UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy - Page 26 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 539Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #751 of 1798 Old 07-31-2014, 02:14 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
@sage11x

Sage, thanks much for the details. I am very well aware of all you said. As I pointed out, I made a choice. I don't have a dedicated room, perhaps 90% of the families don't.

True, without trickery led black will look grey, but that is only in dark, and I never watch in dark. During the day the "grey" black is justs black, since it is so bright in the room. That is called percepted level, very easy to full the human eye, not measuring instruments. I know this limitation, and I live with it.

Be it a trickery [the smart led] as it may, the human eye, as I said previously, is adaptive, think on this for a moment. I turn on an ambient light behind the TV at night, and that makes the "grey" blacks black! I dont use the smart led at all, don't need it.

I don't agree with you, however, that LCD colors are faded out - far from it, in my conditions. On the oposite, I brought a plasma home to test and it had faded colors.

So, can we agree to disagree?
vddobrev is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #752 of 1798 Old 07-31-2014, 02:45 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
If anyone is interested Video Bias Lighting (SMPTE Recommended Practice- CIE D65/6500K White Light Only)
vddobrev is offline  
post #753 of 1798 Old 07-31-2014, 03:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
losservatore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,303
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 293 Post(s)
Liked: 335
I bought the VT60 this year and I don't regret my purchase ,I love how plasma handle motion ,how clear the image is during motion and without any Motion interpolation /soap opera effect, yes I hate soap opera effect especially on movies.


There is many other reasons on why I bought a plasma.

Last edited by losservatore; 08-01-2014 at 03:33 PM.
losservatore is online now  
post #754 of 1798 Old 07-31-2014, 03:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,136
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 666 Post(s)
Liked: 633
Stereodude is offline  
post #755 of 1798 Old 07-31-2014, 08:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,818
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1538 Post(s)
Liked: 1644
Quote:
Originally Posted by vddobrev View Post

Be it a trickery [the smart led] as it may, the human eye, as I said previously, is adaptive, think on this for a moment. I turn on an ambient light behind the TV at night, and that makes the "grey" blacks black! I dont use the smart led at all, don't need it.

I don't agree with you, however, that LCD colors are faded out - far from it, in my conditions. On the oposite, I brought a plasma home to test and it had faded colors.

So, can we agree to disagree?
Yup. I always laugh when people call LED dimming 'trickery', as if this is the only 'trick' in creating a TV image. People, the entire television image is created by trickery! Whether it's a CRT, plasma, OLED or LCD, each uses its own 'trickery' to fool the eye into creating a coherent image.

No, LEDs do NOT have a lock on 'trickery'.
bruceames and bakerwi like this.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #756 of 1798 Old 07-31-2014, 09:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
bruceames's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Rafael, CA
Posts: 823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 62
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!
It's true that 4k TV doesn't need native content to look better than that on 1080p. But that depends on how close you sit. Personally I don't like looking at pixels, so with my plasma I could only get so close without it being a distraction. Now that I have a 4k TV, I've suddenly found myself watching from much closer and getting a more immersive experience.

So yes just like with DVD, you can see the benefits from 4k upscaling. You just have to sit close enough to appreciate it.

I bought my 4k TV (the Sony 900A) not just for getting more pixels, but for the passive 1080p 3D, which is glorious. Not only that, there's no crosstalk on even the most problematic titles (like Chicken Little).

Not worried at all about my TV becoming "obsolete". That's ridiculous. A 1080p TV will be obsolete sooner and I was due for my every 3-4 year upgrade. It will be at least 3-4 years before the so-called elusive "standard" that all the (seemingly) plasma fans are waiting for, will be out and affordable. I'll upgrade and buy one when that time comes and the 900A will trickle down to become the den TV. I won't miss a beat later and won't miss out now because all the TV spec stars haven't aligned yet.

BTW, I do own a couple of native 4k movies: Lawrence of Arabia and Bridge on the River Kwai. Both look better than the Blu-ray. Of course the difference is nowhere near that of DVD--> Blu-ray, and you do have to sit within 8 feet or so to notice any difference, but the difference in detail is there nonetheless (and both movies have lots of lovely detail to look at), to be appreciated.
Ken Ross likes this.

