UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy - Page 43 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 511Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1261 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 09:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
Z-Mad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 98
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.
I do agree with that - 4K is the next standard in resolution (less out of necessity and more out of push from the TV manufacturers who need the next thing to market and charge more money for), but anyway, at some point all TV's will be 4K, just like all TV's became 1080p. Will the 4K resolution make much of a difference? Maybe someday when the content and sources are so good, and if one doesn't sit too far from the set (how far may depend on individual setup and eyes - some here acknowledge good guidelines on that from the imaging industry)...
Z-Mad is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1262 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 09:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,436
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Mad View Post
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...
You and very few others question that test.

You say the chart is based off of a test. Where is the dats. You say these thins but do you know the process for that test? No.

Why not provide some info on the test. In fact provide any test data proving your side.

There is none.

What other material. Please post some. You have my attention. Or wait until I'm off again and post another response to me that is regurgitated non sense.

I will always believe a hands on test over a document. There are all kinds of documents in this world that came from bogus test.

At least my test has published parameters.

Where is yours. Again since I'm ignoring ALL the other stuff. Please post it.

Or is it the chart again?

Perhaps maybe you can stop being so contradicting and post some. That would be awesome.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #1263 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 09:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,436
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Mad View Post
I do agree with that - 4K is the next standard in resolution (less out of necessity and more out of push from the TV manufacturers who need the next thing to market and charge more money for), but anyway, at some point all TV's will be 4K, just like all TV's became 1080p. Will the 4K resolution make much of a difference? Maybe someday when the content and sources are so good, and if one doesn't sit too far from the set (how far may depend on individual setup and eyes - some here acknowledge good guidelines on that from the imaging industry)...
Maybe someday when the content and sources are so good, and if one doesn't sit too far from the set (how far may depend on individual setup and eyes - some here acknowledge good guidelines on that from the imaging industry

So your saying we cannot see it right now and we are all liars and your chart proves it. That's what your wild rants have been about.

And there is this huge conspiracy to defraud 4k viewing distance charts everywhere. It sounds like your saying.

That's how ridiculous it sounds.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #1264 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 09:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
Z-Mad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
You and very few others question that test.

You say the chart is based off of a test. Where is the dats. You say these thins but do you know the process for that test? No.

Why not provide some info on the test. In fact provide any test data proving your side.

There is none.

What other material. Please post some. You have my attention. Or wait until I'm off again and post another response to me that is regurgitated non sense.

I will always believe a hands on test over a document. There are all kinds of documents in this world that came from bogus test.

At least my test has published parameters.

Where is yours. Again since I'm ignoring ALL the other stuff. Please post it.

Or is it the chart again?

Perhaps maybe you can stop being so contradicting and post some. That would be awesome.
You may inquire with Sony, THX etc. Obviously their results are based on well conducted tests, since this is their bread and butter! If you doubt that, you should do the research or inquire with them directly. I'm sure one could find more data. I don't have to, especially since I tested that conclusion myself, and it is simply logical that appropriate viewing ranges exist... Especially, wouldn't Sony want as many people as possible to run and buy their 4K sets, yet they make it clear that specific viewing distances need to be considered if a 4K set is to be truly beneficial...

Having your attention is no help, since you will dismiss everything anyone has to offer on the subject anyway... So why waste time giving you more links and info when you simply disregard them. It's like you were programmed by one piece of info and just can't wrap your head around any other concept or info...
Z-Mad is offline  
post #1265 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 09:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
losservatore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,119
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 295
This is how close people look at 4k and 8k to get a wow factor.














From Mark Shubin video
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	superhivision (2).jpg
Views:	73
Size:	117.0 KB
ID:	207065   Click image for larger version

Name:	33808-8k_teaser.jpg
Views:	70
Size:	207.2 KB
ID:	207073   Click image for larger version

Name:	sharptv_505_011113090701.jpg
Views:	67
Size:	36.2 KB
ID:	207081   Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot (360).png
Views:	64
Size:	460.4 KB
ID:	207121  

Panasonic 65VT60 / Marantz SR7005 / Marantz UD7007 /PSA XS30 /Revel Performa3 F206 / Revel Performa3 C205 / Revel Surrounds/Sonos Connect/ Roku 3 / Amazon Fire tv / Xbox One / HTPC / Darbee 5000 /Sonos play:1 for bedrooms,kitchen,bathroom/Master bedroom Sonos sound bar/Sonos sub and Sonos play 1 surrounds.

