UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy - Page 15 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 510Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #421 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 12:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
4k. But then you'll make an excuse for something. Notice the freckles. Better color?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	56
Size:	162.1 KB
ID:	180706  

Last edited by Mrorange303; 07-26-2014 at 12:35 AM.
Mrorange303 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #422 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 12:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Unless you can argue this?
Well in that post he says "Since 4k resolution is more than we actually need" well that basically throws out your argument for buying a 4K TV if you think that is correct. If we can't visually get any benefit from 4K over 1080p at a particular screen size and viewing distance, we also won't see any benefit to those extra pixels being used for dithering. There is also the fact that he is claiming that dithering in that way will give "2^8^4" values per RGB subpixel (4,294,967,296 values) which I think is extremely unlikely . Plus the video sources for these TVs are only 256 (less in video colours 16-235), so are you really saying you can convert current 256 (or less) levels to one of 4,294,967,296 levels by dithering 4 pixels . It wouldn't give you more accurate colour.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #423 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 12:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
But science doesn't work. This is ridiculous when flat out history itself has proven this fact. iPads, iPhones, androids, tv's like I said. Etc. yet people still want to pretend the 4k has no benefits. No place. Well it does.

I have plenty more. But you could always go to the 4k area to see and learn more there.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	26
Size:	143.0 KB
ID:	180714  
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #424 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 12:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
Well in that post he says "Since 4k resolution is more than we actually need" well that basically throws out your argument for buying a 4K TV if you think that is correct. If we can't visually get any benefit from 4K over 1080p at a particular screen size and viewing distance, we also won't see any benefit to those extra pixels being used for dithering. There is also the fact that he is claiming that dithering in that way will give "2^8^4" values per RGB subpixel (4,294,967,296 values) which I think is extremely unlikely . Plus the video sources for these TVs are only 256 (less in video colours 16-235), so are you really saying you can convert current 256 (or less) levels to one of 4,294,967,296 levels by dithering 4 pixels . It wouldn't give you more accurate colour.
Wow. So it doesn't look better? Let's keep pretending but ill light this up with pics from both. It won't bode well. For you.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #425 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 12:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
This stuff is not from google. I took these pics. Often accused of being misleading why don't you go look at the 4k video I posted about how to find a page or so back. It was of my set running the kuro video.

You doubt it yet it is true. Why not look at the former tv and kuro owners in the 4k threads right now? Explain the lack of your evidence in any of this?


Now you have my PERSONAL PICS. I think you can post some evidence yourself. I took the effort. How about you return the favor and not just post some word saying I'm wrong. I took physical pics for you.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	28
Size:	155.7 KB
ID:	180730  
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #426 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 12:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Wow. So it doesn't look better? Let's keep pretending but ill light this up with pics from both. It won't bode well. For you.
Well I agree that the "screen door" effect that was visible in the "1080p" TV is missing in the "4K" TV. Though the geometry of the 1080p TV looks more correct - the curve of the new TV distorts the picture. It's strange how the effect it's so visible in the "1080p" image on the right of the screen but not really on the left. Looking at the picture of the 1080p TV the effect on the right looks so obvious I'd have thought it was less than 1080p (eg. 720p). What model is the 1080p TV?

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 07-26-2014 at 12:47 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #427 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 12:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
Well I agree that the "screen door" effect that was visible in the "1080p" TV is missing. Though the geometry of the 1080p TV looks more correct. It's strange how it's so visible in the "1080p" image on the right of the screen but not really on the left. But I agree that there are obvious lines (if that's the screen door effect) on the 1080p TV. What model is the 1080p TV?
Samsung back lit led 55 inch 1080p 240hz 2013 model. I posted all about it man.

I'm tired of having to prove this and it's just me. Please take the time and include your evidence as to why I'm wrong. Pages of this and every time the person saying this realizes I'm right.

Yet someone will read a post out of order and we are right back to this.

Well I want one person to get the ol camera out. Take a pic of let's do dark knight? Pacific rim?

Oblivion?

