4K for dummies

Like a lot of blokes, i'm always a sucker for the latest and greatest, UHD/4K being such technology. I have alway been a little sceptical of how long it will take to be mainstream, often taking the 4-5 years predictions with a pinch of salt.

Below is a review of what looks like a very good Panasonic TV, and during the review it lays down some of the technical problems even i can understand. Might be helpful to those thinking about an 11-46 etc, but turned off by my earlier comments that UHD is upon us and you should save your cash etc(From Home Cinema Choice)................................................................

 

The only thing certain about the next evolution in broadcast technology is its uncertainty. 4K/Ultra HD may be widely accepted as the next step from 1080p Full HD, but even broadcasters have yet to agree a specification. While BSkyB looks certain to go with 2160p at 50/60Hz for its sports coverage, the BBC is rumoured to want native frame rates to top 100Hz. For brands eager to punt 4K screens this is all rather inconvenient, not least because TVs prior to this Panasonic model are tethered to 4K at 30Hz, thanks to the limitations of current HDMI chippery.

Contrary to popular belief, the future of TV isn't just about spatial resolution, it's about temporal resolution as well. While there's no doubt that an image four times as detailed as Full HD is impressive, broadcasters seem convinced that most consumers will struggle to appreciate the benefit unless they buy a really big screen. However, research indicates that we all immediately appreciate high frame rates: sixty 8m-pixel frames a second, which is supported by HDMI 2.0, equates to a massive 480 megapixels a second of visual information. 30 frames a second taps out at 240mp, which is a lot less detail. Small wonder then that the arrival of the world’s first HDMI 2.0 compliant screen, complete with full 18Gbps bandwidth, is potentially a game-changer.

Designer UHD

The TX-L65WT600 reflects Panasonic’s 2013 design ethos, with a slim chrome bezel and distinctive illuminated plastic trim across the bottom edge of the screen. Its slick appearance is only broken by the HD cam positioned on top. A cable tidy umbilical tube is supplied.

Connectivity includes four HDMIs (only one of which is HDMI 2.0-enabled), Scart and component/
composite inputs via adaptors, a trio of USBs (one designated for external hard drive recording), Ethernet, SD card reader and an optical digital output. Wi-Fi is integrated. This is also the first consumer telly to offer a DisplayPort input; a connection standard more commonly associated with Apple laptops and PC graphics cards. As it happens, its inclusion here is something of a masterstroke.

Naturally the WT600 features Panasonic’s internet-connected feature roster, fronted by the customisable My Home Screen user interface. Currently enjoying a slight upgrade with the addition of themed Pages, most notably from YouTube and Eurosport, this remains a uniquely intuitive UI.

While the meagre selection of catchup services in the Viera marketplace isn't a deal breaker, it remains disappointing. On the plus side, the brand has introduced its own 4K streaming service, allowing 50/60Hz clips to be viewed – provided your broadband connection is fast enough. A connection of around 50Mb/s is advised, so if you don’t have fibre you might as well forget it.

Media playback from USB is excellent, with the set playing back most key file types, including MKV video and FLAC. Across a network, compatibility is a tad more restrictive. I couldn't play any MKVs from my NAS. The WT600 also supports a UHD-enhanced version of Panasonic’s Swipe & Share DLNA technology. Mobile users can also mirror their device utilising Screen Mirroring, an implementation of Miracast.

Surely 4K is for cinemas, and small cinemas struggle to find the finances to go digital.

For your average room TV, a complete waste of time and money. (However, a lot of us said that about HD).

The other thing to consider is the ever changing screen proportions. Whatever you have you have a good chance of viewing a cropped picture or black vertical side bars or black horizontal bars. The manufacturers will keep driving change in the standards in the hope of endless customer upgrades. I'm opting out.

Graham

For the time being and until they get the specs sorted out, this seems the right choice. Still want a 7-55

Thanks for posting that Chris, its a good read. I have been reading up loads on 4k for months, and the thing that really bothers me is that I just think customers out there buying '4k' TV's to try and be future proof are getting completely conned! Its worse than the introduction of HD - which in a similar way started out by selling hi resolution screens, before the 'standards' were introduced - such as the fact that movies would be 1080p not 720p. When you look at a lot of 1080p screens out there, the picture is utterly appalling. Really really bad. Which should stand as proof that resolution does not equal picture quality. 4k won't be any different when we look back on it in a few years time. The early 4k tvs won't even be able to play the 4k material we will be enjoying in years to come because they were sold before the standards were set. I was in a CEDIA meeting a few weeks ago and there was a discussion about a new copy protection that the movie studios are working on for 4k releases. It will be a hardware chip (sorry I can't remember the name) but for sure if your product does not have this chip in, it won't play 4k movies. Of course, the chip hasn't been invented yet - so no TV has it yet.

