UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy - Page 11 - AVS Forum
First ... 9  10  11 12  13  ... Last
Latest Industry News > UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy
Mrorange303's Avatar Mrorange303 11:03 PM 07-23-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatuglyguy View Post
Doubt it. Take a look here:

Samsung 85HU8550 is FALD according to HD Guru. Can that be True?

Doesn't seem likely that they'd produce a larger version of their non-flagship 4K set with a more advanced backlighting and then slap an MSRP of just $10K on it. Most likely edge-lit, but manufacturers nowadays have such convoluted marketing terminology that it's hard for anybody to tell what's what.
Well thats says it may be. I dont know.

mightyhuhn's Avatar mightyhuhn 03:35 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Where did you find that info about the Samsungs being 10 bit panels? I've read that they are 8-bit but I can't find anything definitive.
that's not easy. you can sell a 8 bit panel as 10 bit just by using a+FRC.
here is an example: http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/p.../LU28D590DS/EN
this is an TN 8 bit panel with a+FRC.
i can't find any infos if this UHD display uses a+FRC or if it is native 10 bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post
That's correct, bit depth and chroma sub sampling not related. You can have 4:2:0 at 10 bits and 4:4:4 at 8 bits.
you can send 12 bit RGB/YCbCr 4:4:4 over HDMI and most TV accept that signal. even my old CCFL LED can handle 12 bit RGB HDMI input. i just say this to make clear that a high deep input signal means panel.
and DP supports RGB 10 bit for UHD.
HDMI 2.0 is just a joke... they should switch to DP but no they don't for what ever reason...
Ken Ross's Avatar Ken Ross 07:38 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
UHD/4K today is exactly where 3D was when it first rolled out—it's immature tech that drives up costs, and there's almost nothing to watch that takes advantage of it.
Of course we could have said that about HD not all that long ago.
imagic's Avatar imagic 07:47 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Of course we could have said that about HD not all that long ago.
I totally agree, but Blu-ray and the PS3 were a bit of a phenomenon of the time, the HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray war actually brought HD to the public's attention via the press, and I remember how Netflix launched 1080p on the PS3 as well. I honestly thought the PS4 would offer streaming/downloadable UHD/4K movies by now. I'm waiting for something to show up—Vudu UHDX? iTuned UHD? 4K Blu-ray? Even a Sony branded 4K would work, as long as you can at least play it the movies on any UHDTV.

Bottom line: UHD/4K needs a cross-platform, popular device and service to support it.
Ken Ross's Avatar Ken Ross 07:53 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingcarcas View Post
What I don't get is when people say that watching 4K content on a 2K TV over 2K content it actually looks better................
Where is the extra information coming from to make it a better picture? Or is it just placebo?
The tighter pixel structure of 4K makes for a smoother picture. You won't see more detail, but the detail you do see will simply be smoother. Remember Apple's comments regarding the "Retina Display"?
Ken Ross's Avatar Ken Ross 07:55 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Bottom line: UHD/4K needs a cross-platform, popular device and service to support it.
Build it and they shall come.
Mrorange303's Avatar Mrorange303 08:02 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
The tighter pixel structure of 4K makes for a smoother picture. You won't see more detail, but the detail you do see will simply be smoother. Remember Apple's comments regarding the "Retina Display"?
Colors look better as well. New lighting tech for2014 seems to concentrate on a bright picture. I like that. I live in a very sunny place. Sun all the time.
imagic's Avatar imagic 08:03 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingcarcas View Post
What I don't get is when people say that watching 4K content on a 2K TV over 2K content it actually looks better................
Where is the extra information coming from to make it a better picture? Or is it just placebo?
When you downscale 2160p 4:2:0 video to 1080p properly, you wind up with 4:4:4 (edited) video. So it's possible that there's more chroma information that's accounting for the difference.



Graphic from wikipedia.com
Attached: chroma.JPG (52.6 KB) 
Ken Ross's Avatar Ken Ross 08:27 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post
Plasma's are the leaders in color accuracy when it is lcd vs plasma.
That is simply, 100%, false. There is absolutely nothing inherent in LCD or plasma that makes one tech more color accurate than the other. It's amazing how these things still persist.

I'm sorry, but I'm a bit late to this thread. The observation I have among some of the posters is that the '4K vs 1080p' debate is really, under the surface, the old plasma vs LCD debate. I see the posters, I know their preferences, and their arguments regarding 4K vs 1080p fall precisely in line with their preference for one tech over the other.

