UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy - Page 36 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 551Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1051 of 1818 Old 08-07-2014, 05:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
With the emphasis on 'at this time'. I think 4K is doing fine for what is essentially only the 2nd year of its existence in the consumer world. Additionally, it's only been year 2 where the prices are reaching consumer spending levels.

We'll disagree on this one Glimmie, I think 4K makes it. Just for the record, many years ago, I said there was no way 3D was going to survive. My rationale was much like the one that Saige had given.
It could succeed early on as the next Laserdisk. That is a niche format with a loyal following. But until television goes all internet it will take a while to catch on. Again there is no interest from the broadcast community and they still control prime time. Not nearly as much as the last century but I don't see TV going all internet based until at least 2020. The infrastructure is just not there for widespread 4K production yet. DirecTV, Dish, and cable will be the next area to watch for a 4K shift. BTW, where is HBO in this? They were hot to trot on HD in 1999 but I haven't heard much out of them on 4K.

One thing I do agree on is that flat panel production will go all 4K, content or not. My next projector purchase will be a 4K unit no doubt about it. But I'm in no immediate rush at this time.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1052 of 1818 Old 08-07-2014, 05:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,910
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1591 Post(s)
Liked: 1685
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
There's no parallel. UHD/4K is just another resolution, which will keep going up—look at cell-phone pixel densities, seems that the sky's the limit on a big screen.
Well you put a quite different spin on this then I would.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #1053 of 1818 Old 08-07-2014, 05:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
There's no parallel. UHD/4K is just another resolution, which will keep going up—look at cell-phone pixel densities, seems that the sky's the limit on a big screen.
They can make the resolution as large as they want. But there is still not nearly enough infrastructure to support widespread 4K at this time.

Those of you outside the broadcast and production community just don't see the complexities involved with these sweeping format changes. Much of the US broadcast infrastructure is locked down at 1.5gbs distribution. 4K requires 3g minimum, and 6g if you want things like 444. 60P we are now beyond that.

As I said before NTSC to ATSC was a well planned transition with extensive government support. 4K is being driven by the display manufactures. It's one thing to offer a cell phone with higher resolution. But the TV industry and not going to change yet again overnight. It will evolve as small islands for years to come. - just as HDTV did.

P.S. How many true 1080P/60 sources do you have today? And how long have full 1080p panels been available to the public?

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!


Last edited by Glimmie; 08-07-2014 at 05:35 PM.
Glimmie is offline  
post #1054 of 1818 Old 08-07-2014, 05:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,783
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
There's no parallel. UHD/4K is just another resolution, which will keep going up—look at cell-phone pixel densities, seems that the sky's the limit on a big screen.
However cell phone screen are in our hand and right up to our face we sit feet away from a television.

I'm not sure it isn't an opposite effect in the case of your example.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1055 of 1818 Old 08-07-2014, 07:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bakerwi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Peach State
Posts: 2,861
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodpaine View Post
I've looked through this entire thread and can't find any comments at all about what a high-quality Blu-ray might look like upscaled via an Oppo BDP-105 and viewed on a 4k TV.

I have a friend that says the picture quality is 'great' in his opinion, but can't define what he means by 'great'. He's using a new Samsung UN55HU8550 55-Inch 4k TV. Anybody looked at this via an Oppo BDP-105 and a 4k TV, who can describe what picture quality improvements can be realized via such a configuration?

I have a BDP-105 and am considering upgrading my older Samsung 40-inch to a 55-inch to better support my actual viewing distance.

Any information provided on this comparison will be purely subjective . I would do like your friend and trust your eyes in your environment. In the end you like the Samsung performing this function or you may prefer the Oppo performing this task.

Pioneer Elite PRO-151FD

Zektor MAS7.1

Classé CA-2200/CA-5200

Oppo BDP-105, Denon DVD-5910CI, Cambridge 752BD, Cambridge 640C V2

Paradigm Signature S8, Paradigm Signature ADP1

Paradigm Signature ADP3, Paradigm Signature C5

REL R-505 Sub (2)

Oppo BDP-93, BDP-103D, Pioneer BDP-320

Sony BDP-S790

bakerwi is offline  
post #1056 of 1818 Old 08-07-2014, 07:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bakerwi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Peach State
Posts: 2,861
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
The 4k sets do everything the 1080p sets can do. Fact.
The 1080p sets can't do everything the 4k sets can do. Fact.

Prices are very close now.

Cons of 4k? A slightly higher price for a 4k set.

That's it.

Doesn't 4K based LCD/LED still suffer from some of the same shortcomings as 1080P based LCD/LED.