I'll match it, with a 4k shot. As long as I have the film. What say you?
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #428 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 01:23 AM
Newbie
 
2013guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
4k. But then you'll make an excuse for something. Notice the freckles. Better color?
For this comparison, I personally like the 4k pic better.
How about the other stuff, ie, the motion, ghosting etc etc. ?

Planning on getting a new tv here
Mrorange303 likes this.
2013guy is offline  
post #429 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 04:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
vddobrev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 811
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 39
I read this entire thread. I purchased a UHD TV 1.5 months ago, and I have never been happier with a TV purchase. It is the European version of Samsung HU9000, the 65HU8500. It replaced a 4-year-old-top-of-the-line-back-then CCFL LCD, a 47" Philips with ambilight technology.

Everything looks better on the UHD, and I mean everything.

I support Mr. Orange's opinion 100%, so attack me if you will. I also have better than 20/20 eyesight, and I also see pixels on a 47" 1080p panel from 9-10 feet.

While people think on the UHD purchase, I watched the entire Brazil 2014 world cup on a my magnificent 65HU8500. All my friends visited, night after night, and everyone was amazed. This by itself is enough benefit of UHD TV. We sat close at 6-9 feet, and never notice any pixels on the UHD. Not so on a 1080p panel.

Stating that plasma is the king of displays is simply funny, since it is not. This is my opinion, and everyone is entitled to one. 6% of the population are very sensitive to refresh/flicker, and I can see each and every plasma flicker, and up close inside every pixel of the plasma I can see floating little dots. To me plasma looks dirty. Not to mention image retention and burn in. I checked out the Panny ZT60, played a little with menu and settings, and guess what, I could see the menu retained after the menu was closed, e.g. "Picture options was visibly retained on the screen. Thank you very much, this does not cut it. To each there own, I will never have plasma in my house. My living room is open area with a 30 feet high empore and is 50% windows, very bright.

Everyone on this thread should remember that the human eye is an organ that is adaptive, and I never watch anything in complete darkness, I want to reduce eye strain and always use ambient light behind the TV. Guess what this does to black level - turns it to pitch black. So there you go, now I have a plasma like blacks on my UHD.

Motion handling - what is so great about a 24 frame material that everyone is hanging to it so tight? Give me soap opera effect and I am all in. I want fluid motion, just like I see the world, not a freaking slideshow 24 frames. The frame interpolation tech has improved very much, and people should see it before judging. It is very certain that the tech will make mistakes, but I am aware of this. Prefer fluid motion 80% of the time, and can live with artifacts. Again my own opinion, and anyone can continue watching the 24p slideshow, which worsens the larger the screen gets.

Pro calibration - I paid once, will never do it, I ended up changing settings to my preference. When I am outside, I see bright colors, e.g. green grass, red roses, blue plums, etc. I want to see same on my TV. Pro calibration makes dull and boring colors. So there you go, science does not work for me. I like vivid and bright. Next time you watch football, check out the 65HU8500 Football mode, that's what I mean.

3D - never seen better, even better than in the theater, and all of my friends said that, they seen many 3D movies in the theater. Again we sit close, like 6-8 feet away. Guess what, no black lines, no pixels visible, just pure image and awesome colors, so anyone who has not seen UHD active 3D should not speak, please don't. First check it out, then comment. If you don't like 3D, that is your preference, but I do, and there is no better at the moment.

Curve - once again science does not work here. Seen a lot of cons on the net, multiple diagrams... from scientific point of view even I was convinced it is a gimmick. Not after you try it, it simply works, and once again this is my point of view so take it for what it is. My curved TV is better viewable from anywhere in the room compared to my not curved tv.

So there you go this is my opinion. I noticed that many posters do not even own a UHD set, yet they are convinced it is not worth it based on science and what they read, i.e. someone else's opinion. It does not work, and why? Because the mind and eye don't always follow science, for example, my curved TV viewed from the side has a bow tie shape. Yet, I perceive this distortion far more correct than the trapezoid form of a non-curved display looked at from the side.

