UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy - Page 20 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 526Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #571 of 1709 Old 07-28-2014, 01:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kalani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 1,445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
this sounds like a good plan to me. just remember to tell him, the less he spends now, the more (or sooner) he'll be able to spend on a UHD tv when they finalize all the details. I know if I wanted all the toys(and I think I do), I would personally wait for HDR, or rec2020, or HFR or 10/12bit or whatever the other goodies are that eventually come with UHD besides a few extra pixels. I am interested in UHD, and actually a bit excited about some of the other proposed changes that come with the higher resolution. but so far, we've ONLY seen the higher resolution. and that's why I think 2014 is going to be an unfortunate year to NEED a tv. there's literally nothing on the market that can promise more than a couple years of relevance. I'm quite satisfied I bought a tv last year, as now I feel totally comfortable waiting for UHD to be 'perfected', and I'm in no rush to jump in too early.
I concur entirely. Still loving my 65" Panny plasma, so I'm in no hurry. A couple more years for things to stabilize (and improve, as things always do), and I'll be in the market, too!
Kalani is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #572 of 1709 Old 07-28-2014, 01:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,129
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 198 Post(s)
Liked: 298
Mark Schubin discusses 4K…and its problems.


http://www.schubincafe.com/











More Than Just Pixels: Extended dynamic range, higher frame rate, expanded color gamut–what they really mean to the viewing experience








HFR videos by James snare.


http://www.jamesnares.com/






Carton bale and Viewing distance


http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
Marc Wielage likes this.

Last edited by losservatore; 07-28-2014 at 03:05 PM.
losservatore is online now  
post #573 of 1709 Old 07-28-2014, 02:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,053
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 600 Post(s)
Liked: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
In the evangelist's defense, Scott pointed out the supposed excellent upscaling as a possible arguement to upgrade to 4k without actual 4k content to watch in his original post. But I'm inclined to agree with you.
I was thinking more along the lines of how much stock can you put in the opinion of someone on things resolution and picture quality related when they think HD channels on cable look the same as Blu-ray.

I'll happily agree that it is possible to upscale 1080p to UHD and end up with a subjectively better result than 1:1 display of 1080p on a similar size screen. However, the algorithms to do this are extremely computationally intensive. These algorithms were not used in 1080p TVs for scaling SD or 720p. The standard billinear and bicubic scaling routines we find in TVs add ringing and soften the image.

Lets take a step back for a minute. It is also possible to make LCD panels without vertical banding, and make edgelit TVs that don't have clouding and flashlighting, but the CE companies don't bother to do so. The same TV makers who won't spend a little more to eliminate some of the more obvious flaws of LCD TVs have done an about face and decided to include these more expensive scaling algorithms in UHD sets when the vast majority of buyers wouldn't know the difference or even know they're present? They haven't bothered to fix the much more visible issues, but I'm expected to believe they're spending the money on very high end upscaling at the same time they're trying to dive the price of the UHD TVs and drive market adoption... I don't think so.
Stereodude is online now  
post #574 of 1709 Old 07-28-2014, 02:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by losservatore View Post
Mark Schubin discusses 4K…and its problems.
I don't think Schubin's account of why 4k demands higher frame rates makes any sense. If there are twice as many pixels to move across, then for smooth motion the framerate has to increase?? Why?

The solution to getting past data rate limitations of HDMI is staring us in the face. We can already get 4k video to TVs over the network by using IP and by-passing HDMI altogether. So we should just eliminate HDMI in favor of local networks, wired or wireless.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #575 of 1709 Old 07-28-2014, 02:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,516
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
I was thinking more along the lines of how much stock can you put in the opinion of someone on things resolution and picture quality related when they think HD channels on cable look the same as Blu-ray.

I'll happily agree that it is possible to upscale 1080p to UHD and end up with a subjectively better result than 1:1 display of 1080p on a similar size screen. However, the algorithms to do this are extremely computationally intensive. These algorithms were not used in 1080p TVs for scaling SD or 720p. The standard billinear and bicubic scaling routines we find in TVs add ringing and soften the image.

Lets take a step back for a minute. It is also possible to make LCD panels without vertical banding, and make edgelit TVs that don't have clouding and flashlighting, but the CE companies don't bother to do so. The same TV makers who won't spend a little more to eliminate some of the more obvious flaws of LCD TVs have done an about face and decided to include these more expensive scaling algorithms in UHD sets when the vast majority of buyers wouldn't know the difference or even know they're present? They haven't bothered to fix the much more visible issues, but I'm expected to believe they're spending the money on very high end upscaling at the same time they're trying to dive the price of the UHD TVs and drive market adoption... I don't think so.
I couldn't agree more.