Pioneer Elite PRO-151FD

Zektor MAS7.1

Classé CA-2200/CA-5200

Oppo BDP-105, Denon DVD-5910CI, Cambridge 752BD, Cambridge 640C V2

Paradigm Signature S8, Paradigm Signature ADP1

Paradigm Signature ADP3, Paradigm Signature C5

REL R-505 Sub (2)

Oppo BDP-93, BDP-103D, Pioneer BDP-320

Sony BDP-S790

bakerwi is offline  
post #1057 of 1818 Old 08-07-2014, 07:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 1,103
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Ok, I'll bite and put my money where my mouth is.

I bought, with my own wad of hard-earned cash, a Sony XB65X900A. Yup, "A" as in last year's model, shunned for its lack of built in streaming decoder capable of 4k.

Why?

Well, it was time for me to buy a large panel, to finally furnish my TV room that's sat empty since I fully renovated and moved into my house. Given that it was time to poo or get off the pot, spent some time carefully weighing the options. I knew from being an early plasma adopter (TH50P6 Panny, commercial model) that a good set would be on the wall, a long, long time. I sold my last house, with the plasma still on the wall after many years.

Struggled with the size and feature list for months and figured 65-75" was about right and wanted something good. But the decision was made easier when the Sony 4k 2013 models went on closeout sale. I plunked down the money and went home with the 900A. It was late production, May 2014, new in the box and at my local Best Buy, and come with about $300 worth of other promotions for merchandise I was going to buy anyway (ie, a new AV stand). So that made it all a pretty sweet deal.

This is really, a pretty darn good TV. While all my broadcast content is 1080i, the set does a good job of displaying that. Color gamut, detail, contrast are all quite decent. The built-in speakers aren't everyone's thing, but I've found them to be capable and relatively good for normal watching. They are actually reasonable TV speakers, not little 1" drivers left over from PC's that fire at the floor normally found in flat panel TV's. But actually usable speakers.

I've found 3d to be the surprisingly good feature on this set. With passive 3d, and the 4k panel, it really looks better than a lot of the 3d sets out there.

So all in all, it is a good TV and I'm now somewhat "future proof". I hope not to shop for another for a very long time and although 4k content is scarce, HD content looks plenty good on it. I remember the days of scouring the high-end stereo shops, hoping a new CD title would show up on the shelf. So I know what "early adopter" is all about!

To add insult to injury, I also ponied up for the Sony FMP-X10 media streamer. This (over-costly) gizmo does get me 4k content and Netflix (presumably others in the future) streaming capability. Now, if there were something to actually watch, I'll be ready for it.

So yeah, why the heck not? The price was right, normal content looks dandy on it, I've got something to look forward to in the future and hopefully, this baby will be blaring away for many years playing reruns of Gilligan's Island until some good 4k comes along.
cardoski likes this.

nuke
nuke is online now  
post #1058 of 1818 Old 08-07-2014, 07:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,783
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakerwi View Post
Doesn't 4K based LCD/LED still suffer from some of the same shortcomings as 1080P based LCD/LED.
Definitely.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1059 of 1818 Old 08-08-2014, 11:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
Z-Mad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 661
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Definitely.
The attached chart may be helpful in this discussion: shows the ideal viewing distances for different resolutions. It is based on the distance ranges at which the human eye can perceive a difference. So for instance, a 50" 4K TV loses the benefit of its higher resolution at distances greater than 6'6". At that point human eye sees the image the same on a 4K and a 1080p TV. In my opinion, this explains very clearly and plainly if 4K is worth it or not, based on TV size and viewing distance one intends for the TV. But the mere fact that I'd have to sit no farther than 6ft from a 50" screen limits the benefit considerably - that's just too close in most cases...
My viewing distance for example is ca. 9 feet from a 60" screen, so even if I upgraded to a 4K set I wouldn't really perceive any difference, making it likely "money thrown away"...
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Ideal-Distances-Chart.jpg
Views:	71
Size:	125.9 KB
ID:	203985  
Z-Mad is offline  
post #1060 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 12:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
losservatore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,337
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 307 Post(s)
Liked: 338
Z-mad Lol any calculator won't work for Mr orange we have posted few size and resolution calculators ,including this one ,you came late to the party.
tubetwister likes this.
losservatore is online now  
post #1061 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 12:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
Z-Mad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 661
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by losservatore View Post
Z-mad Lol any calculator won't work for Mr orange we have posted few size and resolution calculators ,including this one ,you came late to the party.
Very well Obviously I didn't go through all the pages and posts and didn't realize I am repeating, but certainly see this aspect as probably the most relevant when discussing the subject of 4K...
Z-Mad is offline  
post #1062 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 01:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
losservatore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,337
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 307 Post(s)
Liked: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Mad View Post
Very well Obviously I didn't go through all the pages and posts and didn't realize I am repeating, but certainly see this aspect as probably the most relevant when discussing the subject of 4K...