10bit vs 8 bit - who cares, there is no content at the moment, plus the benefits of 10 bit are not proven. Until then I watch UHD 8bit, and I am entertained, while others wait.

Everyone who is in the market for a new TV, should let their eyes be the judge. Go out and look, what ever suits you. If you get a 1080p, more power to you, your decision. I got UHD, since I was amazed by the awesome picture, and I did a fair amount of in store viewing, with my own blu rays, etc. You should do the same.

Last edited by vddobrev; 07-26-2014 at 04:23 AM.
vddobrev is offline  
post #430 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 04:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dr.Shankenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,068
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 112 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
Well I agree that the "screen door" effect that was visible in the "1080p" TV is missing in the "4K" TV. Though the geometry of the 1080p TV looks more correct - the curve of the new TV distorts the picture. It's strange how the effect it's so visible in the "1080p" image on the right of the screen but not really on the left. Looking at the picture of the 1080p TV the effect on the right looks so obvious I'd have thought it was less than 1080p (eg. 720p). What model is the 1080p TV?
We all understand that the 4k standard has not been established. Whether it be HDMI,REC.2020,HDR,etc....... sometimes the science takes away the enjoyment of new technology. I owned an 55" F9000 and had an F5300 1080p plasma to compare it too. I can't scientifically prove that there was an improvement,but in films like Pacific rim,Tron:Legacy,Prometheus you could see a difference in image quality. Could this be placebo,you know rose colored glasses and all from the excitement of new tech, sure.

Like a child on Christmas I put it through it's paces throwing every Blu-ray,PS3,PS4 and Xbox one game I could at this thing. The lack of jaggies and perceived anti-aliasing (anyone that owns a PS3 knows what I am talking about) made Deadspace (trilogy),The last of us and even Shadow of the Colossus look better than their machines they were programmed to run on look better.

I agree that in two years us early adopters may be seeing all the advancements to the technology and question why we didn't heed the warning,but we will be the reason that manufacturers we able to advanced the technology so quickly.

Would I have loved to have owned a Panasonic VT90 4k plasma? Yes! Unfortunately it would have been cost prohibitive for them to make seeing as that only the top 0.1% would be able to afford them due to production cost. A prototype was made and shown at a consumer electronics convention,but it was not to be.

I am as excited for 4k as I was the first time I plugged in my first 1080p LCD TV and two years later I upgraded,so I know the pain of an early adopter. MrOrange303,while not able to upgrade the screen will have a limited upgrade path with the EVO kit/One connect,so he will not be as dinged by the advancement as others.

My advice to you MrOrange is go home and fire that bad boy up and enjoy your new beautifully curved 4k display and stop sitting around defending a purchase "you" made and "you" are satisfied with. Don't let the science ruin your enjoyment.
Mrorange303 likes this.
Dr.Shankenstein is offline  
post #431 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 05:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,965
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 986 Post(s)
Liked: 1077
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post
The reason they call it a retina display is that it has just enough resolution that your retina can't perceive any higher from a normal viewing/holding distance.

An iphone retina display held at 1 foot is roughly equal to a 60" 1080p set at 8 feet. So we've had "retina displays" for years. The only thing people will get from your comparison is that they don't need 4K.
That's great for the metrics you offered. Of course people often buy UHD TVs in screen sizes significantly larger than 60" and/or sit closer than 8'. Either approach will allow you to clearly see the benefits of 4K. Hard to miss.
Mrorange303 likes this.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #432 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 05:14 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,965
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 986 Post(s)
Liked: 1077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

With hardly any 4K content/broadcasts (almost none), I think for most people it would probably be better to wait a bit. By waiting a bit, until there's actual UHD broadcasts/enough 4K media (eg. 4K Blu-ray), the TVs will likely support the better standards and/or be cheaper.
As I've suggested in the past, anyone that enjoys shooting video and has an interest in 4K, should consider a 4K camcorder or camera. You are then in control of your own content and can produce as much as you like.

