Sony 4K question

Post by r***@optonline.net
A couple of months ago I posted asking what kind of quality I could expect
watching regular TV stations in HD on one of these 4K sets. Not much feedback,
though I was told that true 4K would only be available through a added device
you have to get and right noew there aren't too many movies in 4K.
Today I got an email from Sony as I'm a registered customer of theirs. It starts
"See the game four times clearer than HD, unleashing colors you've never seen on
a TV before with the Sony® 4K Ultra HD TV."
So, do HD TV channels come in a lot better on a 4K set, or is Sony mispresenting
their equipment?
Thanks.

If your video source is only 1920x1080, that is all the information it contains. Period. Scale it to 4K if you like, but it cannot contain any more information. Some information may be created by various algorithms, but none of it was orginally there; it was invented. There can be no more detail than the original source contained.

I think a lot of people fool themselves because they saw "how much better our DVDs looked on the HDTV". It's not because the HDTV (which can display more resolution than the DVD) is magically creating greater resolution than the source DVD contained, but because they were previously watching the DVD on a device that could not display all the information already contained in the DVD picture.

I'm sure there are various other effects as well. I'll bet that before a lot of people got their "big screens" they were watching from a distance where their eyes couldn't resolve all the detail on their smaller screen anyway. Suddenly, the picture is so much "sharper", "crisper", "more detailed" on the big screen! And maybe it's just that by spreading the same detail over a larger screen at the same distance allows their eyes to see the detail that was always there.

My point is that I'm sure some people will say that their 1920x1080 HD picture looks better on their 4K screen, but it's not because the 4K screen is "making the picture better", its because the expensive 4K screen is bigger, or closer, or able to produce better color than the previous screen, or because an expensive 4K screen can show motion better then the previous cheap-o HDTV, or other effect.

When real 4K source material is available, a good 4K screen will definitely show more detail than a 1920x1080 screen, because there *is* more information to display. Its the same reason Blu-Ray can look better on an HDTV than DVD. The source material simply contains more information to display.

I hope that clarifies things a bit for you.

Dan (Woj...)

the dog from that film you saw

2013-09-20 18:13:48 UTC

presumably a new flagship tv will be good in most ways - and therefore
hdtv will look great on it.
but no, you won't have a 4 times clearer picture - if you watch a SD
channel on a regular HD television you're not getting HD quality after all.

--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

r***@optonline.net

2013-09-20 21:18:12 UTC

Post by the dog from that film you saw

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 19:13:48 +0100, the dog from that film you saw

Thanks for both replies. So, unless I'm wrong, the HD we watch now tops out at
1920 x 1080. So why is Sony advertising "see the games four times clearer with
better color"? I still don't understand what, if any advantage, this 4K
technology has unless you want to buy the Sony 4K media player which costs $700
with only 100 movies by the end of the year.

Where does their "4 times clearer" come from?

TeeJay1952

2013-09-21 10:36:02 UTC

Post by r***@optonline.net
Thanks for both replies. So, unless I'm wrong, the HD we watch now tops out at
1920 x 1080. So why is Sony advertising "see the games four times clearer with
better color"? I still don't understand what, if any advantage, this 4K
technology has unless you want to buy the Sony 4K media player which costs $700
with only 100 movies by the end of the year.
Where does their "4 times clearer" come from?

Advertizing Department.

the dog from that film you saw

2013-09-21 12:29:30 UTC

Post by r***@optonline.net

Post by the dog from that film you saw
presumably a new flagship tv will be good in most ways - and therefore
hdtv will look great on it.
but no, you won't have a 4 times clearer picture - if you watch a SD
channel on a regular HD television you're not getting HD quality after all.

they would say 'when the 4k channels start'.
by which time a 4k tv will be far less expensive.
better to wait anyway - until sets with the new hdmi standard appear
that allow 4k at greater than 24 frames per second.

--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

r***@optonline.net

2013-09-21 18:06:59 UTC

Okay. Thanks all. I'll bide my time and wait and see. I'm suffering with a 52
inch Sony Bravia right now. I just want more!

Gene E. Bloch

2013-09-21 18:41:57 UTC

Post by r***@optonline.net
Okay. Thanks all. I'll bide my time and wait and see. I'm suffering with a 52
inch Sony Bravia right now. I just want more!

