Quote:
Originally Posted by TXSTYLE
No gimmicks bruh. 4k is actually more of a "gimmick" than HDR. May want to research it a lil more before making such a broad sweeping comment.
http://televisions.reviewed.com/feat...-hdr-4k-uhd-tv
Now if you don't require the "best of the best" then there are plenty of good and solid options available still. |
I worked in the video equipment industry, and I can tell you from a technology and engineering side of things, 3D and 4K were not worth the time and money spent. 3D was stupid because there is not a good solution which did require the use of glasses and people do not want to wear glasses. 4K most people can not even notice the difference. Hell when HD came out for 5+ years before cable companies put in the equipment which my company made to allow broadcast quality HD most people thought they were watching HD just because the TV supported it.
To your point HDR is really the next step in video, It something people can see immediately, the current backbone equipment can support it, the problem was the TV guys focused on bigger and more bits than increasing the dynamic range of the screens.
The problem is the people who review this stuff do not always know the engineering behind the technology. Most companies who make this stuff will not come out and tell the whole story, why, they are in the business of selling you stuff, and they told you what they are selling to day makes no difference then you would pony up money to buy it.
Most companies and their engineers make all kinds of trade off to get a product out the door, most time it is just good enough and you hope people buy into this.
To give you an example, I worked for the company who developed Directv digital compression and decompression technology. Back in 93 through 95 we were testing our system ability to support HD content. We had a $40K Sony prototype 27" TV in our lab, when you looked at the content as compare to what you could see on regular TV at the time it was a huge difference. But we had to feed digital data directly from a laser disc to the system to make a difference. DirecTV's system since the late 90's supported HD, but there was no clean digital HD content to the 2000's and affordable TV did not come to around 2003 and the DTV STB for HD did not come to around 2005, it was 10 yrs later when you could actual see what I saw for the first time in 95. Around 2000 the first HD TV were on the market and cable companies equipment could not support them until around 2007, DTV was the first to fully support HD.
Fast forward to today, non of the cable companies can support 4K and will not for years to come. Yes Netflix supports 4K but your network coming to your house it the limiting factor. Plus the 4K content on Netflix is highly compressed so the image quality is no better than HD today at full bandwidth. The only way today to see true full bandwidth 4K is to have a Blueray player which support 4K and having content which was recorded in 4K.
Believe it or not you biggest source of 4K comes from Go-pros and the new Iphone 6S.
If you are going to make an investment HDR is better you will see an immediate benefit and it does not require equipment outside your home to be upgraded. There are other technologies in the video delivery systems which do not require more bandwidth to work and gives you a better viewing experience. From a technology side, more bandwidth and more pixels are not the answer since your eyes and brain can not determine the difference, we have max out the human bodies limits at this point.