Last edited by bruceames; 07-31-2014 at 09:50 PM.
bruceames is offline  
post #757 of 1798 Old 07-31-2014, 09:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
bruceames's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Rafael, CA
Posts: 823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 62
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
Mrorange has stated many times in the Samsung thread that he likes a very bright picture with the sharpness set high. That's his preference, but I can understand why it would result in a less than accurate picture.
Mrorange303 likes this.
bruceames is offline  
post #758 of 1798 Old 08-02-2014, 06:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rightintel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,571
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 56
The editor of Sound and Vision said he saw a 65" Sammy 4K/1080p side by side, and at 15 feet he said he saw aliasing on a letter C(stair stepping) very easily on the 1080p model. Granted it was stationary, but that's still pretty substantive. There's no material right now, but if your current set went on the fritz, you'd be crazy to buy a 1080p set(barring $$$ issues).

Xbox Live: General PATT0N
rightintel is offline  
post #759 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 07:59 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,512
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked: 3145
David Katzmaier just published an article titled "10 worst TV technologies."

#1 is 3D (no surprise). Items 2-5 are interesting in the context of this thread... #2 curved screens, #3 4K/UHD, #4 LCD, and #5 edgelit LED.

Mark Henninger
imagic is offline  
post #760 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 08:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,555
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
David Katzmaier just published an article titled "10 worst TV technologies."

#1 is 3D (no surprise). Items 2-5 are interesting in the context of this thread... #2 curved screens, #3 4K/UHD, #4 LCD, and #5 edgelit LED.
Well. This pretty much sums up the whole debate for me.

"4K

What's wrong with extra resolution, you ask? First off, it's almost impossible to discern the difference between HD and 4K at standard seating distances. But even worse, spending bandwidth and bits on that extra resolution means there's less to devote to things that actually improve picture quality.

LCD

LCD is the most successful HDTV display technology, killing off CRT, rear-projection and now plasma, and pushing OLED further down the road. But LCD and "LED TVs" generally offer worse picture quality than plasma or OLED, suffering insurmountable off-angle issues and requiring convoluted, often flawed local dimming and video processing schemes to produce a decent home theater picture. Too bad there's no real alternative right now.

Edge-lit LED

These sets sell like gangbusters thanks to their slim profiles, but most have worse picture uniformity, including brighter edges and corners, than direct-lit LED-based LCD TVs."
sage11x is offline  
post #761 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 08:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,555
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightintel View Post
The editor of Sound and Vision said he saw a 65" Sammy 4K/1080p side by side, and at 15 feet he said he saw aliasing on a letter C(stair stepping) very easily on the 1080p model. Granted it was stationary, but that's still pretty substantive. There's no material right now, but if your current set went on the fritz, you'd be crazy to buy a 1080p set(barring $$$ issues).
Crazy like a fox.

Was the editor of sound and vision using binoculars or testing his copy of Sesame Street on Atari 2600? This statement you made is so ridiculous I'm not sure where to start! There's nothing at all 'substantive' about this story!

Last edited by sage11x; 08-03-2014 at 08:29 AM.
sage11x is offline  
post #762 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 08:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,555
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceames View Post
Mrorange has stated many times in the Samsung thread that he likes a very bright picture with the sharpness set high. That's his preference, but I can understand why it would result in a less than accurate picture.
His preference sounds like a wholly inaccurate picture. I'm not going to start down that road but this actually explains a lot why some of us can't seem to get through to him about why we're not sold on 4k LCD and why he's so enamored by it.
sage11x is offline  
post #763 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 08:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,555
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceames View Post
It's true that 4k TV doesn't need native content to look better than that on 1080p. But that depends on how close you sit. Personally I don't like looking at pixels, so with my plasma I could only get so close without it being a distraction. Now that I have a 4k TV, I've suddenly found myself watching from much closer and getting a more immersive experience.

So yes just like with DVD, you can see the benefits from 4k upscaling. You just have to sit close enough to appreciate it.

I bought my 4k TV (the Sony 900A) not just for getting more pixels, but for the passive 1080p 3D, which is glorious. Not only that, there's no crosstalk on even the most problematic titles (like Chicken Little).

Not worried at all about my TV becoming "obsolete". That's ridiculous. A 1080p TV will be obsolete sooner and I was due for my every 3-4 year upgrade. It will be at least 3-4 years before the so-called elusive "standard" that all the (seemingly) plasma fans are waiting for, will be out and affordable. I'll upgrade and buy one when that time comes and the 900A will trickle down to become the den TV. I won't miss a beat later and won't miss out now because all the TV spec stars haven't aligned yet.

