Consumer Reports Asks—and Answers—Is UHD Worth Buying Now? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 125 Old 10-26-2013, 11:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
barrelbelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,649
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by durack View Post

I have 75 mbps FIOS and I think this would be bare minimum for decent quality streaming 4K video.

For what I consider good quality we will need Google Fiber.

Right now the cable companies are happily price gouging everyone for crappy 15-20 mbs connections, we'll see a lot of political battles before a significant part of the country will get internet speeds acceptable for streaming or downloading 4K movies.

And therein lies the huge hurdle. Is it worth it today? Absolutely not in the vast majority of cases. It is totally dependent upon what you want it for versus what you need it for. Need implies right now. Want implies whenever. If I don't really care about uncompressed 4K...or just 1080p upscaled to 4k...or limited content...or true 4k (4096p) versus almost 4k (3840p)...or wide technology integration like OLED, HDMI & 3D...or high prices versus cheapos...then anytime is okay. Now is as good time as any. Just grab your huckleberry and be happy. Because your impulse is based solely on what you want. But if what you want needs the stuff that is not available right now. You better wait. Because in a few years all will be readily available...with more brand options...and much cheaper prices because of inevitable brand & format wars.

Who wants to pay grotesquely overpriced cable/Sat providers more money anyway. Especially for inferior product compared to disks.
barrelbelly is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 125 Old 10-26-2013, 04:20 PM
Senior Member
 
BAMABLUHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by durack View Post

I have 75 mbps FIOS and I think this would be bare minimum for decent quality streaming 4K video.

For what I consider good quality we will need Google Fiber.

Right now the cable companies are happily price gouging everyone for crappy 15-20 mbs connections, we'll see a lot of political battles before a significant part of the country will get internet speeds acceptable for streaming or downloading 4K movies.
See, your set up with FIOS just blows my broadband away. Brighthouse Networks does offer 60mbps, but it costs a fortune, along with the fact that it's not a steady stream.

You also have a projector though and like 3D, so maybe an early adoption of 4K would make sense for you. a projection screen almost begs for 4K which would be like the movie theater. When you've just got a set and its only 60-65 inches or even less, you just won't see the difference from the typical 1080p blu ray.

Then, there's the wife issue. Personally, I have a Man Cave, so I can have as big a TV as I wish. However, if the set was upstairs, there would be no way my wife would go for a 80-90" set. Heck, she might not allow my current 60 inch up there! Maybe you guys have a different kind of wife than I...
BAMABLUHD is online now  
post #93 of 125 Old 10-26-2013, 08:12 PM
Member
 
rexian96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by durack View Post

I am not against progress, I am against marketing driven MOAR MEGAPIXALS = BETTAR progress in name only.

Also, my fear is that with increased popularity of streaming content combined with suboptimal broadband speeds we will be getting severely compressed "4K" video that will become the norm, essentially giving us worse video quality.

No, everyone, please, buy 4K now. I am hoping to buy a 65" OLED for $3k in 2 years. Unless you fund the R&D now, that's not gonna happen frown.gif
Scott Wilkinson likes this.
rexian96 is offline  
post #94 of 125 Old 10-27-2013, 03:12 AM
Member
 
cjvnyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 31
As I read quickly, it seems the TV was FED a 4K signal from the Sony media device, as opposed to upscaling on its own. If so, this isn't the real test, as we don't have the proper cabling technology for this bandwidth in a conventional system. We even devolved from DVI to HDMI due to aesthetic or (miniscule) cost concerns. We are probably at least 6 years at least away from the time a large number of people will have the system bandwidth for feeding 4K to their TV The number of people who will purchase a captive Sony system with a handful of titles on it is probably less than 100.
cjvnyc is offline  
post #95 of 125 Old 10-27-2013, 10:57 AM
Advanced Member
 
sytech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post

We can't even get but a couple of 1080P PPV channels now ...... so you believe they can get us 4k in a couple of years.

