Tweet
[SIZE=4][B]Forget about Full HD, 4K TV is coming and it could be all down to photographers[/B][/SIZE]
4Kx2K TV is being positioned by Hollywood and the TV industry as the natural successor to today's Full HD. 4Kx2K resolution is up to 4096x2160 pixels (3840x2160 pixels for 16:9 wide screen content). That compares with 1920x1080 for Full HD and 1280x720 for standard HD. A 4K screen is basically 8 megapixels compared to 2 megapixels for 1080 full HD.
4K sounds impressive but it could be 8-10 years before 4K becomes established with broadcasters. Some even ask why we need it at all because to them 1080 Full HD is good enough. So what does four times the resolution mean compared to 1080 Full HD? Apple's latest 'Retina' display iPads already exceed full HD resolution, as do some high end workstation monitors. So part of the argument is that we already need higher resolution video to keep up with display technology.
TV manufacturers would dearly like to have a new standard to build new products for. In Japan Toshiba has had a 4K TV on sale for over a year, although it does cost around 9,000 Euros. The easiest bit is to make compatible TVs, but that's no good if there is no 4K content to play on your shiny new 4K TV. Or is there?
[B]4K-capable stills cameras coming soon?[/B]
The signs are that consumer digital cameras will soon be available with 4K video recording capability, perhaps within the next 18 months. Canon has already announced a 4K-capable 'C' version of its EOS-1D DSLR and there are several pro-spec. video cameras capable of recording in 4K format.
The 4K-capable consumer cameras predicted to be just around the corners are digital stills cameras, like we have today but with a 4K video option alongside the familiar HD video mode. You would then watch your clips by connecting your camera to a 4K TV via a cable or even wirelessly, or via a removable storage device like a memory card. 4K content could soon be offered by online services like You Tube.
[B]
4K popularity could be driven by still photography display quality[/B]
Not only will 4K video recorded on stills cameras be the first way of capitalising on 4K displays, but there is a school of thought that these displays will be loved by photographers because 8 million pixels promise to show your stills in the kind of glory that today's Full HD displays can't. Someone pointed out that to make a high quality photo print at the same size as, say, a 60 or 70 inch TV display would cost well something approaching �100. You can show as many photos as you like on a big 4K display for nothing more than the initial price of that display.
So there you have it - you won't see 4K broadcast TV for up to a decade but 4K TVs will appear well in advance thanks to the introduction of stills cameras that can produce 4K content - in both stills and video formats.
We don't pay for HD but we do have a full-HD 32" TV. We have normal SD through Virginmedia.
The picture quality on most cable channels is absolutely *atrocious* - the picture breaking up, pixelating, every time something moves and often when everything is still also.
This isn't a SD vs HD thing because the quality on regular channels like BBC1 is just fine (most of the time) even though it's still SD.
It must have something to do with how woefully compressed the picture is for those cable channels. SD TV is more than capable of showing perfectly decent pictures, as indicated by BBC1 - so why are the cable channels so prone to breaking up with huge amounts of pixellation pretty much ruining the viewing experience?
If today's system is incapable of transmitting decent quality SD across-the-board then I don't even want to get into 4K and I don't see that it's worth paying extra for a couple of HD channels.
They need to sort out SD - walk before they go running.
If you have a standard SD box from Virgin I think you can ask for a free upgrade to a HD box because they no longer offer an SD box option to new customers. It's worth a try.