UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy - Page 42 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 539Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1231 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 05:32 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,505
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1828 Post(s)
Liked: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
If you read what CBS stated, it said "Static or NEARLY STATIC". I suggest you watch TV a bit more closely. As I watch TV, I see the CBS figures tend to match what I actually watch on TV. Most scenes in dramas ARE 'static or NEARLY static'. If the motion is not quick, the resolution is not greatly impacted. And again, LCDs vary in their ability to hold resolution even with motion. They are not all created equal.

But hey, I guess some here know far more about this than CBS that spent a good deal of money in determining whether 1080i or 720p was the way to go and hence the study results. Just as an aside for those that are actually interested in OBJECTIVE thinking. CBS did not have as much sports as networks such as ABC or ESPN. Hence those networks decided 720p was the better route whereas CBS, with a wide variety of programming, decided 1080i was the better way to go. So I look forward to another 100 posts that will refute this point. Perhaps I should post the phone number of Bob Ross, who was the Chief Video Engineer with CBS at the time. You can argue with him. It never ends.

Torturous, utterly torturous. How many times will we go round and round and round and round and round. Is nobody tiring of this?
Presumably soap operas and the news counts towards that 95% static total. TV game shows and late night talk shows, too. And sitcoms. Lots of static camera shots on TV. But not so much movies. That has everything to do with the nature of TV programming vs. how movies are made—budgets and all that. Many movies have a lot more motion than TV, and movies are a lot more worthwhile to watch under the best possible conditions.

Here we are in a thread about UHD and you are discussing 720p vs. 1080i TV material. I want to discuss content that has a real chance to look better on a UHDTV, not why CBS shows have almost no camera movement or action. I'm interested in how a TV handles a movie like Need for Speed, and whether I can get that that movie in UHD/4K, to compare to the Blu-ray.

Mark Henninger

Last edited by imagic; 08-10-2014 at 05:36 PM.
imagic is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1232 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 05:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,794
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1522 Post(s)
Liked: 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Most movies I watch have more than three minutes of non-static footage per hour. Usually a lot more.
Mark, you're really pushing this and I have to tell you it's borderline annoying. Did you notice, for the FIFTH time, I said the average of ALL CONTENT. That includes, talking head shows, movies, sports, dramas, serials, comedies, specials...did I leave something else. It does NOT mean the average of all content that Mark watches, or all movie content that Mark watches. I'm just waiting for the next post that says "I don't know, when I watched that action movie, there was more than 3 minutes of non-static footage".

Excuse me while I knock my head against a hard wall.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #1233 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 05:37 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,794
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1522 Post(s)
Liked: 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Presumably soap operas and the news counts towards that 95% static total. TV game shows and late night talk shows, too. But not so much movies. That has everything to do with the nature of TV programming. Movies have a lot more motion, and movies are a lot more worthwhile to watch under the best possible conditions.

Here we are in a thread about UHD and you are discussing 720p vs. 1080i TV material. I want to discuss content that has a real chance to look better on a UHDTV, not why CBS shows have almost no camera movement or action.
That's YOUR opinion. I brought up the 720p vs 1080i because it was pertinent to the CBS study and THAT was relevant to the discussion of motion handling. Sorry you can't see that.

OK guys, have fun, I'm outta here. Sorry, this thread is so done for me. I have never seen such 'devil's advocacy' in a thread on AVS.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #1234 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 05:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 740
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 328 Post(s)
Liked: 124
it's nice how you think motion blur is limited to fast moving scene.

but in fact it doesn't matter if just a very small things is in motion or the whole picture. so what does it matter if most picture have low motion it's still there...
mightyhuhn is online now  
post #1235 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 05:39 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,505
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1828 Post(s)
Liked: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Mark, you're really pushing this and I have to tell you it's borderline annoying. Did you notice, for the FIFTH time, I said the average of ALL CONTENT. That includes, talking head shows, movies, sports, dramas, serials, comedies, specials...did I leave something else. It does NOT mean the average of all content that Mark watches, or all movie content that Mark watches. I'm just waiting for the next post that says "I don't know, when I watched that action movie, there was more than 3 minutes of non-static footage".

Excuse me while I knock my head against a hard wall.
Exactly, and what does it matter how a UHDTV renders a 720p talk show? I'm much more interested in how a TV deals with content that takes advantage of UHD/4K resolution, and I'm especially interested in the home theater angle.

