Why do people buy 4k TV screen when theres 0 content in 4k?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

netflixupdate.com/4k-movies-on-netflix-list/
youtube.com/watch?v=0vrdgDdPApQ
imdb.com/title/tt0903747/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec
extratorrent.cc/rss.xml?type=hot&cat=BluRay, 4k UHD
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

That's all they have at the store

lots of new porn is in 4k

Really? Theres a lot of 1080p OLED LG here.
Thats wrong.

>download 15GB scene
>done in 3 min

who told you that there was no content in 4k? this person isn't a friend of yours; netflix delivers a fair amount of content in 4k for capable end units, as does amazon prime's video, youtube, and a handful of others.

>he doesn't know the truth.

also people are buying a TV now, so you seem to be arguing that they should buy a 1080p TV now and then feel like idiots in 2 or 3 years when 4k content is more ubiquitous, rather than just bite the bullet now that the hardware and standards have pretty much caught up to being usable (i.e. no need for MST or other hacky shit).

feel free to say the truth. otherwise we're going to go with the stated truth, which is that there are 4k streaming services already out there. the fact that you're unaware of it isn't anyone else's problem.

Its 4k upscale (from 2048×1080 at best).

If you need a new tv, sure, get 4K. But there is no real reason to (((((((upgrade)))))))

It's still a nice monitor w/96 DPI.

4k content won't exist, even in 2/3 years. Its false advertising. Just upscaled.

bump

is there any evidence that netflix, amazon prime, and youtube 4k are in fact upscaled ~1080p content? can you guys provide this evidence? i'm sure you understand why i won't be searching for your evidence for you.

are your keyboard's buttons stuck buddy?

2 things though:
1) why honestly do you care what other people do? like does this affect you at all? do you really care? do you sperg out when people buy cars with seat warmers just because you don't like seat warmers?

2) people hardly ever upgrade when they *need* anything; they upgrade everything they own on various intervals. smartphones more frequently than TVs, TVs more frequently than cars, etc... but rarely is it because "need" seriously factored in. they wanted a new thing with new features. you probably do the same with stuff that matters to you. stop being all bitchy about how other people live.

Give me the name of the movie that you think is 4k and i will prove it.

>do you sperg out
>stop being all bitchy
You should check the mirror

can you check against these:
netflixupdate.com/4k-movies-on-netflix-list/
and i guess youtube.com/watch?v=0vrdgDdPApQ if you're doing some sort of analysis yourself.

what analysis are you doing? is it objectively replicable or do i just get to take your word for it? or is there a reasonably trustworthy source that you're checking against?

you're being too vague with your posts. i'm playing along but i'm not super inclined to take anything you say seriously if you're going to be as scant with details as you've been so far

you're the one who made this thread, dude. i'm answering your question (or the OP's if you're "not the OP and just someone passing through")

4K content exists. Readily available, too. Hell, anybody who owns a modern Android flagship can create their own 4k content.

Beyond that, why shouldn't people buy TVs whose specs are ready for future content? Sup Forums always bitches about electronics that don't survive well into the future. Dying, or being underspec'd, so why bitch about TVs that are ready for future content?

Obviously you need a 4K TV so you can finally stream all the bit rate starved 4K Netflix content.

ITT: OP GOT REKT

It's the 1080p is useless you should only get 720p meme all over again.

Of course the 4K content is limited for now but it will be there more and more with time.
You might think it's stupid to buy a 4K screen in these days but if that's the case just don't buy one and let other do it.

You fucking autists

Bragging rights?

Amazon, netflix stream 4k content, vidya, 4K video production, 4K is ideal for 1080p editing, it's just nice overall and UHD gives you a spectrum beyond RGB on 444 plus HDR and all which is compatible with current content, the signal is just interpreted and applied. It's just perspective, 4K is sufficiently ready to be adopted it's just that the sheer bandwidth requirements and storage limit broader usage. The panels are usually specced at a real refresh rate of 120hz, effective 60hz and a 4K 120hz monitor by asus is on the way

i have gigabit to my place and i'm definitely getting 4k from youtube unless the "stats for nerds" data is actually lying to me. and if the claim is that youtube is downscaling to 1080p and then upscaling before sending it to me, then that's kind of nuts because i'm still pulling 79327 Kbps according to youtube and seemingly confirmed by bmon.

so if the suggestion is that youtube is serving upscaled content, then they're doing it for no apparent reason because they're still taking a bandwidth toll reflective of serving properly encoded 4k content.

all you have to do is to check on idmb tech spec and see if the master format is 2k or 4k.