I often get made out as a plasma (only) fanatic but the truth is I just like good picture. The Sharp Elite proved LCD has some growth potential but it feels like we've drifted far away from the goal those displays set out to achieve. I'm sorry but it's inexcusable for a several thousand dollar LCD to have uniformity issues. Hell, my ancient Olevia 7 series has zero uniformity problems. I also expect more from a TV that costs several times more than my last plasma (which itself wasn't cheap). What's wrong with expecting better? 4k as it stands now is not a compelling enough reason for me to want to upgrade. Especially when real 1080p content still feels like a luxury to me.
fierce_gt and losservatore like this.

"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love."

--Carl Sagan
sage11x is offline  
post #576 of 1709 Old 07-28-2014, 03:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,457
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
I couldn't agree more.

I often get made out as a plasma (only) fanatic but the truth is I just like good picture. The Sharp Elite proved LCD has some growth potential but it feels like we've drifted far away from the goal those displays set out to achieve. I'm sorry but it's inexcusable for a several thousand dollar LCD to have uniformity issues. Hell, my ancient Olevia 7 series has zero uniformity problems. I also expect more from a TV that costs several times more than my last plasma (which itself wasn't cheap). What's wrong with expecting better? 4k as it stands now is not a compelling enough reason for me to want to upgrade. Especially when real 1080p content still feels like a luxury to me.
If the lg 60 oled was cheaper I would of been a 1080p member still. However the 4k set was less.

I only would of got the samsung 4k. It at least is upgradable.

Eventually it will be in my room and ill have a 4k oled in the den.

All tech has good and bad.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #577 of 1709 Old 07-28-2014, 04:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,516
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 540
I like OLED but they have to get the motion and longevity/wear sorted before I'll consider it.
Kalani likes this.
sage11x is offline  
post #578 of 1709 Old 07-28-2014, 04:13 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,056
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1479 Post(s)
Liked: 2771
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
I like OLED but they have to get the motion and longevity/wear sorted before I'll consider it.
I was just looking at the Samsung OLED today and thinking to myself "this looks quite a bit better than the company's 55-inch UHDTVs." I'm all about a UHD/4K OLED that's not first-gen, I figure that's what will replace my plasma one of these days.
Kalani, sage11x and losservatore like this.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
post #579 of 1709 Old 07-28-2014, 06:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,457
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
I was just looking at the Samsung OLED today and thinking to myself "this looks quite a bit better than the company's 55-inch UHDTVs." I'm all about a UHD/4K OLED that's not first-gen, I figure that's what will replace my plasma one of these days.
Same goal. Oled 4k 2nd to 3rd gen. Then the hu9000 goes in the room.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #580 of 1709 Old 07-28-2014, 06:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
I don't think Schubin's account of why 4k demands higher frame rates makes any sense. If there are twice as many pixels to move across, then for smooth motion the framerate has to increase?? Why?
Because if there are twice as many pixels in the TV in both directions, to get the advantage of the increased spatial resolution, your screen size needs to increase or viewing distance needs to decrease. The result is that objects jump further relative to the eye (judder/strobe), and if the frame rate/shutter remains the same, for whatever is in motion, you aren't really gaining (much) by the increase in pixel resolution - because the objects/camera in motion will be blurred - eg. what was a blurred object is now a blurred object with twice the pixels in width and height - no (or not that much) more real detail - unless you increased (eg. doubled) the frame rate - and just reducing the shutter time but keeping the same frame rate will increase the judder/strobing and not improve motion at all.


eg. in the 2nd video above, the object jumps twice as far (twice as many pixels, and twice the distance - so it can seem more juddery/strobe more) as the one on the left - the image size is twice as big (w & h) so we get the full benefit of the increased resolution. And it's only when the object is still that you see the full benefit of the increased resolution (when it's moving it's blurred to due motion. Shutter on both is 180 degrees). Increasing the frame rate (keeping the same shutter) would reduce the blur (allowing is to benefit more from the pixel resolution increase when there is motion) and smooth out the motion, reducing the judder/strobing.
Attached Images
   

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 07-28-2014 at 10:50 PM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #581 of 1709 Old 07-28-2014, 06:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,128
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
I was thinking more along the lines of how much stock can you put in the opinion of someone on things resolution and picture quality related when they think HD channels on cable look the same as Blu-ray.