They just spent billions in infrastructure to get HD, 4k isn't happening anytime soon over internet or broadcast tv.

Thats a pipe dream. Be real.........

You may be unaware, but using the new HEVC h.265 codec you can broadcast UHD using the same bandwidth as one 1080p channel. So it would only take the bandwidth of 1.2 channels, currently broadcast in 720p. The limiting factor is that the limited number of 4K set in consumers hands by then, probably around 2 million worldwide by then. Also, we are talking about 3 major tier channels. ESPN, HBO and a 4K PPV channel. I already won my OLED bet, so if you are gambling man we can have a bet. I say $100 we have 3 UHD channels by the end of 2015.

http://www.sportsvideo.org/nab2013/nab-headlines/2013/04/09/nab-perspectives-sess-thomas-wrede-sees-4k-satellite-delivery-to-the-home-as-early-as-2015/
sytech is offline  
post #96 of 125 Old 10-27-2013, 05:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
barrelbelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,649
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 221
After reading the excellent article today, "SMPTE 2013 UHD" by Scott Wilkinson. I say emphatically "No" to the question posed by this thread. Look no farther than the following last paragraph of Scott's article to see why buying now is wasteful and risky.

"In any event, it's clear to me that high frame rates, high dynamic range, expanded color gamut, high color bit depth, and less-aggressive color subsampling all make more difference in the picture quality than higher resolution, yet resolution is the only settled issue. All the other improvements are still being discussed and will not be finalized for some time to come, which means the TV manufacturers have jumped the gun by introducing UHDTVs with 8-bit color, Rec.709 gamut, and the ability to accept a maximum frame rate of 30 or, in some cases, 60 fps. (Many UHDTVs can reproduce a larger gamut, but it is not well-defined, varying from one set to another.) Of course, they want to sell TVs, but the models they sell now will be obsolete in a couple of years as these other issues are settled and content is created using the new standards."
pennhunter and steve1971 like this.
barrelbelly is offline  
post #97 of 125 Old 10-27-2013, 09:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lespurgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: California
Posts: 2,455
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 41
I'll be buying a UHD in 1 of 2 cases (or eventually both):
1) Computer display, somewhere around a 40" screen for use on the desktop.Supporting DP. This is more likely to happen first.
2) When we get UHD+ 10 or12 bit colour + 120Hz, and I imagine pretty good 3D tech in a projector. I'm guessing 2016.

Except for pure early adopter, it is not ready for prime time today.
lespurgeon is offline  
post #98 of 125 Old 10-27-2013, 10:51 PM
Member
 
grooves12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: San Jose, CA, USA
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I'm willing to bet that 99.99% of content most people watch is via a cable/sat company or streamed via the internet. All of these sources are compressed to the point of not being able to take full use of the current 1080p resolutions they are supposedly displaying.

Upgrading to 4K will not change that. The only place it will be an improvement is with physical media at full bit-rate. However, physical media is nearly dead at this point and the infrastructure of our cable/sat/internet connections are not capable of doing 4K justice. At best, we will likely end up with something that looks like our 1080p streams should look if they were sent at full-bitrate. An improvement, but, not the groundbreaking difference that will drive sales and consumer demand.

The only way it takes off is if the TV industry forces it on us (like they did 3D) but I don't think the content providers are going to jump onboard because it will cost too much to upgrade the bandwidth necessary to broadcast it, and there likely won't be a lot of consumer demand (like there isn't for 3D.)
grooves12 is offline  
post #99 of 125 Old 10-28-2013, 03:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

You may be unaware, but using the new HEVC h.265 codec you can broadcast UHD using the same bandwidth as one 1080p channel. So it would only take the bandwidth of 1.2 channels, currently broadcast in 720p. The limiting factor is that the limited number of 4K set in consumers hands by then, probably around 2 million worldwide by then. Also, we are talking about 3 major tier channels. ESPN, HBO and a 4K PPV channel. I already won my OLED bet, so if you are gambling man we can have a bet. I say $100 we have 3 UHD channels by the end of 2015.

