UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy - Page 30 - AVS Forum

AVS Forum > News Forum > Latest Industry News > UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy

Latest Industry News

sage11x's Avatar sage11x
10:24 PM Liked: 580
post #871 of 2112
08-04-2014 | Posts: 2,567
Joined: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
When I was agonizing over these displays, one thing was apparent to me. The black levels of the VT/ZT & F8500 were a lot closer than were the brightness capabilities of these same sets. The F8500 was considerably brighter and yet, only a shade 'less black'. Not totally unrelated was the significantly less aggressive ABL of the F8500. So the net net to me was a better balanced product which also, as an added plus, produced a somewhat sharper picture.

You couldn't go wrong with any of these sets, not a loser in the group.
Oh definitely. They're both mighty impressive displays and the F8500's ability to get as bright as it does without sacrificing those insanely deep blacks in the process is an arguably greater technical achievement in my mind. It's absolutely no surprise to me that it won the Shootout last year.

For my part, the VT60's blacks and shadow detail combined with it's lower input latency made it the better choice for my application.

I've heard quite a few people claim the Samsung looks sharper. I guess I don't understand this as they're both 1080p and both resolve all 1080 lines. Obviously I haven't seen this myself but maybe I'm not sure what to look for.
losservatore's Avatar losservatore
01:45 AM Liked: 353
post #872 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 3,451
Joined: Jan 2011
The first minutes of this video Kevin Miller ,David Mackenzie and Dewayne Davis talked about the differences between the VT ,ZT and F8500 and they also talked about which one they recommend and which one they will personally choose.






At the 19:00 minute David Mackenzie explain why people think that the Samsung have a sharper image but in reality is the bright image that make that impression.












English is not my first language so excuse my English....
2013guy's Avatar 2013guy
03:05 AM Liked: 11
post #873 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 14
Joined: Apr 2013
Not sure if this has been posted before :

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-re...1312153517.htm
copying-
Earlier this month, we set out to investigate if the extra resolution offered by 4K over 1080p is visible at normal viewing distance, as part of an Ultra HD and OLED television showcase event organised by British retailer Richer Sounds. A 55-inch 4K UHD (ultra high-definition) TV was lined up alongside a 1080p HDTV of the same size, each displaying content that’s 1:1 pixel-matched to its native screen resolution. Both TVs had their identities masked by custom-built cabinets which were spray-painted black. Standing 9 feet away (enforced using crowd control posts), attendees were then asked to pick out the 4K television after sampling the displayed material.

The results are now in, and an overwhelming majority of participants correctly identified the 4K TV, indicating that there exists a perceptible difference even from as far as 9 feet away on a 55in screen. Out of 49 attendees who submitted their pick to enter a prize draw, only one thought that the 1080p set was the 4K display.
mightyhuhn's Avatar mightyhuhn
03:35 AM Liked: 131
post #874 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 810
Joined: Nov 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
Bit depth determines the number of different brightness levels that can be distinguished for each RGB color in a 2k pixel. The screen area occupied by one pixel in a 2k display has 4 pixels in a 4k display. That is, for each sub-pixel in a 2k display, we have in the same screen area 4 sub-pixels in the 4k display, which can show approximately 4 times as many brightness levels. The sub-pixels in a 10 bit color depth panel can show 4 times as many brightness levels as in an 8 bit color depth panel.

So, you see, bit depth doesn't work differently. It works the same.
but the brightness level doesn't work that way when the sub pixel are far away from each other. and the most important part the resizer is not working like that it doesn't create 4 pixel to demonstrate the same source pixel in higher bit deep.
to make things even more troublesome a 8 bit 1080p screen resized to "something" needs a "float point pixel" because resizing with a not totally terrible resizer creates high bit deep data which are need to show an as good as possible image of the 8 bit source. so you need more bit but have the same.
Mrorange303's Avatar Mrorange303
07:47 AM Liked: 279
post #875 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 2,033
Joined: Apr 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
the sub pixel with the same color are to far away to work like this and bit deep works a little bit different.
The more pixels the sharper an image can appear to the eye. Color can also be greater as the transitions of color have more pixels to complete the transition.

To every 1 1080p pixel there are 4 4k pixels to a coming the task.

So when only 1 pixel on a 1080p set may light up to show green for grass.