It looks unbelievably good and I only wish some of the skeptics here could see the reaction of both shoppers and employees in stores like Best Buy, when I play some of my videos on the UHD TVs in the store. My experience has been mirrored by other 4K camera owners. I've had 2 Sony reps ask for copies to show prospective buyers what the 'average Joe', not Hollywood, can create.

Great fun and great content for a UHD TV. Win win.
westa6969 and Mrorange303 like this.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #433 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 05:26 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,506
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked: 1386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
That's great for the metrics you offered. Of course people often buy UHD TVs in screen sizes significantly larger than 60" and/or sit closer than 8'. Either approach will allow you to clearly see the benefits of 4K. Hard to miss.

Oh, for sure. I'm not anti-4K, I def want it in my dedicated theater and my computer monitor. I'm just saying that realistically not everyone has a situation where they're going to get a benefit from it. So I think it's kind of silly how he's going on and on about it like people don't realize the benefits of extra resolution....we all do. We just know there's a limit, and many of us have already hit that limit, so we're simply not interested.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #434 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 05:30 AM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 609
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 86
a UHD TV with UHD content is an increase in quality i don't see any one argue that. you just have to sit closer as usual.
mightyhuhn is offline  
post #435 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 05:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post
Oh, for sure. I'm not anti-4K, I def want it in my dedicated theater and my computer monitor. I'm just saying that realistically not everyone has a situation where they're going to get a benefit from it. So I think it's kind of silly how he's going on and on about it like people don't realize the benefits of extra resolution....we all do. We just know there's a limit, and many of us have already hit that limit, so we're simply not interested.
Wait wait. Now we have an issue. You don't like me going on a and on about 4k lol. This is a thread about 4k what did you expect to find in this thread? Btw it's funny how fast your tune changed once the other 4k members showed up. But they can all read what happened.

I am also disappointed I took the effort to personally fulfill your request for personal shots of my tv. I have requested your evidence that we don't benefit from a 4k screen resolution wise.

That colors are not better. Detail finer.

I literally completed your personal task. You could at lease respect what I did for you. That's bs man.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #436 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 05:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
a UHD TV with UHD content is an increase in quality i don't see any one argue that. you just have to sit closer as usual.
Plenty of time for the people to go back and read. That's right Calvary has arrived. And guess what your talking to 4k owners with other sets that are plasmas.

Ask them. Or better yet read what they say. And read how this thread has treated me for just saying the resolution helps.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #437 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 06:03 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,506
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked: 1386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Wait wait. Now we have an issue. You don't like me going on a and on about 4k lol. This is a thread about 4k what did you expect to find in this thread? Btw it's funny how fast your tune changed once the other 4k members showed up. But they can all read what happened.



I am also disappointed I took the effort to personally fulfill your request for personal shots of my tv. I have requested your evidence that we don't benefit from a 4k screen resolution wise.



That colors are not better. Detail finer.



I literally completed your personal task. You could at lease respect what I did for you. That's bs man.

Lol, I really don't recall sending you on a mission.
Stereodude and sage11x like this.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #438 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 06:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2013guy View Post
For this comparison, I personally like the 4k pic better.
How about the other stuff, ie, the motion, ghosting etc etc. ?

Planning on getting a new tv here
All those are stigmas that have been much improved. The Sony ans Samsung both look smooth. Have great motion settings.

I find you'll get better info in the 4k owners thread. I've been in this thread reading a lack of common sense.

The thread is should you buy a uhd or wait. The members argue the benefits but in reality is having more resolution bad?

Knowing all your current collection looks better? 3d actually has a purpose now. I mean they rock.

I had two sets in mind the Samsund hu9000 curved beast and Sony x900b all in one 4k beauty.

I chose the hu9000 for picture punch.

For smooth motion though you may want to view the Sony. The Samsung is excellent at motion handling. Barely any issues. The Sony is better.

As far as picture goes it's what you prefer, both are very close.

95 out of 100. And 96 out of 100.

I'd start there.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #439 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 06:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
Is that an insult ? Did you read my post? Is that a picture of your new 4K TV upscaling 1080p content compared to your 1080p TV showing 1080p content like I asked? I've posted simulations showing improvements. I wanted to see the actual increase in quality of actual 1080p content showing as stated above.
Sorry bd. this is the guy. I apologize for calling you out man. I lost track of the hating. Really man I'm sorry it was this guy.

