UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy - Page 23 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 537Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #661 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 09:48 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,601
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1400 Post(s)
Liked: 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by abates17 View Post
Do a Google image search for “MPEG artifacts” or “crushed blacks” and you will see plenty of images that people have taken, including pictures off of their TV screens, that display these issues. Are you saying that if I took two pictures of my display, one with the picture set to ISF Night and the other set to Vivid, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference?? Or if I turned the sharpness up to 100% before taking the picture, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference from a picture where sharpness was at 0? That’s just ridiculous.
Capturing differences in sharpness is quite different than capturing differences in dynamic range. Accurate exposures are exceedingly difficult to execute properly when you're trying to show differences in dynamic range, subtle or not. They just are. Most people, whether using still cameras or videocameras, don't know how to set exposure correctly to show something like this. Setting a camera on automatic (as most people on AVS do), will not accurately portray differences in dynamic range.

We can disagree on this, but I've seen it time and time again. Look no further than everyone with every kind of display device showing how good their black levels are with a posted picture. I'm sure you agree that most displays of varying techs techs don't have black levels that rival OLED. Yet almost all posted pictures would show this.
Ken Ross is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #662 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 10:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,601
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1400 Post(s)
Liked: 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Sure, but the whole discussion about 1080p vs. 2160p is not solely centered around the benefit of flawless content presented at native resolution. Every argument made here will be made for 8K—the only question is when.

When 8K does arrive, it'll be the same batch of questions: How does 1080p upscale to 8K, as opposed to 4K? How does 4K upscale to 8K, and is it better than native 4K? And most importantly, are the best TVs 8K TVs, whether we need those extra pixels or not, because 4K TVs are just cheap commodities?
And I'm sure the answers will again be divided as to perceived benefits. I'd go so far as to say the same group that sees little advantage in 4K, will be the same group arguing against 8K. The only difference is that I'd bet the ranks of that group will grow. I say that because my major motivating for 4K is how good native content looks. The jump to 8K will be far harder to see given the huge screens and short seating distances necessary to see the 4K>8K advantage.

Yes, the arguments will be similar, but I think 'defending' (hate to use that word) 8K will be much harder than 4K.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #663 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 10:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JWhip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wayne, PA
Posts: 4,291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 219 Post(s)
Liked: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
If you're referring to 'catch up' as having the 'latest & greatest', then that's something we all potentially do. No matter what we buy, if you want the latest technology, you'll need to buy again, whether that time frame is 1, 3 or 5 years. It all depends on what you consider to be the worthwhile advancements and how much value you place on them.

I agree with MrOrange in terms of 4K being that worthwhile advancement.

Ken, I don't buy a new TV every year or three years. You buy new sets way more often that I do. I am sure that the CE companies would like us all to be more like you, hence the move to 3D and now 4K that virtually no one was clamoring for. I monitor the field very carefully and look for real solid improvements that are actually affordable. I also want standards to be set and have no interest in chasing an ever moving target. That is why the 141 is still my main set and it will be for at least another 2 years. As much as I love it, I wouldn't have paid $7k for it. I was lucky and grabbed one for half the price when their announcement was made at CES that year. I will have no issue with a larger 4K OLED set once they are available flat, with the standards set and of course, more affordable. I have better things to spend my money on that another new TV.
JWhip is online now  
post #664 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 10:58 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,601
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1400 Post(s)
Liked: 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWhip View Post
Ken, I don't buy a new TV every year or three years. You buy new sets way more often that I do. I am sure that the CE companies would like us all to be more like you, hence the move to 3D and now 4K that virtually no one was clamoring for. I monitor the field very carefully and look for real solid improvements that are actually affordable. I also want standards to be set and have no interest in chasing an ever moving target. That is why the 141 is still my main set and it will be for at least another 2 years. As much as I love it, I wouldn't have paid $7k for it. I was lucky and grabbed one for half the price when their announcement was made at CES that year. I will have no issue with a larger 4K OLED set once they are available flat, with the standards set and of course, more affordable. I have better things to spend my money on that another new TV.
But as I'm sure we'll agree, everyone has a different definition of 'real solid improvements'. For me it's 4K. It was never 3D. I don't like 3D in the movies and I like it even less at home. Zero interest. So had it not been a tagged on feature to sets I was buying anyway, I wouldn't have paid $5 for it.