Don't worry that we were all involve in this loop.


Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	stock-footage-arrow-loop-with-matte.jpg
Views:	116
Size:	6.5 KB
ID:	204033  
tubetwister likes this.
losservatore is online now  
post #1063 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 02:46 AM
Member
 
sarahb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 56
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Lightbulb

^ Z-Mad you hit the nail on the head. What you said exactly ties in to the simple formula for the maximum
distance a person with 20/20 vision can sit from a 1080p set and still see all of the detail that a 1080p signal can provide.

The formula is this: Multiply 1.56 x the screen diagonal and you get the farthest distance a person with
20/20 vision can sit from that size screen and still see the smallest details that a 1080p signal can provide.

Notice that for a 50-inch screen, 1.56 X 50= 78 inches or 6 feet 6 inches. The chart you used is correct
Z-Mad, because you said it indicates that a 50-inch 4K TV loses the benefit of its higher resolution
at distances greater than 6 feet 6 inches, and it would have to, since going further than that distance means that people with 20/20 vision won't even be seeing the finest details in a 1080p signal.

This is why when I eventually get a 4K TV, I'm going really large, 85 inches minimum. THX recommends
a seating distance of 5 feet 2.5 inches for that size, to be able to perceive the maximum benefit of 4K.
For a 65-inch 4K screen THX recommends a seating distance of 47.775 inches, to be exact. The formula
that THX uses is to simply multiply the screen height by 1.5 And if you want to know what the screen
height of any 16X9 screen is, you simply multiply the screen's diagonal measurement by .49

So for example a 65-inch screen X .49= 31.85 inches. Then multiply that 31.85 X 1.5 and thats how THX
comes up with 47.775 inches. But, of course, let's be serious, they round that figure up to 4 feet.

By now I'm sure that most AVS members have heard that today (Saturday) marks the start of a 13 week
program run by Best Buy, in conjunction with Sony, Samsung, and LG, to educate the public about the advantages of UHD 4K TVs.

In the course of this awareness campaign, I hope that sales people themselves, are given the proper knowledge to do a good job qualifying customers that they sell UHD TVs to.

For example, a potential customer may tell a sales person, that in his favorite viewing room, a 55-inch 1080p HDTV is mounted on a wall 10 to 11 feet from the sofa and love seat that he and his guests view
the set from. And the guy goes on to say that the furniture can't be moved closer because it sits at a level 5 feet above the rest of the room with wide carpeted stairs leading to the remainder of the floor below. Now let's say this customer is impressed by seeing a 55-inch UHD TV, and even thinks the price is a lot more reasonable than he was expecting.

The potential problem I'm afraid of with the scenario just described, is that an overeager salesman seeing a hot sales opportunity, would be willing to say that the customer would just love the improvement that
would result from replacing his 55-inch 1080p flat panel with a new 55-inch UHD TV, on the same wall.
You just know that this customer would be set up for disappointment due to the kind of particular viewing
situation he has at home.

These kinds of home situations are why I said earlier that it's going to be so critical that sales people properly qualify customers for UHD, so that people don't end up being oversold.

It might not take an awful lot of overly ambitious sales people to really give UHD TV a black eye in the minds of the general public.

Just when lately my own enthusiasm has been building for UHD, I sure hope that those who represent it to the public, will really do so in a professional manner, by and large. Otherwise, we might start hearing or seeing stories such as where a Joe Six Pack has his buddies over for movie night and they tell him that his
last TV must have been a rare bargain, because it was a lot cheaper, and looked just as good.
Z-Mad and tubetwister like this.
sarahb75 is offline  
post #1064 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 07:23 AM
Newbie
 
snowmobilenut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Mitchell, South Dakota
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'd Buy

I'd buy one, however I'm less concerned with present content and more concerned with multiviewers and monitor spanning to drive several sources of 1080p into the UHD displays.

Neal
snowmobilenut is offline  
post #1065 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 08:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,783
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Mad View Post
The attached chart may be helpful in this discussion: shows the ideal viewing distances for different resolutions. It is based on the distance ranges at which the human eye can perceive a difference. So for instance, a 50" 4K TV loses the benefit of its higher resolution at distances greater than 6'6". At that point human eye sees the image the same on a 4K and a 1080p TV. In my opinion, this explains very clearly and plainly if 4K is worth it or not, based on TV size and viewing distance one intends for the TV. But the mere fact that I'd have to sit no farther than 6ft from a 50" screen limits the benefit considerably - that's just too close in most cases...
My viewing distance for example is ca. 9 feet from a 60" screen, so even if I upgraded to a 4K set I wouldn't really perceive any difference, making it likely "money thrown away"...
Ok. SO I ignore the charts? Really people.