Mark Henninger
imagic is online now  
post #1236 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 05:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
losservatore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,290
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Liked: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
First off, the majority of what we watch is not in motion. CBS' estimate was that over 90% of what we watch is static or nearly static in nature.
We are just replying to your posts ,for this is that this forum was created.

Last edited by losservatore; 08-10-2014 at 05:56 PM.
losservatore is online now  
post #1237 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 05:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,794
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1522 Post(s)
Liked: 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Exactly, and what does it matter how a UHDTV renders a 720p talk show? I'm much more interested in how a TV deals with content that takes advantage of UHD/4K resolution, and I'm especially interested in the home theater angle.
That wasn't my point. For my last post here, yes, I too would watch content that takes advantage of 4K resolution. To me the most beautiful 4K imagery is contained within nature & travel shows where motion IS slow and detail IS huge. Any visit to a BB will reveal much of this kind of footage and for me this is what 4K is made for. We each have our own tastes and, they may differ. I love movies too, but I think nothing benefits from 4K like nature & travel shows.

Have fun gentlemen.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #1238 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 06:07 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Geoffrey has a follow-up to that article, also on CNET: Why Ultra HD 4K TVs are still stupid
At point no.2 he has incorrectly applied the science (massive oversimplification), this has a knock-on effect that invalidates the rest of his points.

The chart he uses is produced some one single number, one fact, which although correct, cannot be applied to every situation. The number used is the angular resolution of a healthy human eye. I can't remember right now what the number is, but the methodology involves being able to tell apart a single black line from two thinner adjacent lines with a gap in the middle, or something pretty similar to that. The first flaw is this methodology (this has been covered many times on various other forums). Basically, someone has assumed that once the gap between two lines 'appears' to dissapear (the gap is no longer perceived) then the resolution is found very simply from that gap size. However, if presented with two single lines where one is thicker than the other, but by less than what the previous experiment tells us we can detect, we can actually detect it.

Secondly, this all applies only to static images, the spatial resolution of the eye increases if it is allowed to view a sequence of images of the same object.

So basically, the article proceeds from a false assumption, that the eye has a well defined 'resolution' just like a TV screen or a camera's CCD. Ofcourse, the eye does not have infinite resolution (which is why his 'sand grains' analogy seems to make sense), but nor is it a simple value like for a TV or camera, the resolution of the human eye varies massively depending on what is being viewed.

It also varies massively across your field of view. You don't notice (because your brain does such a good job of filling in the gaps) but the resolution of your eye in the centre of your field of vision (an area about half the size of your fist at arm's length) is many many times greater than it is in the rest of your field of view. Check this out: https://xkcd.com/1080/large/
Joe Bloggs likes this.
Ormy is offline  
post #1239 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 06:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,708
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 812 Post(s)
Liked: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by losservatore View Post
4k do not make people said WOW at a normal seating distance ,,,its simple... can you tell the difference at 9' ?maybe.. but is not like WOW that's very impressive.
Well i dont know as they never said it was about wow.

It was can a person tell the difference of the sets.

It may have been shortcomings of the 1080p set compared to the 4k set.

We dont know.

But we know a larfe number can tell. I can tell. I only find people here who cant tell. Every person outside these forums only care that the picture looks better to them.

And thats also what the point is about 4k.

You have to see it. It may be worth it to you now. It might not be.

You may benefit from 9'. You may not. Go see one in person.

The wow factor is debatable. We all like different things so we cant all be pleased by it.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1240 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 06:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 740
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 328 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Well i dont know as they never said it was about wow.

It was can a person tell the difference of the sets.

It may have been shortcomings of the 1080p set compared to the 4k set.

We dont know.

But we know a larfe number can tell. I can tell. I only find people here who cant tell. Every person outside these forums only care that the picture looks better to them.

And thats also what the point is about 4k.

You have to see it. It may be worth it to you now. It might not be.

You may benefit from 9'. You may not. Go see one in person.

The wow factor is debatable. We all like different things so we cant all be pleased by it.
and how to disable the picture computer in a shop?

I mean you have to make sure to see the resolution not some post processing. so a totally calibrated screen is a must have for this test.
if you think a UHD screen looks better with sharping you can't say it looks better because it is UHD. because you are watching a post processed image not a real UHD image. is it better because it is UHD or because it is post processed it's not possible to tell.
mightyhuhn is online now  
post #1241 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 06:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,708
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 812 Post(s)
Liked: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Presumably soap operas and the news counts towards that 95% static total. TV game shows and late night talk shows, too. And sitcoms. Lots of static camera shots on TV. But not so much movies. That has everything to do with the nature of TV programming vs. how movies are made—budgets and all that. Many movies have a lot more motion than TV, and movies are a lot more worthwhile to watch under the best possible conditions.