i'm the guy explaining why people are buying 4k TVs, so i would ostensibly be agreeing with you, so bear in mind i'm not trying to be antagonistic when i say that you've just given a lot of reasons for people buying 4k computer monitors, which is a different question from the one the OP asked

so breaking bad is not 4k?
imdb.com/title/tt0903747/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

>4k content won't exist, even in 2/3 years. Its false advertising. Just upscaled.
This

>and i guess youtube.com/watch?v=0vrdgDdPApQ if you're doing some sort of analysis yourself.
Not him but a good way of analyzing this would be to downscale to 1080p and back up to 2160p and see if you lose any detail. If you don't then. it's a 1080p video. (It's harder to prove something *is* native 4K though)

i definitely don't trust imdb. it's like a less governed version of wikipedia.

do you have anything empirical — that is, stats from the video stream itself — that shows that this content hasn't been remastered from the raw footage to provide netflix with the 4k content they now advertise they serve? in 2013 they weren't even claiming to serve 4k, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear that imdb's data is just stale.

i'm reasonably trusting of the stats youtube gives. it says 3840x2156 — not quite the 4k standard, but i'm sure we're not going to nitpick that.

4K content exists, I've watched house of cucks halfway thru and the first time I saw HDR and all it was creepy asf because that's how realistic it was

Tales by Light is ok right now, but 4K content is available and all you need is get an URSA or some equivalent camera worth 5 grand and shoot your own 4K footage to prove your own content exists

ycbcr444 still the way to go

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about and it shows

1. The fuck has your network bandwidth got to do with anything? Measure the video bitrate..

2. The claim is that all 4K content on youtube (a few stock footage clips aside) is upscaled 1080p. All of the popular channels that offer “4K” videos are just serving you upscaled 1080p.

Is the Xbone the cheapest way to play UHD blurays?

this doesn't even look 1080p

>Not him but a good way of analyzing this would be to downscale to 1080p and back up to 2160p and see if you lose any detail.
downscaling and upscaling will necessarily lose detail. you're re-encoding it. i would understand if the OP/his cohort wouldn't agree to that, because it would basically guarantee a failed litmus test.

it's sufficient to say that you're using enough bandwidth from youtube that some conspiracy on their part would be pointless (if they're upscaling it before sending it, then they're taking a shortcut for no reason because they're still serving massive amounts of data by upscaling it before sending), AND if the source material is reportedly recorded and uploaded from a device that shoots 4k. if youtube is taking a commensurate hit on bandwidth, then there would be no reason to mislead the user. the only rationale for lying about serving 4k would be to save on bandwidth, for which there's no evidence.

the OP has taken this nutty position where all anyone has to do is provide an existence proof of 4k content, which is a stupidly easy position to take. someone else pointed out that you could get an android phone and record 4k video, so even if we drop the whole netflix and youtube point there's still no way to argue against the fact that you can produce 4k content right now and watch it on your TV. and yeah, that wouldn't be anywhere near as good as real world programming in 4k, but then the OP unwisely took the more extreme position of saying that there was no 4k content (not even "there's no 4k content that i care about").

is it seriously not obvious that the screenshot is downscaled? i've just set it to forcibly take the 4k stream and downscale it on my end. the stats window even says that the dimensions of this window are "854 x 480 * 2".

i'm just illustrating that youtube serves 4k content, and that the bandwidth statistics and other data corroborate that.

>1. The fuck has your network bandwidth got to do with anything? Measure the video bitrate..
bandwidth is an important factor in whether youtube will send you 4k content by default. the same is true with netflix and other streaming services. i'm trying to understand why you guys don't seem to think these services serve 4k content, but you're not making it easy since you're just taking jabs without being especially forthcoming with anything in the way of bitrate stats or anything else.

i'm the only one providing any evidence that's not from imdb (well, me and ).

your second point is exactly what i'm saying would make no logical sense. are you telling me that youtube is blowing through this amount of bandwidth and still sending me downscaled and then upscaled content? what possible motivation would there be to do that? it's like enrolling in a marathon, getting in a car, and taking it back to the beginning of the race.

attached is a screenshot of the bitrate VLC reports from a youtube-dl of the 4k video. it's 4k content. if youtube is downscaling and then upscaling, then they're accomplishing nothing because they've still served me content at a bitrate that's consistent with 4k content encoded with VP9

I will continue to enjoy my CRT until flat screens get a decent image quality. Up to now they are just MOAR PIXELZ!!11!! while having inferior image quality in every other field compared to CRT tech.