On a 4k set the 4 pixels may be more like 2 lighter green, 2 darker green. This creates detail within the color, shadow, hair, etc.
mightyhuhn's Avatar mightyhuhn
08:40 AM Liked: 131
post #876 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 810
Joined: Nov 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
The more pixels the sharper an image can appear to the eye. Color can also be greater as the transitions of color have more pixels to complete the transition.

To every 1 1080p pixel there are 4 4k pixels to a coming the task.

So when only 1 pixel on a 1080p set may light up to show green for grass.

On a 4k set the 4 pixels may be more like 2 lighter green, 2 darker green. This creates detail within the color, shadow, hair, etc.
first of all resizing reduce sharpness or add other artefacts like ringing aliasing and other things. true UHD on UHD can be sharper that's not the point here.
this sub-topic isn't about UHD is about FHD on UHD and that the UHD represent higher "bit deep" with that content.

but it's the opposite.

think about a 256 steps grey ramp that a change in pixel every 15 pixel if send rounded as UHD in a UHD panel so the change to see banding is way higher. and this shows that UHD can take full advantage of true 10 bit with every 3.75 pixel a need step.

now we enter the world of dithering and high bit deep processing.
the grey ramp picture gets now in the TV as 1080p and gets scaled to UHD. this creates an float point with needs to be down sampled to 8 bit this can be done with different types of dithering or rounding.
dithering spreads this error over more pixel so the TV doesn't create blocks with that upscaling like 15 pixel big blocks because the steps are now about 15 pixel big. so with dither the error is now spread over multiply pixel to make the banding less obvious. this adds noise it doesn't work without noise.

so and you call this an quality improvement ?

just making new pixel up create a ton of errors in the meanwhile and them spread them?

so this sound like UHD is reducing picture quality. this is of cause not true.

a native 10 bit UHD with true UHD 10 bit input source like a 1024 step grey ramp would show a theoretical huge improvement over a 8 bit FHD screen.

of cause i know a FHD screen needs to scale a BD input too but this is "only" chroma.
Mrorange303's Avatar Mrorange303
09:00 AM Liked: 279
post #877 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 2,033
Joined: Apr 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
first of all resizing reduce sharpness or add other artefacts like ringing aliasing and other things. true UHD on UHD can be sharper that's not the point here.
this sub-topic isn't about UHD is about FHD on UHD and that the UHD represent higher "bit deep" with that content.

but it's the opposite.

think about a 256 steps grey ramp that a change in pixel every 15 pixel if send rounded as UHD in a UHD panel so the change to see banding is way higher. and this shows that UHD can take full advantage of true 10 bit with every 3.75 pixel a need step.

now we enter the world of dithering and high bit deep processing.
the grey ramp picture gets now in the TV as 1080p and gets scaled to UHD. this creates an float point with needs to be down sampled to 8 bit this can be done with different types of dithering or rounding.
dithering spreads this error over more pixel so the TV doesn't create blocks with that upscaling like 15 pixel big blocks because the steps are now about 15 pixel big. so with dither the error is now spread over multiply pixel to make the banding less obvious. this adds noise it doesn't work without noise.

so and you call this an quality improvement ?

just making new pixel up create a ton of errors in the meanwhile and them spread them?

so this sound like UHD is reducing picture quality. this is of cause not true.

a native 10 bit UHD with true UHD 10 bit input source like a 1024 step grey ramp would show a theoretical huge improvement over a 8 bit FHD screen.

of cause i know a FHD screen needs to scale a BD input too but this is "only" chroma.
The image is not worse in any sense in fact pulling additional detail that was not there before.

I figure when true 10bit starts to matter all of us will see these sets as old.

Literally years old. Because your concerns don't show up when in practice. The additional pixels add depth and cause no issues. I guess the algorithms and processing needed was calculated pretty good. There are no visible rogue pixelation issues For 8bit content upscaled on a current UHD set I mean.

I own a Samsung as well. Much more prepared than other manufacturers. At least if there is any chance of a benefit to current sets from future standards the Samsung would be the sets that could.

