UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy - Page 27 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 510Likes
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-03-2014, 09:30 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,665
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1122 Post(s)
Liked: 2274
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.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by imagic; 08-03-2014 at 09:47 AM.
imagic is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-03-2014, 09:35 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,665
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1122 Post(s)
Liked: 2274
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:	103
Size:	20.2 KB
ID:	194689  

Find out more about Mark Henninger at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
imagic is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 09:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,462
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 280 Post(s)
Liked: 491
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 online now  
Old 08-03-2014, 09:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,462
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 280 Post(s)
Liked: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Sound & Vision is a sister publication of Stereophile.

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. I'm all for discussion but it's articles like that that really made me question their credibility.

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.

Mind you: no one is saying the benefits of 4k can't be seen but we're really talking diminishing returns here.

I'd still like a link to the article so I can see the circumstances of the test.

I came to AVS years ago to get away from this industry babble. I've always looked at AVS as a counter to the hysterics of the AV media machine. Not to say that everyone or anyone involved with those publications is trying to deceive or defraud but it's very hard to see through the smoke with a lot of those publications.

Last edited by sage11x; 08-03-2014 at 10:00 AM.
sage11x is online now  
Old 08-03-2014, 09:56 AM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 89
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?
not most of the current TV at least. different story with a screen that has DP and can do 4:4:4 or a normal UHD monitor.
mightyhuhn is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 10:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
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.


What?

This David Katz. That guy.

L. O. L.

http://www.cnet.com/products/samsung-un65hu9000/2/
Mrorange303 is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 10:19 AM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 89
enough lol and science doesn't matter ? and can you plaese accept the opinion of other person and science in general. most people accept your opinion too but you should really start seeing thing from a different viewing point...

and with different viewing point i mean not your point
mightyhuhn is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 10:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,462
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 280 Post(s)
Liked: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
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.


What?

This David Katz. That guy.

L. O. L.

http://www.cnet.com/products/samsung-un65hu9000/2/
Actually he was saying contrast and color were much better on the S64 plasma than the 4k LCD. Btw, the S64 was Panasonic's entry level 1080p plasma from 2013.

Also, I think you need to read up on bias. He's saying once the observer knew the 4k set was 4k he would always 'observe' the 4k set being sharper whether or not his eyes could actually resolve the difference. This is a case of our easily fooled senses being swayed by bias. This is the reason why you have 'blind' taste tests-- if you know which one is coke and which one is Pepsi and you 'always liked' Pepsi well than obviously you're going to pick Pepsi thanks to your predisposed bias.

Last edited by sage11x; 08-03-2014 at 10:26 AM.
sage11x is online now  
Old 08-03-2014, 10:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
enough lol and science doesn't matter ? and can you plaese accept the opinion of other person and science in general. most people accept your opinion too but you should really start seeing thing from a different viewing point...

and with different viewing point i mean not your point
Anytime David Katz is used to support anything you or anyone else says you get a lol.

I trust what you say more. And that's none at all. So yeah you will and a member of this forum will never get a lol from me to them.

But Davis Katz. That's not the best source to many in avs. Many.

Some choose to use him. Fine. His review isn't even a bad one as far as what he says about performance of the set. But he as always trips on his own feet and lays out a wonderful contradiction piece to all things known basic in the tv world.

It is. What it is.
Mrorange303 is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 10:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
vddobrev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 811
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 39
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.
Hmmm, so 91% of TVs sold have most of the 10 worst technologies. Wow, you 9% plasma snobs, enjoy yourself and feel privileged.
bruceames likes this.
vddobrev is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 10:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Actually he was saying contrast and color were much better on the S64 plasma than the 4k LCD. Btw, the S64 was Panasonic's entry level 1080p plasma from 2013.

