LG display bad

[Metspitzer]

While looking for TVs my neighbor warned me not to get an LG. He said
they had trouble with lines forming on the screen.

While at Walmart I noticed that the LG they had on display had a
vertical yellow line running the entire length of the screen.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lg+monitor+bad+screen&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=2&gs_ri=serp&gs_mss=lg%20monitor%20lin&tok=wV8umxCi1j6VtYAIPNludA&pq=lg%20monitor%20bad%20screen&cp=15&gs_id=1a8&xhr=t&q=lg+monitor+line+down+middle&es_nrs=true&pf=p&client=firefox-a&hs=IKQ&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&oq=lg+monitor+line&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42080656,d.eWU&fp=a9a298a6914c5ea1&biw=1566&bih=743

--
Stephanie: What did you do today?
Leonard Hofstadter: Well, I'm a physicist, so I just thought about stuff.
Stephanie: That's it?
Leonard Hofstadter: I wrote some of it down.

[J G Miller]

On Sunday, February 10th, 2013, at 22:00:59h -0500, Metspitzer wrote:

> While looking for TVs my neighbor warned me not to get an LG.

You should first decide which type of TV technology you want to buy --

LCD with LED backlighting, OLED, crystal LED, or laser.

LG's OLED tv will not be on sale in the USofA until March 2013,
so if you want that level of picture quality, better start
saving up now.

<http://www.extremetech.com/computing/145155-oled-tvs-at-ces-2013-the-wait-is-nearly-finally-just-about-over-probably>

> While at Walmart I noticed that the LG they had on display

That would not be an OLED though.

Also why buy an only 1920x1080 resolution TV when the 4k resolution TVs
are starting to arrive???

<http://store.sony.COM/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&identifier=S_4KTV>

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

In article <kfb5ii$f5k$***@dont-email.me>, J G Miller <***@yoyo.ORG>
wrote:

> Also why buy an only 1920x1080 resolution TV when the 4k resolution TVs
> are starting to arrive???

Because it's not true that "MORE IS BETTER!"?

[J G Miller]

On Sunday, February 17th, 2013, at 08:34:29h -0500,
Elmo P. Shagnasty declared:

> Because it's not true that "MORE IS BETTER!"?

It is indeed true that more is not necessarily better,
but higher quality is always better, and higher resolution
is intrinsically higher quality.

[Jim Wilkins]

"J G Miller" <***@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
news:kfqq3m$jej$***@dont-email.me...
> On Sunday, February 17th, 2013, at 08:34:29h -0500,
> Elmo P. Shagnasty declared:
>
>> Because it's not true that "MORE IS BETTER!"?
>
> It is indeed true that more is not necessarily better,
> but higher quality is always better, and higher resolution
> is intrinsically higher quality.

Only if you buy better eyes to see it. HDTV looks great to me on a
1280x800 laptop screen slightly further away than my best focus
distance.

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

In article <kfqq3m$jej$***@dont-email.me>, J G Miller <***@yoyo.ORG>
wrote:

> On Sunday, February 17th, 2013, at 08:34:29h -0500,
> Elmo P. Shagnasty declared:
>
> > Because it's not true that "MORE IS BETTER!"?
>
> It is indeed true that more is not necessarily better,
> but higher quality is always better, and higher resolution
> is intrinsically higher quality.

Hardly.

You're under the same misapprehension that most of the public is. I
suppose you shop for cameras based on pixel count of the imaging system.

Higher resolution is most certainly *not* "intrinsically higher quality".

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

"J G Miller" <***@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
news:kfqq3m$jej$***@dont-email.me...
> On Sunday, February 17th, 2013, at 08:34:29h -0500,
> Elmo P. Shagnasty declared:
>
>> Because it's not true that "MORE IS BETTER!"?
>
> It is indeed true that more is not necessarily better,
> but higher quality is always better, and higher resolution
> is intrinsically higher quality.