You got a great deal with a half price 141!

We all ascribe different values to different aspects of technology. As for OLED, yes, I'll probably be there at some point, curved or not. I'm not an advocate for curved, but if everything else was on target, it wouldn't dissuade me from buying. What surprises me with reviews of curved sets is how seldom, if ever, you see the reviewer discussing the distortion that inevitably occurs in tickers and such that scroll at the bottom of the screen.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #665 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 11:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,128
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 661 Post(s)
Liked: 630
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post
Ironically, most of what is going make 4K the new standard has to do more with WCG and HDR than with actual resolution.
Buy early, and buy often! The bleeding edge is a great place to be. Everyone should buy a new UHD set every year to support the constantly moving goal posts. The CE makers need our money. Please think of the poor, starving, unable to make a profit multinational corporations! They're counting on us.
sage11x likes this.
Stereodude is offline  
post #666 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 11:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JWhip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wayne, PA
Posts: 4,291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 219 Post(s)
Liked: 272
I don't honestly pay attention to many reviwers from sites or mags that base most of their earnings on ads touting the very stuff they are reviewing. That is why few mention the distortion. I have seen just about all the curved sets and will be making a trip to VE close to the shootout to see what Robert has on display as I will not be able to attend the shootout. For me, the distortion is very obvious and I will never buy a fixed curved screen because of that. Hopefully they will put of the flexible screens to give us all the option and I will just lock it into flat.
JWhip is online now  
post #667 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 11:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,535
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 340 Post(s)
Liked: 565
The big argument that Scott brings up in his original post and the one that Mr. orange has been championing since is that 4k doesn't need native 4k content to look better than 1080p. That, thanks to sophisticated scaling, a 4k television can project a 1080p source image with greater clarity and quality than a comparable 1080p television.

I disagree but that's at least a discussion.

What I don't think anyone can make the claim for is that 4k is worth a purchase for the wealth of 4k content available. There is none. And I'm not counting home movies or a PC connection because that's not content-- it's a hobby. Home videos and gamers won't push mainstream adoption and at this point I think that's a big point of consideration before spending the extra money for a 4k set.

4k sets account for less than 5 percent of the total TVs shipped. 4k content is sparse outside of demonstration material and there is currently no infrastructure in place to deliver content besides highly compressed netflix streams which, based on demographic data from netflix, the vast majority of users won't have the bandwith required to access anyway. Bluray is 1080p, so is cable, satellite and OTA. Both of the new consoles don't support or plan to support 4k. I'm not saying 4k is going to fail but if I told you I was rolling out ANY other product and this is how I planned to support it and drive interest in the market you'd tell me I was insane! Lol!

Last edited by sage11x; 07-30-2014 at 11:16 AM.
sage11x is online now  
post #668 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 11:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
cardoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Beyond The Wall.
Posts: 913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 178 Post(s)
Liked: 109
I suppose by the time this argument is finished there will be loads of 8K content to watch.

James Reid:D
cardoski is online now  
post #669 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 11:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,617
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 769 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
The big argument that Scott brings up in his original post and the one that Mr. orange has been championing since is that 4k doesn't need native 4k content to look better than 1080p. That, thanks to sophisticated scaling, a 4k television can project a 1080p source image with greater clarity and quality than a comparable 1080p television.

I disagree but that's at least a discussion.

What I don't think anyone can make the claim for is that 4k is worth a purchase for the wealth of 4k content available. There is none. And I'm not counting home movies or a PC connection because that's not content-- it's a hobby. Home videos and gamers won't push mainstream adoption and at this point I think that's a big point of consideration before spending the extra money for a 4k set.

4k sets account for less than 5 percent of the total TVs shipped. 4k content is sparse outside of demonstration material and there is currently no infrastructure in place to deliver content besides highly compressed netflix streams which, based on demographic data from netflix, the vast majority of users won't have the bandwith required to access anyway. Bluray is 1080p, so is cable, satellite and OTA. Both of the new consoles don't support or plan to support 4k. I'm not saying 4k is going to fail but if I told you I was rolling out ANY other product and this is how I planned to support it and drive interest in the market you'd tell me I was insane! Lol!
That said the same thing to Tesla about not having charging stations etc.