Ok your chart means little when they take 50 people and apply your chart test and it fails.

It failed.

It was wrong.

As many people have pointed out apparently no one took into account eye sight with your graph. Chart, etc.


Perhaps you all should know theory is just theory until supported by evidence. The evidence has proven this theory is not correct.

In fact the difference on a 1080p vs 4k can be seen on a 55" screen 9' away.

I don't want charts. I want evidence. Like this website that actually tested it.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-re...1312153517.htm

The next person to say I'm wrong and post just some chart better use some supporting evidence because this is getting old. I agree.

Pro 4k provides extensive evidence. Hands on testing and against 4k post charts and gather to agree with each others post so they look more legit. Ignoring my facts posted like they don't exist. If the facts are ignored and you keep posting charts that's wrong and was just based off some dudes guesses then you must be right. Right?

Wrong. Read the test conducted.

People have different qualitys of eye sight.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1066 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 08:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,783
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by losservatore View Post
Z-mad Lol any calculator won't work for Mr orange we have posted few size and resolution calculators ,including this one ,you came late to the party.
Again your calculator vs actual test. Hmm. I'm sorry I don't think some person who doesn't own a 4k set and has had very little hands on time with one tell me an owner that I can't tell the difference on several sets in my house. Further more there is direct evidence that contradicts every chart on 4k which btw was never created using testing like the website I posted did.

So do I listen to my fellow 4k owners, myself and my own experience, a website that handles tv's all day every day and put 50 people through an actual test and posted the real world data.

Or your calculator?

Hmm. Again you act as if you have some info I'm Missing?
Maybe I'm not the one late to the party. Maybe I've just let this thread have an opinion no matter how wrong it is because people like you will continue to pretend to be 4k experts.

Even though you have no experience. You wanna act and advise these forums in the sense that you do.

I don't pretend to know about 4k. I own one.
I didn't magically lose all my 1080p sets. I still got those too. I can compare it right now. Right this very second.

How about you?

Pfft.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1067 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 09:40 AM
Member
 
bass excavator's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 173
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Ok. SO I ignore the charts? Really people.

Ok your chart means little when they take 50 people and apply your chart test and it fails.

It failed.

It was wrong.



In fact the difference on a 1080p vs 4k can be seen on a 55" screen 9' away.

I don't want charts. I want evidence. Like this website that actually tested it.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-re...1312153517.htm

The next person to say I'm wrong and post just some chart better use some supporting evidence because this is getting old. I agree.

Pro 4k provides extensive evidence. Hands on testing and against 4k post charts and gather to agree with each others post so they look more legit. Ignoring my facts posted like they don't exist. If the facts are ignored and you keep posting charts that's wrong and was just based off some dudes guesses then you must be right. Right?

Wrong. Read the test conducted.

People have different qualitys of eye sight.

I just think you are so driven to buy a 4k that you will drum up any "evidence" to "prove" your point. I have stood 9 feet away from 4k and a 1080p and both sets were calibrated. I have good eyesight (I went to my eye doctor for a complete exam) and sharpness on a 4k is no better than HD. Same movie. Color was better on the 4k. Professional video engineers clearly state that you need at the very least a 75 incher or more realistic an 80 inch tv to be able to tell the difference.

By the way you are replying you need a bit more maturity.

Enter all at the strait gate and walk the narrow way.
"I am the way the truth and the life, no one enters the Fathers' Kingdom except through me."

Jesus is the strait gate.
bass excavator is offline  
post #1068 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 10:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Again your calculator vs actual test. Hmm. I'm sorry I don't think some person who doesn't own a 4k set and has had very little hands on time with one tell me an owner that I can't tell the difference on several sets in my house.
I see no reason to distrust the calculator, since it's based on vision science, but we should be careful about what conclusions we draw from it. The calculator says that at a certain distance, we won't be able to see the details shown by higher resolutions. Does it follow from this that at a distance you can't tell the difference between pictures at various resolutions? The answer to that is: No, it doesn't follow at all.

