UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy - Page 30 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 526Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #871 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 02:35 AM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 640
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 265 Post(s)
Liked: 90
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.
mightyhuhn is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #872 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 06:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,456
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 183
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.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #873 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 07:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 640
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 265 Post(s)
Liked: 90
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.
mightyhuhn is offline  
post #874 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 08:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,456
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 183
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.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #875 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 08:30 AM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 640
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 265 Post(s)
Liked: 90
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...)
mightyhuhn is offline  
post #876 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 08:31 AM
Member
 
sarahb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Lightbulb Visibility of 4k vs 2k

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, bakerwi and mcdoc29 like this.
sarahb75 is offline  
post #877 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 09:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,646
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 323 Post(s)
Liked: 427
The 1.5x screen height is also as per THX and ISF recommendation.

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine

my (yet to be completed) BD list
my home theatre

David Susilo is online now  
post #878 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 09:10 AM
Advanced Member
 
bruceames's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Rafael, CA
Posts: 803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 59
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 is offline  
post #879 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 09:17 AM
Advanced Member
 
bruceames's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Rafael, CA
Posts: 803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 59
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.
bruceames is offline  
post #880 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 09:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,456
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 183
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?
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #881 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 10:01 AM
Member
 
sarahb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Talking

^^ 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.
sarahb75 is offline  
post #882 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 10:10 AM
Advanced Member
 
bruceames's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Rafael, CA
Posts: 803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 59
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.
bruceames is offline  
post #883 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 10:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 59
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)?
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #884 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 10:36 AM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 640
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 265 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
What 4k set do you own?
none does it matter?
mightyhuhn is offline  
post #885 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 11:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,456
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 183
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 is offline  
post #886 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 11:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,456
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
none does it matter?
Explains a lot.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #887 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 11:08 AM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 640
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 265 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Explains a lot.
that you dodge a lot of question because you can't answer them ?
fatuglyguy likes this.
mightyhuhn is offline  
post #888 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 11:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 59
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?
sage11x, bakerwi and losservatore like this.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #889 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 11:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 78
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.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #890 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 11:49 AM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 640
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 265 Post(s)
Liked: 90
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.
mightyhuhn is offline  
post #891 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 11:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,516
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 540
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.

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

--Carl Sagan
sage11x is offline  
post #892 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 11:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 59
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?
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #893 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 12:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 78
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.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #894 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 12:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,284
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1194 Post(s)
Liked: 1345
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.
bruceames likes this.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #895 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 01:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 640
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 265 Post(s)
Liked: 90
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?
mightyhuhn is offline  
post #896 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 01:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,284
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1194 Post(s)
Liked: 1345
^ 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'.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #897 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 01:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,456
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 183
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.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #898 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 01:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,456
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Same principle works on displays big and small. This is literally science. Not my personal feelings.

I request the same. And don't say stand back further. 4k is to sit closer. So that point is a dead horse.

Thanks.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	6905084974_677ef6089e_z.jpg
Views:	21
Size:	123.0 KB
ID:	197881  
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #899 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 01:56 PM
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 Ken Ross View Post
^ 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'.
Ditto.
vddobrev is offline  
post #900 of 1701 Old 08-05-2014, 01:59 PM
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
Why is it that anytime someone post a "pro" for UHD, a bunch of people get aggravated and try to disprove him, while if someone posts a "con" it is greatly accepted and appreciated.
vddobrev is offline  
Reply Latest Industry News

Tags
frontpage

User Tag List

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