Save money: sit closer to the set :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

the dog from that film you saw

2013-09-21 19:17:25 UTC

Post by r***@optonline.net
Okay. Thanks all. I'll bide my time and wait and see. I'm suffering with a 52
inch Sony Bravia right now. I just want more!

if i had a big pile of cash to spend on a tv right now, i think i'd get
a HD OLED set over a lcd 4K one - because i have access to lots of HD
channels and they would gain from such a tv.

--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

meagain

2013-09-21 22:21:03 UTC

Why not go to a store and LOOK at one?

The interpolation between pixels CAN (for some viewers) make things seem exactly "4x"
clearer. HOWEVER I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there are TWO
ways to "measure 'resolution'". First, the one we usually think of is the number of
pixels in the transmission (e.g. 1910x1080. BUT each of those pixels is actually made
up of 3 or 4 "dots" of red, green, blue (and sometimes yellow?). The Second measure
of resolution is how many of those 'dots' are in a 'pixel'.

r***@optonline.net

2013-09-22 01:37:18 UTC

Post by meagain

Why not go to a store and LOOK at one?
The interpolation between pixels CAN (for some viewers) make things seem exactly "4x"
clearer. HOWEVER I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there are TWO
ways to "measure 'resolution'". First, the one we usually think of is the number of
pixels in the transmission (e.g. 1910x1080. BUT each of those pixels is actually made
up of 3 or 4 "dots" of red, green, blue (and sometimes yellow?). The Second measure
of resolution is how many of those 'dots' are in a 'pixel'.

I've been to a store and saw a 4K and the picture was amazing. And the salesman,
who I've known for many years and wouldn't steer me wrong, told me right up
front that the signal to the TV was from a 4K device and not a cable TV signal.
So, them more I think of it, and being someone who for decades would only buy
Sony, I suspect false advertising on their part.

UCLAN

2013-09-22 04:07:01 UTC

Post by r***@optonline.net

Post by meagain

Why not go to a store and LOOK at one?
The interpolation between pixels CAN (for some viewers) make things seem exactly "4x"
clearer. HOWEVER I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there are TWO
ways to "measure 'resolution'". First, the one we usually think of is the number of
pixels in the transmission (e.g. 1910x1080. BUT each of those pixels is actually made
up of 3 or 4 "dots" of red, green, blue (and sometimes yellow?). The Second measure
of resolution is how many of those 'dots' are in a 'pixel'.

They include a 4K media player with most sets, *plus* (according to Sony):

"The new 4K X-Reality™ PRO chip enhances HD (and lower resolution) images by
analyzing and refining images with beautifully natural detail and astounding
color. The latest Reality Creation database and Super Resolution processing
breathes new life into everything you see with phenomenal 4K (3,840 x 2,160)
resolution."

Gee...I'll take a dozen...

Patty Winter

2013-09-22 04:36:54 UTC

In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
UCLAN <***@invalid.net> wrote:

[unneeded quotage snipped]

"The new 4K X-Reality PRO chip enhances HD (and lower resolution) images by
analyzing and refining images with beautifully natural detail and astounding
color. The latest Reality Creation database and Super Resolution processing
breathes new life into everything you see with phenomenal 4K (3,840 x 2,160)
resolution."
Gee...I'll take a dozen...

Although I haven't seen this particular upscaling system, I have to
say that upscaling does work sometimes. I remember being blown away
by the IMAX version of "Batman Begins," none of which was filmed in
native IMAX. (Unlike the two subsequent films.)

Now, I have no idea whether the hardware and software built into
these Sony TVs is anywhere near as good as what IMAX uses to upscale
movies, but then, it doesn't really have to be anywhere near as good,
since few people will have 80' x 100' TV screens. :-) So it might look
pretty decent.

Patty

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-09-22 05:10:54 UTC

So, let's consider exactly what will happen here. By comparison,
consider the 70s and 80s with regard to audio equipment.

Everyone wanted bigger and better, and everyone wanted more and more
accurate sound reproduction--as close to the source as possible.

But computers were also happening...

Then in, what--2001?--came the iPod and its little earbuds, and in a
very short time people didn't care about bigger or more accurate; people
were happily willing to trade that off for portability and ease of use,
and Apple brought it all together with iPod and MP3s and the iTunes
store.