Depends. I can setup 1680x1050 on the monitor I have, but the quality is
much less if I go to 1300x768. The compromise is I use 1600x1000.

Now, as far as more being better, I would say buy now while it's cheaper,
pass up on the 4K displays until such time as they come down in price and
there is more 4K content available.

Not sure about noise content, but I do know when it applies to digital
photography that more is not necessarily better if the sensor is noiser.

If Sony is bringing out 4K, it's probably better to pass on LG in favor of
Sony.

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

In article <***@o1.com>,
"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <***@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:

> Not sure about noise content, but I do know when it applies to digital
> photography that more is not necessarily better if the sensor is noiser.
>
> If Sony is bringing out 4K, it's probably better to pass on LG in favor of
> Sony.

Spend huge $$$$ on a 4K screen now when there's no content, just for the
sake of bragging rights.

Or spend $450 later and get a "4K screen!" that's inferior in every way
to any 1080 panel you can buy today, after the manufacturers have found
ways to manufacture cheap crap that they can still call "4K" in some way
or another.

[J G Miller]

On Sunday, February 17th, 2013, at 12:35:49h -0800,
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

> pass up on the 4K displays until such time as they come down in price and
> there is more 4K content available.

Good advice, since the price of 4k monitors is still in the
early adopter exorbitant phase.

It should be noted that my original posting did not recommend
buying a 4k monitor, but merely posed the question as one of
awareness of the new format.

It may be at least 5 years before 4k monitors come down to realistic
price levels for most consumers, and there remains the question of
content availability -- keep an eye on Japan to see the possible trend.

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:35:49 -0800, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

> Not sure about noise content, but I do know when it applies to digital
> photography that more is not necessarily better if the sensor is noiser.

Noise content applies to sensors, not to the pixels in a TV or monitor
screen.

More pixels for a given detector size means smaller pixels, which in
turn means fewer photons per pixel (per snapshot). Since random noise
goes as the square root of the number of photons (or electrons activated
by the photons), the signal to noise ratio diminishes with increased
pixel counts.

But the manufacturers have a lot of tricks up their pixelated sleeves...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Alan]

In article <***@o1.com> "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <***@nethere.comNOSPAM> writes:
>"J G Miller" <***@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
>news:kfqq3m$jej$***@dont-email.me...
>> On Sunday, February 17th, 2013, at 08:34:29h -0500,
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty declared:
>>
>>> Because it's not true that "MORE IS BETTER!"?
>>
>> It is indeed true that more is not necessarily better,
>> but higher quality is always better, and higher resolution
>> is intrinsically higher quality.
>
>Depends. I can setup 1680x1050 on the monitor I have, but the quality is
>much less if I go to 1300x768. The compromise is I use 1600x1000.

But, unless you are using a monitor (such as a CRT) that is capable of
changing its native pixel size, quality will be best if you match the
signal to the actual display.

Images can be resized (as is commonly done on television displays), but
on fixed pixel computer displays, such conversion shows its weakness.


Alan

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

"Alan" <***@w6yx.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:kfrv1k$und$***@usenet.stanford.edu...
> In article <***@o1.com> "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
> <***@nethere.comNOSPAM> writes:
>>"J G Miller" <***@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
>>news:kfqq3m$jej$***@dont-email.me...
>>> On Sunday, February 17th, 2013, at 08:34:29h -0500,
>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty declared:
>>>
>>>> Because it's not true that "MORE IS BETTER!"?
>>>
>>> It is indeed true that more is not necessarily better,
>>> but higher quality is always better, and higher resolution
>>> is intrinsically higher quality.
>>
>>Depends. I can setup 1680x1050 on the monitor I have, but the quality is
>>much less if I go to 1300x768. The compromise is I use 1600x1000.
>
> But, unless you are using a monitor (such as a CRT) that is capable of
> changing its native pixel size, quality will be best if you match the
> signal to the actual display.
>
And some monitors (see HP w2207h as one example) put up firmware nag
rectangle notices even if the LCD is at the native resolution. No known
fix--always "Recommended resolution 1650x1080" every monitor power up. Just
annoying really.