BTW, I do own a couple of native 4k movies: Lawrence of Arabia and Bridge on the River Kwai. Both look better than the Blu-ray. Of course the difference is nowhere near that of DVD--> Blu-ray, and you do have to sit within 8 feet or so to notice any difference, but the difference in detail is there nonetheless (and both movies have lots of lovely detail to look at), to be appreciated.
How close do you sit? Are you quite sure you haven't fallen prey to confirmation bias? Here's a chart based on human beings visual acuity-- btw, you shouldn't be seeing pixels on a 1080p plasma unless your nose was pressed to the screen.

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

--Carl Sagan
sage11x is offline  
post #764 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 08:21 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,512
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
His preference sounds like a wholly inaccurate picture. I'm not going to start down that road but this actually explains a lot why some of us can't seem to get through to him about why we're not sold on 4k LCD and why he's so enamored by it.
And, the fact is I can take my F8500, switch over to normal or vivid mode, crank the sharpness, turn on dynamic contrast, and engage motion interpolation (SOE). I bet some LCD fans would be shocked at how well a plasma can 'perform' (versus a pumped-up LCD) if you skip a proper ISF/rec. 709 calibration and instead opt to use the whole bag of video processing tricks the TV makers have come up with over the years.

Mark Henninger
imagic is offline  
post #765 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 08:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,555
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Yup. I always laugh when people call LED dimming 'trickery', as if this is the only 'trick' in creating a TV image. People, the entire television image is created by trickery! Whether it's a CRT, plasma, OLED or LCD, each uses its own 'trickery' to fool the eye into creating a coherent image.

No, LEDs do NOT have a lock on 'trickery'.
I'm not the only one with this opinion. See above.

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

--Carl Sagan
sage11x is offline  
post #766 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 08:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,555
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
And, the fact is I can take my F8500, switch over to normal or vivid mode, crank the sharpness, turn on dynamic contrast, and engage motion interpolation (SOE). I bet some LCD fans would be shocked at how well a plasma can 'perform' (versus a pumped-up LCD) if you skip a proper ISF/rec. 709 calibration and instead opt to use the whole bag of video processing tricks the TV makers have come up with over the years.
Agreed. I could say the same about my VT60... Ok, except the vivid thing because, let's face it, panasonic doesn't do eye searing.
sage11x is offline  
post #767 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 08:28 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,512
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Yup. I always laugh when people call LED dimming 'trickery', as if this is the only 'trick' in creating a TV image. People, the entire television image is created by trickery! Whether it's a CRT, plasma, OLED or LCD, each uses its own 'trickery' to fool the eye into creating a coherent image.

No, LEDs do NOT have a lock on 'trickery'.
It's referred to as trickery by some because you can easily spot LED dimming if you know what to look for; and once you spot it, it's a distraction. LED dimming does help TV makers claim improvements in intra-frame contrast and black levels.

Mark Henninger
imagic is offline  
post #768 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 08:55 AM
Advanced Member
 
bruceames's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Rafael, CA
Posts: 823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
How close do you sit? Are you quite sure you haven't fallen prey to confirmation bias? Here's a chart based on human beings visual acuity-- btw, you shouldn't be seeing pixels on a 1080p plasma unless your nose was pressed to the screen.
I sit about 5-7 feet away, depending on the content. It's easy to just slide my recliner back and forth.

According to that chart you'll get the full benefit of 1080p on a 65" TV from 8 feet away. That's where you begin to resolve pixels (assuming normal vision).

Actually it's not just the pixels on the 1080p plasma, it's the flicker. It becomes more noticeble as you get closer. The Sony shows a smoother more consistent picture, so it's VERY inviting to snuggle up to it.

Last edited by bruceames; 08-03-2014 at 08:59 AM.
bruceames is offline  
post #769 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 09:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,199
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Liked: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic
It's referred to as trickery by some because you can easily spot LED dimming if you know what to look for; and once you spot it, it's a distraction.
That is what you make of it. Over the years AVS folks meant fake-ish blacks when using the term (FALD) ''trickery''.

distraction: it depends on model, viewing distance, light conditions, (pro-)calibration, content, scene.

