UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy - Page 13 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 511Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #361 of 1679 Old 07-24-2014, 07:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 683 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying: the number of pixels that your tv can display has nothing to do with the quality or depth of color it can display. For the last time: you are confusing 4k resolution with the proposals for UHDTV which are not implemented yet.

I don't care about 3d but from what I've heard 4k could be a benefit but many of the new 4k sets aren't taking advantage of this because... Well, the market proved ambivalent towards 3d.

Yes 4k can benefit those with extremely powerful gaming PCs.
Not the color depth. Im not saying depth. Im saying trasition. Your misunderstanding what im saying.
I was referring to how colors on like a car with reflections.

On a 1080p set you can see pixels as the color transition. At least I do. In movies etc. I see pixels.

Like in frozen when you see the shaded snow transition into the lighted snow. Those pixels. I can see them

The same material on my 4k looks better for sure. Samsung added a white to the rgb and sharp added a yellow. This for samsung is used for their pur color system. For sharp it's q+.

Your saying this does not matter to the perception of the picture on a 4k set?
Mrorange303 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #362 of 1679 Old 07-24-2014, 07:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,486
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 298 Post(s)
Liked: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
Wouldn't it depend on whether the other aspects of the spec have got better?

eg. If you are going from black on the left (16,16,16) to white on the right (235,235,235) isn't there only 219 steps between those with "8 bit" colour? So if I have a 1920 pixel wide screen it's only 219 steps, if I have a 3840x2160 screen, and nothing other than the pixel resolution has increased (assume no dithering), itsn't it still just 219 steps - it's not going to be any smoother in this case is it?
He's confusing resolution with color bit depth. One of the proposals for UHDTV is increased color depth which would in theory provide a smoother gradient. Really, a 1080p tv could benefit in the same way. Unfortunately this isn't supported as of yet and many here have been arguing whether or not it would even be noticeable outside specific test patterns.

I'm not weighing in one way or another, mind you, just trying to lend some clarity to the position Mr. orange has been staunchly defending since page one.
sage11x is online now  
post #363 of 1679 Old 07-24-2014, 07:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,486
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 298 Post(s)
Liked: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Not the color depth. Im not saying depth. Im saying trasition. Your misunderstanding what im saying.
I was referring to how colors on like a car with reflections.

On a 1080p set you can see pixels as the color transition. At least I do. In movies etc. I see pixels.

Like in frozen when you see the shaded snow transition into the lighted snow. Those pixels. I can see them

The same material on my 4k looks better for sure. Samsung added a white to the rgb and sharp added a yellow. This for samsung is used for their pur color system. For sharp it's q+.

Your saying this does not matter to the perception of the picture on a 4k set?
Ok. So, I don't even know really how to respond to this because you're kind of all over the place.

First: color depth is what you are talking about. The transition you are speaking of is called a gradient.

Second: I think what you're witnessing is something called dithering which is a method of avoiding banding/false contouring.

Third: the addition of the yellow subpixel has been a nonstarter for sharp and most experts agree it adds nothing (positive) to the image. The only reason I've heard discussed to add a white subpixel was for brightness, not color depth.
sage11x is online now  
post #364 of 1679 Old 07-24-2014, 07:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 683 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Let me say it easier. Iphone before retina. Iphone after. The same icons looked sharper. So the color looked cleaner. Same icons took on a more cleaner look. Thus thr transition of an icons color looked better as well. The resolution helped the color.
Because blocky icons became smooth.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #365 of 1679 Old 07-24-2014, 08:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 683 Post(s)
Liked: 182
This. So the colors to me were benefitted by resolution. I'm saying the icons like the grass. Does THIS not still apply?

Transition. The resolution upgrade in fact shows more color detail in the same picture. Your saying this is not correct with 1080 to 4k?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	21
Size:	93.9 KB
ID:	179026  
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #366 of 1679 Old 07-24-2014, 08:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,486
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 298 Post(s)
Liked: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Let me say it easier. Iphone before retina. Iphone after. The same icons looked sharper. So the color looked cleaner. Same icons took on a more cleaner look. Thus thr transition of an icons color looked better as well. The resolution helped the color.
Because blocky icons became smooth.
Correlation does not imply causation.

Your argument is a logical fallacy.