> Images can be resized (as is commonly done on television displays), but
> on fixed pixel computer displays, such conversion shows its weakness.
>
Yes, it does. With some resolution scaling, fonts being to show jagged edges
and as well as the icons. Example: 1360x768, which is effectively 720p,
shows significant jagged edges when viewed from close up, but farther away,
doesn't really matter.

[G-squared]

On Sunday, February 17, 2013 6:39:50 AM UTC-8, J G Miller wrote:
> On Sunday, February 17th, 2013, at 08:34:29h -0500,
>
> Elmo P. Shagnasty declared:
>
>
>
> > Because it's not true that "MORE IS BETTER!"?
>
>
>
> It is indeed true that more is not necessarily better,
>
> but higher quality is always better, and higher resolution
>
> is intrinsically higher quality.

Where does one get 4K images to use on this? Stills? OK. Moving images from where?

G²

[J G Miller]

On Sunday, February 17th, 2013, at 16:41:21h -0800, G-squared asked:

> Where does one get 4K images to use on this? Stills? OK.
> Moving images from where?

A 4k TV test service from Eutelsat 10 East satellite has
already started in Europe.

<http://www.eutelsat.COM/products/broadcast-ultra-hd.html>

See transponder C6 11,304 GHz Horizontal
at <http://www.lyngsat.com/Eutelsat-10A.html>

Four DVB-S2 MPEG-4 HD streams consisting of
top left, top right, bottom left, and bottom right.

Surely the USofA should not be too far behind?

In the meantime, you could try to find a RedRay Disc player ...

<http://www.red.COM/products/redray>

<http://gizmodo.COM/379566/red-ray-drive-plays-4k-2k-hd-video-from-red-disc-red-express-and-compactflash>

Time to junk all the 1080p BluRay discs and start building
your new 4k movie collection, just in time to keep the
movie distributors in profitable business?

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:06:50 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:

> Time to junk all the 1080p BluRay discs and start building
> your new 4k movie collection, just in time to keep the
> movie distributors in profitable business?

And now you've got me wondering when 4D TV is coming to match the 4K TV
sets.

Only favorable replies, please...which is tantamount to saying don't
bother answering :-)

Obviously I'm being relatively silly.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

"J G Miller" <***@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
news:kftn3a$otn$***@dont-email.me...
> On Sunday, February 17th, 2013, at 16:41:21h -0800, G-squared asked:
>
>> Where does one get 4K images to use on this? Stills? OK.
>> Moving images from where?
>
> A 4k TV test service from Eutelsat 10 East satellite has
> already started in Europe.
>
> <http://www.eutelsat.COM/products/broadcast-ultra-hd.html>
>
> See transponder C6 11,304 GHz Horizontal
> at <http://www.lyngsat.com/Eutelsat-10A.html>
>
> Four DVB-S2 MPEG-4 HD streams consisting of
> top left, top right, bottom left, and bottom right.
>
> Surely the USofA should not be too far behind?
>
> In the meantime, you could try to find a RedRay Disc player ...
>
> <http://www.red.COM/products/redray>
>
>
> <http://gizmodo.COM/379566/red-ray-drive-plays-4k-2k-hd-video-from-red-disc-red-express-and-compactflash>
>
> Time to junk all the 1080p BluRay discs and start building
> your new 4k movie collection, just in time to keep the
> movie distributors in profitable business?

Nonsense. Surely they will have upscaling for the DVD and Blu-ray media for
4K, just like they do for 1080p HDTV sets.

[J G Miller]

On Monday, February 18th, 2013, at 18:17:53 -0800,
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

> "J G Miller" <***@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
> news:kftn3a$otn$***@dont-email.me...
>>
>> Time to junk all the 1080p BluRay discs and start building
>> your new 4k movie collection, just in time to keep the
>> movie distributors in profitable business?
>
> Nonsense. Surely they will have upscaling for the DVD and
> Blu-ray media for 4K, just like they do for 1080p HDTV sets.

