Although it is not at all certain whether Apple he is actually preparing some kind of television of his own that we could control with help Siri whether miracle ring, so far a lot of unconfirmed information has appeared about him, including an administration according to which a full-fledged Apple have an iTV or HDTV high resolution 4K, or otherwise 3840 x 2160 pixels. However, this claim seemed rather dubious at the time, but it can really happen already in the case of the first generation of televisions. The first 4K TV in an affordable price range appeared on the market.
A new ultra-cheap 4K TV comes from Seiki, with its first ultra-high definition TV featuring a 50-inch LED-backlit screen. The company claims that its TV processes images with a refresh rate of 120MHz and a response time of 6,5 milliseconds. Among other things, the TV contains three HDMI ports, VGA ports, composite AV, as well as the possibility of connecting additional speakers. The biggest attraction, however, is the price of the device, which is set by the company at only $1299, which puts it in the price range of a regular Full HD TV.
Apple so it has a strong competitor in the price area, if it does decide to introduce its own full-fledged high-definition TV. Speculation that Apple is preparing devices with support for 4K resolution began to appear shortly after the company presented them MacBook Pro s Retina display, as well as the new, thinner generation of the iMac computer. However, the probability percentage added to the speculation announcing a new version of the Thunderbolt port, which may result in the introduction of the iMac with Retina display, as well as the brand new, thinner Thunderbolt Retina Display.
*Source: Engadget
I haven't seen 4K with my own eyes yet, and I can't even imagine it very well. I have a really big TV at home, and when I play Bluray, I find the picture really great.
So isn't 4K just a marketing ploy for customers buying according to spec sheets? Or is the difference in image quality really that striking? After all, I won't be watching a large TV from 20 cm because I need such a fine resolution, but from 2 m or more, so the recognition of the resolution from such a distance is already very small for the eye even with FullHD. What do you think about it?
Jarys, what does big TV mean? I have a 63" and it is sufficient in full HD, however Pal is a pain for the eyes, even if I watch it from about 4 m
Jarys, I've only seen 4K TV on the internet and I'll tell you that it's a huge difference compared to FHD, but it's also about how far you are from the TV
when I first saw a Samsung TV a year ago, it had a resolution of 1080p and it was a Led TV for €7000, so it was an image - like reality
you know, even if 4K comes, it will still take a few years before the picture will be clean and nice - the first HD TVs were poor
In my opinion, it will be the difference between normal display and retina. You can work on a normal one, but anyone who tries the retina can clearly see the difference. So there it is. In addition, 4k is “maximal" resolution, the eye can no longer distinguish higher (from a normal distance), so a standard is set that will be for many years toonechy.
Of course, slant-eyed people will make the TV 100px better to show that they have overtaken it apple, but that's enough for everyone :)
2 express:
I have a 60″ and I find it perfectly adequate. On the contrary, I am one of those who refuses to watch anything other than Bluray. I don't have the time or the courage to watch regular TV :-) When I have a moment on TV, I watch a movie on BR. I also have an iPad with Retina, so I dare say I'm a pretty spoiled viewer. I don't really feel the need to increase the resolution on my TV yet (regardless of how long it will take before 4K content is commonly available).
Maybe when I see 4K live I'll change my mind. We'll see ;-)
Either way, if at all…., it will Apple TV outrageously overpriced! Which Apple can See notebooks. So rumors like he wants to get into as many households as possible are just laughable. With a pricing policy that Apple it won't work for me.
2 Johnny Ferrell:
apparently Apple he did not talk about socially weak households in the Czech Republic ;-)
Me with laptop prices Apple they seem fine. They correspond to the quality of HW processing and Software equipment.
Johnny Ferrell:
Jarys is right, folks apple they have in the world, otherwise it would not be the richest company. The Czech Republic cannot be taken as a standard. We are behind the monkeys in business, in the spotlight in corruption:-(
I prefer size over resolution, and I'd rather watch a 2,5m screen from a non-FHD projector than take a few steps next door and watch a FHD TV. When the 4k image is this big, it will only be a plus, but the size leads to viewing comfort and a greater effect. Otherwise it makes no sense. FHD does not make practical sense even with a meter diagonal if you are not sitting 2m or closer to the TV. Of course, it also depends on the image processing of the TV. There are TVs that have a complicated recalculation where you can't tell a classic TV broadcast from a BR disc, and with others it's a rapid difference.
4K yes but miniat least on the 63″ and even that is small for the cinema effect and proper enjoyment of 3D. At 120cm, 3D is useless... small only with less effect IMAX it's a blast :)
rychlik: then corruption will flourish in the Czech Republic just like here, and we are somewhere at the bottom of the EU in terms of salary
- not in Slovakia apple even a wow effect, and that's only because of its price, - that is, rather because of the low salaries, otherwise everyone would be a hit apple product etc
in Slovakia
Amnart: "Jarys, I have only seen 4K TV on the Internet and I will tell you that it is a huge difference compared to FHD"
How can you claim this when you've only seen it on some video on a computer that has a 1440x900 display resolution (I don't know what exactly you have, but I doubt it's a display with a width greater than 4000 pixels).
mrzic: and how else would you like to see it when it's not in the stores anywhere?? think before you react
I read about it here:
http://www.sector.sk/novinka/69656/novy-hi-end-v-tv-84-palcov-a-4k-rozlisenie.htm
Amnart: You think before you react. If you answer him in this form: "and I will tell you that it is a huge difference compared to FHD", then I assume that you have personal experience when you know it so well.
Everyone can find technical articles, videos or parameters.
Considering that none of the sides of this TV reached the limit of 4000 points, it is not a 4K TV.
Even though Wikipedia will claim something different anyway.
Irreversible.
3840 × 2160 is the best possible resolution, exactly 4x more pixels than a full hd TV
I'm not denying that, I'm just reluctant to call it 4K. That is, unless it was meant as 4 Times :)