Also, I think you need to read up on bias. He's saying once the observer knew the 4k set was 4k he would always 'observe' the 4k set being sharper whether or not his eyes could actually resolve the difference. This is a case of our easily fooled senses being swayed by bias. This is the reason why you have 'blind' taste tests-- if you know which one is coke and which one is Pepsi and you 'always liked' Pepsi well than obviously you're going to pick Pepsi thanks to your predisposed bias.
Your definition of the human psyche is just that your shared limited understanding that indeed there is a excessive variance in perceptual depth on a multitude of people. Eye sight. Light sensitivity. Color and contrast depth and detail. Transitions. Motion.

All yours and his to share.


I on the other hand get something completely different when I read that.

6 ft. 8.5 ft. Pixels are pixels. I can see them. I know what it feels like to be the other staffer. I have always seen pixels. Plasma or not.

People asking me what's the difference. Well my f8000 can bright with great contrast.

But it cannot match my hu9000 in picture resolution, color depth, the extra detail the hu9000 pulls out of pictures etc.

I will admit my f8000 has darker blacks.

Not a huge difference. In black levels.

Other than that it's naive to say the hu9000 has pixels compared to the f8000 with the same material.

I own both. That's just not correct.
Mrorange303 is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 10:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,462
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 280 Post(s)
Liked: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Anytime David Katz is used to support anything you or anyone else says you get a lol.

I trust what you say more. And that's none at all. So yeah you will and a member of this forum will never get a lol from me to them.

But Davis Katz. That's not the best source to many in avs. Many.

Some choose to use him. Fine. His review isn't even a bad one as far as what he says about performance of the set. But he as always trips on his own feet and lays out a wonderful contradiction piece to all things known basic in the tv world.

It is. What it is.
Far for me to universally accept anything anyone says. I think David and Ty do a good job over there at cnet but I certainly don't think they're infallable. Still, at least they're using logic and inviting some intelligent discourse as opposed to just shouting '4k better because reasons' every half second. MrOrange, I think you're being mislead by the promotional materials you've read and your own confirmation bias. Some of the things you and others are claiming as fact about 4k are just not fact. 4k affects pixel count, that's it. You're entitled to your opinion but keep in mind that this doesn't entitle you from being wrong.

Last edited by sage11x; 08-03-2014 at 10:44 AM.
sage11x is online now  
Old 08-03-2014, 10:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,916
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 255 Post(s)
Liked: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
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.
So you would recommend a 4K TV over a 1080P TV with PC games use? What about other areas, such as your photo's (detail)?

Folks limit the discussion of a 4K TV to general TV use( movies, series, docu's etc..). Since this is just one aspect of TV use i want to know in which areas, for instance when using TV for a specific purpose, sitting close watching home videos/ photo's etc.., a 4K TV can be beneficial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
not most of the current TV at least. different story with a screen that has DP and can do 4:4:4 or a normal UHD monitor.
ok. My 2008 TV- XBR8 - seems to support 4:4:4 (in Game/Tekst mode).
8mile13 is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 10:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,462
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 280 Post(s)
Liked: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by vddobrev View Post
Hmmm, so 91% of TVs sold have most of the 10 worst technologies. Wow, you 9% plasma snobs, enjoy yourself and feel privileged.
Not sure how you can feel privileged about owning a TV nevermind a TV that was almost always comparatively cheaper than those from the competing LCD tech. But ok.

Again, my main TV is a DLP and I spend a whole mess of time watching our LCDs in the kitchen and bedroom. LCD is a great tech, but it has limitations especially to those that value a theater like viewing experience. LCD is more versatile and requires less 'special feeding' than plasma. Also, the majority of TV shoppers just don't care or are informed about the few real issues LCD does have. David K is an AV enthusiast-- enthusiasts are not the majority by definition.
bobby2478 likes this.
sage11x is online now  
Old 08-03-2014, 11:04 AM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Anytime David Katz is used to support anything you or anyone else says you get a lol.
i don't even know who David Katz is.

and at the "lol" i mean that in general this is not helping in making a statement.
mightyhuhn is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 11:24 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,665
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1122 Post(s)
Liked: 2274
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
So you would recommend a 4K TV over a 1080P TV with PC games use? What about other areas, such as your photo's (detail)?