That's the problem with the charts and calculators. They tell you about what detail you can expect to be able to see, but that's all they tell you.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #1069 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 11:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,783
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by bass excavator View Post
I just think you are so driven to buy a 4k that you will drum up any "evidence" to "prove" your point. I have stood 9 feet away from 4k and a 1080p and both sets were calibrated. I have good eyesight (I went to my eye doctor for a complete exam) and sharpness on a 4k is no better than HD. Same movie. Color was better on the 4k. Professional video engineers clearly state that you need at the very least a 75 incher or more realistic an 80 inch tv to be able to tell the difference.

By the way you are replying you need a bit more maturity.
I have provided enough maturity and continue to receive rehashed answers directed at me.

I mean I'm glad to be the name of 4k to so many but the point is simple.

I provide real world test results.

The calculator is just to estimate. Not a gospel.

It's ok to have an idea. But when there are clear sources available like owners forums it's a choice to stay uneducated about the real world results of the 4k sets.

You have a place with charts and graphs.

You have a place with people who own the sets. Some months. Others a year. More.

Those same owners have top tier 1080p sets of all walks of technology.

We live daily with these sets.

I have 20/15 eyesight. Not the worst ok.

I can tell the difference watching TV on my 65hu9000 all day from 8' to my 1080p 55F8000 in my room. At that at about 10' from my headboard.

I can still see the difference.
Many owners in the 4k forums will gladly tell you the same.

They own f8500, vt60, you name it.

Some has had many 4k sets and will tell you not all are equal.

There are things to understand. That you can't generalize the performance of one 4k set with another.
Yet in this thread I'm ignored when I say that.

Yet 1080p sets have huge variances in quality and performance. No one cares that I mention the same issue exist in the 4k world.

Either way I know that I can tell the difference. So don't generalize us all as the same and realize to me and apparently many others there is a clear difference.

49 out of 50 in that test. With test data. Screen shots.

Yet I guess that. Means nothing in the real world. We should all buy TV off of manufacturers descriptions and review sites who have become so saturated with one review after another they simply copy and paste the reviews and make a few changes to keep readers and get a pay check.

They have bills too. But they really don't spend the time to know a set. And we are the ones stuck with them for years.

So yes I always say see it in person for yourself. And ask real owners. Charts isn't enough for me.

Last edited by Mrorange303; 08-09-2014 at 11:25 AM.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1070 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 11:27 AM
Advanced Member
 
Z-Mad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 661
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Ok. SO I ignore the charts? Really people.

Ok your chart means little when they take 50 people and apply your chart test and it fails.

It failed.

It was wrong.

As many people have pointed out apparently no one took into account eye sight with your graph. Chart, etc.


Perhaps you all should know theory is just theory until supported by evidence. The evidence has proven this theory is not correct.

In fact the difference on a 1080p vs 4k can be seen on a 55" screen 9' away.

I don't want charts. I want evidence. Like this website that actually tested it.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-re...1312153517.htm

The next person to say I'm wrong and post just some chart better use some supporting evidence because this is getting old. I agree.

Pro 4k provides extensive evidence. Hands on testing and against 4k post charts and gather to agree with each others post so they look more legit. Ignoring my facts posted like they don't exist. If the facts are ignored and you keep posting charts that's wrong and was just based off some dudes guesses then you must be right. Right?

Wrong. Read the test conducted.

People have different qualitys of eye sight.
LOL, so much drive to defend 4K at all cost...
Mrorange, I have 20/20 vision myself (no joke, not saying it just because of the nature of this discussin) and have tested it with my own eyes - once you get far enough from the screen you can't tell the difference anymore, period. That's not rocket science, it's very simple matter of biology and the human eye. Everyone knows you have to get close enough to the "fine print" in order to be able to see it or read it. Same thing here: if you want to see the "4K fine print" detail, you have to be close enough to it. There is no argument that can deny this simple fact of life...

These charts you are so dismissive of are not some random figures someone pulled out of thin air, but calculated AND tested figures done by professionals in the imaging industry. So I'd give those much more credibility than some random test by a review website done with by-passers who probably knew which TV it is in a hope to win something, or made a lucky guess in some cases - who's to say in that unprofessional test. And even if there are a few people out there like yourself, who apparently have Superman vision, that may buy those select few an extra foot or so of viewing distance, but nothing more. People will see what they want to see, and will often convince themselves of something if they want it to be true so badly. It's almost like a "4K placebo", lol

Imaging industry and science (apart from common sense) are clear on needing to be close enough to a 4K set to get any benefit, and even if one goes with a foot up or down to give people with "supervision" the benefit of the doubt, this still hardly changes much, and most people in their viewing environments would not benefit from a 4K TV at all... Quite simple really...

Mrorange, enjoy your 4K set and be glad you were born with superhuman vision, but most of people out there will not benefit from a 4K TV in most viewing environments...