Why is it nonsense? Do you not realize that a new "home video"
format for the movie industry is seen as a way to generate further
sales of the same movie?

[Jim Wilkins]

"J G Miller" <***@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
news:kg02qj$p4g$***@dont-email.me...
> On Monday, February 18th, 2013, at 18:17:53 -0800,
> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>
>> "J G Miller" <***@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
>> news:kftn3a$otn$***@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> Time to junk all the 1080p BluRay discs and start building
>>> your new 4k movie collection, just in time to keep the
>>> movie distributors in profitable business?
>>
>> Nonsense. Surely they will have upscaling for the DVD and
>> Blu-ray media for 4K, just like they do for 1080p HDTV sets.
>
> Why is it nonsense? Do you not realize that a new "home video"
> format for the movie industry is seen as a way to generate further
> sales of the same movie?

So how well is 3D doing?

Plays on stage are essentially 2D, while theatre-in-the-round is 3D.
After 2500 years stages still predominate. Older eyes can't focus at
varying distances.

[J G Miller]

On Tuesday, February 19th, 2013, at 10:04:52h -0500,
Jim Wilkins asked:

> So how well is 3D doing?

One would have to look at ticket sales at movie theaters to
compare the 2D and 3D versions as well as the sales of the
two different forms on BluRay.

However I think that for some releases they are now putting
both the 2D and 3D version on the same BluRay????

Most manufacturers appear to be offering 3D capability as
standard on their more expensive ranges, whereas most consumers
just consider the budget models which are not yet offering
the capability, so market penetration is rather low.

And with there being no push towards broadcast 3D TV programs
in North America, and even some 3D services being stopped,
new TV buyers have less motivation.

Now if one of the major OTA broadcast networks was to start offering
their primetime programs in 3D, then there would probably be
a significant growth in 3D viewing.

[Stephen H. Fischer]

> Older eyes can't focus at varying distances.

Yes they can, but it is big $$$ ($2,200 per eye)

You have to pay the entire amount, Medicare just covers basic cataract
sugary.

I went from two sets of eyeglass, one for distance and one for close up to
NONE.

Multifocal Lens Implants

http://www.changcataract.com/site/cataract-center/special-lens-implants-to-reduce-your-need-for-spectacles.htm

SHF

[J G Miller]

On Tuesday, February 19th, 2013, at 10:04:52h -0500,
Jim Wilkins wrote:

> So how well is 3D doing?

Incidentally, you may be interested in one of the cutting edge
3D developments (not broadcast TV related though) -- an early
version of the ??holodeck?? at the University of Illinois at
Chicago called CAVE2.

<http://www.evl.uic.EDU/core.php?mod=4&type=1&indi=424>

<http://www.evl.uic.EDU/core.php?mod=4&type=4&indi=824>

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

In article <kftn3a$otn$***@dont-email.me>, J G Miller <***@yoyo.ORG>
wrote:

> On Sunday, February 17th, 2013, at 16:41:21h -0800, G-squared asked:
>
> > Where does one get 4K images to use on this? Stills? OK.
> > Moving images from where?
>
> A 4k TV test service from Eutelsat 10 East satellite has
> already started in Europe.
>
> <http://www.eutelsat.COM/products/broadcast-ultra-hd.html>
>
> See transponder C6 11,304 GHz Horizontal
> at <http://www.lyngsat.com/Eutelsat-10A.html>
>
> Four DVB-S2 MPEG-4 HD streams consisting of
> top left, top right, bottom left, and bottom right.
>
> Surely the USofA should not be too far behind?
>
> In the meantime, you could try to find a RedRay Disc player ...
>
> <http://www.red.COM/products/redray>
>
> <http://gizmodo.COM/379566/red-ray-drive-plays-4k-2k-hd-video-from-red-disc-
> red-express-and-compactflash>
>
> Time to junk all the 1080p BluRay discs and start building
> your new 4k movie collection, just in time to keep the
> movie distributors in profitable business?

this reminds me of all the "gotta have it" HD freaks who went out and
spent huge amounts of money for bragging rights, buying TVs for which
the only HD content was a camera at the top of a mountain, showing the
scenery.