I'm sorry, Mr. orange, I understand your confusion but the fact is while you have a very nice TV you are crediting too much of what you're seeing to the '4k' on the outside of the box. Don't take my word for it: there are plenty of experienced members here who have been telling you the same thing.
sage11x is online now  
post #367 of 1679 Old 07-24-2014, 08:13 PM
Senior Member
 
bobby2478's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
The Samsung has a way to deactivate this in settings. Turn auto motion to clear and turn led motion lighting on. It literally activates a setting to eliminate the soe.

This can also be found in the hu9000 online manual.

The 4k sets do many things. Thry also make great 1080p sets. By that I mean all your material looks great.
Correct, the problem is motion settings that introduce SOE are there to reduce other motion artifacts (motion blur, ghosting) that are more prevalent with LCD/LED than they are with Plasma. So turning this motion smooth setting off in Plasma will eliminate SOE while not introducing motion blur or ghosting simply because plasma doesn't suffer from these (technically still there, just not noticeable). However turning this same setting off in LED/LCD will result in motion artifacts now becoming visible. So fixing one problem (SOE) introduces another (motion blur, ghosting) and vice versa.

The new Sony XBR-X950B looks like it does a pretty good job with this, but this set currently costs $8k.
bobby2478 is offline  
post #368 of 1679 Old 07-24-2014, 08:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 683 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post
Correct, the problem is motion settings that introduce SOE are there to reduce other motion artifacts (motion blur, ghosting) that are more prevalent with LCD/LED than they are with Plasma. So turning this motion smooth setting off in Plasma will eliminate SOE while not introducing motion blur or ghosting simply because plasma doesn't suffer from these (technically still there, just not noticeable). However turning this same setting off in LED/LCD will result in motion artifacts now becoming visible. So fixing one problem (SOE) introduces another (motion blur, ghosting) and vice versa.

The new Sony XBR-X950B looks like it does a pretty good job with this, but this set currently costs $8k.
the Sony does eliminate the soe better. 4k is pretty much identicle.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #369 of 1679 Old 07-24-2014, 08:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,486
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 298 Post(s)
Liked: 503
Bobby, I'd act fast on the F8500 if you want one. Imagic had it on good authority from samsung that supplies were already becoming scarce.
sage11x is online now  
post #370 of 1679 Old 07-24-2014, 08:30 PM
Senior Member
 
bobby2478's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Bobby, I'd act fast on the F8500 if you want one. Imagic had it on good authority from samsung that supplies were already becoming scarce.
I plan on doing that before long. I just want to make sure there are no other 4k LED sets out there with performance similar to the new Sony XBR, before I decide for sure to get the F8500 plasma. Best Buy said they still have a few of them in their warehouse, and they haven't been flying off the shelves at Amazon either considering they still go for $3,100.

From what I can gather, it would appear that if I want the best picture quality for under $4,000, that the F8500 is still my best bet (especially considering my strong dislike of SOE or motion artifacts that appear prevalent on most 4k LED/LCD sets). Unless anyone can point me in the direction of a 65" 4k set that costs about as much as the F8500 and has performance similar to the new Sony XBR?
bobby2478 is offline  
post #371 of 1679 Old 07-24-2014, 08:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 683 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post
I plan on doing that before long. I just want to make sure there are no other 4k LED sets out there with performance similar to the new Sony XBR, before I decide for sure to get the F8500 plasma. Best Buy said they still have a few of them in their warehouse, and they haven't been flying off the shelves at Amazon either considering they still go for $3,100.

From what I can gather, it would appear that if I want the best picture quality for under $4,000, that the F8500 is still my best bet (especially considering my strong dislike of SOE or motion artifacts that appear prevalent on most 4k LED/LCD sets). Unless anyone can point me in the direction of a 65" 4k set that costs about as much as the F8500 and has performance similar to the new Sony XBR?
The sets are pretty good. Spend some time in the owners forums. Some good stuff in there. I have a 65hu9000 and I have posted some pics and 4k vids of the set doing its thing.

In the end though you have to do what is in your heart. Because if you don't the dreaded remorse sets in.

So if you want plasma man jump in. I would imagine the best sets must be getting hard to find. With people wanting to get them before they are gone, replacements etc.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #372 of 1679 Old 07-24-2014, 09:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 683 Post(s)
Liked: 182
I'm not crazy. I don't get how color is not benefitted in 4k? Here is an example of hd vs uhd. Look at his eyes. This was upgraded because the pixel density allowed for better color transitions creating better color. Not more color. Better. Transitions of color. If you guys still disagree then I'll move on and let it go.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	38
Size:	268.3 KB
ID:	179130  
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #373 of 1679 Old 07-24-2014, 10:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
Wouldn't it depend on whether the other aspects of the spec have got better?