Yes, you can definitely pack UHD into 1080p channel. You can even squeeze UHD into one SD channel with the H.265. The problem is that the more you compress the more effects of it creep in. This is why we have 'broadcast' HD and Blu-ray HD PQ but in the case of UHD and (Blu-ray) HD the PQ difference question is even more delicate. H.265 is an ultra sophisticated compression scheme which means it will mask compression arefacts as much as possible. It surely will not be breaking into pixelated maze. What it will show up will be reduction of sharpness and miniscule detail. This will be like a graceful sliding into an effective 1080p and further into SD res. Since the overall difference between the UHD and HD is small, lowering the bitrate of UHD will effectively kill it since the difference with HD will not be visible at all . Especially if somebody will ask: why compressing UHD with the H.265 to squeeze it in an 1080p channel and not trying to use the 1080p with the H.265 in the same channel?

Overall one can keep in mind that UHD makes sense at the viewing distance of 2.5 PH or less (meaning display in the range of 100" for standard living room) and with immaculate content. Next generation 4K Blu-ray could provide such content, broadcast is rather questionable at this point.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #100 of 125 Old 10-28-2013, 02:02 PM
Senior Member
 
durack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 361
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by grooves12 View Post

I However, physical media is nearly dead at this point and the infrastructure of our cable/sat/internet connections are not capable of doing 4K justice.

Speaking of infrastructure, interesting article:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/10/cheapest-150mbps-broadband-in-big-us-cities-costs-100-more-than-overseas/
durack is offline  
post #101 of 125 Old 10-28-2013, 05:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,704
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 59
I will get a 4K HDTV in January 2015 when I get a 4K smartphone to shoot 4K home videos. I have looked at some 4K videos on youtube on my 30" 2560x1600 monitor taken with the Samsung Galaxy Note 3 and they look much sharper than 1080p.


click here to view 2560x1600 screen capture





click here to view 2560x1600 screen capture



click here to view 3840x2160 screen grab from Note 3 4K video

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/3690994318/samsung-galaxy-note3-first-look-review
jogiba is offline  
post #102 of 125 Old 10-29-2013, 12:49 AM
Senior Member
 
Phrehdd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 456
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Yes, I'll remain the cynic for now on this matter.

Let's cut to the quick on this matter -

Today we have streaming that does not rival quality blu ray in either video or audio. H.265 is not going to really bring us HD audio nor full UHD quality.

Discs and players - this is a continual problem as there are no standards for quality of transfer of film or tv show to DVD or Blu Ray. This is why we see some really wonderful DVDs and serious lousy Blu Ray transfers and of course DVDs that look like someone shot a video of a TV screen and so on. There is no reason to believe that UHD designated media is going to be any different. What is the point of all this tech goodness when there is no way to know that there will be a common denominator of quality media to present?

If people are running to buy AVR that can do 4k upscale they are forgetting that HDMI 1.4 is not sufficient to go beyond 24 or 25 frames and discussion have placed much of the UHD play at much higher frame rates meaning the exercise is only partially useful. Of course if a UHD disc type unit comes out (Oppo perhaps), you might be able to just run the audio through your AVR and the video portion with the new HDMI spec (2.x) directly to your UHD TV/monitor/projector.

This is one time it would be worth waiting and see what pans out. Naturally, the price of TVs and new 4k/UHD discs and players will over time settle down on pricing. In the meanwhile we can enjoy some Blu Ray discs dropping in price and possibly streaming services providing 1080 content over H.265 as they prepare for UHD.