That being said I'm just saying I see no issues. I'm just not able to see and bad side to the additional pixel. All behave as designed to me.
mightyhuhn's Avatar mightyhuhn
09:30 AM Liked: 131
post #878 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 810
Joined: Nov 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
The image is not worse in any sense in fact pulling additional detail that was not there before.
and you just say that because you know how resizing work and did a lot of testing or because you see this so you right?

feed your Tv two 1 pixel thick circle with a 1 pixel gap in it can be really funny with interpolation resizer.

or try this http://abload.de/img/chromaresjspcr.png (you should already notice what happen on your pc when this is resized...)
sarahb75's Avatar sarahb75
09:31 AM Liked: 31
post #879 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 71
Joined: Mar 2011
A few months ago I was on a website where Sony was promoting the Sony 4k Digital projectors, used in commercial movie theaters. Sony stated that the optimum distance to fully appreciate 4k (with 20/20 vision)
was for people to sit at a distance of 1.5 X the screens height from the screen, or closer. At that distance viewers would really appreciate the improvement that 4k projectors can provide, over 2k units,
the company stated.

Sony further stated that the farthest seats from the screen in a modern stadium seating movie theater are usually 3 screen heights from the screen. At that further distance, Sony stated that most movie goers who sit at the back of a theater, would perceive no difference in resolution or clarity between a 4k presentation and a 2k presentation.

Sony's statements track closely to those made by Consumers Union in its publication, Consumer Reports. In the Sept 2014 issue of CR, 8 ft was mentioned as a normal TV viewing distance. 1080p and 4k versions of the same movies were shown on HD and UHD TVs, side by side. CU's expert viewers saw "noticeable differences, including finer texture, sharper type, and smoother edges on the UHD set. But when they stepped back to a normal distance, the differences were hard to detect..."

The CR article went on to note: (assuming that a normal viewing distance is 8 feet) "But with a 65-inch screen like the ones we tested, most viewers would probably think that the HDTV looked just as good."

And it turns out that 3 X the height of a 65-inch diagonal screen, is just about a half inch under 8 feet.
I realize there is a very small difference in absolute resolution between true digital cinema 4k and the TV
variety, but not enough to significantly invalidate the theater/UHD TV analogy.

Conclusion: Sony and Consumer Reports are basically saying that most viewers at a 3 screen height viewing distance, will not see an improvement when watching 4k material vs 2 k material, whether they are viewing that material in a commercial movie theater, or with a UHD TV at home.

Plus, even in some of their UHD TV promotional material, Sony is candid enough to say that it recommends
a 1.5 X screen height distance to fully appreciate its UHD TVs. That's about a quarter inch under 4 feet.

Yeah, I can really see folks across the U.S. moving their sofas to 4 feet in front of their 65-inch UHD TVs.
Things get even more pathetic with a 55-inch UHD TV.

Like others have said, we need improvements in dynamic range, color space, and other parameters, because UHD TVs will never sell in sufficient volumes, by depending on resolution alone.
David Susilo's Avatar David Susilo
10:08 AM Liked: 429
post #880 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 9,676
Joined: Aug 2002
The 1.5x screen height is also as per THX and ISF recommendation.
bruceames's Avatar bruceames
10:10 AM Liked: 67
post #881 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 855
Joined: May 2006
Right. According the Carletonbale chart, a person with 20/20 vision needs to sit 1.5x from the display size (8 feet from a 65" display) just to begin to see any difference, with full 4k appreciation at around 4 feet (0.75x). Most people will sit outside that range.

Certainly makes 8K overkill.
bruceames's Avatar bruceames
10:17 AM Liked: 67
post #882 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 855
Joined: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
There is very little info on that. According one participant the 4K TV was much darker and colourful than the HD TV.
http://www.avforums.com/threads/shou...-test.1831399/
Well if one TV was much more colorful than the other then that would explain it. I don't think in general that native 4k makes for better color, although that is indeed the case for Smurfs 2 4K vs. the Blu-ray.
Mrorange303's Avatar Mrorange303
10:53 AM Liked: 279
post #883 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 2,033
Joined: Apr 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
and you just say that because you know how resizing work and did a lot of testing or because you see this so you right?

feed your Tv two 1 pixel thick circle with a 1 pixel gap in it can be really funny with interpolation resizer.

or try this http://abload.de/img/chromaresjspcr.png (you should already notice what happen on your pc when this is resized...)
What 4k set do you own?
sarahb75's Avatar sarahb75
11:01 AM Liked: 31
post #884 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 71
Joined: Mar 2011
^^ Really could not agree more with your mention of 8k being overkill. However I didn't go on long enough in
my post to explain how someday, 4k might be useful to me. Certainly it's true that in the typical American living room people won't move their couches to 4 feet in front of a 65-inch TV. However, a lot of folks have theater rooms, where it is not at all awkward to move seating closer to the screen.