They would never be a viable all electric car company.but they are.

To say there is NO content is wrong. If you aren't familiar with where or how to find content then please seek the 4k owners forums.

If you say there is little content to support the purchase to you then fine.

This part is not to you sage.

If anyone uses the excuse that you have to buy a new TV every year to stay modern that is a scare tactic.

Weather you buy the best plasma or uhd this year we are all in a transition period.

It is likely that any sets sold in the next few years are already outdated tech wise.

But is your 1080p sets going to stop working because 4k?

Not all all. You can choose to buy a new TV when it's right for you.

If you choose the best of now then you are set for years.

If you bought a 4k set today it still plays all the 1080p content just fine. Your good for years.

What we look for in a picture is different. I love the resolution and impact of depth. With good signal improved motion.

Plasmas don't care about motion. They rule motion. So If you love that feature you should only go plasma.

This is the issue. I could give the downsides to the tech over and over as many here do.

Or I can continue to spread why I believe they make sense. I'm not worried about that.

There are reasons buyers care for 4k. You guys will just have to accept we are not all the same and want different things.

not arguing it's infancy. You guys are.

I'm saying it's worth a discussion. The market has changed and there are additional factors to consider when buying a Tv.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #670 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 12:00 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 2013guy View Post
For those with a calibrated plasma, or 1080p set who happen to have a disc of the animated film, how about you post shots of the same scenes so we know how the characters are supposed to look like ?
Camera and lighting differences make that really really hard to do well. Different people, different cameras, etc.

Fairly comparison good pictures CAN be taken, but it does require a fair amount of photography skill, and as important, a camera with serious manual controls (which pretty much lets out every cell phone camera). I would hope it goes without saying that the exact same frame should be paused on both sets, as well.

Locking ISO, Shutter speed, and aperture, and then setting a manual white balance, and shooting from a tripod at a fixed distance (from both TVs!) can produce fairly useable comparison photos. Generally you need a DSLR or at least a relatively high end compact camera to have access to all of these controls at once. Cell phone cameras and the vast majority of point and shoot cameras do not.
Kalani is offline  
post #671 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 12:18 PM
Senior Member
 
bobby2478's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalani View Post
So after reading through 18 pages of schoolyard arguments, I'm hoping against hope that perhaps, in a post or two here and there, this thread can actually live up to it's title and help me out: "UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy"

My father in law is in the market to buy a new TV in the next 30 days. His space supports 55-60" max. Bigger sets would make it a lot easier to decide, but we play the cards we're dealt.

The room is very bright with lots of windows. The seating position is 12-15' away from the screen. The room is also open on one side to the kitchen, so the screen is often seen from a much farther distance, and an oblique viewing angle. (a good extending wall mount will help with that, but they won't always be taking the time to pull it out, of course)

He LOVES 4K. The in-store demos have him convinced that's what he wants (yeah, I know). But he's not sure. He was considering the 1080p Samsung 8000, in terms of budget, so the best of the best 4k sets are probably out, even though he can go a little higher. The question is, should he bother? Or should I recommend he buy 1080p for now and wait a few more years to splurge?

I'm a plasma guy, and the excellent viewing angle Plasma offers would help, but unfortunately, I reluctantly have to agree that the room is bright enough that it's not a great candidate for plasma. So we really are looking at 1080p LCD vs 4k LCD. Further, at the relatively smaller size, the 4k advantage is clearly reduced, so again, not an easy call.

I'm curious what guidance y'all can offer on this score.

I think the problem I've seen (and it seems like you have also) is that it's hard to find a truly impartial argument on this thread. They are there, but are hard to find as you will find staunch 4k supporters who would like to minimize any and all weaknesses that the current crop of 4k TV's may have while at the same time saying anything not 4k is outdated; and similar argument goes for 1080p. Try to rely on objective rather than subjective feedback/comments.


Net/net both have their advantages and disadvantages. Both would make great TV's, it all boils down to your specific situation, what your preferences are and how much you want to spend. Before relying on any info in this or other threads I'd go into Best Buy or a local store and physically study and look at both 1080p and 4k sets to see the difference for yourself.