Folks limit the discussion of a 4K TV to general TV use( movies, series, docu's etc..). Since this is just one aspect of TV use i want to know in which areas, for instance when using TV for a specific purpose, sitting close watching home videos/ photo's etc.., a 4K TV can be beneficial.
ok. My 2008 TV- XBR8 - seems to support 4:4:4 (in Game/Tekst mode).
For Photoshop, you can't have too many pixels, period. And, I think slideshows are one of the best uses for UHD/4K today.

For PC games, as long as you are willing to invest in, or else already own, the hardware to push 2160p—then yes I think there is a lot to gain. PC gaming represents the largest repository of UHD content out there that's available today, aside from still photos.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
imagic is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 11:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rightintel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,403
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 40
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.
1. Yes, fifteen feet.
-Yes( I believe it was 65").
-Yes, really.
-No, I don't stand by this myself(not being there w/ him at the show myself makes that part difficult).
2. Sound and Vision.
3. I can't give you a link, it was in my last issue of Sound n Vision(July or August).
4. I assume they do advertise thousand dollar speaker wire-which is irrelevant. What the hell does that have to do with him seeing aliasing on the side by side test?

His name is Rob Sabin. I haven't seen any "4k is awesome buy now" fanboyism from him(or the other writers in that publication). He was answering the very question we're addressing here, in response to a reader's letter-which is why I posted it. It seemed perfectly relevant. Btw, if infallibility or perfection is the standard by which we can judge a publication/industry commentator, Cnet, etc., then NO ONE(including you and me) should even bother to comment. I dunno, maybe he had 4K goggles on. I don't usually get that impression from him or the magazine. I simply think the example he gave might contribute to someone's decision, particularly if they're in the market for a new display. If there was in fact stair-stepping on the 1080p set, I'd want to know when making my decision. Don't really think any of that is so outlandish.

Xbox Live: General PATT0N
rightintel is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 11:33 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,665
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1122 Post(s)
Liked: 2274
Quote:
Originally Posted by vddobrev View Post
Hmmm, so 91% of TVs sold have most of the 10 worst technologies. Wow, you 9% plasma snobs, enjoy yourself and feel privileged.
The reason LCD has such a large market share is all the 24-inch RCAs and Sanyos that Wal-mart sells for about $130, and perhaps $99.95 during a holiday weekend sale. Those TVs are why LCD has a huge market share. In the sizes plasma primarily competed in, 50" through 64", the relative market share for plasma vs. LCD was higher.
sage11x and bobby2478 like this.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
imagic is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 11:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Far for me to universally accept anything anyone says. I think David and Ty do a good job over there at cnet but I certainly don't think they're infallable. Still, at least they're using logic and inviting some intelligent discourse as opposed to just shouting '4k better because reasons' every half second. MrOrange, I think you're being mislead by the promotional materials you've read and your own confirmation bias. Some of the things you and others are claiming as fact about 4k are just not fact. 4k affects pixel count, that's it. You're entitled to your opinion but keep in mind that this doesn't entitle you from being wrong.
I own a 4k set. I live everyday with one. How about you? How are you such an expert on 4k?
Mrorange303 is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 11:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
vddobrev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 811
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
The reason LCD has such a large market share is all the 24-inch RCAs and Sanyos that Wal-mart sells for about $130, and perhaps $99.95 during a holiday weekend sale. Those TVs are why LCD has a huge market share. In the sizes plasma primarily competed in, 50" through 64", the relative market share for plasma vs. LCD was higher.
But that is also the reason why plasma died.