Convenience ruled. And to this day, convenience rules. Earbuds and
relatively small digital files are everywhere.

So now, just as the Blu-ray Disc people are struggling and 4K display
tech is on the horizon, Google is futzing with Glass.

History will write the tale, but humans have spoken: when portability
becomes easy, "good enough" rules. 4K TVs? Hah. Watch the family
living room turn into proles slobbering as each stares at his own Glass
virtual screen, showing his own entertainment.

Ron

2013-09-24 00:54:58 UTC

"The new 4K X-Reality� PRO chip enhances HD (and lower resolution) images by
analyzing and refining images with beautifully natural detail and astounding
color. The latest Reality Creation database and Super Resolution processing
breathes new life into everything you see with phenomenal 4K (3,840 x 2,160)
resolution."
Gee...I'll take a dozen...

You shouldn't paint with such a broad brush. They are still plenty of
people that care about sound quality. I don't even like the sound of
MP3s in my *car*. A factory CD sounds much better.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-09-24 09:39:59 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Then in, what--2001?--came the iPod and its little earbuds, and in a
very short time people didn't care about bigger or more accurate; people
were happily willing to trade that off for portability and ease of use,
and Apple brought it all together with iPod and MP3s and the iTunes
store.

You shouldn't paint with such a broad brush. They are still plenty of
people that care about sound quality.

I didn't say they all went away, but the huge market--the one worth
developing for--went to people sticking buds in their ears and dancing
in the street.

So the market for 4K TVs will similarly still be there, but it'll be
similarly small while the proles jump on Glass and similar products.

Ron

2013-09-24 12:36:04 UTC

You shouldn't paint with such a broad brush. They are still plenty of
people that care about sound quality.

I didn't say they all went away, but the huge market--the one worth
developing for--went to people sticking buds in their ears and dancing
in the street.

You said "people". Lets not forget about Walkmans and similar devices.
People didn't stop buying nice stereo eqt just because the Walkman came
out. I get what you are saying though. There are a lot of people these
days that don't care about sound quality. A lot of that has to do with
the fact that you don't even have to buy music anymore as it can be
downloaded for free off of the internet. There is a reason that almost
all of the XXX "bookstores" went out of business. People like free.

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
So the market for 4K TVs will similarly still be there, but it'll be
similarly small while the proles jump on Glass and similar products.

This is apples and oranges. The price of a 4K TV is very high right now.
Cable and sat companies aren't carrying any 4K content. I guess if you
have money to blow then go by a 4K TV and whatever media you can buy for
it. There are no freebies though.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-09-24 21:04:00 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
I didn't say they all went away, but the huge market--the one worth
developing for--went to people sticking buds in their ears and dancing
in the street.

You said "people". Lets not forget about Walkmans and similar devices.
People didn't stop buying nice stereo eqt just because the Walkman came
out.

The Walkman wasn't *nearly* the same thing to society that MP3 and iPod
was. And the concept of a single portable device that did everything,
including music, didn't exist.

Walkman was nice, but didn't replace nearly as much as what the
smartphone replaces.

Add to that the fact that young people are extremely mobile, have the
smartphone, and are too poor to have a permanent location and lots of
things. The mobility thing kills having big stereo gear. Young people
expect to be mobile, and don't want physical things polluting their life.

Sure, the smartphone doesn't give the same experience that the big gear
gives--but in context, they don't care. It's more than a good tradeoff
to do it all in the earbuds.

They'd happily take the perfect sound, but not at the expense required.
And by "expense" I mean far more than just money.

Ron

2013-09-24 23:34:00 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
I didn't say they all went away, but the huge market--the one worth
developing for--went to people sticking buds in their ears and dancing
in the street.

You said "people". Lets not forget about Walkmans and similar devices.
People didn't stop buying nice stereo eqt just because the Walkman came
out.

Say what? I've had stereos since I was 15 years old. When I was 16 I
bought a set of huge speakers that were being closed out. I believe they
were BICs. They had a 15" woofer, 2 6" midranges, 2 regular tweeters, 1
"super" tweeter, and an active crossover. All of my friends had nice
stereos when I was in my teens and into my 20's. Then a lot of them
started getting married and selling all of their eqt.