Then, take the info you can gleam by reading through all 23 pages of this thread and use that to make your own decision. Meaning you ultimately need to make the decision for yourself (don't let people on this thread or others make your decision for you). Just use all the info you compile to make the best possible decision you can based on your needs.
bobby2478 is offline  
post #672 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 12:25 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 bobby2478 View Post
I think the problem I've seen (and it seems like you have also) is that it's hard to find a truly impartial argument on this thread. They are there, but are hard to find as you will find staunch 4k supporters who would like to minimize any and all weaknesses that the current crop of 4k TV's may have while at the same time saying anything not 4k is outdated; and similar argument goes for 1080p. Try to rely on objective rather than subjective feedback/comments.

Net/net both have their advantages and disadvantages. Both would make great TV's, it all boils down to your specific situation, what your preferences are and how much you want to spend. Before relying on any info in this or other threads I'd go into Best Buy or a local store and physically study and look at both 1080p and 4k sets to see the difference for yourself.

Then, take the info you can gleam by reading through all 23 pages of this thread and use that to make your own decision. Meaning you ultimately need to make the decision for yourself (don't let people on this thread or others make your decision for you). Just use all the info you compile to make the best possible decision you can based on your needs.
Yup, that's definitely the plan. Solid advice for anyone.

Except comparing TVs at BestBuy and the like is a fairly futile proposition. It's almost more work to compare them in person because the settings are so hideously off from a properly calibrated point where you could actually compare things. (not to mention the lighting)
Kalani is offline  
post #673 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 12:33 PM
Senior Member
 
bobby2478's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalani View Post
Yup, that's definitely the plan. Solid advice for anyone.

Except comparing TVs at BestBuy and the like is a fairly futile proposition. It's almost more work to compare them in person because the settings are so hideously off from a properly calibrated point where you could actually compare things. (not to mention the lighting)
Right, but where I was getting at was to have actually looked at the picture on a 4k set (low end one as well as elite high end), see how the resolution, color, motion, etc everything look. Then do the same thing with a high end 1080p set and cheaper low end 1080p sets.


Then you can at least have some frame of reference because you've seen them both for yourself. Keeping in mind that the set's in store aren't properly calibrated and thus that shouldn't be the only thing you use to make your decision. But you can get a good feel for how the increased resolution impacts overall picture quality, as well as how well the various models handle motion, and how the motion settings of the TV's effect the resulting picture.
bobby2478 is offline  
post #674 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 12:58 PM
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 Kalani View Post
Camera and lighting differences make that really really hard to do well. Different people, different cameras, etc.

Fairly comparison good pictures CAN be taken, but it does require a fair amount of photography skill, and as important, a camera with serious manual controls (which pretty much lets out every cell phone camera). I would hope it goes without saying that the exact same frame should be paused on both sets, as well.

Locking ISO, Shutter speed, and aperture, and then setting a manual white balance, and shooting from a tripod at a fixed distance (from both TVs!) can produce fairly useable comparison photos. Generally you need a DSLR or at least a relatively high end compact camera to have access to all of these controls at once. Cell phone cameras and the vast majority of point and shoot cameras do not.
The reason I asked is that there are several members here that have criticized orange's pictures from his 4k set as being inaccurate, yet it is surprising to me that none of them have uploaded pictures from their calibrated 1080p sets, just to have some points of reference
2013guy is offline  
post #675 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 02:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
vddobrev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 812
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2013guy View Post
The reason I asked is that there are several members here that have criticized orange's pictures from his 4k set as being inaccurate, yet it is surprising to me that none of them have uploaded pictures from their calibrated 1080p sets, just to have some points of reference
Indeed, I would like to see the VT60 of Mr. Sage11X, just curious - would you please share a pic?
vddobrev is offline  
post #676 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 02:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
vddobrev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 812
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
The big argument that Scott brings up in his original post and the one that Mr. orange has been championing since is that 4k doesn't need native 4k content to look better than 1080p. That, thanks to sophisticated scaling, a 4k television can project a 1080p source image with greater clarity and quality than a comparable 1080p television.
From my point of view, 1080p material looks better on UHD in my house from my sitting point. I have both UHD and HD set. I analyzed a sharpness test pattern, and it is better on the UHD, since I don't see the individual pixels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
I disagree but that's at least a discussion.
I understand you may disagree. Please share the tests you have done in your home. You mentioned you have a VT60 - what UHD set have you compared it to in your home? Sorry if I missed it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
What I don't think anyone can make the claim for is that 4k is worth a purchase for the wealth of 4k content available. There is none. And I'm not counting home movies or a PC connection because that's not content-- it's a hobby. Home videos and gamers won't push mainstream adoption and at this point I think that's a big point of consideration before spending the extra money for a 4k set.
Agreed, not much UHD content. However, see paragraph one, there is plenty of 1080p, and that is a fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
4k sets account for less than 5 percent of the total TVs shipped. 4k content is sparse outside of demonstration material and there is currently no infrastructure in place to deliver content besides highly compressed netflix streams which, based on demographic data from netflix, the vast majority of users won't have the bandwith required to access anyway. Bluray is 1080p, so is cable, satellite and OTA. Both of the new consoles don't support or plan to support 4k. I'm not saying 4k is going to fail but if I told you I was rolling out ANY other product and this is how I planned to support it and drive interest in the market you'd tell me I was insane! Lol!
That [5%] was back in May, and the rate of growth was reported 1% per month. This could mean the share theoretically can be up to 8% in August.
Ken Ross likes this.
vddobrev is offline  
post #677 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 03:10 PM
Advanced Member
 