There is seemingly no doubt that screen technology will get better every year for ever and ever, but I think 4k should still be in the R&D department right now, until such a time as it is established that there is a 4k/UHD standard/certification that products comply with. Until then, people are spending a lot of money and not getting what they think they are buying.

LCD panels are made in huge sheets and then cut into 42" screens, 55" screens, 32" screens etc. Since you can get a full HD 32" screen - if you just cut that panel twice as wide and twice as long, you have got 2 x 32 inches, and 2 x 1080 pixels across - therefore a 64 inch screen 4k resolution. Its that simple! Its not a better screen, it does have more pixels. But it hasn't complied to any of the forthcoming 4k 'standards'. What a con, is all I can say.

Of course B&O will bring out 4k TV's - i just hope they hold out until they a.) kno what the requirements and standards are, and b.) have made sure that as a minimum, their 4k TV's comply with every single one of the requirements. I think this is exactly what they will do. Maybe through upgradeable modules, if they have to get to market urgently.

I still have people coming in to my stores very very annoyed that they were told their TV was 'HD Compatible', but it won't play HD material without changing a module in the TV at a typical cost of about £500.

No matter how much we try to explain that this is exactly what HD compatible meant, and that the cost of the TV went up by the same £500 once the module was fitted anyway, so they are not being asked to pay anymore than if their TV had been HD Ready, the simple fact is that it was far too confusing for the customer, and quite frankly for the sales people too, and it did nothing but upset and annoy people who bought before the 'standards' for Full HD were in place.

I hope we never go through that situation again. Samsung, LG etc - clearly don't give a sh!t! Just sell sell sell, then when the customer realises they have been conned, sell sell sell again.

A bit like the need for soundbars because the sound on their TV's is inadequate.....

(End rant)

I dissagree that it is of no use in home living rooms. You see more depth in the picture en you can watch on bigger sizes en sitting more close to the screen. The better colours of 10 or 12 bit als also a big advantage and sure the higher framerate.

 

It's time for 4K!

I dissagree that it is of no use in home living rooms. You see more depth in the picture en you can watch on bigger sizes en sitting more close to the screen. The better colours of 10 or 12 bit als also a big advantage and sure the higher framerate.

 

It's time for 4K!

I'm really looking forward to it too, but what this review states is that current UHD TVs are hard wired for a format yet to be decided upon. The content isn't here yet, and again is yet to be technically agreed upon by broadcasters etc.

I think I've seen one UHD player, which again might be setup up incorrectly for those future specs.

Only this Panasonic TV has the new HDMI receptacle necessary for data transfer. How are you going to play UHD without it?

The TVs are essentially here, but again setup for what format, and at what frequency etc?

When I see the demos played in our local department stores, I'm blown away with the clarity etc. 4K OLED has to be the technical holy grail I guess, but until the contents technical specs are decided upon, they are essentially just up scalers.

The falling price of HD OLED gives me more short term hope. £4,000 I think for a 55 inch Samsung or LG OLED TV! Yes there are short term technical questions to be asked about this blue light problem, but if John Lewis/Harrods offer a 5 year guarantee then it might be worth the plunge. They are great looking sets from these manufacturers too.

LG now integrate Harmon Kardon speakers into some of their larger new TVs.

Schuifschoen:

I dissagree that it is of no use in home living rooms. You see more depth in the picture en you can watch on bigger sizes en sitting more close to the screen. The better colours of 10 or 12 bit als also a big advantage and sure the higher framerate.

 

It's time for 4K!

We had a similar debate about HD screens in the past. How many people need a giant screen on which you can also read newspaper small print by going up very close? Most people will not want a cinema sized screen, and most people will use a tablet for looking at printed or similar work. Picture 'depth' is surely created in the original filming using varying depths of field. If, on the other hand, you mean improved 3D, well I've already decided not to bother with it on my BV11 and have no regrets about that. I suspect most people who have 3D very rarely use it.

Graham

Hi

Personnaly, I am tired of this changes in tv standards and poor quality programs.

The solution for me is high end projector + motorised screen + selected high quality sources

For a budget over 4000 euros, a projector connected to a bv7 is the best solution for long term.