Ron

2013-09-25 02:54:07 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
I didn't say they all went away, but the huge market--the one worth
developing for--went to people sticking buds in their ears and dancing
in the street.

You said "people". Lets not forget about Walkmans and similar devices.
People didn't stop buying nice stereo eqt just because the Walkman came
out.

And let me add that a lot of "young people" also have kick ass car
stereos. For someone that wants quality sound, a smartphone is not going
to keep them from buying home and/or car audio eqt. You can get an
iPhone for a whopping $100 through AT&T with a 2 year contract. I guess
you need to define "young people" that are "too poor to have a permanent
location" for me.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-09-25 10:33:52 UTC

Post by Ron
And let me add that a lot of "young people" also have kick ass car
stereos.

That doesn't mean they're looking for good sound. You can't get good
sound in a rolling tin box. Throwing that kind of money at it is just
playing fort with your friends. Again, they're trading off good sound
for the ability to do something else--have a hobby, show off to their
friends, etc. Sure, they can spend the money--but they're not spending
it on good sound.

Les Cargill

2013-09-25 17:38:03 UTC

Post by Ron
And let me add that a lot of "young people" also have kick ass car
stereos.

That doesn't mean they're looking for good sound. You can't get good
sound in a rolling tin box.

Sure you can. But that is not the design goal.

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Throwing that kind of money at it is just
playing fort with your friends.

LOL!

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Again, they're trading off good sound
for the ability to do something else--have a hobby, show off to their
friends, etc. Sure, they can spend the money--but they're not spending
it on good sound.

They're actually - at least the ones I know - not making nor psending
it. They value leisure.

--
Les Cargill

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-09-25 10:36:42 UTC

Post by Ron
You can get an
iPhone for a whopping $100 through AT&T with a 2 year contract. I guess
you need to define "young people" that are "too poor to have a permanent
location" for me.

Are you really trying to use that $100 number in a sentence to make
people think that the iPhone is cheap?

"...with a 2 year contract". Let's expand that out, shall we? I know
math is hard, but here we go. That's $100 up front. Then there's
$80/month over 2 years that you're OBLIGATED to. No choice. That's not
an iPod, that's a phone contract. CONTRACT. $80x24 is...anyone?
anyone? Bueller?...$1920.

That "whopping $100 iPhone" just cost you TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS.

Do you know how much stereo gear you can get for $2000?

Les Cargill

2013-09-25 17:39:25 UTC

Post by Ron
You can get an
iPhone for a whopping $100 through AT&T with a 2 year contract. I guess
you need to define "young people" that are "too poor to have a permanent
location" for me.

Are you really trying to use that $100 number in a sentence to make
people think that the iPhone is cheap?
"...with a 2 year contract". Let's expand that out, shall we? I know
math is hard, but here we go. That's $100 up front. Then there's
$80/month over 2 years that you're OBLIGATED to. No choice. That's not
an iPod, that's a phone contract. CONTRACT. $80x24 is...anyone?
anyone? Bueller?...$1920.
That "whopping $100 iPhone" just cost you TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS.
Do you know how much stereo gear you can get for $2000?

I gots a set of Tannoy Reveals and a Sherwood integrated receiver for
about $400 to $500.

Doubt I could spend $2k on stereo. Well, there's that Blue Sky setup...

--
Les Cargill

Ron

2013-09-25 18:57:32 UTC

Post by Ron
You can get an
iPhone for a whopping $100 through AT&T with a 2 year contract. I guess
you need to define "young people" that are "too poor to have a permanent
location" for me.

Are you really trying to use that $100 number in a sentence to make
people think that the iPhone is cheap?
"...with a 2 year contract". Let's expand that out, shall we? I know
math is hard, but here we go. That's $100 up front. Then there's
$80/month over 2 years that you're OBLIGATED to. No choice. That's not
an iPod, that's a phone contract. CONTRACT. $80x24 is...anyone?
anyone? Bueller?...$1920.
That "whopping $100 iPhone" just cost you TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS.
Do you know how much stereo gear you can get for $2000?

It's just another bill. Everyone has bills. If someone wants something,
they will work for it. Just like I and many others did/do.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-09-26 09:34:50 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
That "whopping $100 iPhone" just cost you TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS.
Do you know how much stereo gear you can get for $2000?

