You don't need a curved TV, but 4K is the future

You don't need a curved TV, but 4K is the future
Curved TV: the future. Using glam girls to advertise tech? Not so much. Credit: samsungtomorrow

There has been a lot of hype and misinformation in the press over the last few weeks about the future of television. At the CES Electronics Showin Las Vegas, curved screens and 4K TV are being touted as the next big thing for your living room. Despite the confusion, this might just be true. For 4K TV is the next key technology which will gain a foothold in high-end media distribution and the best way to enjoy it is on a curved screen.

We still have standard definition TV in the UK. The move to high definition meant we changed to a television standard which was four times the picture information of old SD. This next leap will take us to TVs with four times the picture information of full HD.

Why do we need more than HD?

The advent of HD TV was greeted with great excitement but the reality hasn't quite met expectations. HD needs to be viewed from an optimum distance for your eyes to adequately perceive the resolution. Three times the picture height is the ideal distance, which unfortunately that means if you have a TV of more than 40 inches you need to sit at the other end of the room to enjoy your programme. If you sit any closer, you can see the pixels that make up the picture and the effect is ruined.

But, if you increase the number of pixels, you can sit comfortably closer to the screen. That's the biggest benefit of 4K TV. You won't have to buy a bigger house to enjoy it.

We can just about use a 40" TV see HD and not sit in the garden to perceive it. The new 4K TVs being shown at CES this week range in size from 55" to 105", some with curved or . But because we can sit considerably closer to a 4K TV these large screens will work in even smaller lounges.

Another significant reason that 4K is being explored and promoted by manufacturers is the failure of 3D television transmission.

3D emerged a few years ago with a level of hype that put HD to shame. But the disappointment was even greater. Many of the broadcast companies that offered 3D in the home have subsequently dropped the service because their customers just weren't interested in it. This lacklustre response boils down to the fact that no one likes the glasses you have to wear to experience 3D TV or the insular viewing experience it promotes. There was also a lack of broadcast 3D content.

Where will the 4K content come from?

Some of the Winter Olympics in Sochi are being shot in 4K but the World Cup in Brazil is the largest planned event that will be shot in Full HD Full and 4K, not 3D. Sky has been doing tests on its satellites for live 4K transmission but has not yet confirmed or denied rumours it may offer a 4K service over the period of the World Cup.

Netflix is on the record with its plans though. The online broadcast service has been busy re-editing popular series to be distributed over its network and plans to distribute the final season of Breaking Bad and the second series of House of Cards in 4K in 2014.

Other companies such as Amazon, RED, Sony, HBO and Apple also intend to create 4K media distribution for online and TV distribution over 2014 and 2015.

Why have a curved screen?

Samsung launched a range of curved screens at CES this week and has everyone wondering if they should be saving up to get one. The idea of curved screen is to focus the angle at which the viewer receives the image to enhance their experience.

If a viewer can comfortably sit closer to 4K TV screen than they can and HD screen, a curve can complement the best angle at which they view it. Or at least, that's the theory.

But there is a worry here. A curved screen creates a prescribed viewing zone for the screen and if you aren't in the right spot, the image is inferior. This was a key problem with 3D TV techniques – if you sit in the wrong place, there is no 3D effect. Samsung will need to learn from the mistakes of 3D to make this offering work.

They have clearly thought about another big problem though. A big disadvantage to a curved screen is that we like our flat TVs to sit flush against our wall. That's where flexible screens come in. Samsung and LG have both created designs that can reshape from a flat panel to a curved screen at the touch of a button.

Flexible screens have been a pet project for both companies for years and they have finally decided to use it in TV. But they also have their sites set on the mobile market. LG, Samsung and other handset manufactures are developing curved handsets for launch, possibly as early as this year.

How successful curved screens will be remains to be seen. They will sell at a premium price over the flat 4K alternatives so many just might opt for the cheaper version, which won't be all that cheap themselves.

Nevertheless, 4K TV is the big story in consumer technology this year, with or without curved screens. We can expect to see the technology move pretty quickly as 8K is already on the horizon and could be broadcasting into our homes within the next decade.

