I've been wondering about this ever since reading that North American television transmission standards will be changing again, and soon. Will a standard 19" flat screen display any kind of picture if the TV is fed a 4K video input signal? I ask this because I read somewhere that flat screens under about thirty inches will not display 4K video properly, and I don't want to have to buy a new TV just because the standards are changing again.

Thank you.

4K content isn't there yet. We can't even get a cable or satellite 1080p signal which is not downrezzed yet. You'll be fine, just limited to what your set is capable of delivering .

The $K image would be downscaled to 525i (NTSC resolution). Ideally, the input 4K would be low passed (antialias) filtered and then subsamples both horizontall and vertically to generate the NTSC image. It's what most CECBs do today. You have to decide how to deal with the aspect ratio mismatch. Letterbox, squeeze or crop.

Jeff-

The broadcast TV standards will not change to all-4K signals for decades, if ever, and if/when it happens, there will be converter boxes for existing TV sets just like we have now for NTSC sets.

So, the quick answer to your question is "the picture will look just like what you see today, because the signal from the new box will be the same as you have now."

The comment/idea that "sets under 30 inches will not display 4K pictures properly" is really just explaining that there is no point in making such small screens have resolutions that high, since you will have to have the TV set within a couple of feet of your face to see a worthwhile improvement over 720p/1080p. (Although, there are ridiculous overkill cell phones on the market now that may already have 4K displays on them.)

17" 8K display: http://hothardware.com/news/japan-display-wizards-squeezes-8k-into-17-inch-lcd

And the new TiVo Bolt DVR is 4K (on downloads, apparently).

I think I'll just skip 4K altogether, and jump right to 8.

Chip

Jeff-

The broadcast TV standards will not change to all-4K signals for decades, if ever, and if/when it happens, there will be converter boxes for existing TV sets just like we have now for NTSC sets.

The only reason I brought up this issue is that Roku is introducing its version 4 (Roku 4) media player soon. This player will supposedly support 4K video, but from your comment, I'd say they are well ahead of the game. I have the first-generation Roku player, which seems to work well enough for my purposes. However, if you say the change to 4K from 1080/720p will not occur for decades (or ever), I think I can enjoy my Roku 1 with my present flat screen (and any set that follows it) for quite a while.

I wonder, though, why Roku is jumping on the 4K bandwagon so soon, when 4K television is still in the developmental stages and probably will not become mainstream in the foreseeable future. There have been many changes in the manner TV signals are transmitted in the last 50 years: first NTSC b&w, then NTSC color, then stereo sound (MTS), then HD, now UHD and even something Samsung refers to as "S" ultra-high definition, whatever that means. :scratch2:

I asked a question in a thread I originated some time ago, in which I wondered--After 8K, where will it (the development of television) end? There is, after all, a practical limit to the maximum size of any high-definition TV screen, which is why I stated in the thread that I thought most 8K+ resolution screens would be used almost exclusively as digital signage displays and sports scoreboards. Unless the video image is projected to an external screen, as is done with modern HD projection TV systems, the screen (in terms of a standard LCD flat display) would be so large as not to fit in most living rooms. Moreover, the viewing distance for an optimal HD experience with a screen that large (90 inches or more) would be as close as two or three feet or even inches (!) from the screen. Four-K, as was mentioned, would have an even closer viewing distance, assuming a screen of 50+ inches.

Four-K video does have its uses, say in very small displays as are found in laptop computers, tablets and smartphones. These devices are designed to be viewed at distances of well under one foot from the screen, so images seen on these screens will look much more like HD or UHD, etc. than the same image viewed on a run-of-the-mill HDTV, the reason being that the small screens will be much closer to the viewer's eyes and, being much smaller than a standard HD TV, the images will show much more detail than they would on, for example, a 32-inch LCD panel.

I do not care for HDTV, even though I have a flat screen set in my apartment and my Roku player supports HD video. In fact, I set the Roku a long time ago to output 4:3 video to the television, and the picture looks just fine as far as I am concerned. When the new Roku 4 player comes on the market I will not junk my 1st-generation player, especially knowing what I know now about 4K. As long as my first-generation Roku works, I will continue to use it. As to 4K, I have made up my mind not to even think of what I will do if and when it becomes mainstream. As long as my present video system works as well as it does, that is what I will use and enjoy until or unless it doesn't work well any longer, or if new standards render part or all of it obsolete.

Thats a good question Jeff.

The Cable and OTA through those $40 buck OTA DTV boxes we got in 2009 looks pixelated on some of my old sets.Especially those cable boxes.

Its like watching those horrible low bitrate Youtube videos on you TV.

I hope they do something with their transmission with DTV .I used to get all the locals with rabbit ears and a UHF loop on of my sets.Now I only receive a half of one channel and the transmitter is about only 8 miles from here.

With my 7"inch portable TV up at one of the highest spots in town on the golf course received about half of them.

So if they go 4K I hope they improve on the signal .

I wonder, though, why Roku is jumping on the 4K bandwagon so soon, when 4K television is still in the developmental stages and probably will not become mainstream in the foreseeable future.
There is a big difference between 4K/UHD broadcasting (over-the-air not likely soon at all), and 4K/UHD displays themselves (which are quite common already, with many models available for less than $1000). That new Roku, along with computer-based services, will be a nice step up for people with 4K/UHD sets, as long as they sit close enough to the screen. :)

The main thing to enjoy 4K UHD is a proper screen size. My personal opinion is that a 55 inch screen is to small unless you sit as close to it as you would a computer monitor. You need to go BIG.

Second, a lot of 4K content is not true 4K. When you see true 4K, you will know it and it's breathtaking.

To me the best channel Roku offers is the YouTube paired device one. Many amateur videographers on YouTube are doing them in 4K now. The real problems is the higher data stream rate required to not have pauses in playback with with slower ISP connections. My DSL service is 3.5mbits/sec download and I'm sometimes seeing pauses with some 4K vids on YouTube and the Roku. 4K picture quality is quite stunning though compared to 1080p. I was watching at Wally World 4K TV demo videos the other day and just wanted to keep watching. No, I'm not buying a 4K TV any time soon either.

Tom (PK)

Tom (PK)