P.S. note how resolution exceeding 4K would require you to sit like only 3 feet from a 50" screen to notice the difference, lol (make that 4 feet for Mrorange )
Z-Mad is offline  
post #1071 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 11:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,783
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Mad View Post
LOL, so much drive to defend 4K at all cost...
Mrorange, I have 20/20 vision myself (no joke, not saying it just because of the nature of this discussin) and have tested it with my own eyes - once you get far enough from the screen you can't tell the difference anymore, period. That's not rocket science, it's very simple matter of biology and the human eye. Everyone knows you have to get close enough to the "fine print" in order to be able to see it or read it. Same thing here: if you want to see the "4K fine print" detail, you have to be close enough to it. There is no argument that can deny this simple fact of life...

These charts you are so dismissive of are not some random figures someone pulled out of thin air, but calculated AND tested figures done by professionals in the imaging industry. So I'd give those much more credibility than some random test by a review website done with by-passers who probably knew which TV it is in a hope to win something, or made a lucky guess in some cases - who's to say in that unprofessional test. And even if there are a few people out there like yourself, who apparently have Superman vision, that may buy those select few an extra foot or so of viewing distance, but nothing more. People will see what they want to see, and will often convince themselves of something if they want it to be true so badly. It's almost like a "4K placebo", lol

Imaging industry and science (apart from common sense) are clear on needing to be close enough to a 4K set to get any benefit, and even if one goes with a foot up or down to give people with "supervision" the benefit of the doubt, this still hardly changes much, and most people in their viewing environments would not benefit from a 4K TV at all... Quite simple really...

Mrorange, enjoy your 4K set and be glad you were born with superhuman vision, but most of people out there will not benefit from a 4K TV in most viewing environments...

P.S. note how resolution exceeding 4K would require you to sit like only 3 feet from a 50" screen to notice the difference, lol (make that 4 feet for Mrorange )
You don't even understand the point of a 4k set. The point is to get a bigger set and be able to sit closer without the loss in detail, more Pixelation and when standards are actually set and truer to intent image from the source.

Again your trying to prove the 4k sets have no difference from your current distance.

Again not a single test.

I provided a site with actual data. 50 participants. 50.

And 49.

Out of 50.

Could tell. But your saying that chart makes the real test wrong?

So the theory when in practice did not work. But your saying the theory is sound.

Hmm. I would like one test. Conducted with a side number of participants.

One link so I can look at it.

One.

Please don't give another big answer about how I believe laser eyes Yada Yada.

One link end this all right now.

All these pages. All these people.

One link.

They have all had the chance.

I gave one yet again. Proved my point. Came from a reputable source. Please don't post another chart. I don't want this to be another oh Mr. Orange you think your so mighty and you think 4k has better image than 1080p error.

I don't care. I just want a link. Showing they took people in a room with 2 TVs and they let them make the decision.

That's what I gave you.

50 people. End all this right now. One link.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1072 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 12:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
Z-Mad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 661
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
You don't even understand the point of a 4k set. The point is to get a bigger set and be able to sit closer without the loss in detail, more Pixelation and when standards are actually set and truer to intent image from the source.

Again your trying to prove the 4k sets have no difference from your current distance.

Again not a single test.

I provided a site with actual data. 50 participants. 50.

And 49.

Out of 50.

Could tell. But your saying that chart makes the real test wrong?

So the theory when in practice did not work. But your saying the theory is sound.

Hmm. I would like one test. Conducted with a side number of participants.

One link so I can look at it.

One.

Please don't give another big answer about how I believe laser eyes Yada Yada.

One link end this all right now.

All these pages. All these people.

One link.

They have all had the chance.

I gave one yet again. Proved my point. Came from a reputable source. Please don't post another chart. I don't want this to be another oh Mr. Orange you think your so mighty and you think 4k has better image than 1080p error.

I don't care. I just want a link. Showing they took people in a room with 2 TVs and they let them make the decision.

That's what I gave you.

50 people. End all this right now. One link.
LOL, charts from imaging professionals are not good enough for you? These charts ARE the result of such tests you are referring to, only not done at some mall with a bunch or amateurs...
By the way, of course 4K is helpful if you want to stare at a giant screen from a few feet away - the chart you hate so much supports that too. But who is a fan of sitting in the first row in a movie theater???

Anyway, a quick google search (took me 10 seconds), and I immediately came across this example (and I'm sure there are many more):
http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

"Verification of Calculations by Sony and THX

Sony lists identical required viewing distances in the Frequently Asked Questions section of their product description. Checkout the Amazon.com product description FAQ for the Sony 65X900A 4k Ultra HDTV. It shows the same distances I have calculated (i.e. 3.6 feet for a 55″ screen and 4.2 feet for a 65″ screen.) If you don’t believe my numbers, confirmation from Sony should help convince you.