I've got a Sharp Elite LED in the bedroom and the Samsung F8500 plasma in the den. 4K? Bring it on and the sooner the better! Yes, I'm in the market, big time! I am a bit biased in that I have a 4K camcorder, so content is less of an issue for me than some, but I still want broadcaster content.

As for the argument that current UHD TVs will become 'instantly obsolete', I again say nonsense. Yes, in several years they won't be able to produce the extended color gamut or ultra high contrast (if this stuff even happens over the next several years), but they'll still be able to produce a beautiful picture. I think some think that once we go to a Rec2020, all current TVs will produce a B&W picture...or no picture at all. In fact, there's a chance that even Rec709 displays will improve a bit with the implementation of Rec2020. We've seen this kind of thing before where a new standard or methodology actually improves an older piece of equipment even though it's theoretically incompatible with the new standard. Will you get the same level of performance of a display that is compatible with all of the new standards? No. Will the display become obsolete. NO! Will the disparity in the level of performance be great? Who knows and I contend that anyone that sits here saying "Oh, the differences will be huge", is whistling in the dark. We simply don't know how these things will pan out once they actually arrive...whenever that is.

As for the 10 bit vs 8 bit panel argument, I mentioned this in another thread. Do we 'really' know what the actual perceived difference will be? Assuming we have the content that takes advantage of this, how much of a difference will there 'really' be? Has anyone seen it? I certainly haven't. Far too many times I've seen (or heard) promises that the next big thing will just blow whatever is out there out of the water. Unfortunately, more often than not, those statements turn out to be hyperbole.

Let's put it this way. How many of you with great ISF'd displays, go to the movies and say "Wow, the color is just so much better at the theater than when I get home". Or, regarding movie theater black levels (that are really poor by home theater standards), how many of you come out of a movie saying "Damn, that experience was really ruined by those lousy black levels!!". I've never heard it.

So I'm more than dubious about the dire warning "Don't buy today, it will be obsolete tomorrow".
Ken Ross's Avatar Ken Ross 08:34 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
When you downscale 2160p 4:2:0 video to 1080p properly, you wind up with 4:4:0 video. So it's possible that there's more chroma information that's accounting for the difference.



Graphic from wikipedia.com
And this is a big 'bingo'! I can tell you with 100% certainty that viewing 4K content on a 2K TV DOES improve the video...dramatically so.

Since most of you guys don't tend to visit the camcorder section of AVS, you wouldn't know how many camcorders some of us go through. I have had some of the best 2K camcorders that produced really nice video. However my current 4K camcorder simply blows every 2K camcorder out of the water when viewed on my 2K TV.

I have seen people explaining it exactly as Mark has above. It's probably part of it, but I think it goes beyond that. It goes back to resolution. What I think is really happening is that at least at the consumer level, 2K cameras were not producing full HD resolution anywhere near what the HD standard's potential is. Since 4K is so far beyond 2K, what we're actually seeing in 4K>2K, is full HD resolution...for the first time. In fact 4K camera owners often tell people that don't own UHD displays, that they will unquestionably see a huge benefit from 4K cameras immediately. Of course the PQ will be even greater when viewed on a 4K monitor or UHD TV. Viewing my videos in 4K is an entirely different experience, but it doesn't detract from the massive improvement in viewing in 2K.
Mrorange303's Avatar Mrorange303 08:48 AM 07-24-2014
Oh they don't need the science, more pixels means nothing it has zero effect but more pixels. It's the theme here. Again I say if your in the market and you don't go 4k then you are on an even smaller time clock for being obsolete. The material is actually ahead of us. We need to get the sets out there to encourage company's to take the financial hit of transitioning into the uhd world for us.

The studios have plenty of uhd material. But we don't have the saturation to support a full commitment from them yet. With threads like this we won't see that for a couple more years.

The magic connection is us and educating members of the true benefit of these technological upgrades for us all. But old tactics always rear their ugly heads and we have to fight just to get back to a common sense approach.

So it takes way more time than it should. Love what we had. Appreciate it. Embrace what is coming for it is already upon us.
bd2003's Avatar bd2003 09:01 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
I totally agree, but Blu-ray and the PS3 were a bit of a phenomenon of the time, the HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray war actually brought HD to the public's attention via the press, and I remember how Netflix launched 1080p on the PS3 as well. I honestly thought the PS4 would offer streaming/downloadable UHD/4K movies by now. I'm waiting for something to show up—Vudu UHDX? iTuned UHD? 4K Blu-ray? Even a Sony branded 4K would work, as long as you can at least play it the movies on any UHDTV.