If I had one wish, it would be that the public would not be so accepting of the greed and crap pulled by studios - whether it is double or triple dipping and no guarantee of quality of transfer to disc whether it is DVD or Blu Ray. They are quite happy to lock us into their stupid mediocre anti-theft technology via cable handshakes etc. but again run their fingers through our pockets looking for more ways to grab money from us with no sense of ethics.

I have a rather simple home system that meets my needs for now - Panasonic 65VT50, Marantz NR1602, Goldenear Triton 7 L/R, xl center, and AON 3 rears along with Oppo 103, Tivo 3 and media stored on NAS as well as my library of DVD and Blu Rays (often based on Ralph Potts forum reviews). I can live with this set up for a long while before even considering UHD and all the hustle to get coin out of our pockets.
durack and barrelbelly like this.
Phrehdd is offline  
post #103 of 125 Old 10-29-2013, 02:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Stu03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Kingdom of Fife, Scotland.
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 166
I would like to chip in with regards to 4K material only being suitable for larger screens/projector images. If me personally can quite comfortably resolve the difference in detail of 1080P and 1080i from six and a half feet on my 500M. Then why on earth wouldn't i be able to resolve the difference between UHD and 1080P on a 55/60" OLED in a few years time from 5/6 ft.

Of course I would.

But manufacturers will have people believe that they must buy bigger because it = more money for them due to size.

Like anything in life that money buys... Bigger equals more money for the seller in most circumstances.

But of course smaller variations is not always suitable due to people's home furniture arrangements. And the people who can't sit closer will need much bigger to resolve the difference in resolution.

But people who don't need to...

Sit closer.
Stu03 is offline  
post #104 of 125 Old 10-29-2013, 05:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,004
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu03 View Post

I would like to chip in with regards to 4K material only being suitable for larger screens/projector images. If me personally can quite comfortably resolve the difference in detail of 1080P and 1080i from six and a half feet on my 500M. Then why on earth wouldn't i be able to resolve the difference between UHD and 1080P on a 55/60" OLED in a few years time from 5/6 ft.

Of course I would.

But manufacturers will have people believe that they must buy bigger because it = more money for them due to size.

Like anything in life that money buys... Bigger equals more money for the seller in most circumstances.

But of course smaller variations is not always suitable due to people's home furniture arrangements. And the people who can't sit closer will need much bigger to resolve the difference in resolution.

But people who don't need to...

Sit closer.
Like myself I don't like to sit close to television,dont care I pretty the picture,I sit 12 to 14 feet from my television im definitely not moving my furniture.
Chise is offline  
post #105 of 125 Old 10-29-2013, 07:35 AM
 
MDA400's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
At least 4k and beyond will drive innovation for bigger-than-30" monitor sizes and faster graphics cards.

Your display is the first thing that limits the graphics card (its the window it renders to) and you can only add so many visual effects to an application before the graphics card isn't utilized enough for the money.
MDA400 is offline  
post #106 of 125 Old 10-29-2013, 10:22 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phrehdd View Post

Yes, I'll remain the cynic for now on this matter.

Let's cut to the quick on this matter -

Today we have streaming that does not rival quality blu ray in either video or audio. H.265 is not going to really bring us HD audio.
I'll stop you right there....Vudu HDX quality does a rather swimming job of it...yes, there are still the occasional visible video artifacts. Audio-wise, Dolby Digital Plus has been shown to be transparent to the master in a lab setting by way of double blind testing. I'd say streaming of 1080p is nearly there quality-wise, and audio has been there for some time.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #107 of 125 Old 10-29-2013, 10:26 AM
Senior Member
 
Speed Daemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu03 View Post

I would like to chip in with regards to 4K material only being suitable for larger screens/projector images. If me personally can quite comfortably resolve the difference in detail of 1080P and 1080i from six and a half feet on my 500M.
Huh?

The differences between 1080i and 1080p are temporal; the resolution is the same.