... , and nothing other than the pixel resolution has increased (assume no dithering or interpolating to a higher bit-depth), isn't it still just 219 steps - it's not going to be any smoother in this case is it?
I suppose. But why assume no dithering? More pixels gives more dither patterns gives smoother transitions.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #374 of 1679 Old 07-24-2014, 11:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,558
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
I suppose. But why assume no dithering? More pixels gives more dither patterns gives smoother transitions.
Well they could do - though I think interpolating to a fake 10 bit colour (not dithering) would be better. But the reason is, because you might want it to display what is actually in the source - without changing it (without introducing fake new colours/noise).

eg. If I make 3840x2160 video, with 8 bit pcc colour, and I have a 3840x2160 TV by dithering you're adding noise to something that wasn't in the source. The video may already have dithering in the encode. What if it was computer graphics/text that I didn't want dithering added to? Basically dithering is like picture noise - while it can reduce the appearance of banding (or make it appear as though there's more colours) it's better not to have to use it, especially if content could look worse as a result - also dithering in an encode increases the bandwidth -it's better to have 10 bit encoding and no dithering. Would dithering make the text of this post any clearer or make it worse? I'd think worse.

When they create video encodes where they have a 10 bit source and from that they create a dithered 8 bit one, that's dithering from a higher number of colours to a lower one. But if the source (eg. of a UHDTV) is only 8 bit, it may or may not have dithering already in it, and because it's source isn't any higher than 8 bit, it can't really dither to simulate a higher number of colours - because it's source is only 8 bit. It can only dither to reduce banding (or aliasing?) etc.

Upscaling may interpolate the colours, but you are also really blurring it. Basically I think they should adopt at least 10 bit, from source to display, then (even with other colour enhancements) we shouldn't get banding (or should get less - you still might if bitrate is too low).

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 07-24-2014 at 11:40 PM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #375 of 1679 Old 07-24-2014, 11:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
eg. If I make 3840x2160 video, with 8 bit pcc colour, and I have a 3840x2160 TV by dithering you're adding noise to something that wasn't in the source. The video may already have dithering in the encode.
I'm getting confused. If there is dithering in the encode already, then there is already added noise in the source. Now you want to talk about how to avoid double dithering? I have no idea.

I thought the discussion here was about whether 4k without additional color depth can give better representations of colors and color transitions. It can, due to dithering or other techniques.

Obviously, it would be nice to have additional color depth.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #376 of 1679 Old 07-25-2014, 12:24 AM
Member
 
thebigeast44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
I realize what it takes to really do it right, thanks to all the exposure I get to all sorts of home theaters, both in the course of visiting AVS members, and by hanging out with the likes of Theo Kalomirakis and Keith Yates—not to mention attending trade shows, namely CEDIA. Fortunately, considering the current price of a 100" or larger FALD LED-lit UHDTV, you can do it for many tens of thousands of dollars less than is possible with a home theater-worthy screen size and UHD/4K LED-lit LCD.
I agree Mark. I'd say you can do a pretty nice FP home theater these days for about the same price as buying a nice big screen TV. I'm happy with my Epson 8350 projector with a 106 inch Brilliant White Carada screen. My friend painted my room flat black and flat burgundy so its really dark (including inexpensive blackout curtains) and I have a nice surround sound system to match the picture.

Many people (not talking about the enthusiasts on this board) don't think of going with a front projector, not realizing it can be done for about the same price. And it doesn't have to involve a big remodel. My room used to be the main living room for the previous owner and was painted a light beige. A coat of paint (several actually), hanging the screen and putting my projector on a back shelf along with wiring it up was all there was to it. If I need to sell my house, all I'd need to do would be to repaint the room and take down the curtains.

It's not for everyone. But I wish more people would consider it. There are trade-offs. My friend's Panny Plasma has better black levels. But I wouldn't trade that for the big screen experience - IMHO there's nothing like it for movies, sports etc!

And by the way, I agree with Scott. I don't plan to upgrade until the standards are set.