It's just another bill. Everyone has bills. If someone wants something,
they will work for it.

But that's the point. There's a LOT of "something" out there competing
for the mind- and wallet-share of people today--and everyone picks and
chooses what he wants to spend his money (and floor space) on.

People have chosen to have "good enough" cameras and music players
inside their always-there smartphones--because they'd never give up
their smartphones OR the $100/month bill that comes with it.

They also choose to have $200/month cable bills and consider that
normal. And the car manufacturers have poisoned people into thinking
that they're always going to have a car payment every month for the rest
of their lives.

UCLAN

2013-09-26 19:20:43 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
But that's the point. There's a LOT of "something" out there competing
for the mind- and wallet-share of people today--and everyone picks and
chooses what he wants to spend his money (and floor space) on.
People have chosen to have "good enough" cameras and music players
inside their always-there smartphones--because they'd never give up
their smartphones OR the $100/month bill that comes with it.
They also choose to have $200/month cable bills and consider that
normal. And the car manufacturers have poisoned people into thinking
that they're always going to have a car payment every month for the rest
of their lives.

I don't have a "smart" phone or a cell phone of any kind, my cable bill
is well under $100, and I don't have a car. Yet, I have a $10K+ HT/stereo
system. Go figure...

Gene E. Bloch

2013-09-27 02:48:27 UTC

I don't have a "smart" phone or a cell phone of any kind, my cable bill
is well under $100, and I don't have a car. Yet, I have a $10K+ HT/stereo
system. Go figure...

You have your priorities very clearly in mind?

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-09-27 09:43:12 UTC

I don't have a "smart" phone or a cell phone of any kind, my cable bill
is well under $100, and I don't have a car. Yet, I have a $10K+ HT/stereo
system. Go figure...

Great. You're one datum.

Are you saying that you prove that I'm wrong?

UCLAN

2013-09-27 19:21:03 UTC

I don't have a "smart" phone or a cell phone of any kind, my cable bill
is well under $100, and I don't have a car. Yet, I have a $10K+ HT/stereo
system. Go figure...

Great. You're one datum.
Are you saying that you prove that I'm wrong?

Sorta. I'm saying that your statement is overly broad. I know only one person
with a $200+ cable bill, and it includes Internet and close to $100 in phone
charges. Half the people I know have either paid off their "new" car, or have
a used car for which they paid cash. I'd say that the person that you describe
is in the minority, not the majority.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-09-28 10:58:05 UTC

Post by UCLAN
I don't have a "smart" phone or a cell phone of any kind, my cable bill
is well under $100, and I don't have a car. Yet, I have a $10K+ HT/stereo
system. Go figure...

Great. You're one datum.
Are you saying that you prove that I'm wrong?

Sorta. I'm saying that your statement is overly broad.

I never said, or intended to mean, that everyone behaves a certain way.
In fact, I said specifically that there will be a market for high end
sound and 4K TVs, but it will remain small because of the factors I
outlined.

I made plenty of room for people like you--people who are out of the
mainstream.

But consider that since you're out of the mainstream, mainstream
manufacturers don't want to cater to you. While you can get what you
want in the market, you won't have a lot of choice.

Another thing to consider is that people recognize that technology
changes awfully fast, and don't want to keep buying things just because.
They have good TVs, they have mechanisms to play content; they're not
going to re-buy everything over and over just because something new hit
the market.

And if you doubt that, just ask the Blu-ray Disc market how their sales
are compared to the projections they made based on how DVDs sold in 2002.

UCLAN

2013-09-28 19:13:30 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
I never said, or intended to mean, that everyone behaves a certain way.
In fact, I said specifically that there will be a market for high end
sound and 4K TVs, but it will remain small because of the factors I
outlined.
I made plenty of room for people like you--people who are out of the
mainstream.

I don't consider what you wrote to be a description of "mainstream."

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-09-29 01:47:38 UTC

I don't consider what you wrote to be a description of "mainstream."

That's because you mistakenly consider yourself to be "mainstream".

Ron

2013-09-27 14:50:52 UTC

I don't have a "smart" phone or a cell phone of any kind, my cable bill
is well under $100, and I don't have a car. Yet, I have a $10K+ HT/stereo
system. Go figure...