vddobrev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 812
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
The difference in resolution isn't resolvable even at my close seating distance and the current crop of 4k LCDs can't hold a candle to my Panasonic VT60 in every other area of picture quality. This is all compounded atop the main issue of lack of content.
I will take you on that bet! I challenge your VT60 against my HU8500 in my living room! See, you must remember this is your opinion base don your TV in your environment, and you have failed to mention that in every single post you made. Your VT60 will not hold half a candle in my living room...
vddobrev is offline  
post #678 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 03:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,617
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 769 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by vddobrev View Post
I will take you on that bet! I challenge your VT60 against my HU8500 in my living room! See, you must remember this is your opinion base don your TV in your environment, and you have failed to mention that in every single post you made. Your VT60 will not hold half a candle in my living room...
You can't. They don't use evidence.
But they will make claims like my TVs is better than yours.

If you defend it......
They will repeat themselves 1000 times until your proof is barried in the thread and all the people can find is you defending evidence they asked you to post.

Then they label you a extremist. Because you don't agree with them.

I have already been the punching bag for 4k. Are you sure you want to have that too?

Last edited by Mrorange303; 07-30-2014 at 03:22 PM.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #679 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 03:26 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 2013guy View Post
The reason I asked is that there are several members here that have criticized orange's pictures from his 4k set as being inaccurate, yet it is surprising to me that none of them have uploaded pictures from their calibrated 1080p sets, just to have some points of reference
That's my point, though, it's really hard to have points of reference when the cameras and settings used will be so dramatically different. Definitely not possible to compare color from two photos taken from two completely different kinds of camera by two different people using automatic settings. (or even one manual compared to one auto) Sony digital cameras, for instance, are well known for being slightly cool (their chips tend to exaggerate blues, ever so slightly), while Canons tend to be warmer, emphasizing reds a bit more. Bring in crappy cellphone cameras into the picture, and it gets even worse. Even two iPhone photos (from the same model iPhone) would be of limited use unless the room lighting is controlled exactly (read: pitch black) and the phones are held at the exact angle and exact distance from the screen.

It would be interesting to see, I'd agree, but as far as actual comparisons are concerned? Completely useless.
Kalani is offline  
post #680 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 03:28 PM
Senior Member
 
bobby2478's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
You can't. They don't use evidence.

They will however ask you to provide it and then If you do repeat themselves 1000 times until your proof is barried in the thread and all the people can find is you defending evidence they asked you to post.

Then they label you a extremist. Because you don't agree with them.

I have already been the punching bag for 4k. Are you sure you want to have that too?

The problem with your statement above, is that just like the people (whom you refer to as "they", which I assume is anyone who isn't on board the 4k train with no questions asked) you are accusing of being unfairly biased towards plasma/1080p, you yourself are unfairly biased towards 4k. You make it sound as though anything other than getting 4k is equivalent to getting a completely outdated piece of crap that isn't worth anything, and a decision that the buyer is soon to regret. This SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE for everyone.


