Curious Question: Will 4K be adopted by consumers before the broadcasters?

Even though broadcast TV could fall way of the dodo bird soon...I want to know what you guys think. Im basing this purely off my experience...but I bought an HDTV in 2008 for 1400 dollars...and that was when circuit city was going under, so the TV was originally 2000 dollars. Anyways, that same 42" HD TV can now be bought in 4K in the price range of 1500 to 2000. Now....i am sure it is tempting to get a 55" 1080p TV for around 700 bucks.....but thats not the future right....and I think a majority of the customers looking to buy a TV will either be told that or will already know. I work at a broadcast network for sports...and they haven't even mentioned 4KTV...and sports usually pick this stuff up first! They bought iMacs instead of Mac Pros...so they aren't even planning for it in a 5 year timeline...because they are on a 5 year cycle as budget updates go. Anyone else working in broadcast seeing this????



PS. I know a 42" 4k TV is pointless because the depth at which you sit, you probably wouldn't notice a difference...just trying to compare apples to apples best i can.

There won't be 4K deliverables for a few years yet. Although HD caught on faster than expected, it still didn't happen overnight. The only reason I shoot 4K is the extra image data for color grading, compositing, etc. I still am always delivering in 720 or 1080 for my clients.

thats what i am saying. no one is delivering in 4K really besides the few online services. But i feel the consumer price of a 4k tv is in the medium-wage earners and up. i could see in 2 years 10% of the population having a 4k tv. I kind of get the sense more consumers will adopt 4k tv rather than the producers. is that how HD happened? i felt like tv companies dived into hd sooner than the consumers did.

Well, HD-DVD (RIP, superior format) and Blu-Ray brought HD video to TVs before TV stations did. So folks had good reason to buy TVs. Then broadcasters were sort of pushed to move a bit faster then they wanted to.

If someone like NetFlix came out with a 4K streaming, even if it were rentals like on an Apple TV, or optical media (probably not, too outdated) format, and it was affordable and readily available, we'd see more 4K TVs showing up in homes much quicker.

When Apple TV supports 4K, or NetFlicks supports 4K, I'll have a reason to buy one. Until then, what would I watch on it? My own work? I have to stare at that all day. I don't want to see it when I knock off and have time to myself.

Is there even enough bandwidth available for 4k to become mainstream?

I'm living in America's third world, and I have issues already with a 720p stream.

3D was a flop: family with goggles on the noses,watching the 4 BluRays, offering 3D, once, perhaps twice - done.

4k is used 'permanently': "Look the wonderful pic quality of my telly!"
I dare to say: most consumer have a diff. meaning of 'quality' - just to mention all those 'How to make DVDs?" debates - NOBODY notices, that a DVD, with all its compression artifacts is zoomed by 400%!

Sony, Panasonic, phone-makers offer 4k for consumer prices. The 'quality' doesn't get better (no tripods, bad lighting, panic-pans, no editing, ... audio!!!) ... but the pic looks noticeable 'sharper'!

People watch their photos on such 4k Displays - MUCH better

==> as an ex-marketing guy, keyword is 'viewing experience" - it FEELS better!

Aside home-brews content? Samsung uses h265 in its latest device, rumors has it, the iPhone6 allows h.265, European broadcasters signed h.265 lately as 'standard'...

4k is in use for sports widely - 'cause of 'lossless reframing': NFL is using it, at Soccer World Cup in Brazil, they used 8k cams!!

YT offers 4k, Vimeo - and yes, society splits into the haves and the the have-nots, those with a Gigabit-iNet-conenction, and those with a 40$-usb-stick ...

... remember who determined VHS vs. beta (vs. Video2000)?
the Porn industry! A friend of a friend told me <cough>, there's XXX already avail in 4k .......