Do you own a home or renting a storage unit.

UCLAN

2013-09-27 19:29:42 UTC

I don't have a "smart" phone or a cell phone of any kind, my cable bill
is well under $100, and I don't have a car. Yet, I have a $10K+ HT/stereo
system. Go figure...

Do you own a home or renting a storage unit.

Own. Paid for as of August, 2003.

Ron

2013-09-27 19:54:29 UTC

Post by UCLAN
I don't have a "smart" phone or a cell phone of any kind, my cable bill
is well under $100, and I don't have a car. Yet, I have a $10K+ HT/stereo
system. Go figure...

Do you own a home or renting a storage unit.

Own. Paid for as of August, 2003.

Now you just took all of the fun out of it. Thought I might see your eqt
on Storage Wars.

UCLAN

2013-09-28 04:04:11 UTC

Post by UCLAN
I don't have a "smart" phone or a cell phone of any kind, my cable bill
is well under $100, and I don't have a car. Yet, I have a $10K+ HT/stereo
system. Go figure...

Do you own a home or renting a storage unit.

Own. Paid for as of August, 2003.

Now you just took all of the fun out of it. Thought I might see your eqt on
Storage Wars.

I've been collecting Hi-Fi gear since 1975. You should see my collection of
phono cartridges and head shells.

Les Cargill

2013-09-25 17:36:48 UTC

<snip>

Post by Ron
And let me add that a lot of "young people" also have kick ass car
stereos. For someone that wants quality sound,

You cannot have a "kickass car stereo" and "good sound." Car stereos are
designed to be obnoxious, not sound good.

Post by Ron
a smartphone is not going
to keep them from buying home and/or car audio eqt.

No, but the job market will.

Post by Ron
You can get an
iPhone for a whopping $100 through AT&T with a 2 year contract. I guess
you need to define "young people" that are "too poor to have a permanent
location" for me.

Just say "young people." Same thing, except fr the ones that don't have
daddy issues. Disney been giving 'em Daddy issues since
the '80s.

--
Les Cargill

Ron

2013-09-25 18:47:40 UTC

Post by Les Cargill
<snip>

Post by Ron
And let me add that a lot of "young people" also have kick ass car
stereos. For someone that wants quality sound,

You cannot have a "kickass car stereo" and "good sound." Car stereos are
designed to be obnoxious, not sound good.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion. I've had plenty of kickass
car stereos that sounded great (acoustics aside). Yes, there are "young
people" out there that just want 2 15" woofers and a 10,000 watt amp to
rattle everything around them. OTOH, there are people like me that built
systems to have both bass and clarity. And if you don't want to install
boxed woofers, amps, etc..simply replacing the head unit with something
like a Sony Xplod and upgrading the speakers will make a huge difference
over a factory setup. Ever watch the TV show Unique Whips? I'm pretty
sure that the systems they install sound VERY good.

Les Cargill

2013-09-25 17:33:49 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
I didn't say they all went away, but the huge market--the one worth
developing for--went to people sticking buds in their ears and dancing
in the street.

You said "people". Lets not forget about Walkmans and similar devices.
People didn't stop buying nice stereo eqt just because the Walkman came
out.

The Walkman wasn't *nearly* the same thing to society that MP3 and iPod
was.

Huh??? Sure it was. It was exactly the same thing. Remember the
transistor radio? Same thing again.

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
And the concept of a single portable device that did everything,
including music, didn't exist.

It's still bleeding unecessary.

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Walkman was nice, but didn't replace nearly as much as what the
smartphone replaces.

They're still effing Barbie fashion acessories. You get a phone,
a camera, a MP3 player and maybe a GPS and web appliance all in the same
skin.

It is a *PACKAGING* product. That's all it is; Jobs owuld rip off some
Bauhaus or Bauhaus-era doohickley, engineer the foo out of it and
build a supply chain that made the Silk Road look like a goat trail.

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Add to that the fact that young people are extremely mobile,

Meaning "too broke to live anywhere but at home." Which, I
suppose, is nice for them.

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
have the
smartphone, and are too poor to have a permanent location and lots of
things. The mobility thing kills having big stereo gear.