There are certain things the current crop of 4k sets are better at, and there are certain things the top of the line 1080p plasma's are better at. Pros and cons to each, each person will weigh those differently and arrive at a different decision. NO ONE is wrong regardless of what decision they make. They aren't wrong for choosing a 4k set, and they aren't wrong for going with a 1080p plasma.


The discussion on this forum has largely moved away from impartial and unbiased observations and facts to instead people providing their opinions and stating it as fact. That isn't helpful to potential buyers who are on the fence right now about whether to "splurge" on a 4k set or "settle" for a 1080p set. Both technologies have their merits and each will better suit different people with different needs. There isn't a 1 size fits all approach.
sage11x likes this.
bobby2478 is offline  
post #681 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 03:31 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 vddobrev View Post
That [5%] was back in May, and the rate of growth was reported 1% per month. This could mean the share theoretically can be up to 8% in August.
Numbers are going to be skewed here because comparing UHD shipments as a whole to all other TV shipments is apples and oranges. UHD TVs tend to only be larger size screens, while smaller screens sell a LOT more TVs than 55-65"+ screens. I didn't see anything about them limiting screen sizes in that article. You just can't compare how many large and expensive UHD screens sell compared to the massive numbers of non UHD screens that include extremely inexpensive 20-30" models. (as one example among many)
Kalani is offline  
post #682 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 03:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
vddobrev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 812
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post
The problem with your statement above, is that just like the people (whom you refer to as "they", which I assume is anyone who isn't on board the 4k train with no questions asked) you are accusing of being unfairly biased towards plasma/1080p, you yourself are unfairly biased towards 4k. You make it sound as though anything other than getting 4k is equivalent to getting a completely outdated piece of crap that isn't worth anything, and a decision that the buyer is soon to regret. This SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE for everyone.


There are certain things the current crop of 4k sets are better at, and there are certain things the top of the line 1080p plasma's are better at. Pros and cons to each, each person will weigh those differently and arrive at a different decision. NO ONE is wrong regardless of what decision they make. They aren't wrong for choosing a 4k set, and they aren't wrong for going with a 1080p plasma.


The discussion on this forum has largely moved away from impartial and unbiased observations and facts to instead people providing their opinions and stating it as fact. That isn't helpful to potential buyers who are on the fence right now about whether to "splurge" on a 4k set or "settle" for a 1080p set. Both technologies have their merits and each will better suit different people with different needs. There isn't a 1 size fits all approach.
Your opinion is not fair. If you have the time, you may read all Mr. Oranges posts. On several occasions he has pointed out weaknesses and strengths of both UHD and plasma. He happens to like UHD better, and is making his statement, so that whoever is on the fence of buying may see both sides. Why attack him?
vddobrev is offline  
post #683 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 04:18 PM
Senior Member
 
bobby2478's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by vddobrev View Post
Your opinion is not fair. If you have the time, you may read all Mr. Oranges posts. On several occasions he has pointed out weaknesses and strengths of both UHD and plasma. He happens to like UHD better, and is making his statement, so that whoever is on the fence of buying may see both sides. Why attack him?
My intent isn't to "attack" anyone. Simply wanted to point out that from what I can gather, it would appear that his advice is 100% of the time anyone on the fence should get 4k or they will regret it. Read the below quote that implies anyone who continues to see merits in foregoing 4k at the moment isn't logical or impartial and doesn't use evidence, as well as lumping anyone who doesn't universally recommend 4k together as "they".


I just wanted to point out that it doesn't appear that he's being 100% impartial either. I personally prefer plasma right now, but as far as being impartial, I see that 4k has merits and wouldn't say that anyone made a wrong choice regardless of what they chose to buy. Everyone's needs are different and both technologies have merit today. A great 1080p plasma isn't some ancient dinosaur that is soon destined for the scrap heap.


I understand Mr Orange standing up for 4k, as it is "the future". But to be truly impartial would include accepting the fact that 4k may not be right for everyone, and it isn't universally "superior" to 1080p plasma. Same can be said for plasma supporters.


The hard part about this is there are 2 technologies (LED/LCD vs Plasma; and 4k vs 1080p) at play here in these comparisons. If you are looking purely at LED/LCD vs Plasma, than Plasma hands down has the edge in picture quality. That isn't the comparison here. We are comparing newer technology 4k LED/LCD to a 1080p Plasma, so it isn't a truly equal or fair comparison.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
You can't. They don't use evidence.
But they will make claims like my TVs is better than yours.

