4k Survey

[Fred588]

This poll is to get an idea of where members are with respect to 4k playback.

[nachtjaeger]

For me, "standard definition" is still 480i/480p. That's 480 pixels on the short side of the screen. {For clarity, "i" = interlaced; redraws every other line per frame like an analog TV; "p" is progressive scan; redraws every line every frame.
HD for me is still 720p and 1080p. (I think DVDs are 720i.)
I can't imagine ever owning a computer monitor or TV large enough to require 2160p resolution (aka Ultra HD, aka 4k.)

[Chimerix]

How about "I cannot view 4K yet but will migrate when it becomes both affordable and commercially viable."

[Chimerix]

For me, "standard definition" is still 480i/480p. That's 480 pixels on the short side of the screen. {For clarity, "i" = interlaced; redraws every other line per frame like an analog TV; "p" is progressive scan; redraws every line every frame.
HD for me is still 720p and 1080p. (I think DVDs are 720i.)
I can't imagine ever owning a computer monitor or TV large enough to require 2160p resolution (aka Ultra HD, aka 4k.)

SD is 480, either i or p. That's not just you, that's the law. Well, the standard.

DVDs, also, are 480. Both i and p are supported.

Anything higher is technically HD, although there are shades. 720p and 1080i are the current reigning standards, but both are losing ground to 1080p. That's just the march of technology.

UHD is not true 4K. They may stamp "4K" on the box, but just like they tried to brand HDV as HD, it's a marketing lie.

And, imagine it or not, in not too many years you won't have a choice.

Personally, as quickly as things are evolving, I may just give 4K a miss and jump in at 16K.

[awdc]

I have a cinematic 4K monitor (4096 x 2160P) and love it. I'd love more content to be available in this format and at much higher bit rates.

[Duncan Edwards]

I love the look of 4k video on an 80" screen but it's rare that I get to use anything larger than the 24" monitor on my computer. Most viewing seems to take place on screens even smaller than that with laptops, iPads, tablets, phones, etc being everywhere. I'm not sure there's that much benefit to 4k. Add to that the expense of having hardware that will deal with editing 4k vids and I've got the feeling we're still a couple years away before it becomes practical for the producers. It would have to be a really good video for me to want it with resolutions any better than now being delivered at HD.

[Mynock]

Agree with Duncan. Too expensive and no benefit unless viewing on larger screens. Current PC monitor is 24" widescreen, I watch youtube/play games in 1080p. Current TV is a 51" 720p.......don't see the point in getting a Hi Def TV because I'm not paying the atrocious price for Hi-Def cable.

[Quicksand_Hex]

Will upgrade when it makes financial sense. I want to upgrade, but it's way too expensive right now.

[Chimerix]

Agree with Duncan. Too expensive and no benefit unless viewing on larger screens. Current PC monitor is 24" widescreen, I watch youtube/play games in 1080p. Current TV is a 51" 720p.......don't see the point in getting a Hi Def TV because I'm not paying the atrocious price for Hi-Def cable.

720p is Hi-Def.

[Nessie]

Unfortunately my answer is that I should Google "4k" to find out...what it even is. I upgrade nothing anymore until it breaks.

From a financial standpoint, though, whatever it is, you can always save it backward but not forward.

80-inch screens, though? Wowie. I suppose there are folks who would love to view a quicksand video in 80-inch clarity, but lots of our material is viewed clandestinely. That means smaller devices, and all that extra data is irrelevant. Keep monitoring, though, because there probably will be a market down the road. It's not just video quality that can change over time...if monitors did, suddenly 4k could be very relevant.

Nessie