But you did say I wrong.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #440 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 06:07 AM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 609
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Plenty of time for the people to go back and read. That's right Calvary has arrived. And guess what your talking to 4k owners with other sets that are plasmas.

Ask them. Or better yet read what they say. And read how this thread has treated me for just saying the resolution helps.
you are making worthless statement or posting low res picture taken with a >camera< . of course a lot of people don't take you serious.
Stereodude likes this.
mightyhuhn is offline  
post #441 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 06:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
a UHD TV with UHD content is an increase in quality i don't see any one argue that. you just have to sit closer as usual.
A uhd tv with standard content is better looking than a standard tv with standard content.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #442 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 06:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,506
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked: 1386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Sorry bd. this is the guy. I apologize for calling you out man. I lost track of the hating. Really man I'm sorry it was this guy.

But you did say I wrong.

Nope, I think you've still got me confused with someone else.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #443 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 06:29 AM
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
All those are stigmas that have been much improved. The Sony ans Samsung both look smooth. Have great motion settings.

I find you'll get better info in the 4k owners thread. I've been in this thread reading a lack of common sense.

The thread is should you buy a uhd or wait. The members argue the benefits but in reality is having more resolution bad?

Knowing all your current collection looks better? 3d actually has a purpose now. I mean they rock.

I had two sets in mind the Samsund hu9000 curved beast and Sony x900b all in one 4k beauty.

I chose the hu9000 for picture punch.

For smooth motion though you may want to view the Sony. The Samsung is excellent at motion handling. Barely any issues. The Sony is better.

As far as picture goes it's what you prefer, both are very close.

95 out of 100. And 96 out of 100.

I'd start there.
I agree if we're talking RESOLUTION ONLY, if everything else is the same (price, overall picture quality excluding resolution) then I'd rather have 4k over 1080p. The problem is that comparison is HARD TO DO right now. Because the only affordable 4k sets are all LED/LCD, and 1080 has Plasma, LED/LCD and even OLED. Time after time again Plasma has shown that in terms of overall picture quality (excluding resolution, which is the smallest factor in overall picture quality at normal distances comparing 1080 to 4k). Even the best of the current generation LED/LCD's can't compete with plasma in terms of overall picture quality and how well plasma handles motion. OLED will be the new king, but it's only 1st generation yet and hasn't had it's chance yet to really prove this out, but it will over time. People can like their LED/LCD all they want, as there is nothing wrong with them at all. ALL 3 technologies are great technologies and there are a lot of great TV's out there.

But people also cannot say that LED/LCD tops Plasma or even comes close to matching it in overall picture quality because the ONLY advantage they have over Plasma is the fact they get brighter, and they have 4k resolution. Because there is no 4k plasma and never will be, it's an apples to oranges comparison to compare a 4k LED/LCD TV to 1080p plasma unless you spike the added resolution off on it's own.

Even the new Sony XBR, for being an $8,000 4k LED/LCD TV STILL has some motion artifacts (motion blur, ghosting, SOE) although from my perspective when compared to all other LED/LCD's, it has done the best job of trying to correct these. But it's also nearly 3x as expensive as the F8500 1080p plasma. It's still a work in progress and in this regard even this high end unit can't handle motion as smoothly as a f8500 plasma that only costs $3,000. Not everyone is sensitive or even cares about this, but for me I can't stand SOE and or motion blur/ghosting. So for me, I can choose to go with a 65" 4k LED/LCD for around $3,000 that has motion artifacts (motion blur, ghosting, SOE), or I can go with a 1080p plasma. If the motion wasn't an issue, I'd choose 4k hands down. But because motion hasn't been fully resolved on LED/LCD yet (even though it has and continues to improve with each generation of LED/LCD panels), for me I'll choose the 1080p. I'm not saying I would't notice the added resolution of the 4k unit, but I will notice the motion much more and that would drive me nuts much more than watching upscaled 1080 content on a 4k panel. By the time 4k content is mainstream OLED 4k should be affordable and that will hands down be the king of picture quality.
bobby2478 is offline  
post #444 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 06:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
"But people also cannot say that LED/LCD tops Plasma or even comes close to matching it in overall picture quality because the ONLY advantage they have over Plasma is the fact they get brighter, and they have 4k resolution. Because there is no 4k plasma and never will be, it's an apples to oranges comparison to compare a 4k LED/LCD TV to 1080p plasma unless you spike the added resolution off on it's own."