Bottom line: UHD/4K needs a cross-platform, popular device and service to support it.

They don't even support 3D bluray yet, so UHD support may be a long way off.

Either way, it's questionable whether the PS4 will ever be capable of decoding HEVC at the kind of bitrates we'd want for high quality 4K (50mbit or so). They might be limited to relatively low quality 10-15mbit streams, the kind you'd get out of Netflix.
Mrorange303's Avatar Mrorange303 09:12 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post
They don't even support 3D bluray yet, so UHD support may be a long way off.

Either way, it's questionable whether the PS4 will ever be capable of decoding HEVC at the kind of bitrates we'd want for high quality 4K (50mbit or so). They might be limited to relatively low quality 10-15mbit streams, the kind you'd get out of Netflix.
Good news is ps4 does 3d bluray next week.

I'll tell you how it compares to my Panasonic bdt360 which has a beastly 3d picture thats clean.
Ken Ross's Avatar Ken Ross 09:13 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
As I've noted before, I have a calibrated 65-inch UHDTV right next to my calibrated 1080p F8500. I'm about as perfectly set up to compare reference-quality 1080p to UHD/4K as anyone I know. Is there a dramatic difference in detail? Only for still images viewed close-up. Once things start moving, motion resolution becomes a factor and LCDs limitations come into play. UHDTVs are really great at showing off the kind of eye-candy, slow camera movement, super-saturated UHD footage used at shows and in showrooms. Add fast motion and plasma looks better, unless you are a fan of soap opera effect.
A study conducted by CBS in the early days of HD to determine if CBS should go 1080i or 720p, showed that over 90% of what we see on TV is static or nearly static in nature. So that means that motion resolution issues come in to play approximately 10% of the time or less. The other 90% we'll see that dramatic difference in detail and that great 'eye candy'.
Ken Ross's Avatar Ken Ross 09:17 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Again I say if your in the market and you don't go 4k then you are on an even smaller time clock for being obsolete.
And I think this is 100% true. I find it almost amusing that some of those warning UHD buyers that their sets will soon be obsolete, have no issues either buying or recommending buying a 2K TV. Hmm, which will be obsolete sooner?
mightyhuhn's Avatar mightyhuhn 09:21 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
When you downscale 2160p 4:2:0 video to 1080p properly, you wind up with 4:4:0 video. So it's possible that there's more chroma information that's accounting for the difference.



Graphic from wikipedia.com
i will not use ":" for chroma patters in this post

this is not true and not really wrong you can theoretically scale to 440.

first off all a UHD yua 420 is 3840x2160 Y and both chroma channel have 1920x1080p.

so you can scale the Y to 1920x1080 and get 444 not 440 at least with proper scaling. most scaler will not change the subsampling at all and stay at 420.

for 440 you need to scale the chroma channel too. for 1920x1080 it is Y channel with 1920x1080 chroma channels with 1920x540 i may mix that up with 422 both have the same bit per pixel and both have a chroma with halve the size of luma. 440 is so very very unusual i don't even know the name for it yua format...

in the end nearly all picture processors in current TV turn any input to 422 so you don't get 444 at all.
imagic's Avatar imagic 09:24 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
A study conducted by CBS in the early days of HD to determine if CBS should go 1080i or 720p, showed that over 90% of what we see on TV is static or nearly static in nature. So that means that motion resolution issues come in to play approximately 10% of the time or less. The other 90% we'll see that dramatic difference in detail and that great 'eye candy'.
Perhaps the difference in eye candy-related priorities is accounted for by the content I prefer, versus what CBS might have been studying. I don't watch serialized TV shows at all, and when it comes to movies I am biased towards kinetic, action-oriented entertainment.
Ken Ross's Avatar Ken Ross 09:43 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post
Given that real 4K content is still a distant hope, it would be nice if TV reviewers objectively measured the effectivenes of a displays upscaling rather than falling back on useless subjective descriptions. There are indeed ways to do this, yet I've never seen it done.
Because there's no standard for this, evaluations on upscaling will always be subjective. You can place a 'perfect' 1080p panel next to the UHD display being evaluated and feed them the same 2K signal. Even there, it will be a subjective evaluation.