The perceived benefits of interlaced scanning were great back in the 1950s when the various color standards were being developed. And while the theories that say that interlaced scan offers more spectral efficiency hold true in the frequency domain at higher resolutions, it's not at all clear if that believed advantage ever made sense in the digital domain. When it comes to benefits of 4K, I'd hope that nobody is planning on using interlace there! In the digital age, interlace is a kludge and should be avoided.

You get what you pay for.  For professional advice, pay the professional rate.
Speed Daemon is offline  
post #108 of 125 Old 10-29-2013, 11:23 AM
Senior Member
 
Speed Daemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by durack View Post

I have 75 mbps FIOS and I think this would be bare minimum for decent quality streaming 4K video.
My cable TV provider has 100Mbps Internet service, but the bottlenecks in the Internet make it no better than the base 30Mbps service. I don't think it's realistic to assume that impressive last mile numbers will hold up for real world applications, especially if it catches on and everyone's trying to get massive personal live streams.

I think it's more realistic to look at Internet home delivery of high quality high definition (and beyond) content as a time-shifted proposition. If you have to mail order, or even drive down to a store to get an optical disc, then you're not getting instant access to the program. So why set unnecessarily high expectations of Internet throughput as a "closed door" to getting high quality 4K programming?

I have Amazon Prime and a HD TiVo, and IME, neither Amazon nor the HD TiVo have the ability to move bits fast enough to get me HD (or even SD) content in real time, although at least in theory there's no reason why I shouldn't get my Amazon Prime downloads in real time, based on the networking capabilities at both ends. I should be able to watch a 2 hour movie in two hours, as it downloads, with no interruptions. But it never works out that way. I can accept that.

By the same token, I can easily accept that I'm not going to get 4K video in real time unless I pay for a leased line all the way to the distributor. And that's fine when I put it into perspective. If the choice is between "real time 4K or nothing" and waiting for a progressive download to finish, I'll happily accept the progressive download. Content providers: BRING IT ON!!!

If the CDNs and Internet backbone providers upgrade their gear to support all of those 4K TCP streams reliably (or finally support multicast), then that will be a bonus. But I for one am not going to want to limit the sort of content that I can access to an excessively costly last mile data rate requirement. Forward and store. Forward and store.

You get what you pay for.  For professional advice, pay the professional rate.
Speed Daemon is offline  
post #109 of 125 Old 10-29-2013, 12:32 PM
Senior Member
 
Phrehdd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 456
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

I'll stop you right there....Vudu HDX quality does a rather swimming job of it...yes, there are still the occasional visible video artifacts. Audio-wise, Dolby Digital Plus has been shown to be transparent to the master in a lab setting by way of double blind testing. I'd say streaming of 1080p is nearly there quality-wise, and audio has been there for some time.

Vinnie, first let me say that I am happy for you that you find Vudu HDX to be near par with disc counterparts. This means you can truly enjoy their offerings.

As for me, I have done Vudu HDX, Amazon, Neflix streaming along with Apple's iTunes offerings. We can agree that Vudu HDX is probably the best of the bunch.

I have a decent internet connection, Panasonic 65VT50 plasma, Marantz NR1602, Oppo 103, Tivo 3 along with some Goldenear speakers for my setup. I can say that I can absolutely see and hear a difference between Vudu HDX and playing a Blu Ray disc. The HDX audio is somewhat different in equalization from say Dolby or DTS and in a sense can be a bit boomy which some might mistake for a "wow" factor in movies that lend themselves to it. I would say it misses the mark on good HD Audio. As for image, it depends on what is being played and at best seems close to a decent DVD transfer.

I have had the opportunity to compare some discs with Vudu and while Vudu's offerings (relative to other providers for streaming content) is very good it certainly (for me and my set up) a substitute that is not on par with Blu Ray. The reasons can be two fold - the compression required to stream, lack of true HD audio and what system you are playing back the streamed content. I am sure that as far as video, a middle of the line LCD might look closer in out put of both Vudu HDX and DVD if not Blu Ray.