Lots of FALD owners know what to look for. Those that couldn't stand blooming/haloing switched to Plasma., which is a small minority
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
"4K

What's wrong with extra resolution, you ask? First off, it's almost impossible to discern the difference between HD and 4K at standard seating distances. But even worse, spending bandwidth and bits on that extra resolution means there's less to devote to things that actually improve picture quality.
."
These days a flatscreen must be perceived as being multi purpose imo. A TV must deliver as HD TV, computer monitor and game screen. When using the TV as a computer monitor or game screen 4K is an improvent over 1080p so AFAIK 4K is an improvent over 1080p just because of that.
8mile13 is offline  
post #770 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 09:55 AM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 742
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 328 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
These days a flatscreen must be perceived as being multi purpose imo. A TV must deliver as HD TV, computer monitor and game screen. When using the TV as a computer monitor or game screen 4K is an improvent over 1080p so AFAIK 4K is an improvent over 1080p just because of that.
most Tv these days can't present a proper RGB picture from a PC is very hard to find a very good Tv for PC usage.
nearly all are limited to 4:2:2 limited range or like samsung where you need to use 60 HZ only...
mightyhuhn is offline  
post #771 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 10:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rightintel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,571
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Crazy like a fox.

Was the editor of sound and vision using binoculars or testing his copy of Sesame Street on Atari 2600? This statement you made is so ridiculous I'm not sure where to start! There's nothing at all 'substantive' about this story!
Really? So ridiculous you couldn't articulate why? The "substantive" I was referring to wasn't the story(I/he didn't make it up, it happened). It was the fact that he saw the aliasing at that distance w/ the 2 sets side by side. What exactly is ridiculous about the editor of a consumer electronics magazine reporting what he saw between the two? Comments about Sesame Street and binoculars aren't persuasive arguments btw...

Xbox Live: General PATT0N
rightintel is offline  
post #772 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 10:08 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,136
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 666 Post(s)
Liked: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
How close do you sit? Are you quite sure you haven't fallen prey to confirmation bias? Here's a chart based on human beings visual acuity-- btw, you shouldn't be seeing pixels on a 1080p plasma unless your nose was pressed to the screen.
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
As you can tell from my posts I'm not exactly a UHD or bust sort of guy. I sit with my eyes ~8.5 from my 64" F8500. If I move forward a foot or two by sitting on the edge of the couch and lean in a little I can readily perceive the gaps in the pixel structure. Those gaps aren't very large. I'm not sure those charts are as absolute as some people present them as.
Stereodude is offline  
post #773 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 10:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,199
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Liked: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn
most Tv these days can't present a proper RGB picture from a PC is very hard to find a very good Tv for PC usage.
nearly all are limited to 4:2:2 limited range or like samsung where you need to use 60 HZ only...
Are you saying that 4K is not an improvent over 1080p when using a TV as computer monitor?
8mile13 is offline  
post #774 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 10:19 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,512
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
Are you saying that 4K is not an improvent over 1080p when using a TV as computer monitor?
In my recent experience, there's no area where a UHD/4K display offers more of an obvious advantage/improvement over 1080p than when it's used as a computer monitor. In addition to native 2160p, the AX800U I've been testing is glorious when I play PC games at 2560x1440 resolution, which offers a really excellent combination of detail and frame rate.

Mark Henninger
imagic is offline  
post #775 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 10:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,736
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 823 Post(s)
Liked: 225
Lol. Anyone who says my picture is highly inaccurate on a 4k set has no idea how I watch my set.

Brightness higher from my day time setting is not an issue.. Sharpness on a 4k set is able to be sharper without penalty.

You guys just literally showed every member how very little you truly know about 4k TV.

I want everyone to read imagic and sage just said 4k Tv only look as good as 1080p sets. Wow.

Literally threw all science out the window.

Having to tell people to stand back so these sets look the same is not better. Your pixilated fetish throws Me off.

The fact that you constantly say things we OWNERS know are laughable is even more hilarious as you guys seem to only gather when you think you can get a point against 4k across.

How many sites CAN see the difference? Most all the others.


David Katz literally is being used to make justification for people not buying 4k sets.

You guys can link the plasma prince all you want.

No one respects Katz in here but plasma fans.

Not everyone is a plasma fan.

My 4k TV can do many things better.

Blacks and motion. That's all you got. And that's only at night in the darkest room.

The other 90% with like NFL etc our sets look better More vibrant, more clear, much cleaner picture.