Contrary to what some think, I see nothing wrong with subjective evaluations as long as you have some idea of the person doing that subjective evaluation. As an example, I've always liked Tom Norton's reviews because I think he's an objective reviewer and I've almost always agreed with his evaluations. So if he sees things one way, there's a pretty good chance I'd see it the same way.

Always great to have charts & curves for objective measurements, but there's also room for subjective evaluation. Unfortunately, some on AVS don't seem to think there's any room for subjectivity. We don't have standards for everything.
Ken Ross's Avatar Ken Ross 09:51 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Let me boil this down for you: your 4k that you just bought may never do any of that other **** they were talking about.
Sigh. Why is it that some take delight in making others feel badly? I'll never understand this. Never.
David Susilo's Avatar David Susilo 09:53 AM 07-24-2014
Too many of this kind of posters in the past year or so. Too bad moderators don't do anything about them.
Ken Ross's Avatar Ken Ross 09:54 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Exactly. I don't have a downer on LCD it's just I've never enjoyed the 'look' of large screen LCD for tv/movies. I think this really comes down to how LCD produces motion vs plasma and, of course, vs DLP-- which is another fantastic 'outmoded' tech!
So again, this is a generalization that in some cases apply and in some cases does not apply. All LCDs are not created equal.

Far too many of these generalizations in this thread, but why should this thread be any different than any other?
Ken Ross's Avatar Ken Ross 10:00 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Perhaps the difference in eye candy-related priorities is accounted for by the content I prefer, versus what CBS might have been studying. I don't watch serialized TV shows at all, and when it comes to movies I am biased towards kinetic, action-oriented entertainment.
Mark, the content they studies was across the board. I spoke with Dave Ross who was (is?) the chief engineer at CBS back in the early days of HD. They looked at movies, sports, dramas, the whole enchilada in making that determination. When you watch TV and keep that in mind, you'll see how accurate that assessment is.

My viewing is across the board, so I know I'll see more eye candy than not.
imagic's Avatar imagic 10:06 AM 07-24-2014
I'm just waiting for a (relatively) affordable 2160p projector—preferably featuring a LED light source. Unlike many of the UHDTV demos I've seen, 4K projection is notably amazing-looking from normal viewing distances—a true leap forward in image fidelity versus everything that precedes it. But that's partly because decent projectors don't suffer from LCD flat panel issues, plasma issues, OLED issues... you know the deal, front projection rocks for home cinema. So, that's another reason I'm willing to wait and chill for a while with a 1080p TV—there's gotta be an affordable UHD projector in the R&D pipeline, that's what I really want to save my money for.
Stereodude's Avatar Stereodude 10:14 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
When you downscale 2160p 4:2:0 video to 1080p properly, you wind up with 4:4:0 video. So it's possible that there's more chroma information that's accounting for the difference.
Uh... You end up with 4:4:4, not 4:4:0. UHD (3840x2160) 4:2:0 has 1920x1080 chroma planes. Effectively you would only scale the luma plane, leave the chroma planes alone, and up with with 1080p 4:4:4.
imagic's Avatar imagic 10:29 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
Uh... You end up with 4:4:4, not 4:4:0. UHD (3840x2160) 4:2:0 has 1920x1080 chroma planes. Effectively you would only scale the luma plane, leave the chroma planes alone, and up with with 1080p 4:4:4.
Cool, thank you for that. In that case, it's even more likely there is a visible benefit to 1080p video derived from 4:2:0 2160p with proper downscaling, versus native 4:2:0 1080p.
bd2003's Avatar bd2003 11:11 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Because there's no standard for this, evaluations on upscaling will always be subjective. You can place a 'perfect' 1080p panel next to the UHD display being evaluated and feed them the same 2K signal. Even there, it will be a subjective evaluation.



Contrary to what some think, I see nothing wrong with subjective evaluations as long as you have some idea of the person doing that subjective evaluation. As an example, I've always liked Tom Norton's reviews because I think he's an objective reviewer and I've almost always agreed with his evaluations. So if he sees things one way, there's a pretty good chance I'd see it the same way.



Always great to have charts & curves for objective measurements, but there's also room for subjective evaluation. Unfortunately, some on AVS don't seem to think there's any room for subjectivity. We don't have standards for everything.

I think there's room for subjectivity, but I'd prefer that be in the form of two images side by side that I can judge for myself. The descriptive language of an subjective opinion is like a second order of subjectivity, and thats considerably less valuable IMO.

