11-12-16, 02:45 PM
(11-12-16, 12:13 PM)fazersharp link Wrote: About 5 years ago I brought a 55in smart tv for Sharp Halls entertaining parlour, cost over a grand at the time. It is 3d and at the time that was (being pushed as ) the way forward, even BBC were experimenting on broadcasting some shows and events in 3d, blurays also being released in 3d. I actually didn't buy the tv because it had 3d, I didnt even want 3d but at the time you couldn't buy a 55incher without it.
So I was in currys the other day killing some time whilst Mrs Sharp was buying some Christmas crap in M&S and mooched around the tvs, assistant came and I pretended to be looking at buying a tv 55 or more with 3d and he starts rubbing his chin / thinking, turns out that only a small select few now are including 3d. BBC have also given up on 3d.
So the point to my story is that I feel perhaps 4k could be the next 3d, which was pushed just as a selling point to - well, sell tvs.
3D was a gimmick, and there are several reasons why it never took off (again).
But 4K is just a measurement of pixels (horizontally) on your screen, there is absolutely nothing gimmicky about it whatsoever, in fact the more pixels the merrier, for even sharper pictures. It's exactly the same principal as photography, more pixels means sharper quality and more detailed photos, with the added feature that you can zoom out more with less chance of it becoming very blurred.
Hence the reason images on 4K tv's become more noticeable when over 40" in size, in comparison to a 1080 or less.
Bit confusing the way they've advertised the sizing because 1080 and 720 are vertical pixels, whereas 4K (or thereabouts) is actually measured horizontally.
A 4K tv should really be called a 2160, but that doesn't really have that sales oomph to it. :lol
More people are born because of alcohol than will ever die from it.