Besides expanding your resolvable perspective, the whole point of 4K is UHD certification which involves HDR in local or full array dimming where pixels are lit independently which makes your screen dynamically lit on all content even regularly encoded allowing some form of ambient occlusion versus a static image.

Instead of debating the actual specs which are under the UHD certification anyway, you'd have to experience the actual content outside of a store and see it for yourself that it's good enough to be adopted. Just a note that lots of 4K monitors will go on sale soon because HDR is paving its way, 4K without UHD is quite pointless and you're just getting the resolution for its own productive sake.

>downscaling and upscaling will necessarily lose detail.
Only if that detail is in the file to begin with

Upscaling a 1080p file to 2160p and back is like upsampling an audio clip from 44.1 kHz to 96 kHz and back. Both are essentially transparent operations. Going through 1080p and back would only eliminate frequency components above the threshold of what's representable with 1080p, i.e. actual “4K only” detail, similar to how resampling a 44.1 kHz file to 20 kHz and back will cut off all high freuency components above 10 kHz.

> you're re-encoding it.
Why would you re-encode it? That would be completely retarded

>it's sufficient to say that you're using enough bandwidth from youtube
I pull 100 Mbps when watching a 720p stream as well, it's called buffering. Fucking look it up

>some conspiracy on their part
Nobody is trying to insinuate some sort of alien conspiracy on youtube's part, all people were saying is that 4K content on youtube is upscaled 1080p. That has fuck all to do with youtube, it's dependent entirely on the content people upload to youtube. I know at least a few popular channels actually did videos explaining this (the fact that they deliberately and openly upscale 1080p or 1440p videos to 2160p before uploading them to youtube)

Can't be bothered reading the rest of your content

No shit sherlock, but the actual CONTENT in your screenshot doesn't even saturate the resolution you gave it - it's blurry as fuck

>are you telling me that youtube is blowing through this amount of bandwidth and still sending me downscaled and then upscaled content?
No you fucking degenerate piece of shit moron, I'm telling you people are taking 1080p masters/content and then upscaling them to 2160p before releasing them to netflix/jewtube/bluray/whatever

Nigger there's literally a thousand 4k games to play on it

>like upsampling an audio clip from 44.1 kHz to 96 kHz and back. Both are essentially transparent operations.
But that's wrong

this is an entirely different question. the argument about whether there's phenomenologically substantive 4k content is at best subjective, and certainly beside the point in this context. there exists 4k content. whether it's appreciable because of HDR, or not because of the absence of HDR, is another point.

unless you're arguing that 4k TVs physically don't support HDR and thus will not ever support the experiential grandiosity that 4k ought to be, in which case you're making this totally separate argument that people are buying 4k TVs before they're ready. but even then it's worth noting that HDR isn't part of the UHD spec, but "UHD Premium"; it's not clear what kind of real world traction this specification will achieve. it may have come too late (about a year ago a lot of manufacturers were getting knee-deep in manufacturing TVs for the UHD spec, not for Ultra HD Premium.

But it's true, user. Feel free to try it

Or if you would prefer to ABX, I could prepare a 44.1 and a 44.1->96->44.1 file for you?

i don't know of any evidence of that. i keep asking for this and you keep stomping around like you're having a tantrum. let me know when you calm down

google it nigger

>at 30 fps

>No shit sherlock, but the actual CONTENT in your screenshot doesn't even saturate the resolution you gave it - it's blurry as fuck
the point was to show that the stream youtube is sending is in 4k. whether the lens and sensor are resolving optimally is, as i've said elsewhere in this thread, totally beside the point. if you're going to complain that the 4k content today isn't good or isn't fully taking advantage of the resolution, then feel free, but that's a reasonably subjective argument that i don't care to get mired in.

i'm not going to look up your evidence for you. that's your job. you're the one making this claim.

PC gamers don't play on tv screen.

>Nobody is trying to insinuate some sort of alien conspiracy on youtube's part, all people were saying is that 4K content on youtube is upscaled 1080p.
the fact that some people do this isn't proof that everyone does it. the OP has taken a categorical position that only requires an existence proof. if someone claims to upload 4k output and youtube serves it as 4k (like the sample i offered), then what's your argument? that some people don't do it? i'll concede that, but that's irrelevant.

the last paragraph is kind of the most important point. it lays out why this shouldn't even be an argument unless the OP meant something different in the beginning of this thread.