Explore further

Samsung, LG to unveil 105-inch curved TVs

This story is published courtesy of The Conversation (under Creative Commons-Attribution/No derivatives).
The Conversation

Citation: You don't need a curved TV, but 4K is the future (2014, January 10) retrieved 16 July 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jan 10, 2014
The author clearly bought the industry pitch hook, line, and sinker. I would expect better information on a site. A 40" TV only has a verticle height of 24" which means you only need to sit 6 feet away from it. That is quite close enough to the TV. At 55", the pixels are indistinguishable at 8.25 feet. Factor in your actual field of view and there is little need for higher resolution. I would suspect that most consumers are in the same position. And 8K?!?! That is just a waste!

Jan 10, 2014
Why does the author of the headline presume to know what his readers need?

Jan 10, 2014
At 55", the pixels are indistinguishable at 8.25 feet.

While that's technically true, that's not the limit of detail you can see. That's just the minimum viewing distance you should be watching it from to not see the pixels.

Due to something called the Kell factor, the actual level of detail in the picture, or the display's effective resolution, is lower than it's actual pixel resolution to avoid visual artifacts in the video. For that reason, even though you can't see the pixels anymore, the picture still looks less sharp than it could be because each actual "dot" of information in the image takes approximately twice the area of a single pixel and therefore has lower resolution than what the eye can distinguish. You'd actually need to be sitting at least 16 feet away before the image would look as sharp as it can be to the average eye, but then your 55" television would look like a 28" television and the whole point would be lost.

Jan 10, 2014
The Kell factor is not a precise thing, but depends on what's recorded in the video.

You can think of it like this: imagine you put a single black dot on the screen. The smallest you can make it is obviously one pixel. Now, put a second black dot on the screen right next to it - how far apart does it have to be so you can distinguish it from the first dot?

Obviously you can't put two black dots adjacent to each other because you couldn't tell whether it was two dots or just a single elongated dot - there has to be something between the dots, so there has to be one white pixel between the black dots before you can tell them apart. Hence, two dots for every three pixels, or about 0.67 dots per pixel horizontally or vertically.

Try any more and you can't always tell what's in the image. Some claim that digital imaging can utilize about 0.9 dots per pixel, but that depends on designing and aligning the image for the particular display and doesn't work for all arbitrary content.

Jan 10, 2014
I'd rather have something worthwhile to watch than 4k resolution. Why do they think the 3D fad is all but dead? Certainly not because the technology is shit.

Jan 10, 2014
Content is the key and I just don't see it in today's TV market. What good is 4K devices if there is not content that matches that resolution. All we will get is interpretation, which sucks.

Jan 11, 2014
Consoles or most broadcasts wont have the resolution to take advantage of 4K either. PC gaming and high quality movies is where some difference could be apparent, but we are well into diminishing returns here, unless you sit really close to the TV.

The only area I can think of where 4K really makes a big difference is VR headsets like the Oculus Rift, where the picture is stretched over a wide field of view.

Jan 11, 2014
Content is the key and I just don't see it in today's TV market. What good is 4K devices if there is not content that matches that resolution. .....

There is good content, it's just not going to fall into your lap by flipping through channels. Imagine documentaries like Planet Earth shot in 4K on 65+" screen, or a good movie. Yes, quality content is rare, but I think the future will be on demand driven content rather than 'this is what you get' channels.

Jan 13, 2014
Consoles or most broadcasts wont have the resolution to take advantage of 4K either.

Ironically, consoles and PCs are already rendering games at 4K resolutions and much higher.

It's called supersampling anti-alias where each pixel on the screen is actually rendered multiple times, effectively rendering the game image in multiple resolution so that if you're running at 8xAA to a 1080p screen, you're effectively rendering the game at 8K resolution and then downsampling it to get rid of the "jaggies". That's why AA is such a huge performance hit for GPUs and disabling it will make even older cards play new games without problems.

On an 8K screen, anti-aliasing would be rather unnecessary since you would be sitting far enough that you can't see the individual pixels, therefore you can't see the jagged edges.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more