Last edited by losservatore; 08-10-2014 at 11:16 PM.
losservatore is online now  
post #1266 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 10:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,436
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Mad View Post
You may inquire with Sony, THX etc. Obviously their results are based on well conducted tests, since this is their bread and butter! If you doubt that, you should do the research or inquire with them directly. I'm sure one could find more data. I don't have to, especially since I tested that conclusion myself, and it is simply logical that appropriate viewing ranges exist... Especially, wouldn't Sony want as many people as possible to run and buy their 4K sets, yet they make it clear that specific viewing distances need to be considered if a 4K set is to be truly beneficial...

Having your attention is no help, since you will dismiss everything anyone has to offer on the subject anyway... So why waste time giving you more links and info when you simply disregard them. It's like you were programmed by one piece of info and just can't wrap your head around any other concept or info...
Oh so you have never actually seen these test? But your so quick to reference them. I don't get it I thought you had all this info I'm ignoring. Now it's go find it myself.

Is this not a complete joke? I don't see how you could possibly be serious. Again another person who says all this personal stuff directly at me and can't back it up.

You don't know how the test was conducted. And you have no evidence it was done scientifically as you claim.

Because as I said theory is just that until in practice and proven correct.

Now go ahead and attack me again. Instead of taking the opportunity to post some real evidence.

Or you can post pictures like lossertorie. That makes his point more valid apparently to him.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #1267 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 10:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
Z-Mad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Maybe someday when the content and sources are so good, and if one doesn't sit too far from the set (how far may depend on individual setup and eyes - some here acknowledge good guidelines on that from the imaging industry

So your saying we cannot see it right now and we are all liars and your chart proves it. That's what your wild rants have been about.

And there is this huge conspiracy to defraud 4k viewing distance charts everywhere. It sounds like your saying.

That's how ridiculous it sounds.
Or is it you saying that imaging industry, science and professionals are all wrong and their charts are based on nothing and should be ignored, because Mrorange says so and likes the "mall test" that provides very little data to evaluate (49 of 50 is not the "data" I am referring to).

No, what I am saying is that in most cases and viewing environments there would be no real benefit, or hardly any difference. At a proper distance one is guaranteed not to see any difference - where that distance is for each individual may vary somewhat, but I wouldn't dismiss the imaging industry guidelines. Also, just noticing little difference and truly benefiting from 4K resolution are also 2 different things...

Your interpretations of information are the only thing sounding ridiculous here... No point in further discussion...
Z-Mad is offline  
post #1268 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 10:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,436
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
I just wanted to post a picture too. Felt left out.

This is my set from 8' away. That's all.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	48
Size:	131.2 KB
ID:	207089  
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #1269 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 10:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross
First off, the majority of what we watch is not in motion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
If you read what CBS stated, it said "Static or NEARLY STATIC".
So if it is static or nearly static, why did you say "The majority of what we watch is not in motion"? Not in motion means still, no motion, not nearly static/still/some motion.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #1270 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 10:31 PM
Advanced Member
 
Z-Mad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Oh so you have never actually seen these test? But your so quick to reference them. I don't get it I thought you had all this info I'm ignoring. Now it's go find it myself.

Is this not a complete joke? I don't see how you could possibly be serious. Again another person who says all this personal stuff directly at me and can't back it up.

You don't know how the test was conducted. And you have no evidence it was done scientifically as you claim.

Because as I said theory is just that until in practice and proven correct.

Now go ahead and attack me again. Instead of taking the opportunity to post some real evidence.

Or you can post pictures like lossertorie. That makes his point more valid apparently to him.
So what makes you think you need to question Sony and THX (but not the mall test LOL)? Here is me being like you: Give me the evidence that they are full of crap, don't know what they are doing, etc... Where is the link that shows SONY, THX and alike make bogus claims and lie to people left and right? Where is the evidence Mrorange? Where is the link that shows all this. Or are you going to line up those 50 people in a mall and ask them if Sony and THX lie and make bogus charts and cheat the public??? And you keep ignoring the one evidence I keep mentioning to you: ME! HELLO!!!! I HAVE SEEN IT MYSELF!!!! BENEFIT DISAPPEARS AT ABOUT 9 FEET OR SO!!! SAW IT WITH MY OWN EYES!!! OTHER PEOPLE THAN ME TOO!!! If you are so lucky to see this benefit at an extra couple of feet distance than me and others, enjoy it... Gosh, no point anymore. I'm done here...
Stereodude and bakerwi like this.
Z-Mad is offline  
post #1271 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 10:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,436
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
So if it is static or nearly static, why did you say "The majority of what we watch is not in motion"? Not in motion means still, no motion, not nearly static/still/some motion.
If you divide a moving scene into a sequence of still pictures and show the still images in rapid succession, the brain will reassemble the still images into a single, moving scene.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #1272 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 10:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 56
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?
It could be 3 layer and about 33 GB per layer.
http://www.singulus.com/en/press-new...b-blu-ray-disc