I'll happily agree that it is possible to upscale 1080p to UHD and end up with a subjectively better result than 1:1 display of 1080p on a similar size screen. However, the algorithms to do this are extremely computationally intensive. These algorithms were not used in 1080p TVs for scaling SD or 720p. The standard billinear and bicubic scaling routines we find in TVs add ringing and soften the image.

Lets take a step back for a minute. It is also possible to make LCD panels without vertical banding, and make edgelit TVs that don't have clouding and flashlighting, but the CE companies don't bother to do so. The same TV makers who won't spend a little more to eliminate some of the more obvious flaws of LCD TVs have done an about face and decided to include these more expensive scaling algorithms in UHD sets when the vast majority of buyers wouldn't know the difference or even know they're present? They haven't bothered to fix the much more visible issues, but I'm expected to believe they're spending the money on very high end upscaling at the same time they're trying to dive the price of the UHD TVs and drive market adoption... I don't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
I couldn't agree more.

I often get made out as a plasma (only) fanatic but the truth is I just like good picture. The Sharp Elite proved LCD has some growth potential but it feels like we've drifted far away from the goal those displays set out to achieve. I'm sorry but it's inexcusable for a several thousand dollar LCD to have uniformity issues. Hell, my ancient Olevia 7 series has zero uniformity problems. I also expect more from a TV that costs several times more than my last plasma (which itself wasn't cheap). What's wrong with expecting better? 4k as it stands now is not a compelling enough reason for me to want to upgrade. Especially when real 1080p content still feels like a luxury to me.


sign me up with these guys! I know for a FACT that it's possible to make a plasma, lcd, or oled tv that I think looks fantastic. but it's been proven time and time again that manufacturers are NOT making 'high end' displays anymore. the 'top of the line' model from most manufacturers flat out sucks compared to some models made many years ago. that's not how technology is supposed to work. things aren't supposed to get worse. so it's clear to me that this is a decision being made, not a limitation of any specific technology, and thus I have my serious doubts that any change in technology will actually improve the picture quality. the fact that nobody seems to be interested in OLED anymore pretty much proves this point. somebody, somewhere made the choice to curve edgelit led screens instead of developing oled, or even using a FALD backlight. there's no way that choice was made based on delivering the best picture quality.


if manufacturers want me to buy another tv in the next 10yrs, they need to make one that's better than what's on the market now, not curve it, not make it thinner, not add another hdmi input, not add more 'smart features'. it's very very very simply to me. I buy new electronics when they are better than my current ones. my example is dolby atmos, I'm SUPER excited about that, and want to upgrade my avr immediately when that starts hitting shelves and there's an avr with it that meets my other needs. dolby atmos is the kind of thing that would make me rethink my entire audio chain from source to speakers. UHD right now feels like a lateral move. one step forwards, one step backwards
Stereodude likes this.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #582 of 1709 Old 07-29-2014, 01:13 AM
Member
 
abates17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
4k. But then you'll make an excuse for something. Notice the freckles. Better color?
After painstakingly reading through this entire thread, I can only conclude that you don’t actually see a lot of the picture flaws on his 4K set, because you are too entranced by the color reproduction which is obviously not as accurate. The comparison shots from Frozen really sealed the deal for me, since you were quick to point out how the 4K one looks better, when you can compare the screenshots directly and see how it is not accurately representing the film image.

Specifically, in the first image, I can see how you can be led to believe that the 4K picture (on the left) is more detailed, because you can see more fine details in the hair. However, just noticing how much darker the shadow area of the hair is, it is obvious that the 4K set has the contrast turned up way too high. Obviously that will accentuate the details in the image, but at the expense of accurate color reproduction (in this case, making her red hair appear closer to copper).

And yes, you can see details like the freckles on her nose more clearly, but again, that is because the flesh tones of her face are blown out to almost white, and the contrast is increased so that subtle details become less subtle. Things like the freckles are supposed to be subtle texturing and details, not a distinct black mole in the middle of her nose.

In the second image, you can see the problems with increased contrast, and also possibly some edge enhancement. Ignoring the moiré effect from the camera, you can see that the 4K image on the left has more compression artifacts around the eye, and the hair coming down looks sharper, but not nearly as smooth. The hair is filled with jaggies on the 4K image that are simply not there on the 1080p image, and you can see a clear white ring around the iris in the 4K image that is not there in the 1080p image. Having a white fringe is a clear sign of oversharpening and edge enhancement.

