Dell in 2007 when prices hit £400.. I think thats the limit I'd ever pay for a screen, so if a top of the range 27" is £400 I think thats about fair..
I'm a professional graphics designer and an end-consumer, so I look at things from this POV. The screens I'm buying allready cost around €1000 and I don't expect these new 4k screens to hit that pricetag within the next five years to come. Not even close. Additionally I buy reasonable hardware, and not the most powerful possible, allthough I can cut them from the tax allmost 100% as a profesional. And as I wrote before. To fuel these 4k-screens, you'd need more powerful GPUs aswell, driving costs up even more, not to forget about your system needing more cooling, getting louder etc. These screens are made to show off, and not becasue they're reasonable screens for 99% of the consumers. The reasonable consumer-screens fit in the €300 category and have FHD-resolution. For professionals the reasonable screens fit into the €1000 category and offer QHD. 4k-screens aren't anywhere reasonable for the next ten years, atleast not for the 99%-majority of end-consumers. Make the current FHD and QHD screens more powerefficient and let them current panels have better contrast and Adobe-RGB coverage. Maybe even get the price of them down a little bit. That's what the manufacturers should invest their efforts in.
Let me guess - in a couple years 4K and 8K TVs will be all the rage, yet terrestrial broadcasting will still be 720p compressed to somewhere around 1.5mbps. I'd prefer the industry put more effort into delivering better compression rather than trying to shove down as much display resolution in the same space. Just because a GoPro claims to record in 4K doesn't mean you're going to get great quality video.
Yeah. And it would be interesting to see those UltraMonsterHighDensityBluRayDvDCDs, where those films with 4k resolution are stored on
As for content, it's always been a chicken-and-egg game. HD was slow to catch on in the beginning because of the exact same reason: there was very little HD content available. I have to give Sony a bit of credit - getting the PS3 into households allowed for a decent push for HD. That said, I've long considered Blu-ray as a transitional format between physical media and streaming content. Whether we're downloading files from iTunes/Amazon and streaming from media servers, or streaming content from 3rd party services (e.g. Hulu, Netflix), I can see physical media becoming a bit like records today. Vinyl records played on a proper system can provide a higher quality sound than MP3s, yet records are a niche product while the masses prefer the ease of streaming low-bandwidth music files. In the near future, a physical disc may be able to hold a 4K movie at a good quality data rate, but I think the masses will be streaming low-bandwidth files. The next things to happen for all of this to occur properly will be the elimination of arbitrary data caps (or all data caps entirely), and the wider adoption of actual high speed internet. Please, Google Fiber, come to Houston!
You are from Texas, you get to enjoy unlimited Internet. In Canada, due to the lack of competition, (and I am sure in many other place around the world where internet is not very develop), we have very small bandwidth quota. Like 65$ for 90GB or 75$ for 125GB, and so on... ridiculous prices, and the price per GB passed, is also ridiculous with no limit, not mention speeds. So, yea... no discs aren't going anywhere, even Netflix with a special low quality video streaming option (turned on by default) for Canada, has a really hard time getting popularized as you can barely watch enough movies or shows per month to make it worth while.
Yep same as the uk goodbytes the fiber packages here are anything but unlimited and cost a small fortune. Not to mension the general lack of support outside of the major cities. Blue ray has struggled but is the future of physical media i feel. Full blue ray is 20gb download so what's 4k going to be 80gb?
That's the beauty of living in countries with perfect infrastructure like Germany or Finland. We can get 50 or even 200 Mbit without any traffic-limits starting at €40/month In most countries it feels like living in the stoneage, when the question is about ADSL/VDSL-contracts.
It has nothing to do with infrastructure. ISP's makes record profit every year, it's the lack of competition. In case of Canada, the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission) basically is saying that competition is bad for the consumer, and doesn't allows any new comer to establish itself.
We have plenty of wide open spaces here, and some mighty beautiful vistas. But one thing we don't have much of is unlimited internet. I used to have a basic AT&T DSL account, and the fastest speed I could expect was 1.5mbps download. Unless I went with business class internet ($$$), there was no faster speed available to me. Along with terrible speeds I also had a data cap. I never hit the data cap, though I did come close one month when I reinstalled Windows XP. Between Windows updates and driver downloads (plus re-downloading a few other programs), I nearly hit the cap. I'm now on AT&T U-verse. Upgrading to U-verse brought me faster speeds (12mbps - still slow by most standards) and raised my data cap a bit. Although my bill is lower now, it's only because I've agreed to an introductory price that came with bundled cable TV. After 6 months, my bill will double and I'll have to call AT&T again to get a new introductory price. I have it good, though. Texas at least has some competition. In other parts of the US there is an effective monopoly by certain ISPs, which means people there pay extremely high prices for poor service. That is what will cripple any real real effort to get quality streaming video to replace physical media. And this is precisely why Google Fiber needs to expand beyond Kansas City!
It's happening - H.265 (aka HEVC) has been invented and is being worked on as a more efficient successor to H.264. It'll be particularly suited to encoding high-resolution video. All that's needed now is for chip makers to develop GPUs or fixed-function logic pipelines that can efficiently encode/decode the format in a power-efficient manner. What are you on about? The situation here is nowhere near as bad as Canada or the US. Plenty of ISPs provide unlimited high-speed broadband via DOCSIS3 (Virgin) or VDSL/fibre (BT, TalkTalk, PlusNet, Sky). Our prices are also a heck of a lot cheaper - 35 quid/month for 100Mbit is pretty good. Not as good as the Nordics/Hungary/Romania but still very reasonable.
4K will become mainstream as did 1080p. The market will really push 4K into our homes, as this is the year that NVidia/AMD/Intel will be backing/supporting the release of 4K with their hardware. So yes there will be a premium to start with, as with anything new on the market, but prices will drop and more people will buy into the 4k market, leading to high demand and cheaper panels.