Everything I read on internet is some halfassed argument that states something with no proof as well as willfully ignores some aspect of the opposing argument like its nothing at all. I fucking hate this. I give a warm thanks to the user who demanded empirical proof to support the claims. We need more of this. Otherwise every argument on the website goes something like this:

>x is good
>no x is bad
>shut up faggot
>no u

A single Titan X runs 4K fine on ultra with ssao and all, fast sync enabled.

Well even without HDR, higher resolution gives alot more impact in the variability of textures and nuance. The UHD debate revolved around OLEDs not producing enough nits although the deepest blacks are present (the completed cert is a 1000 nits). 4k 60fps videos exist, besides just use SVP to make any content 60fps or higher

the thing is that even this argument is just total nonsense. even if the OP doesn't accept the evidence that says youtube and other services serve 4k content (whether a subset of users upload upscaled content is an unfortunate reality but beside the point), the second point still remains that people buying a TV now probably don't want to buy one in 2 or 3 years, when 4k content will be more ubiquitous and almost certainly satisfy even the people here who have been complaining about upscaling and the lens and sensor resolutions we currently endure (and we certainly have sharp enough lenses and sensors to resolve to 4k right now, even if it's expensive)

that's certainly true. i really hope UHD with HDR gets off the ground, because i'd hate to see that become some nonsense that every manufacturer does in their own stupid incompatible way, but i'm worried that it might have just come too late in the game. i hope not, though. i'm not claiming to know either way.

You can play almost all PC games in 4k. That's why I finally made the switch.

Just bought a 60" Sony 1080p at Best Buy, but BB seems to be the only store that carries it. It's the w630b, $599.

Why don't producers make content in 4k when there's 0 people buying 4k TV screens?

let's try to avoid mixing up the discussions — there's less controversy around buying a 4k computer monitor than there is around buying a 4k TV. i still think both/either is potentially justifiable, but i don't want to move the goalpost around and have to argue the merits of both

I have two titan x's and there are a lot of games that still struggle at 4k and I don't think turning AA completely off is a good option. I'd rather play a game in 1080 with high AA than than 4k with it off.

Even though you can't see the jaggies as much, fine lines still look incredibly unresolved in 4k.

4k is a gigantic flop is why. most people won't be able to tell a difference between it and hd anyhow.

I'm not touching 4k devices until it's broadcasted OTA giving incentive to produce 4k content.

You can play computer games on a tv.

not the guy you're replying to, but i have a pair of 4k monitors and i don't game at all. 4k monitors (can) come in higher pixel densities, offering sharper text. you can also watch 4k videos (oh right we're still arguing about whether there's content, but let's just agree that there are videos that are higher in resolution than 1080p). for these kinds of uses, the GTX 970 that i have is actually overkill that i only bought because it was one of the first GPUs that came with multiple DP 1.2 ports, thus supporting 4k at 60Hz.

>that's your job. you're the one making this claim.
Haha, no. I honestly don't give a shit, you're the one coming here and trying to shill your (((4K TVs)))

that'll probably never happen. a lot of people are moving to streamed content these days, and OTA broadcast of 4k would be prohibitively difficult and would require a whole second round of that spectrum release and auction. that was pretty stressful the first time around, so i doubt there's willpower to do it again any time soon.

you clearly give enough of a shit to have made this thread and/or argue this point for at least a few minutes. it doesn't really bother me if you leave this thread no more informed than when you started/joined it. i'm not your keeper.

For 4K netflix and 4K PS4 Pro

Yea I recognize that. Meanwhile Japan is testing 8k OTA. Shame.

>the point was to show that the stream youtube is sending is in 4k. whether the lens and sensor are resolving optimally is, as i've said elsewhere in this thread, totally beside the point.
Ah yes, so you'll gladly watch 720p content as long as it says “4K” on the logo

What's next, transcoding MP3 to FLAC so you can pretend it's lossless? Jesus christ, videophiles/audiophiles are braindead...

i'll catch you up: there's apparently a lot of doubt as to whether netflix and youtube 4k is actually 4k or fake 4k, and evidence that it's actually 4k isn't satisfactory to them. they want to see the behind the process of recording, post production, etc... or they'll be quite convinced that somewhere it was adulterated and downscaled then upscaled again

The market is just saturated and networks won't withstand the bandwidth and storage space, raw 4K video takes insane amounts of space even on modded rigs with direct to ssd 850 pros.