But, by God, they were getting HD! And they claimed to "love" watching
that mountaintop scenery. We all know they were lying in psychological
self-defense, of course.

[Alan]

In article <elmop-3B21BE.21111519022013@[78.46.70.116]> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <***@nastydesigns.com> writes:

>this reminds me of all the "gotta have it" HD freaks who went out and
>spent huge amounts of money for bragging rights, buying TVs for which
>the only HD content was a camera at the top of a mountain, showing the
>scenery.
>
>But, by God, they were getting HD! And they claimed to "love" watching
>that mountaintop scenery. We all know they were lying in psychological
>self-defense, of course.

There is a lot to be said for eye candy. No psychological self-defense
there.

Much of what is no nowdays has fallen far below the level of eye candy.

Alan

[Alan]

In article <kfqq3m$jej$***@dont-email.me> J G Miller <***@yoyo.ORG> writes:
>On Sunday, February 17th, 2013, at 08:34:29h -0500,
>Elmo P. Shagnasty declared:
>
>> Because it's not true that "MORE IS BETTER!"?
>
>It is indeed true that more is not necessarily better,
>but higher quality is always better, and higher resolution
>is intrinsically higher quality.

No, it isn't.

Higher resolution, encoded with lossy compression, can easily
be lower quality due to compression losses.

Encoding in a fixed bit rate will force more compression errors
when encoding a higher resolution.

Alan

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

"Alan" <***@w6yx.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:kfrunm$uhm$***@usenet.stanford.edu...
> In article <kfqq3m$jej$***@dont-email.me> J G Miller <***@yoyo.ORG>
> writes:
>>On Sunday, February 17th, 2013, at 08:34:29h -0500,
>>Elmo P. Shagnasty declared:
>>
>>> Because it's not true that "MORE IS BETTER!"?
>>
>>It is indeed true that more is not necessarily better,
>>but higher quality is always better, and higher resolution
>>is intrinsically higher quality.
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> Higher resolution, encoded with lossy compression, can easily
> be lower quality due to compression losses.
>
Yep. See jagged edges and "halos" around the image, with sufficient enough
compression.

> Encoding in a fixed bit rate will force more compression errors
> when encoding a higher resolution.
>
Is there variable compression yet (VBR)? I know audio has VBR but does it
exist for video?

[J G Miller]

On Monday, February 18th, 2013, at 01:04:54h +0000, Alan explained:

> In article <kfqq3m$jej$***@dont-email.me> J G Miller <***@yoyo.ORG> writes:
>>On Sunday, February 17th, 2013, at 08:34:29h -0500,
>>Elmo P. Shagnasty declared:
>>
>>> Because it's not true that "MORE IS BETTER!"?
>>
>>It is indeed true that more is not necessarily better,
>>but higher quality is always better, and higher resolution
>>is intrinsically higher quality.
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> Higher resolution, encoded with lossy compression, can easily
> be lower quality due to compression losses.
>
> Encoding in a fixed bit rate will force more compression errors
> when encoding a higher resolution.

My comment was with respect to all other things being the same
re compression and sufficient bandwidth otherwise one is comparing
tangerines and pears.

Obviously a 1920x1080 or whatever video stream encoded at an
insufficient bit rate (lots of blockiness) is going to look bad
compared to a 720p video stream encoded at a quality bit rate.

[Stewart]

"J G Miller" <***@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
news:kfqq3m$jej$***@dont-email.me...
> On Sunday, February 17th, 2013, at 08:34:29h -0500,
> Elmo P. Shagnasty declared:
>
>> Because it's not true that "MORE IS BETTER!"?
>
> It is indeed true that more is not necessarily better,
> but higher quality is always better, and higher resolution
> is intrinsically higher quality.