What was the purpose of David's article, in your opinion? Also curious what is the purpose of you quoting it here?
vddobrev is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 11:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Also, I think you need to read up on bias. He's saying once the observer knew the 4k set was 4k he would always 'observe' the 4k set being sharper whether or not his eyes could actually resolve the difference. This is a case of our easily fooled senses being swayed by bias. This is the reason why you have 'blind' taste tests-- if you know which one is coke and which one is Pepsi and you 'always liked' Pepsi well than obviously you're going to pick Pepsi thanks to your predisposed bias.
That's right, and you've put it very clearly. Now, in this context, we should realize that it works both ways. Katzmaier and others have a theory about how distance affects visual acuity, and when they compare 2k and 4k pictures and fail to see additional detail in the 4k picture, that confirms their theory. But at this point I am totally distrustful of these comparisons. They say they can see that the 4k picture is no better than the 2k one, or, if there is some difference, it's one that has nothing to do with resolution, so it should be discounted. I just don't believe it, and I think this judgment is due to bias. They're getting the facts wrong because they have the wrong theory.
Mrorange303 likes this.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:19 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,665
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1122 Post(s)
Liked: 2274
Quote:
Originally Posted by vddobrev View Post
But that is also the reason why plasma died.

What was the purpose of David's article, in your opinion? Also curious what is the purpose of you quoting it here?
The purpose is simple... TVs in the 50-65 inch range are the most popular sizes when it comes to premium-featured panels. It's still possible to buy a plasma today, and specifically a Samsung F8500—which is what I did.

On a daily basis, I see that F8500 do many things better than the UHD/4K Panasonic AX800U that's right next to it. For all practical purposes, it's because of the exact factors (numbers 2-5) that David Katzmaier brought up. David is a smart guy and knows his stuff, and I concur with his conclusions.

LCD-based UHD/4K TVs have their place, and when viewed head-on, with the right content, in a bright room, from a close distance... they can be quite impressive.

I quoted DKs piece because he mentioned 4K. Scott's thread isn't titled "Why you should buy a UHD/4K TV today; it's titled "To Buy or Not to Buy." And Katzmaier made a few points that count towards the not to buy camp.
sage11x and bobby2478 like this.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
imagic is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:20 PM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 89
are you talking about 3 times display diagonally like it is recommended for FHD or the new ~1.5 diagonally for UHD?

i mean how to not see a difference when you are close....
mightyhuhn is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
That's right, and you've put it very clearly. Now, in this context, we should realize that it works both ways. Katzmaier and others have a theory about how distance affects visual acuity, and when they compare 2k and 4k pictures and fail to see additional detail in the 4k picture, that confirms their theory. But at this point I am totally distrustful of these comparisons. They say they can see that the 4k picture is no better than the 2k one, or, if there is some difference, it's one that has nothing to do with resolution, so it should be discounted. I just don't believe it, and I think this judgment is due to bias. They're getting the facts wrong because they have the wrong theory.
Or it's just that he has came at it from the perspective of using his standard type settings on a 4k set. E.g I do indeed use a high sharp setting on my 4k set.

I have never done this in the pAst due to ghosting but it comes out of the box at a 50 sharpness default.

I left it there. Reason is the motion looks fantastic.

I think the standard that we used won't all apply anymore.

Things like lowering the sharpness. Why buy a 4k set to lower the sharpness. It negates the sets strengths to show detailed content at higher resolutions.

I'm just saying we can't just rush in being experts without real quality time.

You can't go in with a 4k set and apply old methods of getting the best picture. Things have changed and some sites have embraced that. Some are still using old methods and they may be in fact making the picture worse.

Just an observation. Many other members here also share a similar lack of experience but have no issue giving answers that seem they have a very high level of 4k experience.


Not all members like a high sharpness. In fact I think it was 50/50 last time I checked.

But even the opposite side of the sharpness setting said they noticed a great level more clean detail. Amazing what cleaning up pixelation can do to an image.
Mrorange303 is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:24 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,665
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1122 Post(s)
Liked: 2274
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
That's right, and you've put it very clearly. Now, in this context, we should realize that it works both ways. Katzmaier and others have a theory about how distance affects visual acuity, and when they compare 2k and 4k pictures and fail to see additional detail in the 4k picture, that confirms their theory. But at this point I am totally distrustful of these comparisons. They say they can see that the 4k picture is no better than the 2k one, or, if there is some difference, it's one that has nothing to do with resolution, so it should be discounted. I just don't believe it, and I think this judgment is due to bias. They're getting the facts wrong because they have the wrong theory.
I've stood right next to David, with vision test charts showing on 1080p and 2160p TVs of the same size, from the same manufacturer, and agreed we saw the same things as we scrutinized the two TVs from various distances. I'm not dealing with theory, I'm talking about observations, under controlled conditions, of 2014 HDTVs and UHDTVs.
David Susilo and sage11x like this.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
imagic is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
The purpose is simple... TVs in the 50-65 inch range are the most popular sizes when it comes to premium-featured panels. It's still possible to buy a plasma today, and specifically a Samsung F8500—which is what I did.