Last edited by thebigeast44; 07-25-2014 at 12:37 AM. Reason: Update.
thebigeast44 is offline  
post #377 of 1679 Old 07-25-2014, 02:27 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 0
oh,it is good!!!!!!!!!!
tywenlanister is offline  
post #378 of 1679 Old 07-25-2014, 07:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 683 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
I'm not crazy. I don't get how color is not benefitted in 4k? Here is an example of hd vs uhd. Look at his eyes. This was upgraded because the pixel density allowed for better color transitions creating better color. Not more color. Better. Transitions of color. If you guys still disagree then I'll move on and let it go.
So is there anyone who will say that 4k tvs dont improve the picture like the photos I posted?

I again was NOT talking the gradient or depth. Im talking how more pixels improve the color and clarity thats already there. Like these examples.

I keep getting told im wrong with tvs and no one can say why? Hello?

Last edited by Mrorange303; 07-25-2014 at 08:45 AM.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #379 of 1679 Old 07-25-2014, 08:55 AM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 90
sorry but what was the picture first is it an upsacle to UHD what scaler is used? is it downscaled to hd (looks like point resize)?
if you ask does a UHD picture look better on a UHD screen else on a 1080p screen yes it looks better...
mightyhuhn is offline  
post #380 of 1679 Old 07-25-2014, 09:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 683 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
sorry but what was the picture first is it an upsacle to UHD what scaler is used? is it downscaled to hd (looks like point resize)?
if you ask does a UHD picture look better on a UHD screen else on a 1080p screen yes it looks better...
Im told the resolition upgrade does not imprpve the picture on a tv like on other platforms. I want to know why it wouldn't apply

Sorry at work. Typing is off
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #381 of 1679 Old 07-25-2014, 09:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Im told the resolition upgrade does not imprpve the picture on a tv like on other platforms. I want to know why it wouldn't apply
I didn't look at your photos, but I've just agreed with you on improving colors with 4k pictures.

There might be something technically wrong with the following intuitive account, since I'm no expert, but you can think of substituting color depth for resolution. Since 4k resolution is more than we actually need, consider that the 4k picture is reduced to 2k by supposing that squares of 4 pixels are grouped into super pixels, so that the 4k picture has 1080 rows of super pixels. What is the color depth of a super pixel? If a red pixel, say, has 2^8 levels, then since a super pixel has four red pixels, a super pixel has (2^8)^4 levels of red, so in effect, the super pixels have a color depth of 32. From color depth 8 for 2k, we go to what corresponds to color depth 32 for 4k.

Thus, increasing resolution from 2k to 4k should improve the rendition of colors.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #382 of 1679 Old 07-25-2014, 10:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,486
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 298 Post(s)
Liked: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Im told the resolition upgrade does not imprpve the picture on a tv like on other platforms. I want to know why it wouldn't apply

Sorry at work. Typing is off

...
sage11x is online now  
post #383 of 1679 Old 07-25-2014, 10:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 683 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
I didn't look at your photos, but I've just agreed with you on improving colors with 4k pictures.

There might be something technically wrong with the following intuitive account, since I'm no expert, but you can think of substituting color depth for resolution. Since 4k resolution is more than we actually need, consider that the 4k picture is reduced to 2k by supposing that squares of 4 pixels are grouped into super pixels, so that the 4k picture has 1080 rows of super pixels. What is the color depth of a super pixel? If a red pixel, say, has 2^8 levels, then since a super pixel has four red pixels, a super pixel has (2^8)^4 levels of red, so in effect, the super pixels have a color depth of 32. From color depth 8 for 2k, we go to what corresponds to color depth 32 for 4k.

Thus, increasing resolution from 2k to 4k should improve the rendition of colors.
Omg thank you. Its been pages. Someone gets what I mean. Thank you.

I keep being told im wring but scientifically it doesnt make sense.

Thank you to someone else for looking at this for me.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #384 of 1679 Old 07-25-2014, 10:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 683 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
...
Your at work too im getting.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #385 of 1679 Old 07-25-2014, 10:22 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,001
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 561 Post(s)
Liked: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
The same material on my 4k looks better for sure. Samsung added a white to the rgb and sharp added a yellow. This for samsung is used for their pur color system. For sharp it's q+
Where do you come up with this stuff? Samsung hasn't added a white subpixel to their 4k sets. PurColor is nothing of the sort.
Stereodude is online now  
post #386 of 1679 Old 07-25-2014, 10:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 683 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
Where do you come up with this stuff? Samsung hasn't added a white subpixel to their 4k sets. PurColor is nothing of the sort.
I watch ces coverage and watched the reps talk features. I watched hours of the stuff on sony lg and sammy 4k sets before I jumped in the sammy.