Mine all fit, plus everything else, in ths back seat of a VW Kharmann
Ghia. This included a bass amp. They don't do that because Dad did that,
and more than anything else, they want not to be like Dad.

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Young people
expect to be mobile, and don't want physical things polluting their life.

Suuuuure. Until they do.

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Sure, the smartphone doesn't give the same experience that the big gear
gives--but in context, they don't care. It's more than a good tradeoff
to do it all in the earbuds.
They'd happily take the perfect sound, but not at the expense required.
And by "expense" I mean far more than just money.

You are 100% correct about that - floor space costs more
than anything. Because it's subsidized. So there are empty
repos that'll need tearing down in a year.

--
Les Cargill

Stewart

2013-09-29 13:29:12 UTC

So, let's consider exactly what will happen here. By comparison,
consider the 70s and 80s with regard to audio equipment.
Everyone wanted bigger and better, and everyone wanted more and more
accurate sound reproduction--as close to the source as possible.
But computers were also happening...
Then in, what--2001?--came the iPod and its little earbuds, and in a
very short time people didn't care about bigger or more accurate; people
were happily willing to trade that off for portability and ease of use,
and Apple brought it all together with iPod and MP3s and the iTunes
store.
Convenience ruled. And to this day, convenience rules. Earbuds and
relatively small digital files are everywhere.
So now, just as the Blu-ray Disc people are struggling and 4K
display
tech is on the horizon, Google is futzing with Glass.
History will write the tale, but humans have spoken: when
portability
becomes easy, "good enough" rules. 4K TVs? Hah. Watch the family
living room turn into proles slobbering as each stares at his own Glass
virtual screen, showing his own entertainment.

But wait until you can get a 4k image on a 5" smartphone
screen.....one better have unlimited data on their soon to be 5g
network!

John McWilliams

2013-09-30 20:37:35 UTC

Post by Stewart

"The new 4K X-Reality� PRO chip enhances HD (and lower resolution)
images by
analyzing and refining images with beautifully natural detail and astounding
color. The latest Reality Creation database and Super Resolution processing
breathes new life into everything you see with phenomenal 4K (3,840 x 2,160)
resolution."
Gee...I'll take a dozen...

So, let's consider exactly what will happen here. By comparison,
consider the 70s and 80s with regard to audio equipment.
Everyone wanted bigger and better, and everyone wanted more and more
accurate sound reproduction--as close to the source as possible.
But computers were also happening...
Then in, what--2001?--came the iPod and its little earbuds, and in a
very short time people didn't care about bigger or more accurate; people
were happily willing to trade that off for portability and ease of use,
and Apple brought it all together with iPod and MP3s and the iTunes
store.
Convenience ruled. And to this day, convenience rules. Earbuds and
relatively small digital files are everywhere.
So now, just as the Blu-ray Disc people are struggling and 4K
display
tech is on the horizon, Google is futzing with Glass.
History will write the tale, but humans have spoken: when
portability
becomes easy, "good enough" rules. 4K TVs? Hah. Watch the family
living room turn into proles slobbering as each stares at his own Glass
virtual screen, showing his own entertainment.

But wait until you can get a 4k image on a 5" smartphone
screen.....one better have unlimited data on their soon to be 5g
network!

You can't fit even a true HD stream on any phone I am aware of. Pixels
need to be made smaller in order for that to happen. And, besides, at a
certain point, your eyes couldn't resolve beyond x, y, or z.

Ron

2013-10-01 01:14:40 UTC

Post by John McWilliams
You can't fit even a true HD stream on any phone I am aware of. Pixels
need to be made smaller in order for that to happen. And, besides, at a
certain point, your eyes couldn't resolve beyond x, y, or z.

See the specs for the HTC One.

John McWilliams

2013-10-12 18:19:30 UTC

See the specs for the HTC One.

What is your point you'd make after I looked at specs?

Ron

2013-10-12 20:46:15 UTC

See the specs for the HTC One.

What is your point you'd make after I looked at specs?

That the HTC One is fully capable of streaming "true" HD with 468 PPI?

Ah forget about that...it's "old" tech.

LG has just surpassed that in the last couple of months.

"LG has some great news, in the form of a 5.5-inch, 2560×1440, "Quad HD"
IPS panel. That's a resolution you'd normally find on a screen measuring
27" or 30" diagonally, and it yields a whopping 538 PPI"

John McWilliams

2013-10-12 21:07:18 UTC

See the specs for the HTC One.