Finally, the third image shows just how much detail is lost because of the increased contrast and edge enhancement on the 4K set. The 57:57 time marker is fuzzy on the 4K image, and markedly clearer on the 1080p image. On the 1080p image, the Snow Monster text and progress dots are clearly an ice blue, whereas the 4K text and dots are closer to white. In fact, it is much harder to distinguish the blue dots from the white dots on the 4K image. And look at the movie frame itself: The snow monster on the right is smooth and detailed, with a subtle purple highlight on one side and a blue highlight on the other side. But on the 4K image, the purple highlight is almost white, and the subtle blue highlight has turned into a completely white blown-out mess. Meanwhile, the purple light on the rear wall is also much closer to white, and the ice structure in from has become a mess of artifacts instead of a smooth image.

Honestly, for someone who has been touting the increased detail of the 4K sets, I’m surprised that you don’t notice how bad the image really is. It seems like you are equating fake sharpness with detail, like someone who boosts the bass and treble to extremes and then talks about how much better the audio sounds. There is a lot to be said for subtle details, and the 4K display just doesn’t have them.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	comparison1.jpg
Views:	42
Size:	282.3 KB
ID:	185490   Click image for larger version

Name:	comparison2.jpg
Views:	42
Size:	193.3 KB
ID:	185498   Click image for larger version

Name:	comparison3.jpg
Views:	42
Size:	335.9 KB
ID:	185506  
abates17 is offline  
post #583 of 1709 Old 07-29-2014, 01:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by abates17 View Post
After painstakingly reading through this entire thread, I can only conclude that you don’t actually see a lot of the picture flaws on his 4K set, because you are too entranced by the color reproduction which is obviously not as accurate. The comparison shots from Frozen really sealed the deal for me, since you were quick to point out how the 4K one looks better, when you can compare the screenshots directly and see how it is not accurately representing the film image....
Also the comparison shots are from 2 different frames (not the same frame of the film).
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #584 of 1709 Old 07-29-2014, 02:27 AM
Member
 
abates17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 24
They are maybe a few frames apart, but from the same scene. Her hair did not change from golden orange to copper red in one shot, and the lighting didn’t suddenly change dramatically. And more specifically, the lettering in the menu, and the associated still frame of the snow monster, are exactly the same in both pictures
abates17 is offline  
post #585 of 1709 Old 07-29-2014, 02:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by abates17 View Post
They are maybe a few frames apart, but from the same scene. Her hair did not change from golden orange to copper red in one shot, and the lighting didn’t suddenly change dramatically. And more specifically, the lettering in the menu, and the associated still frame of the snow monster, are exactly the same in both pictures
I agree that most of the differences will be down to the different picture settings (eg. contrast - the 4K TV being set to very contrasty). But if he's going to ask if we notice how things are visible in one but not as much in the other (though most differences will be down to picture settings - and the fact that the 4K TV distorts the picture), it helps if both are from the same frame (which they aren't) so a valid comparison can be made between the two, as the characters are obviously moving between the frames so different things are going to be more visible (due to position and the lighting at the new position) and at different positions on one display than they are on the other.

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 07-29-2014 at 03:00 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #586 of 1709 Old 07-29-2014, 03:57 AM
Member
 
dfs88801's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 77
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 11
HU9000 and AX800 not impressed
NO HDR
upscaling Bad ( Especially Panasonic in sports broadcasts 720P screen the tables results jingle)
Colors weak

There is money there is no reason to change
dfs88801 is offline  
post #587 of 1709 Old 07-29-2014, 06:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,457
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked: 183
I always liked the kuro videos. Let's start there. Post this pic. Panasonic kuro best is the video.

This will show the great color a 4k can do and the image is upscaled. Now I hope a plasma fan can appreciate this shot.

Even better i hope a few of the members post the same from their top of the line 1080p whatever sets so we can compare.

You will be lucky if I'm the only 4k owner to do this.

There is plenty of evidence in the 4k forums. But clearly you didn't check there where the owners of 4k sets could give you evidence from an owners perspective.

Not the kid up the block on his computer answering these questions and he doesn't even have a 4k set.

Just saying. A lot if info in here about 4k is wrong


It's a preference. It's beautiful. It's now.