This is like witnessing your friend go through a really bad break up. You know it's good for them. You hate to say move on. But in the end you know your friend will be much better off and will one day have a really great relationship.

You guys gotta let plasma go. It's dead for a reason. If all you say about it being so great and all then why is it dead!

Because it really is a lesser experience and only the few hard-core left really buy them.

You don't know me. You don't k of my TV. My room I watch it in. Windows etc.

Don't sit in here trying to say you know my viewing experience.

Again these guys say you guys aren't smart enough to just go to a store and see the difference.

Go to a store. Look at the 4k sets. I said those look better.

If you can find a plasma look at it. That's what they say looks better.

No be happy and go buy your better than plasma 4k set.

Your welcome.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #776 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 10:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,555
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightintel View Post
Really? So ridiculous you couldn't articulate why? The "substantive" I was referring to wasn't the story(I/he didn't make it up, it happened). It was the fact that he saw the aliasing at that distance w/ the 2 sets side by side. What exactly is ridiculous about the editor of a consumer electronics magazine reporting what he saw between the two? Comments about Sesame Street and binoculars aren't persuasive arguments btw...
15 feet? From a 64" screen? Really? Do you stand by this observation yourself?

Which magazine is this again? Link to the article? And do they advertise several thousand dollar speaker wire? --Because that might be good to know as well.

Last edited by sage11x; 08-03-2014 at 10:28 AM.
sage11x is offline  
post #777 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 10:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,555
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
As you can tell from my posts I'm not exactly a UHD or bust sort of guy. I sit with my eyes ~8.5 from my 64" F8500. If I move forward a foot or two by sitting on the edge of the couch and lean in a little I can readily perceive the gaps in the pixel structure. Those gaps aren't very large. I'm not sure those charts are as absolute as some people present them as.
Ok, but this guy is saying that the pixel structure is visible from 15ft from a 64" screen.

I'm sorry but we've gone from arguing the merits and value of 4k to off-the-cliff hilarity if members here really believe you can see the pixel structure of a 64" 1080p set from 15 ft back. I can't see the grid on my 82" from 10 ft back!

Last edited by sage11x; 08-03-2014 at 10:42 AM.
sage11x is offline  
post #778 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 10:30 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,512
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Lol. Anyone who says my picture is highly inaccurate on a 4k set has no idea how I watch my set.

Brightness higher from my day time setting is not an issue.. Sharpness on a 4k set is able to be sharper without penalty.

You guys just literally showed every member how very little you truly know about 4k TV.

I want everyone to read imagic and sage just said 4k Tv only look as good as 1080p sets. Wow.

Literally threw all science out the window.
People can't know what the color is like on your set if it is not calibrated. That's part of the science, each and every TV comes out of the factory with some degree of color inaccuracy that can only be corrected by individually calibrating that specific TV. Get your TV calibrated, then we'll all be on the same page.

Mark Henninger

Last edited by imagic; 08-03-2014 at 10:47 AM.
imagic is offline  
post #779 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 10:35 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,512
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
15 feet? From a 64" screen? Really? Do you stand by this observation yourself?

Which magazine is this again? Link to the article? And do they advertise several thousand dollar speaker wire? --Because that might be good to know as well.
Sound & Vision is a sister publication of Stereophile.

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Capture.JPG
Views:	122
Size:	20.2 KB
ID:	194689  

Mark Henninger
imagic is offline  
post #780 of 1798 Old 08-03-2014, 10:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,555
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceames View Post
I sit about 5-7 feet away, depending on the content. It's easy to just slide my recliner back and forth.

According to that chart you'll get the full benefit of 1080p on a 65" TV from 8 feet away. That's where you begin to resolve pixels (assuming normal vision).

Actually it's not just the pixels on the 1080p plasma, it's the flicker. It becomes more noticeble as you get closer. The Sony shows a smoother more consistent picture, so it's VERY inviting to snuggle up to it.
So you're sitting closer than 8 feet from a 65"? Eye distance? I just measured my seating distance in my media room and it's just about 8ft from glass to backrest and there's just enough room to slide between the ottoman and entertainment rack to change discs. I can't really imagine sitting closer I'd be propping my feet on my center channel!

And this is in your living room? You're the one without the media room right? How does anyone else see the screen with you sitting that close? Especially with the off angle falloff inherent to LCD? I'd think you'd want to sit back a ways to allow more people in the 'sweeter' spot.
sage11x 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