As far as an objective test goes, the method I believe works well is to take a 4K frame, downsample it to 1080p, then let it upscale to 4K. Then subtract the upscaled image from the original 4K frame, and mathematically calculate the difference. It's a straightforward and direct way of testing how close the upscaler comes to recreating 4K from 1080p.

Here's a great example:

http://jeanbruenn.info/2011/10/30/up...n-of-resizers/

And you can see how well the objective measures correlate to the subjective image quality.
imagic's Avatar imagic 11:19 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post
I think there's room for subjectivity, but I'd prefer that be in the form of two images side by side that I can judge for myself. The descriptive language of an subjective opinion is like a second order of subjectivity, and thats considerably less valuable IMO.

As far as an objective test goes, the method I believe works well is to take a 4K frame, downsample it to 1080p, then let it upscale to 4K. Then subtract the upscaled image from the original 4K frame, and mathematically calculate the difference. It's a straightforward and direct way of testing how close the upscaler comes to recreating 4K from 1080p.

Here's a great example:

http://jeanbruenn.info/2011/10/30/up...n-of-resizers/

And you can see how well the objective measures correlate to the subjective image quality.
It was some time ago that I went through all the upscaling algorithms out there, but that was usually for printing still photography, much less often video. Some resizing algorithms are definitely better (and usually more computationally intensive) than others, and after resizing it's definitely possible to apply sharpening to the end result, to increase the apparent contrast of sudden transitions (i.e. lines). That does tend to make an image look crispy, and can help create the illusion of additional detail—but it's still not a substitute for native resolution. In essence, all these tricks are old tricks.

I wish there was a way to compare what the TV actually does, using the workflow you describe. However, there's no real way to directly capture what's on the screen when content is being upscaled by the TV itself.
Ken Ross's Avatar Ken Ross 11:50 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
I'm just waiting for a (relatively) affordable 2160p projector—preferably featuring a LED light source. Unlike many of the UHDTV demos I've seen, 4K projection is notably amazing-looking from normal viewing distances—a true leap forward in image fidelity versus everything that precedes it. But that's partly because decent projectors don't suffer from LCD flat panel issues, plasma issues, OLED issues... you know the deal, front projection rocks for home cinema. So, that's another reason I'm willing to wait and chill for a while with a 1080p TV—there's gotta be an affordable UHD projector in the R&D pipeline, that's what I really want to save my money for.
Well, FP is not without its issues. As with all the other techs, pluses and minuses.
imagic's Avatar imagic 11:55 AM 07-24-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Well, FP is not without its issues. As with all the other techs, pluses and minuses.
When it comes to theatrical presentation of high-resolution content, i.e. true home theater, I can't think of anything that beats FP. More pluses than minuses IMO, as long as you accept the need for a dedicated, optimized space.
bobby2478's Avatar bobby2478 12:10 PM 07-24-2014
I've currently got a 720p Panasonic TH50PX-60U plasma and was going to hold out for UHD OLED, however it will be awhile before that becomes affordable. And with the F8500 being the last flagship plasma, I'm debating getting one now rather than wait for UHD OLED since Plasma is still the gold standard in terms of picture quality (excluding 2k vs 4k debate, and until OLED becomes more availalble and becomes the new gold standard).

I've looked at UHD, and from what I saw the picture and colors are amazing, the biggest problem is the Soap Opera Effect that happens with motion on most of the UHD LEDs. The only one where this was minimized greatly (but still noticeable, just less so than other TVs) is the 65" Sony XBR65X950B. The problem is this TV is currently $8,000. Their cheaper sets still had pretty prevalent Soap Opera Effect. This is a HUGE issue for me, the motion feels choppy and synthetic and even messes with your eyes. It isn't comfortable for me viewing content where this is so noticeable. This is the PRIMARY limitation of LED, and due to shutter system there is only so much that can be done with LED to resolve this problem.

Because of this, as well as lack of content and 4k standards, I'm thinking I'll forgo the current crop of 4k TVs (which are LED) and go with the F8500. If the current crop of LED 4k TVs offered a 65" that eliminated Soap Opera Effect and were priced at $3,100 or less (same price as PN64F8500), then I'd consider getting 4k.

Like others have said, even if you don't notice the additional information on the 4k from typical viewing distances, I DO notice that the information that is present in 2k is much more refined with a much sharper image (as I've noticed when viewing 4k content on a 4k TV in Best Buy Magnolia). SOE is the primary reason I'm looking at sticking with 1080p plasma at this time.
Tags: frontpage
First ... 9  10  11 12  13  ... Last

Up
Mobile  Desktop