I'll just say again that I am happy it works for you and I am being genuine when I say that.
Phrehdd is offline  
post #110 of 125 Old 10-29-2013, 02:15 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1002
I haven't had much chance to compare the audio actually. I was actually referring to that of Dolby Digital Plus in a lab setting (at 1.5 Mpbs) where there is no additional dynamic compression applied in comparison to the master. I have a ZT60 and haven't really watched much in the way of Vudu HDX yet (the rental cost is typically not warranted, I have found). On my previous pro calibrated 50" Kuro, I did typically find Vudu HDX to be a close substitute for Blu-ray quality, however, and more than tolerable in a pinch.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #111 of 125 Old 10-30-2013, 06:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
steve1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,719
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 210
After reading "SMPTE 2013 UHD" by Scott Wilkinson I say emphatically HELL NO! For me UHD is not worth buying into now or anytime in the near future.
barrelbelly likes this.
steve1971 is offline  
post #112 of 125 Old 10-30-2013, 05:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Phrehdd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 456
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

I haven't had much chance to compare the audio actually. I was actually referring to that of Dolby Digital Plus in a lab setting (at 1.5 Mpbs) where there is no additional dynamic compression applied in comparison to the master. I have a ZT60 and haven't really watched much in the way of Vudu HDX yet (the rental cost is typically not warranted, I have found). On my previous pro calibrated 50" Kuro, I did typically find Vudu HDX to be a close substitute for Blu-ray quality, however, and more than tolerable in a pinch.

Interesting parallel - I had a 50" Kuro as well that later didn't survive a move to my present dwelling and thus got a 65VT50 (no ZT out at that time).

I am sure there are several comparisons of streaming services and we agree that Vudu HDX is probably the best of the bunch given all things equal (like speed link of Internet etc.) We will part ways and disagree on relative measure between Vudu and actual Blue Ray. Perhaps having an Oppo 103 along with the Panasonic plasma has me spoiled (grin).

Enjoy and glad we can have a decent exchange here.

Cheers
Phrehdd
Phrehdd is offline  
post #113 of 125 Old 10-30-2013, 10:01 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1002
smile.gif Always easier on the soul/psyche when common ground can be reached. I also have that Oppo, so I understand what being spoiled is like (I haven't watched a single stream on this much larger Panasonic, mind you). wink.gif
vinnie97 is offline  
post #114 of 125 Old 10-31-2013, 05:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Stu03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Kingdom of Fife, Scotland.
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post

Huh?

The differences between 1080i and 1080p are temporal; the resolution is the same.

The perceived benefits of interlaced scanning were great back in the 1950s when the various color standards were being developed. And while the theories that say that interlaced scan offers more spectral efficiency hold true in the frequency domain at higher resolutions, it's not at all clear if that believed advantage ever made sense in the digital domain. When it comes to benefits of 4K, I'd hope that nobody is planning on using interlace there! In the digital age, interlace is a kludge and should be avoided.

Of course there is a difference between the two. And it is relevant to exactly what i was talking about with regards to 1080i and 1080p and the upcoming (here) 4K.

The differences between 1080i and 1080p are relevant really only over a screen size of approximately 32" - dependent of course on individual eyesight perception (or distance from screen) of course 1080P being far sharper and better with motion.

I was merely talking about
resolving differences with regard to sitting distances.
Stu03 is offline  
post #115 of 125 Old 10-31-2013, 05:45 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,198
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 646 Post(s)
Liked: 1676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu03 View Post


Of course there is a difference between the two. And it is relevant to exactly what i was talking about with regards to 1080i and 1080p and the upcoming (here) 4K.

The differences between 1080i and 1080p are relevant really only over a screen size of approximately 32" - dependent of course on individual eyesight perception (or distance from screen) of course 1080P being far sharper and better with motion.

I was merely talking about
resolving differences with regard to sitting distances.