Quote from Sony FAQ:
How close to the TV must I sit to appreciate 4K?
The short answer is that between 5 and 6 ft. is the ideal viewing distance for a 55” or 65” Sony 4K Ultra HD TV. However, on a 55“, you can now sit as close as 3.6 ft and enjoy a visibly smoother and more detailed picture (e.g you won’t see the individual pixels). On a 65“ TV, you can sit as close as 4.2 ft. to appreciate 4K.
Source: Amazon.com product description frequently asked questions for the Sony 65X900A 4k Ultra HDTV
THX also confirms similar viewing distances:
On a 50-inch 1080p HD display, most consumers can begin to distinguish individual pixels only when standing within six feet of the screen. Therefore if your viewing distance is 10 feet or greater, an Ultra HD 50-inch display will likely have little perceived benefit in terms of image clarity and sharpness [source]"

So if you are trying to say that Sony and alike are also full of it and don't know what they are talking about with their own TV's, then there is no helping your conviction... Apparently, Mrorange and a mall test with amateurs is all the proof the world needs, discrediting the imaging science, industry professionals, and leading manufacturers themselves... (Let alone what I see with my own eyes)...
Z-Mad is offline  
post #1073 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 12:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JWhip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wayne, PA
Posts: 4,351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Liked: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by bass excavator View Post
I just think you are so driven to buy a 4k that you will drum up any "evidence" to "prove" your point. I have stood 9 feet away from 4k and a 1080p and both sets were calibrated. I have good eyesight (I went to my eye doctor for a complete exam) and sharpness on a 4k is no better than HD. Same movie. Color was better on the 4k. Professional video engineers clearly state that you need at the very least a 75 incher or more realistic an 80 inch tv to be able to tell the difference.

By the way you are replying you need a bit more maturity.

The ignore button is your friend! I know, it sure is mine!
JWhip is online now  
post #1074 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 12:22 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,555
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1879 Post(s)
Liked: 3188
As I sit in my studio surrounded by three TVs... one 1080p LCD, one UHD LCD, and one 1080p plasma, I figure I'll share some random thoughts:

- UHD/4K doesn provide an improvement in image quality, but it's not earth-shattering. Like high-resolution music, a lot of the improvement has to do with production and mastering as opposed to the higher-res format.

- Motion resolution remains a real issue for LCDs, as do viewing angles. LCD-related image quality issues have not disappeared with the adoption of UHD/4K.

- There is no question that UHD/4K looks sharper than 1080p when it is not in motion, if you are close enough to see it.

- There is no question that high end plasma handles motion better than LCD-based TVs.

- With movies, my plasma often looks better than the UHDTV that sits next to it. With video games, the plasma almost always looks better thanks to how it handles motion.

- Need for Speed on Blu-ray looked better in 1080p on my plasma than it did upscaled to 4K on a LCD-based UHDTV (AX800U), even viewed head-on.

- I can turn on all the funky image processing modes on my plasma, and make it look a lot like a pumped-up LCD with exaggerated color saturation, sharpness, and motion processing.

- I can calibrate the UHDTV to meet rec. 709 spec, and its color output looks just about the same as my other two TVs, as it should.

- In many cases, on UHDTVs, I'm not sure UHD upscaling is better than 1080p by 4 pixels mode when viewing 1080p content.

- Many UHD upscaling algorithms appear to incorporate some degree of sharpening that cannot be defeated.

Ultimately, my current advice is that unless you have an emergency and need a new TV now, don't buy a UHDTV before the LG OLEDs come out. After they do come out, remember how quickly prices dropped on 1080p OLEDs before deciding whether to pull the trigger. If you can afford it, that's going to be the option that pays the greatest dividends.

As it stands, the greatest impediment to UHD/4K image quality dominance is the display technology it uses. The extra pixels don't necessarily make up for inferior performance when it comes to color, contrast, and motion processing. The cost of overcoming those technical barriers eliminates the pricing advantage enjoyed by LCDs—proper implementation of FALD doesn't come cheap.
Joe Bloggs likes this.

Mark Henninger
imagic is online now  
post #1075 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 12:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,783
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked: 235
^^ if the current oled sets were more affordable and less likely for a short life and burn in even i would of got the oled.

To me the 65uhd was better than 55oled that would last half the life and suffer issues with burn in. Especially since i like a bright picture.

But my dream is oled 4k.