On a daily basis, I see that F8500 do many things better than the UHD/4K Panasonic AX800U that's right next to it. For all practical purposes, it's because of the exact factors (numbers 2-5) that David Katzmaier brought up. David is a smart guy and knows his stuff, and I concur with his conclusions.

LCD-based UHD/4K TVs have their place, and when viewed head-on, with the right content, in a bright room, from a close distance... they can be quite impressive.

I quoted DKs piece because he mentioned 4K. Scott's thread isn't titled "Why you should buy a UHD/4K TV today; it's titled "To Buy or Not to Buy." And Katzmaier made a few points that count towards the not to buy camp.
Classy as ever in Your responses. Still I say the issue boils down to the need for new experts. Those willing to move outside of the old comfort zone to embrace and redefine the given standard for a 4k picture. The experience is not the same. It shouldn't be treated as the same. This is truly a side of the issue no one cares to address.

They just get to the old calibration and write another review. These sets rarely are calibrated by the owners for a reason. It really does not look better using old calibration methods. There are small changes we should recorder.
Mrorange303 is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
I've stood right next to David, with vision test charts showing on 1080p and 2160p TVs of the same size, from the same manufacturer, and agreed we saw the same things as we scrutinized the two TVs from various distances. I'm not dealing with theory, I'm talking about observations, under controlled conditions, of 2014 HDTVs and UHDTVs.
Plasma settings. You mean tried to get the sets to display the closest picture to your reference plasma.

Not my idea condition. Reference has changed. Tv has changed.

Material is shot at sharper resolutions and higher frame rates. Our sets take advantage of it. Let's not avoid that.
Mrorange303 is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:36 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,665
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1122 Post(s)
Liked: 2274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Classy as ever in Your responses. Still I say the issue boils down to the need for new experts. Those willing to move outside of the old comfort zone to embrace and redefine the given standard for a 4k picture. The experience is not the same. It shouldn't be treated as the same. This is truly a side of the issue no one cares to address.

They just get to the old calibration and write another review. These sets rarely are calibrated by the owners for a reason. It really does not look better using old calibration methods. There are small changes we should recorder.
Calibration remains 100% relevant for UHD/4K TVs. There's no getting around the fact that TVs cannot be accurate out of the box due to variations in electronic components, or that all content is mastered to an accepted standard, one that you are free to ignore but exists nonetheless. Also, professional reviewers are ahead of the curve on all things UHD/4K, when compared to a consumer such as yourself. I guarantee it.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
imagic is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:38 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,665
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1122 Post(s)
Liked: 2274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Plasma settings. You mean tried to get the sets to display the closest picture to your reference plasma.

Not my idea condition. Reference has changed. Tv has changed.

Material is shot at sharper resolutions and higher frame rates. Our sets take advantage of it. Let's not avoid that.
What is one example of content that meets both those criteria, that you've watched on your TV?
sage11x and fatuglyguy like this.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
imagic is offline  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Plasma settings. You mean tried to get the sets to display the closest picture to your reference plasma.

Not my idea condition. Reference has changed. Tv has changed.

Material is shot at sharper resolutions and higher frame rates. Our sets take advantage of it. Let's not avoid that.
what is plasma setting ? really what is that?
the reference is not done with plasma it is done with colorimeter.

a plasma can do all the picture destroying a LCD can do so i can't follow.

BTW. 50 sharpness can be neutral it depends on the TV. the right sharpness is the original picture sharpness the untouched picture this is the reference.
David Susilo and imagic like this.
mightyhuhn is offline  
 

Tags
frontpage
User Tag List

Thread Tools


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