But still unnecessary. Building a car to last 200 years is
intrinsically higher in quality than one to last years by a wide
margin, but is it really more useful?

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

"Stewart" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kfuhir$2l0$***@dont-email.me...
>
> "J G Miller" <***@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
> news:kfqq3m$jej$***@dont-email.me...
>> On Sunday, February 17th, 2013, at 08:34:29h -0500,
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty declared:
>>
>>> Because it's not true that "MORE IS BETTER!"?
>>
>> It is indeed true that more is not necessarily better,
>> but higher quality is always better, and higher resolution
>> is intrinsically higher quality.
>
> But still unnecessary. Building a car to last 200 years is intrinsically
> higher in quality than one to last years by a wide margin, but is it
> really more useful?
Yes, it is. As it is now, some vehicles have the spark plugs inaccessible
without removing a manifold. That means a trip to the dealership or one has
to remove the manifold themselves.

The real trick is to fix the issues inherent to head gaskets, and radiators
that crack when an overheat situation occurs.

[J G Miller]

On Monday, February 18th, 2013, at 18:20:07h -0800,
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

> The real trick is to fix the issues inherent to head gaskets, and radiators
> that crack when an overheat situation occurs.

You fail to understand that the modern consumer economy is built
on obsolescence and parts that will fail after a sufficient time
to prompt the consumer to buy a new product.

The trick is to make sure that the components do not fail too
soon though ;)

If a company produces an item that lasts a life time, then there
is not much potential for a further sale of that item to the
individual concerned and the market becomes saturated and the
company is forced to produce something else

A common way of achieving this is by changing the format of
the product, eg 8 track to cassette, Elcaset, MiniDisc, CD, DVD-audio,
or VHS to LaserDisc, DVD, BluRay, RedRay ...

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:45:40 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:

> On Monday, February 18th, 2013, at 18:20:07h -0800,
> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>
>> The real trick is to fix the issues inherent to head gaskets, and radiators
>> that crack when an overheat situation occurs.
>
> You fail to understand that the modern consumer economy is built
> on obsolescence and parts that will fail after a sufficient time
> to prompt the consumer to buy a new product.
>
> The trick is to make sure that the components do not fail too
> soon though ;)
>
> If a company produces an item that lasts a life time, then there
> is not much potential for a further sale of that item to the
> individual concerned and the market becomes saturated and the
> company is forced to produce something else
>
> A common way of achieving this is by changing the format of
> the product, eg 8 track to cassette, Elcaset, MiniDisc, CD, DVD-audio,
> or VHS to LaserDisc, DVD, BluRay, RedRay ...

That last paragraph might actually relate to some real problems with a
200-year car. What will roads and cars look like in that far future?
What will the safety and environmental rules be? Etc...

Even today, there are cars on the road that can't control an iPod :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Stewart]

"J G Miller" <***@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
news:kfb5ii$f5k$***@dont-email.me...
> On Sunday, February 10th, 2013, at 22:00:59h -0500, Metspitzer
> wrote:
>
>> While looking for TVs my neighbor warned me not to get an LG.
>
> You should first decide which type of TV technology you want to
> buy --
>
> LCD with LED backlighting, OLED, crystal LED, or laser.
>
> LG's OLED tv will not be on sale in the USofA until March 2013,
> so if you want that level of picture quality, better start
> saving up now.
>
> <http://www.extremetech.com/computing/145155-oled-tvs-at-ces-2013-the-wait-is-nearly-finally-just-about-over-probably>
>
>> While at Walmart I noticed that the LG they had on display
>
> That would not be an OLED though.
>
> Also why buy an only 1920x1080 resolution TV when the 4k resolution
> TVs
> are starting to arrive???
>
> <http://store.sony.COM/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&identifier=S_4KTV>

What would he use a 4k source?