If you have the money the uhd is nice to have. What distance that benefit become apparent to you depends on the person and what benefit means to them.

But for me there is 3 choices.

Oled 4k. Cant afford. F8500 wasnt the best option for me. You know.

I also have a huge 3d library on bluray.

Im so glad i do now. Before it want the biggest deal to get a 3d copy buy im glad i did.

I also will for every movie i get in the future that has them now. They are that good on the uhd sets.

Well my samsung. It handles cross talk and 3d well.

But that 60" lg oled did temp me. Man did it.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1076 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 12:37 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,910
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1591 Post(s)
Liked: 1685
Some posters talk about the energy that Mrorange expends defending 4K, but those same posters expend the same or more energy trashing 4K. It's actually pretty funny.

I'm also amused at how the results of the British test with real viewers (described by someone as 'amateurs'...didn't realize you need to be a 'professional' to be able to discern the 4K difference, but in this thread apparently you do) are dismissed out of hand.

It seems few have much interest in putting theory to a practical test and, IMO, that's lousy science.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #1077 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 12:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,783
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked: 235
^^ you would figure they would of tested it and posted those results. But they didnt. And thats why they cant post a link.

The truth is people can see the 4k difference on a 55" from 9' away. Thats just something. Something that just needs agjusting when discussed. So much fighting against that.

They act like you have to sit right up on your tv. Its just not the case. I think they beleive its a negeative to be able to get closer and still have a fantastic picture. Again im not sure what to say to it.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1078 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 12:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JWhip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wayne, PA
Posts: 4,351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Liked: 323
Ken, my issue with 4K is that it is being rushed to market without much thought as a desperate attempt to get more people to buy new TVs. It is NOT like the move from SD to HD. There were were taking a huge leap forward in terms of PQ both with color and resolution, even at 720p. Plus the advent of flat screens with no geometric distortion. MY first HD set was the 34" Panny. Great blacks and color but crappy distortion. SD color was from the 50's. Hd was out in 1998. Why not wait until all aspects of the system are improved, not just resolution? It can be done and will be done, but probably not until 2016. I can and will wait. That will be a set worth waiting for.
losservatore likes this.
JWhip is online now  
post #1079 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 12:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,783
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked: 235
See this was in the owners forum.

A place for info but whatever.

Is sound and vision not a good place for info either? I mean you tell me. The 2014 samsung and sony sets continue to set themselves apart.

I respect imagic has the best test set up in this thread.

But i wish he had a samsung not panasonic. It matters. Of course ill get thrown under the bus for that. But the reviews continue to prove this.
http://www.soundandvision.com/conten...ra-hdtv-page-2


"Comparisons
I positioned the Samsung next to Panasonic’s larger, pricier (though sadly no longer available) TC- P65ZT60 plasma, setting them up to match as closely as possible and feeding them 1080p Blu-ray material from the two HDMI outputs of an Oppo BDP-105D player (with its Darbee enhancements off). Viewed side by side with the Panasonic, the Samsung held its own. At first, in fact, the two sets seemed to be virtually identical. But differences ultimately emerged. The colors were nearly the same; blue and red were a little more intense on the Panasonic, but not in a way you’d notice without a direct comparison. "
imagic likes this.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1080 of 1818 Old 08-09-2014, 01:08 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,555
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1879 Post(s)
Liked: 3188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Some posters talk about the energy that Mrorange expends defending 4K, but those same posters expend the same or more energy trashing 4K. It's actually pretty funny.

I'm also amused at how the results of the British test with real viewers (described by someone as 'amateurs'...didn't realize you need to be a 'professional' to be able to discern the 4K difference, but in this thread apparently you do) are dismissed out of hand.

It seems few have much interest in putting theory to a practical test and, IMO, that's lousy science.
What is good science, in the context of this discussion? Is it declaring that color calibration is useless, and only applies to old-fashioned HDTVs?

I can see the difference between a 65-inch HDTV and UHDTV from about twelve feet away. That's just about the same as seeing the difference on a 50 inches from nine feet. I don't find it surprising that it is possible to see a difference. With the right graphic, I could extend that distance considerably. But for most situations, it's a minor difference that's easily trumped by other factors.

Anyhow, I would like to go on the record saying I love 4K/UHD. I want all those pixels. Hooray for 4K. I hope the next round of UHDTVs are truly awesome. Some of the current ones already are, although I fear they will be both undercut in price and obsoleted faster than I feel comfortable with.

Mark Henninger

Last edited by imagic; 08-09-2014 at 01:14 PM.
imagic is online now  
Reply Latest Industry News

Tags
frontpage



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