Right now the front seating in my home theater is a THX recommended (for 36 degree field of view) 8 feet from a 73 inch screen.

As a movie addict it would be great to have a more immersive experience. With the smaller pixels of 4k, it might be great to have an 85-inch UHD 4k TV with front seating at the THX recommended distance of 5 feet
2 and a half inches. And if that was too overwhelming, then maybe move back to 6 to 6.5 feet or so. Giving up a little detail, would be worth it, for comfortable viewing.
bruceames's Avatar bruceames
11:10 AM Liked: 67
post #885 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 855
Joined: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahb75 View Post
^^ Really could not agree more with your mention of 8k being overkill. However I didn't go on long enough in
my post to explain how someday, 4k might be useful to me. Certainly it's true that in the typical American living room people won't move their couches to 4 feet in front of a 65-inch TV. However, a lot of folks have theater rooms, where it is not at all awkward to move seating closer to the screen.

Right now the front seating in my home theater is a THX recommended (for 36 degree field of view) 8 feet from a 73 inch screen.

As a movie addict it would be great to have a more immersive experience. With the smaller pixels of 4k, it might be great to have an 85-inch UHD 4k TV with front seating at the THX recommended distance of 5 feet
2 and a half inches. And if that was too overwhelming, then maybe move back to 6 to 6.5 feet or so. Giving up a little detail, would be worth it, for comfortable viewing.

Agree completely. I have found that 4K allows you to move in much closer than with a 1080p TV because the greater pixel density on the screen makes it look more smooth and uniform. There's no distraction with the screen door effect either. So many people who normally sit outside the minimum 4k range, may find themselves adjusting the display or their seating position because they want to move closer as the display is so inviting to do so. It's great to have that immersive experience (I'm about 5-6 away from a 65") and once you get used to it, it's hard to go back.
Joe Bloggs's Avatar Joe Bloggs
11:20 AM Liked: 75
post #886 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 2,675
Joined: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
The image is not worse in any sense in fact pulling additional detail that was not there before.
How does it pull additional real detail from 1080p that was not in the source (are you talking super resolution by taking info from other frames to guess what should be in the current frame or interpolating (guessing) values)?
mightyhuhn's Avatar mightyhuhn
11:36 AM Liked: 131
post #887 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 810
Joined: Nov 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
What 4k set do you own?
none does it matter?
Mrorange303's Avatar Mrorange303
12:05 PM Liked: 279
post #888 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 2,033
Joined: Apr 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
How does it pull additional real detail from 1080p that was not in the source (are you talking super resolution by taking info from other frames to guess what should be in the current frame or interpolating (guessing) values)?
The way more pixels helps any display. Really odd that this is even questioned.
Mrorange303's Avatar Mrorange303
12:06 PM Liked: 279
post #889 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 2,033
Joined: Apr 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
none does it matter?
Explains a lot.
mightyhuhn's Avatar mightyhuhn
12:08 PM Liked: 131
post #890 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 810
Joined: Nov 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Explains a lot.
that you dodge a lot of question because you can't answer them ?
Joe Bloggs's Avatar Joe Bloggs
12:08 PM Liked: 75
post #891 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 2,675
Joined: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
The way more pixels helps any display. Really odd that this is even questioned.
You still haven't said how it "pulls additional details that was not there before" when upscaling 1080p. If the source was 1080p how can the details not have been there in the source?
GregLee's Avatar GregLee
12:41 PM Liked: 81
post #892 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 3,267
Joined: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
You still haven't said how it "pulls additional details that was not there before" when upscaling 1080p. If the source was 1080p how can the details not have been there in the source?
I'm not saying it ever happens, but it's not impossible. It would have to be a detail present in the original scene/pattern which is lost in the source video, but which can be "mended" through extrapolation by the uprezzing algorithm. Think of the point at which two straight lines meet.
mightyhuhn's Avatar mightyhuhn
12:49 PM Liked: 131
post #893 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 810
Joined: Nov 2013
if you want to know what a interpolation resizer is able to do have a look at this:

