Originally Posted by sage11x
Ok, I'm probably going to cause some issues here but... That explains a LOT.
I once read a review in stereophile explaining the need to buy expensive speaker wire that was 'synergistic' to your system. As if the basic chemical makeup of copper could somehow be 'tuned' by some arcane recipe or alchemy to better match your gear.
Again: this is the industry preying on the ignorance of the consumer. Both hdtvtest and cnet have performed tests (the hdtvtest test was particularly interesting as it involved bystanders at a public event) and in both cases the advantages of 4k were slight and largely source dependent at even close viewing distances.
Ok so I don't argue with most of this.
One thing I've repeated 2014 sets are better sets. That's all. There's a lot to that simple statement.
But here is CNET CLEARLY DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT ONE OF THEIR TEAM COULD CLEARLY SEE THE DIFFERENCE.
sorry to caps you. I just wanted to point out they can't see right. Literally they cannot visually see right. I'm saying it right now david Katz needs a better prescription. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
But here's why.
"I also asked a couple of CNET staffers to check out the same scenes from "Samsara," and while one agreed with me he couldn't see any difference, the other was able to pick out the 1080p S64 relatively quickly. When I asked him why, he said he noticed the very subtle presence of pixel structure in some flat fields, for example blue skies, and that tipped him off. He didn't pick out actual pixels from that distance, but did describe a vague sense of the picture elements nonetheless.
When we moved the couch back to about an 8.5 distance he said he didn't notice the difference "as much", but at that point "we agreed" confirmation bias was too much of an issue to "fully trust" what he saw. In any case, he stressed that the difference he saw was minuscule, likely impossible to pick out when not looking at a side-by-side comparison using select parts of extremely high-quality material, and much less important than some other aspects of "picture-quality differences he noticed, like black level and color."
He says he has someone who sees the difference. Oh let's move it back. Yep he sees it still. But he knows it there so can't trust him. What? Contrast and color were better too? But that's not important? Wait. Wait. Wait.
This David Katz. That guy.
L. O. L.