This is a very interesting thread - I was holding out for 4k but seems less mature than the big tv marketing departments would have us believe. I think it is not just an issue of resolution but also underlying technology - I cannot find anything better than plasma but it is clearly going out of fashion - like Concorde not been replaced by any aircraft nearly as fast or glamorous.

I have am thinking about either the panasonic vt65 or maybe the panasonic th85v200 - with the BS 4 (bv12 screen overpriced imho) until OLED matures.

This is a difficult time for tv - exciting but feels like companies are experimenting on customers and not clear winners yet - presumably 4k OLED will prevail eventually.

I'd love some new tech to squander the kids college fees on, but it does seem like waiting it out, until specs have been agreed is the way ahead.

Anyone have a 7-55 Mk2 they don't want?

So how will this work? And with what content?

http://www.avforums.com/news/samsung-4k-video-player-coming-to-uk-and-europe-in-march.9864

And if it does work, will it and the TV be able to do this? Without HDMI 2.0!

http://www.avforums.com/news/new-deep-colour-content-encoding-process-could-revolutionise-hd-and-uhd-4k-display-capabilities.9865

I work as a television commercial director, everything we shoot is now in 4k, the delivery is still a problem, but I am convinced once H265 or the equivalent google product is finally released it will change the way we watch TV. I have 4k monitors and I don't care what every expert says about viewing distance etc, but the 4k screen wins hands down, no matter how far you are. It has a depth and realism that looks like a still image, I really don't like most HD sets, as they turn up the sharpening and it looks terrible, with 4k we turn off the sharpening on everything 4k, it brings back a cinematic image.

What's H265?

It's the new super duper compression compression codec for uhd , thing is , there's no actual software to play on these amazing tvs outside 4k pro camcorders , no 4k blu rays , no 4k tv shows , no 4k movies , nothing

the other problem , the BIG problem is hdmi , 1.4 doesn't support 50/60 hz 4k only 24p , so everyone buying a 4k tv today will find it utterly useless as you need hdmi 2.0 for that

stick with 1080p , it's not exactly vhs is it ? :)

danto:

I work as a television commercial director, everything we shoot is now in 4k, the delivery is still a problem, but I am convinced once H265 or the equivalent google product is finally released it will change the way we watch TV. I have 4k monitors and I don't care what every expert says about viewing distance etc, but the 4k screen wins hands down, no matter how far you are. It has a depth and realism that looks like a still image, I really don't like most HD sets, as they turn up the sharpening and it looks terrible, with 4k we turn off the sharpening on everything 4k, it brings back a cinematic image.

It would be interesting to know whether this is due to the increased pixel density or the increased depth and broader colour range of UHDTV. If it's the latter then again, all current 4K TV's (with the possible exception of the mentioned Panasonic) are unlikley to be able to accurately reproduce it.

I agree with the others, wait until the dust settles!

Hi, its a mixture between pixels and colour depth, but to me the colour depth and whats called the dynamic range is the big difference. HD uses a colour space called REC709, a 4k camera can record up to 14 stops of dynamic range, when that goes to HD you lose half the colour space, UHD will use a new colour space and will hold the entire range. I agree wait until HDMI2 is standard. 

I think the 4k adoption will move a lot quicker then most people think, Netflix will start to stream House of Card in Feb in 4k, the manufacturers will be pushing this as they have sold all the HD sets they can. REC2020 is UHD colour space, it changes daily but only the Sony 4k are using it at the moment, so any 4k purchase has to be able to use REC2020 to reproduce a 4K image.

We tested the Canon 4k grading monitor recently, and all I can say is the image is unbelievable. It is $40 thousand, but it shows you everything in the 4k file.

 

as much as i love apple they're releasing the new mac pro , supposedly the ultimate creative tool for 4k with hdmi 1.4 !

oh crikey

Flappo:

as much as i love apple they're releasing the new mac pro , supposedly the ultimate creative tool for 4k with hdmi 1.4 !

oh crikey

Does that mean the computer can create the content but not distribute it? 

The Mac Pro has multiple thunderbolt 2 ports which can send 4k to, believe it or not, three 4k displays at the same time

i wonder why they bothered fitting hdmi then ?

4K & HDMI have different pixels, 4K is a cinema format. 4K image (4096x2160) has 256 more lines of vertical resolution than UHD (3840x2160)

HDMI 1.4 will play 4K@25fps, but not true 4K, where it won't work is if the production is done @50fps which some productions are looking at. They put HDMI in because it is the most used connector to 3rd party monitors, I have been using a Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4k box with HDMI 1.4 to a UHD monitor and works well from a macbook pro to edit footage shot in 4K.