That was a fun read right there. You have no idea what your talking about anymore. Your stuck in time. It's clear you also don't know that 4k does color just as good and 3d is double anything 1080p can do. Literally bluray quality.
The added picture depth also helps define shadow depth and detail.

Yes blacks are plasmas calling card. But to assume these sets don't get ink black is a mistake. And again some stigma your in.

Worse is your misleading people into believing current 1080p sets have a better picture than current 4k sets. That simply is completely false and fully subjective.

But when I'm in a store the 4k sets always look better pic wise.

And 4k is now affordable so again your living in so e stigmatic past and refuse to accept that technology advances.

Isn't plasma dead? A casualty of what to good a picture quality? Why did they need to do it? Really? Now go read your own quote again.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #445 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 06:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 609
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post
I agree if we're talking RESOLUTION ONLY, if everything else is the same (price, overall picture quality excluding resolution) then I'd rather have 4k over 1080p. The problem is that comparison is HARD TO DO right now. Because the only affordable 4k sets are all LED/LCD, and 1080 has Plasma, LED/LCD and even OLED. Time after time again Plasma has shown that in terms of overall picture quality (excluding resolution, which is the smallest factor in overall picture quality at normal distances comparing 1080 to 4k). Even the best of the current generation LED/LCD's can't compete with plasma in terms of overall picture quality and how well plasma handles motion.
in a nutshell.
i really don't get it why it is so hard to believe a 1080p screen with 1080p source and better panel better back lightning or better technology is not better than a 4k screen...
nearly all 4k screens these days are edge lit sorry they have huge problems!
mightyhuhn is offline  
post #446 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 06:45 AM
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 vddobrev View Post
...Stating that plasma is the king of displays is simply funny, since it is not. This is my opinion, and everyone is entitled to one. 6% of the population are very sensitive to refresh/flicker, and I can see each and every plasma flicker, and up close inside every pixel of the plasma I can see floating little dots. To me plasma looks dirty. Not to mention image retention and burn in. I checked out the Panny ZT60, played a little with menu and settings, and guess what, I could see the menu retained after the menu was closed, e.g. "Picture options was visibly retained on the screen. Thank you very much, this does not cut it. To each there own, I will never have plasma in my house. My living room is open area with a 30 feet high empore and is 50% windows, very bright.

Everyone on this thread should remember that the human eye is an organ that is adaptive, and I never watch anything in complete darkness, I want to reduce eye strain and always use ambient light behind the TV. Guess what this does to black level - turns it to pitch black. So there you go, now I have a plasma like blacks on my UHD.

Motion handling - what is so great about a 24 frame material that everyone is hanging to it so tight? Give me soap opera effect and I am all in. I want fluid motion, just like I see the world, not a freaking slideshow 24 frames. The frame interpolation tech has improved very much, and people should see it before judging. It is very certain that the tech will make mistakes, but I am aware of this. Prefer fluid motion 80% of the time, and can live with artifacts. Again my own opinion, and anyone can continue watching the 24p slideshow, which worsens the larger the screen gets....
I agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you cannot flat out say that Plasma is NOT the king of display technology (excluding resolution). The simple fact of the matter is it is, hands down. OLED will be the new king, but it's only 1st generation and they need a little time to prove it out. Your concern with "burn in" sounds like someone who has never owned an actual plasma. I've owned one for 8 years and any image retention I've had was temporary and went away rather quickly. Unless you have it in torch mode for days on end with a static image on screen, this will NEVER be permanent. And even temporary retention is very hard to get with all the advances made. Guess what? OLED and LED/LCD also suffer from image retention. OLED could be just as "bad" as plasma (at least first generation). But if you talk to anyone who has owned one for a long time they will tell you all the hype and fear about "burn in" is simply unfounded and isn't an issue.