There is many forms of info. Not all is easy to find. Sorry but if you read above you will see my question is answered. The white pixel was from samsung.

I cant find the video. I am at work.

It was for better color in their pur color system.

But the end all was about better color on 4k sets with the same material.

I was not wrong. About that. I cant proce the sammy video now but ill look later.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #387 of 1679 Old 07-25-2014, 10:32 AM
Advanced Member
 
cardoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Beyond The Wall.
Posts: 808
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigeast44 View Post
I agree Mark. I'd say you can do a pretty nice FP home theater these days for about the same price as buying a nice big screen TV. I'm happy with my Epson 8350 projector with a 106 inch Brilliant White Carada screen. My friend painted my room flat black and flat burgundy so its really dark (including inexpensive blackout curtains) and I have a nice surround sound system to match the picture.

Many people (not talking about the enthusiasts on this board) don't think of going with a front projector, not realizing it can be done for about the same price. And it doesn't have to involve a big remodel. My room used to be the main living room for the previous owner and was painted a light beige. A coat of paint (several actually), hanging the screen and putting my projector on a back shelf along with wiring it up was all there was to it. If I need to sell my house, all I'd need to do would be to repaint the room and take down the curtains.

It's not for everyone. But I wish more people would consider it. There are trade-offs. My friend's Panny Plasma has better black levels. But I wouldn't trade that for the big screen experience - IMHO there's nothing like it for movies, sports etc!

And by the way, I agree with Scott. I don't plan to upgrade until the standards are set.
Now that you have your screen and room set up, you only need to upgrade your PJ. I bet you could find yourself a nice used JVC. That would drastically improve your black level. Even the newer Epsons perform really nice. It has been my experience, that us Projector guys and gals like to upgrade a lot. There are loads of really great projectors in the AVS classified section for a good price.

James Reid:D
cardoski is online now  
post #388 of 1679 Old 07-25-2014, 10:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,001
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 561 Post(s)
Liked: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
eg. If you are going from black on the left (16,16,16) to white on the right (235,235,235), with 8 bit video content, isn't there only 219 steps between those (between full black and full white) with "8 bit" (per colour channel) colour? So if I have a 1920 pixel wide screen it's only 219 steps, if I have a 3840x2160 screen, and nothing other than the pixel resolution has increased (assume no dithering or interpolating to a higher bit-depth), isn't it still just 219 steps - it's not going to be any smoother in this case is it?
It's not really that clear cut. Content isn't stored in a RGB color space. It's stored in a YCbCr color space. 8-bit YCbCr (16-235) doesn't automatically translate to RGB 16-235. In fact, that's not really the correct way to do it. A 8-bit TV should convert YCbCr to RGB (0-255) before sending it to the panel giving you 256 steps, not 219. Further, you can easily convert 8-bit YCbCr (16-235) to 10-bit RGB (0-255) and the 2 LSBs aren't 0's. The conversion uses floating point math so there is real data in those bits.
Stereodude is online now  
post #389 of 1679 Old 07-25-2014, 10:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,001
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 561 Post(s)
Liked: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
I watch ces coverage and watched the reps talk features. I watched hours of the stuff on sony lg and sammy 4k sets before I jumped in the sammy.

There is many forms of info. Not all is easy to find. Sorry but if you read above you will see my question is answered. The white pixel was from samsung.

I cant find the video. I am at work.

It was for better color in their pur color system.

But the end all was about better color on 4k sets with the same material.

I was not wrong. About that. I cant proce the sammy video now but ill look later.
We'll be sitting around with bated breath waiting for you to find that information...

Hopefully this serves as an example to those reading the thread of the sort of veracity of the information you're posting and the relative value of your opinion and statements.
Stereodude is online now  
post #390 of 1679 Old 07-25-2014, 10:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 683 Post(s)
Liked: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
We'll be sitting around with bated breath waiting for you to find that information...

Hopefully this serves as an example to those reading the thread of the sort of veracity of the information you're posting and the relative value of your opinion and statements.
Yeah well that is nice. Ill find it. Doesnt change what I said was right. About 4k vs 1080p.
Mrorange303 is online now  
Reply Latest Industry News

Tags
frontpage

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