65hu9000 , Panasonic BDT360 bluray player.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	30
Size:	141.1 KB
ID:	185674  

Last edited by Mrorange303; 07-29-2014 at 06:28 AM.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #588 of 1709 Old 07-29-2014, 06:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,457
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Sorry wrong one. You ain't beating that one. Well plasma owners can match it. But not the LCD 1080p owners. My bad. Here is the kuro shot. Lol.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	35
Size:	165.0 KB
ID:	185706  
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #589 of 1709 Old 07-29-2014, 06:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,457
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked: 183
How about CORALINE. One of the most detailed movies that exist to the eye.

Other mother? This movie will expose all kinds of nasties. If 4k sucks as most of you say then CORALINE will make it suffer.

Let's do this one. Ooh that would be fun.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	38
Size:	124.9 KB
ID:	185722  
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #590 of 1709 Old 07-29-2014, 06:30 AM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 642
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 266 Post(s)
Liked: 91
yet again camera picture...
Stereodude and sage11x like this.
mightyhuhn is offline  
post #591 of 1709 Old 07-29-2014, 06:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,457
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
yet again camera picture...
Like I said. You have access to the owners forums. I've also personally uploaded video of me taking pictures of the kuro shots. So before you try to act all high and mighty huhn. Pun. Do some research. The video is on YouTube. Same exact tv the shots came from.

Oh it's in hu9000 owners forum too.

You won't care but I made it 4k also.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #592 of 1709 Old 07-29-2014, 06:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,457
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Mind you I'm not saying it beats your sets picture wise. I'm saying your pictures cannot beat it.

Meaning it is indeed doing a fantastic upscale job. That's all that's for.

Not to say my set is better. Unless your set is an 1080p led LCD. Then yes my tv is better.

But to say it cannot upscale. No. Just no.

Last edited by Mrorange303; 07-29-2014 at 07:01 AM.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #593 of 1709 Old 07-29-2014, 07:00 AM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 642
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 266 Post(s)
Liked: 91
try a QUOTE if you talk to people.
mightyhuhn is offline  
post #594 of 1709 Old 07-29-2014, 07:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,457
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
try a QUOTE if you talk to people.
Sorry.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #595 of 1709 Old 07-29-2014, 07:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,457
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
I agree that most of the differences will be down to the different picture settings (eg. contrast - the 4K TV being set to very contrasty). But if he's going to ask if we notice how things are visible in one but not as much in the other (though most differences will be down to picture settings - and the fact that the 4K TV distorts the picture), it helps if both are from the same frame (which they aren't) so a valid comparison can be made between the two, as the characters are obviously moving between the frames so different things are going to be more visible (due to position and the lighting at the new position) and at different positions on one display than they are on the other.
I tried. I also had 5 min to take the shot on the 1080p set. Run downstairs to the 4k. Turn the sharpness down to 20 like my other set then snap the pic and return the movie back upstairs to a mob of angry children.

I'll try to be frame accurate next time. I mean I did try. Not well though.

And some of the things you guys agree with are actually things wrong with the 1080p picture. Like not having freckles showing when the character has them. Many small things show up like this in animated movies.

Movies like Pacific Rim benefit from a much much better motion system this year for Samsung.

The Sony has no motion issues. But it does has banding.

Either way they both could be considered super 1080p sets that allow you to view your content in a higher resolution which adds depth to a picture .

10 years from now buy the oled 4k 600hz, HDR, thx, rec 2020 or slightly less than, or whatever, lower gray scale etc.

I'll be there too. That's the point. If you are buying a set today it does make sense to consider 4k.

It's basically the in between set. Does 1080p at colors and such it should because it is using the same standards. But also allows for a transition period into 4k and really allows you a longer transition as you can share some benefits until not only standards are set but prices are more affordable on 4k uhd sets.

The benefits of today's best 1080p is in these sets. It does those things extremely well too. The upscale tech is absolutely amazing. Sorry for the pics. But you can see even at 4x the resolution the sets hold on and enhance some detail.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #596 of 1709 Old 07-29-2014, 07:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 642
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 266 Post(s)
Liked: 91
@Mrorange303

so you meant me with that:
Quote:
Mind you I'm not saying it beats your sets picture wise. I'm saying your pictures cannot beat it.

Meaning it is indeed doing a fantastic upscale job. That's all that's for.

Not to say my set is better. Unless your set is an 1080p led LCD. Then yes my tv is better.