If you defend it......
They will repeat themselves 1000 times until your proof is barried in the thread and all the people can find is you defending evidence they asked you to post.

Then they label you a extremist. Because you don't agree with them.

I have already been the punching bag for 4k. Are you sure you want to have that too?
bobby2478 is offline  
post #684 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 04:47 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,365
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1709 Post(s)
Liked: 3050
Quote:
Originally Posted by vddobrev View Post
I will take you on that bet! I challenge your VT60 against my HU8500 in my living room! See, you must remember this is your opinion base don your TV in your environment, and you have failed to mention that in every single post you made. Your VT60 will not hold half a candle in my living room...
What makes your living room different/special?

Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
post #685 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 04:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
vddobrev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 812
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
What makes your living room different/special?
Very bright and sunny, it is circular shape with windows around. Oposite of the TV there is a glass entrance door, and a window on top of it.
vddobrev is offline  
post #686 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 05:01 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,128
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 661 Post(s)
Liked: 630
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
What makes your living room different/special?
Cause he's got a viewing environment that's so poor for TV viewing he needs a UHD set.
Stereodude is offline  
post #687 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 05:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,128
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 661 Post(s)
Liked: 630
Quote:
Originally Posted by vddobrev View Post
Indeed, I would like to see the VT60 of Mr. Sage11X, just curious - would you please share a pic?
Why would he? Everyone has already agreed that pics are worthless, well other than MrOrange's.
Stereodude is offline  
post #688 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 05:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
vddobrev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 812
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
Cause he's got a viewing environment that's so poor for TV viewing he needs a UHD set.
Yea, you can make fun as much as you like. Most non standard "architectural" houses with lots of glass are poor for tv watching. Such is my living space and I love it, I like bright and sunny. I made a choice.

If you like dark living space optimized for plasma, this would be your preference.
vddobrev is offline  
post #689 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 05:23 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,128
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 661 Post(s)
Liked: 630
Maybe MrOrange can post some pictures of his UHD set displaying this image.
Joe Bloggs likes this.
Stereodude is offline  
post #690 of 1786 Old 07-30-2014, 05:33 PM
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
I'm not even gonna lie if I truly seen a benefit of the 8k sets I would buy those. I just embrace technology.

Imagine those on a 120" 8k. It would be glorious.
Based on calculations of viewing distance, screen size, and resolution, a 120" screen viewed at a distance of 8 feet would be where you can fully notice the full benefits of a 4K display. To actually start noticing the benefits of an 8K display, you would have to sit closer than 8 feet, or buy a larger screen.

And see, this is where the numbers start getting ridiculous, because if you’re viewing a screen of that size from that close a distance, you would have a viewing angle of approximately 57 degrees. For reference, the SMPTE recommended viewing angle is 30 degrees, and the THX recommended viewing angle is 36 degrees. You would have to back up to over 13 feet just to meet the recommended THX viewing distance, and at that point you wouldn’t even be able to distinguish the full 4K resolution. 8K would just be overkill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2013guy View Post
The reason I asked is that there are several members here that have criticized orange's pictures from his 4k set as being inaccurate, yet it is surprising to me that none of them have uploaded pictures from their calibrated 1080p sets, just to have some points of reference
I’ll try to post some pictures tonight, for comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vddobrev View Post
From my point of view, 1080p material looks better on UHD in my house from my sitting point. I have both UHD and HD set. I analyzed a sharpness test pattern, and it is better on the UHD, since I don't see the individual pixels.
First of all, there is a huge difference between a test pattern and an actual moving image. Secondly, why are people so upset that they see actual pixels? I once saw a movie projected digitally at Pixar, and the projector was calibrated so precisely that I could actually see the individual pixels, if I was looking for them. But I only noticed for about five seconds, before the picture quality and the story sucked me in. As far as picture quality goes, the visible pixels were more than made up for by the pristine color reproduction and the exceptional contrast ratio.

http://www.cnet.com/news/three-tv-im...n-ultra-hd-4k/
abates17 is offline  
Reply Latest Industry News

Tags
frontpage

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