As far as motion, forget about 24 fps material, plasma does handle motion better (no motion blur or ghosting, SOE is there but can be turned off via motion smoothing settings) hands down. You cannot deny what almost every professional reviewer has said. LED/LCD have gotten and continue to get better every year, but they still haven't eliminated the problem. To your point, some people such as yourself may not mind or may even like SOE. Me personally it drives me up the wall, everything looks so fake and unnatural. Like I'm watching a cheap anime film or something. The whole reason this is there is due to motion smoothing settings which are trying to get rid of ghosting/motion blur. So you fix one problem at the cost of introducing another.

I agree everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and whether you go 1080p or 4k in either case you are likely getting a great TV. There are pros and cons to each, and each person will weigh those differently. But in all seriousness you cannot say that LED/LCD tops plasma in overall picture quality (excluding resolution) because it simply does not. And contrary to the extreme notion that you can only watch plasma in a pitch black room that also is 100% false. Burn in and the rumor you need to watch it in a black room are things that come from someone who has never actually owned a nice plasma and used it over time. Now LED/LCD do get brighter and have an advantage over plasma (except F8500 is brigher than any other plasma), but it's not like that means you can ONLY use plasma in a pitch black room.
imagic and losservatore like this.
bobby2478 is offline  
post #447 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 06:56 AM
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
"But people also cannot say that LED/LCD tops Plasma or even comes close to matching it in overall picture quality because the ONLY advantage they have over Plasma is the fact they get brighter, and they have 4k resolution. Because there is no 4k plasma and never will be, it's an apples to oranges comparison to compare a 4k LED/LCD TV to 1080p plasma unless you spike the added resolution off on it's own."

That was a fun read right there. You have no idea what your talking about anymore. Your stuck in time. It's clear you also don't know that 4k does color just as good and 3d is double anything 1080p can do. Literally bluray quality.
The added picture depth also helps define shadow depth and detail.

Yes blacks are plasmas calling card. But to assume these sets don't get ink black is a mistake. And again some stigma your in.

Worse is your misleading people into believing current 1080p sets have a better picture than current 4k sets. That simply is completely false and fully subjective.

But when I'm in a store the 4k sets always look better pic wise.

And 4k is now affordable so again your living in so e stigmatic past and refuse to accept that technology advances.

Isn't plasma dead? A casualty of what to good a picture quality? Why did they need to do it? Really? Now go read your own quote again.
You continue to make an apples to oranges comparison. Compare the BEST 1080p LED/LCD to the BEST 1080p Plasma and try to tell me that LED/LCD tops Plasma. If you do, than every professional will disgree with you. Plasma has better picture quality. The reason plasma died is because of the Wal mart effect. People want the biggest TV they can afford, and they aren't videophiles who care about the best picture quality. They flocked to cheaper LED/LCD panels. Then the 4k revolution kicked off and they cannot afford-ably make a 4k plasma, so they decided to focus on LED/LCD 4k since in the 1080p world LED/LCD was cheaper to make at larger sizes than plasmas and were selling better. Plasma didn't die because it was archaic or because it no longer had best picture. It died because people preferred to buy the cheaper LED/LCD and it wasn't cost effective to make 4k plasmas.

Yes once you get into the 4k world there are a BUNCH of other advantages that are introduced, but that is not an LED/LCD technological advantage. It's an advantage of getting 4k. So comparing a 4k LED/LCD to a 1080p plasma is an apples to oranges comparison. There are pros and cons to each.