but there is not a single detail ore in.
the next thing is multi frame interpolation very dangerous can totally backfire. of cause all interpolation resizer have a chance to back fire.
sage11x's Avatar sage11x
12:52 PM Liked: 580
post #894 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 2,567
Joined: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
You still haven't said how it "pulls additional details that was not there before" when upscaling 1080p. If the source was 1080p how can the details not have been there in the source?
I'd like to hear an answer for this as well.
Joe Bloggs's Avatar Joe Bloggs
12:56 PM Liked: 75
post #895 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 2,675
Joined: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
I'm not saying it ever happens, but it's not impossible. It would have to be a detail present in the original scene/pattern which is lost in the source video, but which can be "mended" through extrapolation by the uprezzing algorithm. Think of the point at which two straight lines meet.
So basically guessing what should be there and sometimes the guesses are correct but other times they're wrong?
GregLee's Avatar GregLee
01:30 PM Liked: 81
post #896 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 3,267
Joined: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
So basically guessing what should be there and sometimes the guesses are correct but other times they're wrong?
Yes, however we can make good guesses, relying on the peculiarities of real scenes that are not present in random dot patterns. Sony has described how its sophisticated uprezzer works by using a library of patterns derived from an analysis of the differences between original hi-res pictures and uprezzed versions. That is, the uprezzer can do a trial run and then use small areas in the result as an index into its library of what original patterns could give this result, to get closer to what the original was probably like. Pretty cool.
Ken Ross's Avatar Ken Ross
01:57 PM Liked: 1891
post #897 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 25,275
Joined: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahb75 View Post

The CR article went on to note: (assuming that a normal viewing distance is 8 feet) "But with a 65-inch screen like the ones we tested, most viewers would probably think that the HDTV looked just as good."

And it turns out that 3 X the height of a 65-inch diagonal screen, is just about a half inch under 8 feet.
I realize there is a very small difference in absolute resolution between true digital cinema 4k and the TV
variety, but not enough to significantly invalidate the theater/UHD TV analogy.

Conclusion: Sony and Consumer Reports are basically saying that most viewers at a 3 screen height viewing distance, will not see an improvement when watching 4k material vs 2 k material, whether they are viewing that material in a commercial movie theater, or with a UHD TV at home.
Of course a larger screen or closer viewing distances will enable viewers to more fully enjoy the benefits of native 4K.

But hey, since we're quoting CR, let's quote some more from the same article to get a more accurate 'picture' of what they said. On the question of viewing HD content on a UHD TV (since that's going to be the majority of content for most people for awhile), they said the following:

"You might be pleasantly surprised. We found that Blu-ray movies actually looked a bit better on a UHD TV than on an HD set. That's because 1080p content is upconverted to the ultra HD TV's higher resolution, and the greater pixel density of the 4K screen enhances the detail. (Note that the quality of upconverted HD will vary depending on how well a particular model handles the video processing.)"

Hmm, who has said this in different wording many times before? The favorite whipping boy of a number of posters...I think you know who I mean. Excuse me while I grab an orange.
mightyhuhn's Avatar mightyhuhn
02:06 PM Liked: 131
post #898 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 810
Joined: Nov 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
"You might be pleasantly surprised. We found that Blu-ray movies actually looked a bit better on a UHD TV than on an HD set. That's because 1080p content is upconverted to the ultra HD TV's higher resolution, and the greater pixel density of the 4K screen enhances the detail. (Note that the quality of upconverted HD will vary depending on how well a particular model handles the video processing.)"

this is something totally difference from creating new details don't you agree?
Ken Ross's Avatar Ken Ross
02:19 PM Liked: 1891
post #899 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 25,275
Joined: Nov 2000
^ Absolutely. But it does speak to the improved 'look' that HD has on a good UHD TV. I can easily see someone mistaking this improved look for greater detail. I think CR nailed it by calling it 'enhanced detail'.
Mrorange303's Avatar Mrorange303
02:50 PM Liked: 279
post #900 of 2112
08-05-2014 | Posts: 2,033
Joined: Apr 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
this is something totally difference from creating new details don't you agree?
The details that's there is refined. Simple. Hair, grass, show detail. All benefit from resolution bumps. I meant the detail is more defined.

Prove to me more pixels doesn't help detail. Let's start there.

The science is not against me. It's against you.

So let's first prove more pixels doesn't help.
Tags: frontpage

Reply Latest Industry News

Subscribe to this Thread

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3