The push for higher resolutions, 8K now showcased at the most recent CES and the upcoming release of the Swift PG27UQ (4K IPS 120hz); I'm assuming it's linked in a way to VR which is an even bigger flop. The resolvability needs to be present for the application of big data, IoS for automation in the upcoming industrial revolution meme in terms of distinction and differentiation of real world elements for machines to actually gorge on that data to be acted upon IRL

4k
144hz
1ms
OLED
HDR
30+ inch monitors whennnn?

see
forget OLED in the meantime, latency and burn in

30 inch, consider the aspect ratio. 43 inches is the ideal ppi but it's up to you. Too many ppl just waitfag and rationalize their obscurantism

Get this man a tinfoil hat.

That's a lot of new standards that need to come to pass. Probably will be a while.

>Ah yes, so you'll gladly watch 720p content as long as it says “4K” on the logo
no. i addressed this in the rest of the post. you may argue that all of the content is upscaled from lower resolutions, but i've shown that there exists content that wasn't upscaled before being uploaded to youtube as 4k video.

that's all i needed to argue, and that's all i argued. but just for your piece of ind, i'll agree that i wouldn't want to watch 720p or 1080p video that was upscaled to 4k. so i don't.

piece of mind*, sorry

extratorrent.cc/rss.xml?type=hot&cat=BluRay, 4k UHD

i'll spare you the argument and let you know that they'll argue that this is either
- upscaled, or
- not really very sharp (and thus not really worthy of 4k), or something similar

I watched X-Men apocalypse on a 4k tv and it looked pretty fucking amazing. Its obviously more detailed than 1080p by quite a bit.

>theres 0 content in 4k?
not true. Netflix has a lot of 4k content. Many movies are available in 4k now as well, you can even find that shit on public trackers.

It's limited, but it's growing.

look dude, i agree. i'm just letting you know up front that this thread has some people in it who refuse to acknowledge basically any evidence. take a scan through for the posts with images in them. they refused to accept that proof and offered nothing in return except tantrums and stuff.

so i'm just saying you're probably going to get nowhere

I just got a 144hz1080p for much effpeeess gaymen.

I feel like I'm gonna be using my 290x for years now because it can push those frames at 1080p. Will 4k60 be worth it in a year when we finally have single GPU solutions? Not to mention the fact that we can barely do single GPU 2015 games at 60 I wonder how games will look in 2017 and if Vega will even be able to push that

Nobody is saying that though, its just you.

No, rational user. You need to take his word for it. The corporations don't want you to know this so the evidence is scrubbed out of the internet. Here, have a tinfoil hat

Not a shill, but the Swift PG27UQ is IPS 144hz gsync hdrr compatible, monitors are a long term investment just upgrade GPUs along the way.

Read the thread, tripfaggot.

Even if there's no native 4k content, stuff would still look (very slightly) better if you upscale it to 4k instead of viewing it at native 1080p. Assuming you use decent scalers.

>$1000 in Canada with tax
>my freesync tn 1080p was $400 with tax

Is 1440p goodgoysync and eyepeeess really worth another $600? Also need a gtx 1080 to drive that which is also like $900 with tax. Is it actually worth it? I feel like its too much for what you're gaining.

if you're using 1080p content, the best you'll get is perfect scaling of bitmap content. that is, instead of a single pixel being black (for example), it'll be 4 pixels that are black. there's no logical reason to expect to see raster content being any sharper.

if you use the monitor on your computer, you *will* see much sharper vectors (e.g. fonts), which is a real game changer. i highly, highly recommend a 4k monitor at a smaller screen size (e.g. 24 or 27") and scaling your desktop accordingly (akin to a ~Retina~ display), but this is getting off topic.

It's a chicken or egg thing. It's like asking "Why does the content industry produce 4k content when there's no 4k TVs"

Better start somewhere.

>there's no logical reason to expect to see raster content being any sharper.
That's not what I'm saying. Nothing you said contradicts my point. Good scalers will add information, making it slightly better.

the thing is that there already exists some mainstream content that's in 4k. if you're sufficiently motivated, you can have some 4k content now.

it's become much cheaper to switch to a higher resolution format than it was before. you used to have to have to stamp blu-ray discs and shit. now you just need to come up with a video compression algorithm that's more efficient, and you can use the same dumb pipes for distribution. the chicken and egg problem kind of got solved that way (the cost of upgrading recording equipment still persists, but costs came down pretty quickly so now even douchebag youtubers can record and upload 4k content)

Do TVs have good scalers? My impression was that they were pretty dumb at this stuff.

Yes... keep giving us money, goyim.

I think its been the gaymin faggots that have actually been pushing 4k the most. Gayming was the first thing that had 4k support and richfags were buying multiple 780tis to play in 4k. Only hears later are we getting 4k video content.

Thanks manchildren :3
You helped push the industry with your demand.