Here we are in a thread about UHD and you are discussing 720p vs. 1080i TV material. I want to discuss content that has a real chance to look better on a UHDTV, not why CBS shows have almost no camera movement or action. I'm interested in how a TV handles a movie like Need for Speed, and whether I can get that that movie in UHD/4K, to compare to the Blu-ray.
Ok well i think it does look better with 1080i material like ota with a football game. The motion was more clear than my 1080p set also. Not huge. But my 1080p set is decent.

Also the hu9000 handles current blurays motion better than my 1080p sets. Thsts part of the reason i say it looks better.

Then mighty huhn gets all technical and we end up at its getting better but yes its still there.

I also would like to know when i can start getting movies in uhd or 4k. But i want physical unlike you. I know it has to be compressed in some form because of that but dang it sometimes its nice.

What would be nice is to keep seeing vudu or uv disk continue with 4k.

The better the source the less pixels, better motion etc right now.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1242 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 06:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
losservatore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,290
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Liked: 335
P.OCD.




Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	0115_tv_resolution_630x354.jpg
Views:	79
Size:	37.2 KB
ID:	206729  

Last edited by losservatore; 08-10-2014 at 08:51 PM.
losservatore is online now  
post #1243 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 06:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
Haroon Malik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 688
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
What will be the native resolution of the 4K feed from announced content providers? What is the native resolution of the 4K Netflix feed and what will be the native resolution of the 4K Blu-Ray spec (if there is any rumour on it as yet)?

All the current crop of UHD televisions have a native panel resolution of 3840 x 2160 which is exactly four times that of 1080p but the DCI 4K spec is 4096 x 2160 which is found on projectors from Digital Projection, Sim2, Christie Digital and Sony.


Is this 3840 x 2160 the new 720p of sorts till we get all native content delivered in 4096 x 2160 thereby calling it true 4K or Full 4K or [insert name]?
Haroon Malik is offline  
post #1244 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 06:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,708
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 812 Post(s)
Liked: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
and how to disable the picture computer in a shop?

I mean you have to make sure to see the resolution not some post processing. so a totally calibrated screen is a must have for this test.
if you think a UHD screen looks better with sharping you can't say it looks better because it is UHD. because you are watching a post processed image not a real UHD image. is it better because it is UHD or because it is post processed it's not possible to tell.
It looks better because it was shot in a higher reolution and is displayed on a television that can taken advantage and display that resolution.

There for its both the uhd aspect and id say again its just technology advances. Things get better. Not gone. But better.

Motion seems less an issue with uhd material. I mean its not visible to me on my set.

Blurays is less than on my 1080p set. Im not saying its processing. Blurays look better.

They look better on my 4k set then on my 1080p set. I have not calibrated the 4k.

Last edited by Mrorange303; 08-10-2014 at 06:42 PM.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1245 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 06:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 740
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 328 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
I also would like to know when i can start getting movies in uhd or 4k. But i want physical unlike you. I know it has to be compressed in some form because of that but dang it sometimes its nice.
current BD can use up to 40 mbit for non 3d. that doesn't mean they do use this. if VUDU or other streamer like they can use even more for even better picture quality so it's not clear if the next 4k BD is better than streaming and it is not clear for how long.

isn't the plan for about 100 pathetic GB for the 4k BD so 4 layer?
mightyhuhn is online now  
post #1246 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 06:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,708
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 812 Post(s)
Liked: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haroon Malik View Post
What will be the native resolution of the 4K feed from announced content providers? What is the native resolution of the 4K Netflix feed and what will be the native resolution of the 4K Blu-Ray spec (if there is any rumour on it as yet)?

All the current crop of UHD televisions have a native panel resolution of 3840 x 2160 which is exactly four times that of 1080p but the DCI 4K spec is 4096 x 2160 which is found on projectors from Digital Projection, Sim2, Christie Digital and Sony.


Is this 3840 x 2160 the new 720p of sorts till we get all native content delivered in 4096 x 2160 thereby calling it true 4K or Full 4K or [insert name]?
It is possible. That is an honest and possible future.

Then that bad boy becomes ansuper 1080p set.

Thats basically what current 4k sets are anyway.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1247 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 06:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 740
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 328 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
It looks better because it was shot in a higher reolution and is displayed on a television that can taken advantage and display that resolution.