I like the new Sony XBR 4k, but this is an $8,000 tv. The cheaper Sony's also looked very good, the only thing that drove me nuts was SOE (which the new XBR still hasn't removed, but it does look the best out of all other 4k tv's). Regardless of any other benefits of 4k, SOE and motion blur I'd notice ALL THE TIME and those cons for me far outweigh the pros of 4k. If this wasn't there and the XBR wasn't 3x as expensive as the F8500 plasma I'd get the 4k set for sure.
imagic and losservatore like this.
bobby2478 is offline  
post #448 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 07:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
you are making worthless statement or posting low res picture taken with a >camera< . of course a lot of people don't take you serious.
They come from 4k videos I also post in the owners forums. Ps the pic is 1080p. The 4k video is located in the hu9000 owners forum. Any more bs you like to throw out there?

You guys make the worst excuses for why a picture from a NOTE 3 which has A 13MP camera shows a 4k set with a better picture. This is just a whole other level of excuses.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #449 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 07:20 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,615
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1080 Post(s)
Liked: 2241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
They come from 4k videos I also post in the owners forums. Ps the pic is 1080p. The 4k video is located in the hu9000 owners forum. Any more bs you like to throw out there?

You guys make the worst excuses for why a picture from a NOTE 3 which has A 13MP camera shows a 4k set with a better picture. This is just a whole other level of excuses.
It's impossible to accurately depict the quality of a TV screen with a photo posted on the internet. The dynamic range isn't there, and colors get warped. Moire affects the image due to interactions between screen pixels and sensor pixels (it's present in your examples), as does the quality of the lens itself, and jpeg compression. Little or nothing survives that would help people make a rational judgement.

There's only one way to definitively tell which of two TVs is better. You have to calibrate them both and compare them side to side with a variety of content—in person. You can't use a store display, and you definitely can't use pictures posted on the internet to do the same thing.
sage11x and losservatore like this.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
imagic is offline  
post #450 of 1677 Old 07-26-2014, 07:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post
You continue to make an apples to oranges comparison. Compare the BEST 1080p LED/LCD to the BEST 1080p Plasma and try to tell me that LED/LCD tops Plasma. If you do, than every professional will disgree with you. Plasma has better picture quality. The reason plasma died is because of the Wal mart effect. People want the biggest TV they can afford, and they aren't videophiles who care about the best picture quality. They flocked to cheaper LED/LCD panels. Then the 4k revolution kicked off and they cannot afford-ably make a 4k plasma, so they decided to focus on LED/LCD 4k since in the 1080p world LED/LCD was cheaper to make at larger sizes than plasmas and were selling better. Plasma didn't die because it was archaic or because it no longer had best picture. It died because people preferred to buy the cheaper LED/LCD and it wasn't cost effective to make 4k plasmas.

Yes once you get into the 4k world there are a BUNCH of other advantages that are introduced, but that is not an LED/LCD technological advantage. It's an advantage of getting 4k. So comparing a 4k LED/LCD to a 1080p plasma is an apples to oranges comparison. There are pros and cons to each.

I like the new Sony XBR 4k, but this is an $8,000 tv. The cheaper Sony's also looked very good, the only thing that drove me nuts was SOE (which the new XBR still hasn't removed, but it does look the best out of all other 4k tv's). Regardless of any other benefits of 4k, SOE and motion blur I'd notice ALL THE TIME and those cons for me far outweigh the pros of 4k. If this wasn't there and the XBR wasn't 3x as expensive as the F8500 plasma I'd get the 4k set for sure.
I love reading your reasoning. Its like arguing with yourself.

You have to much knowledge and it shows. I dont argue with prefrence.

And you dont use bs. I appreciate that. I think the vost is high I admit I paid 4k for a 4k. But have no regrets.

Soon the prices will tumble. Then the tune will change because more people will have hands on expirience.

I again encourage anyone to ask these 4k owners about how the 4k sets from this year behave in comparison. I think you will find many pleased owners in the 4k thread.

The technology is full go this year. And it shows. I will continue to be mobbed by 1080p folk to justify thise sets.

But you are more knowledgeable. I hope to have you fighting the 4k battle soon.

I can tell when one is on the wimbs of change. It happens all the time in the 4k forum. You my friend will own a 4k set. Soon.
Mrorange303 is offline  
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