But to say it cannot upscale. No. Just no.
can you plz show me where i said something like that?
mightyhuhn is offline  
post #597 of 1709 Old 07-29-2014, 07:48 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,053
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 600 Post(s)
Liked: 579
MrOrange, can't you just accept that not everyone has the same goals or opinions regarding televisions. You aren't going to convert anyone to your "side". This isn't a contest. Just because some people don't agree with you and your assessment and haven't hopped on the UHD bandwagon doesn't invalidate your opinion of your set or mean you can't love it.

There is no perfect TV. If there was everyone would buy that one. Every TV is a compromise. Each person picks the compromises they can live with and the ones they can't and buys accordingly. Just because two knowledgeable people don't buy the same model doesn't mean one of them chose incorrectly.

Please give it a rest.
sage11x likes this.
Stereodude is online now  
post #598 of 1709 Old 07-29-2014, 08:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,457
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
@Mrorange303

so you meant me with that:


can you plz show me where i said something like that?
Said sorry man. Wasn't you that was for.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #599 of 1709 Old 07-29-2014, 08:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,457
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
MrOrange, can't you just accept that not everyone has the same goals or opinions regarding televisions. You aren't going to convert anyone to your "side". This isn't a contest. Just because some people don't agree with you and your assessment and haven't hopped on the UHD bandwagon doesn't invalidate your opinion of your set or mean you can't love it.

There is no perfect TV. If there was everyone would buy that one. Every TV is a compromise. Each person picks the compromises they can live with and the ones they can't and buys accordingly. Just because two knowledgeable people don't buy the same model doesn't mean one of them chose incorrectly.

Please give it a rest.
Yes I can. And your right. But im one 4k person. This thread should have 2 sides. Just as poeple have the right to give reasons for why not.

Is it not just as important for a potent I al buyer to see reasons for as well?

Or is this another thread of 4k is not ready. Because this thread has unfairly turned into another one of those filled with just that.

4k is not represented correctly here. Its value in the current market and the reasons for buying one today are not discussed.

We all know 4k is in its infancy. So was 1080p at one point.

Still it had benefits.

Ill stop. But this thread still has several members just spewing thinhs they read. No expirience with 4k.

Not a fair comparison. Believe me all 4k owners have had 1080p sets. Still do.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #600 of 1709 Old 07-29-2014, 10:48 AM
Member
 
abates17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
And some of the things you guys agree with are actually things wrong with the 1080p picture. Like not having freckles showing when the character has them. Many small things show up like this in animated movies.
See, the thing with the freckles just highlights my point: A lot of details in movies (especially animated movies) are subtle. The freckles are a subtle detail that show up perfectly well on a 1080p set, but since they are more obvious on your 4K set, you believe that the 4K set is enhancing the detail, when in fact that set is less accurate.

As I showed you from your screenshots, the colors are just not accurate: Blacks are muddy, the whites are blown out, some pinks and blues are almost white, and the whole picture looks oversharpened. You talk about how the color is so much better on the 4K set, and it definitely looks different from the other picture you posted, but I can’t say that it is better. In fact, just based on the hair color alone and comparing it to my set, I would say that the color on your 4K set is less accurate.

Now, I’m not saying that any of this is due to 4K itself. In fact, since 4K doesn’t have any effect on color, I would chalk it up to calibration differences between the two sets. But if you’re trying to demonstrate how the 4K set has better color, it would help if the sets were calibrated the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Yes I can. And your right. But im one 4k person. This thread should have 2 sides. Just as poeple have the right to give reasons for why not.
This thread does have two sides! You have spent an inordinate amount of time posting here, so your side is well represented. The problem is that you don’t really have much of a case to stand on. You keep talking about how the color is so much better on your 4K set, and people have responded that resolution does not affect the color at all. And your response to that is, “Other people who have 4K sets will agree with me!” Then someone says that a well-calibrated 1080p set will look better than a poorly-calibrated 4K set, and your response is, “But what if someone likes the look of the 4K set better? You can’t say that someone’s opinion is wrong! You can’t argue preferences!”

Yes, some people might prefer a picture where the colors are overexaggerated and the details are oversharpened, just like fans of LPs might think that the pops and clicks make the music more “warm” and “natural.” But that doesn’t change the fact that CDs can play music that is physically impossible to represent on LPs, or that a well-calibrated set is more accurate than one where the picture is set to Vivid.

Last edited by abates17; 07-29-2014 at 11:45 AM. Reason: typo
abates17 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