There for its both the uhd aspect and id say again its just technology advances. Things get better. Not gone. But better.

Motion seems less an issue with uhd material. I mean its not visible to me on my set.

Blurays is less than on my 1080p set. Im not saying its processing. Blurays look better.

They look better on my 4k set then on my 1080p set. I have not calibrated the 4k.
my point is to make 100 % sure that the improvment is the resolution and nothing else in the TV you need to look at the untouched picture not something else to make 100 % it's the resolution alone.

BTW. I'm pretty sure it is possible but this doesn't change that this should be judge on resolution alone and nothing else.
Joe Bloggs likes this.
mightyhuhn is online now  
post #1248 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 06:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,708
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 812 Post(s)
Liked: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
current BD can use up to 40 mbit for non 3d. that doesn't mean they do use this. if VUDU or other streamer like they can use even more for even better picture quality so it's not clear if the next 4k BD is better than streaming and it is not clear for how long.

isn't the plan for about 100 pathetic GB for the 4k BD so 4 layer?
Yes they are trying to figure out a compression for the next physical data.

Sigh.

But what if the internet goes out. You wont have any content.

Maybe these crazy hard drives will be the next step. We will go back to digital storage devices.

But that would take forever to load up movies. Play them etc.

I love current uhd material as is.

But i really love to watch the internal demoes and 4k content from my free uhd hard drive. That stuff is clean and clear.

So im honestly not sure how that content stuff is shaping up.

Yet i still love how the set handles current material.

I dont want that to go misunderstood. But the set can do much more.

I cant wait for more to actually see it. I wont lie but how could i about that.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1249 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 06:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 740
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 328 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Yes they are trying to figure out a compression for the next physical data.
this is up to VP9, h265 HEVC and h264 AVC.
but this is going hard offtopic if I continue.
mightyhuhn is online now  
post #1250 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 07:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,708
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 812 Post(s)
Liked: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
my point is to make 100 % sure that the improvment is the resolution and nothing else in the TV you need to look at the untouched picture not something else to make 100 % it's the resolution alone.

BTW. I'm pretty sure it is possible but this doesn't change that this should be judge on resolution alone and nothing else.
I dont know. Obviously i dont think they did that. But i get the benefit. I dont think there would be any other real perceived difference.

The resolition alone still to many is a nice bump in quality.

I think even if its all i got out of this minus the other stuff id still just take it as a super resolution tv.

Thats not bad. Really.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1251 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 07:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,708
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 812 Post(s)
Liked: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
this is up to VP9, h265 HEVC and h264 AVC.
but this is going hard offtopic if I continue.
I understand no need. It gets deep. Im in it now with youtube vs netflix talk all the time in the 4k owners forums. Gets deep.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1252 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 07:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sytech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,352
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 304 Post(s)
Liked: 244
Arguing against 4K is like arguing against the sun coming up. Either way it's happening.

Even if you are one of the few that can not see the resolution benefit, the 4K standard will bring WCG and HDR which everyone can. The ultimate case for 4K is that it will make all those dead pixels on our new 4K OLED sets much harder to see.
imagic likes this.
sytech is offline  
post #1253 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 07:13 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,505
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1828 Post(s)
Liked: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post
Arguing against 4K is like arguing against the sun coming up. Either way it's happening.

Even if you are one of the few that can not see the resolution benefit, the 4K standard will bring WCG and HDR which everyone can. The ultimate case for 4K is that it will make all those dead pixels on our new 4K OLED sets much harder to see.
Fwiw, here's what I think of UHD/4K so far... UHD/4K First Impressions

Mark Henninger
imagic is online now  
post #1254 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 07:39 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,136
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 666 Post(s)
Liked: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
But hey, I guess some here know far more about this than CBS that spent a good deal of money in determining whether 1080i or 720p was the way to go and hence the study results. Just as an aside for those that are actually interested in OBJECTIVE thinking. CBS did not have as much sports as networks such as ABC or ESPN. Hence those networks decided 720p was the better route whereas CBS, with a wide variety of programming, decided 1080i was the better way to go. So I look forward to another 100 posts that will refute this point. Perhaps I should post the phone number of Bob Ross, who was the Chief Video Engineer with CBS at the time. You can argue with him. It never ends.
Uh... 1080i60 has just as much temporal information as 720p60. It seem like you're retelling some sort of anecdote that has gotten misconstrued / confused somewhere along the way.
Stereodude is offline  
post #1255 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 07:48 PM
Member
 
andrewtodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I understand the argument for waiting to buy a tv if you don't need a new one now. I don't understand how some people can't see the difference between a good 4k tv showing 4k content and a 1080p tv showing 1080p content if they have fully functioning eyes. I own a 50" Panasonic Kuro and the 70" 4K LCD tvs I've seen are a dramatic improvement. It's not even close and I am someone who has always disliked LCD tv.
andrewtodd is offline  
post #1256 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 07:56 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,505
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1828 Post(s)
Liked: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewtodd View Post
I understand the argument for waiting to buy a tv if you don't need a new one now. I don't understand how some people can't see the difference between a good 4k tv showing 4k content and a 1080p tv showing 1080p content if they have fully functioning eyes. I own a 50" Panasonic Kuro and the 70" 4K LCD tvs I've seen are a dramatic improvement. It's not even close and I am someone who has always disliked LCD tv.
A Panasonic Kuro? Are you sure your eyes are functioning properly?
losservatore likes this.

Mark Henninger
imagic is online now  
post #1257 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 08:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
losservatore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,290
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Liked: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
A Panasonic Kuro? Are you sure your eyes are functioning properly?


Which one? Panasonic viera or a Pioneer kuro? but Panasonic Kuro

Last edited by losservatore; 08-10-2014 at 08:44 PM.
losservatore is online now  
post #1258 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 09:01 PM
Member
 
andrewtodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
A Panasonic Kuro? Are you sure your eyes are functioning properly?
I thought you were able to see a difference when 4k content was playing.

My wife saw a huge improvement too. She said she struggled to tell the difference between the UHD picture and real life. Granted my Kuro was never calibrated but neither was the 4k tv.

I'm going to be replacing my plasma with a 4k tv but only because I'm moving to another state and don't want to ship it. If I wasn't moving I'd wait a year or two.
andrewtodd is offline  
post #1259 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 09:08 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,505
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1828 Post(s)
Liked: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewtodd View Post
I thought you were able to see a difference when 4k content was playing.

My wife saw a huge improvement too. She said she struggled to tell the difference between the UHD picture and real life. Granted my Kuro was never calibrated but neither was the 4k tv.

I'm going to be replacing my plasma with a 4k tv but only because I'm moving to another state and don't want to ship it. If I wasn't moving I'd wait a year or two.
I wish I had that problem.

Mark Henninger
imagic is online now  
post #1260 of 1794 Old 08-10-2014, 09:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
Z-Mad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 660
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Wait. So they wanted to see real world buyers. Not experts.

Maybe some are i mean i dont know the screening process.

Howeverthe question was simple. Would they be able to pick out the 4k set.

Again science is a theory until proven correct.


Do you argue this?


The test is all we have. You could always provide another.

But every link ive seen only agrees.

Those charts are not exact. They are guidelines.

Im tired of people telling me im wrong. Im saying those charts are not gospel.

Then you post articles saying those charts are not gospel.

Then gather to say ill never understand.

So that means your saying they are gospel?

They numbers are exact and the test is wrong because one person brought into question the validity of the results.

Yet there is not a test for the other side of the argument.

Just a chart whos creator said he wanted to update. Hmm.
LOL, and the ignorance continues...

Charts are based on tests!!! Only the tests done by Sony, THX and alike are not done at some mall, but in a much more controlled environment with a lot more scientific approach to it.

Confirmation of charts and links are again right here!!! I, as well as others here, keep telling you that we were able to verify with own eyes the disappearance of benefit at appropriate distance (and we did it without a prize and all the other flaws you ignore), but you continue to talk about the 50 people in the mall. Again, I guess everyone else here just doesn't count.

The test you keep referring to is not flawed because I say so, but because of all the facts of how it was conducted. If you knew anything about testing and science, you would know to foresee issues with such a test, but obviously you are not a man of science... I am not saying it is impossible for some people to have perceived some difference at 9 ft (especially not knowing how well or fairly the sets were setup and calibrated, what content they were fed, etc), but I wouldn't quote this test for it, which hardly discloses what exactly the people perceived, how many lucky guesses may have occurred, how much of a benefit they thought it was if they did indeed see any difference, etc, etc.

So the one anecdotal (and very questionably setup) test is NOT all you have, it is just all your are willing to consider, while you choose to ignore all other sources of information on the subject. Like I said, enjoy the Mrorange world...
Z-Mad is offline  
Reply Latest Industry News

Tags
frontpage

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