That's patently untrue, 1080/60i has better motion characteristics than 1080/30p except when 1080/60i encoding is used with 2:2 pulldown to deliver 1080/30p content, in which case the two formats deliver the identical product. 

 

That's why Speed Daemon said "The differences between 1080i and 1080p are temporal; the resolution is the same."—which is 100% accurate.
 


Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is offline  
post #116 of 125 Old 10-31-2013, 07:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Stu03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Kingdom of Fife, Scotland.
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

That's patently untrue, 1080/60i has better motion characteristics than 1080/30p except when 1080/60i encoding is used with 2:2 pulldown to deliver 1080/30p content, in which case the two formats deliver the identical product. 

That's why Speed Daemon said "The differences between 1080i and 1080p are temporal; the resolution is the same."—which is 100% accurate.

 

Where was it i said that 1080i and 1080p contained different amounts of information in my posts ?

Perhaps i should have been clearer and to excuse any petty finger pointing or one-upmanship smile.gif perhaps i should have compared compressed to within an inch of it's life broadcast 1080i - and a blu-ray version of the same movie instead to keep life simple in the first place.

But remembering i am in the UK, but also considering progressive displays the odd and even fields are displayed together.

Which in theory - should mean smoother sharper imagery, with much less motion artifacts.

I think different display processing capabilities should be taken into account also wink.gif
Stu03 is offline  
post #117 of 125 Old 12-20-2013, 10:54 AM
Newbie
 
Mr. RegalSin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I really admire the HD display, of things, but their are ways to purchase film copies that outdo ExHD or UltraHD. It is not really worth it anymore, for the lack of respect to the consumer. They just expect us to walk in and take trash. I would just do a run around and order a display without the trouble of dealing with the trash.

1. The displays are not the size of a full television.

2. They force film standards over home teather standards.

This is more of a luxary item, if you ask me. It is not perfected yet, and like cars today, they just look unattractive. Again I love HD ( like when a VHS movie is converted into HD content ) . But unless you have nothing else better in your life and own a yacht then go for it. I rather give my kids an ultimatum, with my money then buy another HD television. I view some ExHd on my computer, it is almost scary to see how detail, the film can really be.

Speaking of Blu-Ray, it is really a lost cause, because all of these films, ( the analog original RAW film, recordings not digital ) out their immediately out do the digital copy. I would purchase the actual film and materials used. Of course we are talking about somebody living in a flat, not a mansion.
Mr. RegalSin is offline  
post #118 of 125 Old 12-23-2013, 02:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
Kascnef82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Maybe 10 years from now it will be a value to buy a 4k or UHD TV once all the major broadcasters adopt the standard and keep the 15 year old+ HDTV specs; most major movie studios and media companies can issue a bluray/ 4k bluray combo pack, which could be more expensive than the popular dvd/bluray combo.
Kascnef82 is offline  
post #119 of 125 Old 12-26-2013, 01:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,704
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kascnef82 View Post

Maybe 10 years from now it will be a value to buy a 4k or UHD TV once all the major broadcasters adopt the standard and keep the 15 year old+ HDTV specs; most major movie studios and media companies can issue a bluray/ 4k bluray combo pack, which could be more expensive than the popular dvd/bluray combo.
Mostly older people watch major broadcasts (ABC, NBC,CBS ) today and most people under 40 watch internet TV like youtube and there will be much more 4K videos to watch by this time next year.


jogiba is offline  
post #120 of 125 Old 12-26-2013, 01:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
Kascnef82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 40
watching 4k video like that one on my four year old pc is sluggish....maybe youtube will support 4k video if they make an app for ps4 in a few years..right now the cheapest way to see a 4k movie is to go to a cinema that supports it, such as my local AMC in Rockaway. For 4k TV, go to best buy and try to find a seat in the magnolia home theater section but don't stay there for too long.
Kascnef82 is offline  
Reply Latest Industry News

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off