What is your point you'd make after I looked at specs?

That the HTC One is fully capable of streaming "true" HD with 468 PPI?
Ah forget about that...it's "old" tech.
LG has just surpassed that in the last couple of months.
"LG has some great news, in the form of a 5.5-inch, 2560×1440, "Quad HD"
IPS panel. That's a resolution you'd normally find on a screen measuring
27" or 30" diagonally, and it yields a whopping 538 PPI"

Excellent! Now, at what point of ppi does the human eye say "no mas!" ?
I guess I'll have to get me to a shop to find out what my eyes can do.....

Ron

2013-10-12 21:13:43 UTC

See the specs for the HTC One.

What is your point you'd make after I looked at specs?

That the HTC One is fully capable of streaming "true" HD with 468 PPI?
Ah forget about that...it's "old" tech.
LG has just surpassed that in the last couple of months.
"LG has some great news, in the form of a 5.5-inch, 2560×1440, "Quad HD"
IPS panel. That's a resolution you'd normally find on a screen measuring
27" or 30" diagonally, and it yields a whopping 538 PPI"

Excellent! Now, at what point of ppi does the human eye say "no mas!" ?
I guess I'll have to get me to a shop to find out what my eyes can do.....

Since you asked (from the same article).

"To put that into perspective, the human-perceptible limit at a 12-inch
distance is only around 300 PPI. That's not to say anything above 300 is
a waste; hold the phone closer and you'll need a higher PPI to see an
unpixelated image. 538 PPI, however, is just insane."

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/08/smartphone-display-wars-go-to-ludicrous-speed-2560x1440-in-5-5-inches/

There is also a mention in the article about 4K.

John McWilliams

2013-10-18 02:33:58 UTC

See the specs for the HTC One.

What is your point you'd make after I looked at specs?

That the HTC One is fully capable of streaming "true" HD with 468 PPI?
Ah forget about that...it's "old" tech.
LG has just surpassed that in the last couple of months.
"LG has some great news, in the form of a 5.5-inch, 2560×1440, "Quad HD"
IPS panel. That's a resolution you'd normally find on a screen measuring
27" or 30" diagonally, and it yields a whopping 538 PPI"

Excellent! Now, at what point of ppi does the human eye say "no mas!" ?
I guess I'll have to get me to a shop to find out what my eyes can do.....

Since you asked (from the same article).
"To put that into perspective, the human-perceptible limit at a 12-inch
distance is only around 300 PPI. That's not to say anything above 300 is
a waste; hold the phone closer and you'll need a higher PPI to see an
unpixelated image. 538 PPI, however, is just insane."
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/08/smartphone-display-wars-go-to-ludicrous-speed-2560x1440-in-5-5-inches/
There is also a mention in the article about 4K.

Many thanks, Ron.

BTW, are you the Ron from way back in Netscape hay days?

Ron

2013-10-18 05:06:27 UTC

See the specs for the HTC One.

What is your point you'd make after I looked at specs?

That the HTC One is fully capable of streaming "true" HD with 468 PPI?
Ah forget about that...it's "old" tech.
LG has just surpassed that in the last couple of months.
"LG has some great news, in the form of a 5.5-inch, 2560×1440, "Quad HD"
IPS panel. That's a resolution you'd normally find on a screen measuring
27" or 30" diagonally, and it yields a whopping 538 PPI"

Excellent! Now, at what point of ppi does the human eye say "no mas!" ?
I guess I'll have to get me to a shop to find out what my eyes can do.....

Since you asked (from the same article).
"To put that into perspective, the human-perceptible limit at a 12-inch
distance is only around 300 PPI. That's not to say anything above 300 is
a waste; hold the phone closer and you'll need a higher PPI to see an
unpixelated image. 538 PPI, however, is just insane."
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/08/smartphone-display-wars-go-to-ludicrous-speed-2560x1440-in-5-5-inches/
There is also a mention in the article about 4K.

Many thanks, Ron.
BTW, are you the Ron from way back in Netscape hay days?

Nope. A different Ron.

Gene E. Bloch

2013-09-30 20:47:32 UTC

Post by Stewart