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 08-11-2014 at 12:01 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #1273 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 10:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
If you divide a moving scene into a sequence of still pictures and show the still images in rapid succession, the brain will reassemble the still images into a single, moving scene.
Yes, that doesn't alter the fact that he said the majority of what we watch is not moving. It also doesn't alter the fact that UHD content with motion blur - because not high enough real frame rate - won't be taking full advantage of UHD resolution (and using a shorter shutter will introduce strobing). You'll get less resolution for whatever is in motion - because of motion blur (even though things are shot as a series of frames - or fields for under UHD res).

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 08-10-2014 at 10:55 PM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #1274 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 10:58 PM
Member
 
sarahb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Exclamation Debunking That UK Demo Without Charts OR Consumer Reports

Let's just consider some calm logical thinking for a minute or two.

If 49 of 50 people saw the superior resolution of a 55" UHD TV vs a 55" 1080p TV in that UK demo, then it is being claimed that these 49 people can see the pixel structure of a 55" 1080p TV at that 9 foot distance that was used. Because it 4k's ability to display details smaller than the pixels of a 1080p display, that enables that 4k display to be sharper and more detailed.

The simple fact is that if you can't see the pixels of a 55" 1080p display at 9 feet, then there is no way for you to differentiate that display from a UHD 4k display at that same distance, when the very thing that gives a UHD display its superiority, is its ability to display details that are smaller than the pixels of a 1080p
display.

We need to take a poll of AVS members who are willing to undertake the simple test of determining whether
or not they can actually see the pixels of a 55" 1080p display at a 9 foot distance. If people are honest, a lot of folks will be shocked at the small minority of our members who can actually accomplish that feat. I'll
tell you right now that it requires vision that is a lot better than 20/20.
cubkid, bakerwi and Z-Mad like this.
sarahb75 is offline  
post #1275 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 11:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 56
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]?
The UHD1 format is 3840x2160 - so UHD broadcasts won't be 4096x2160. YouTube 4K allows 4096 wide. We haven't been told the Blu-ray "4K" spec (if/when we actually get it) resolution - I think probably 3840x2160.
Haroon Malik likes this.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #1276 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 11:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,436
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Mad View Post
So what makes you think you need to question Sony and THX (but not the mall test LOL)? Here is me being like you: Give me the evidence that they are full of crap, don't know what they are doing, etc... Where is the link that shows SONY, THX and alike make bogus claims and lie to people left and right? Where is the evidence Mrorange? Where is the link that shows all this. Or are you going to line up those 50 people in a mall and ask them if Sony and THX lie and make bogus charts and cheat the public??? And you keep ignoring the one evidence I keep mentioning to you: ME! HELLO!!!! I HAVE SEEN IT MYSELF!!!! BENEFIT DISAPPEARS AT ABOUT 9 FEET OR SO!!! SAW IT WITH MY OWN EYES!!! OTHER PEOPLE THAN ME TOO!!! If you are so lucky to see this benefit at an extra couple of feet distance than me and others, enjoy it... Gosh, no point anymore. I'm done here...
Ok don't say I didn't give you a chance. This is the second time I'm posting this information. Since you want to bring up THX lets see what they say about that exact thing.


"Your eyesight, quality of the display itself and various other factors influence the point at which a person can distinguish individual pixels on a display of a given size. Nonetheless, for the overwhelming majority of consumers with a home television viewing distance of (six feet or greater) the benefits of increased screen resolution will be recognized when viewing 4K content on a display (55 inches) or larger."


http://www.thx.com/test-bench-blog/when-does-4k-matter/
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #1277 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 11:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,436
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahb75 View Post
Let's just consider some calm logical thinking for a minute or two.

If 49 of 50 people saw the superior resolution of a 55" UHD TV vs a 55" 1080p TV in that UK demo, then it is being claimed that these 49 people can see the pixel structure of a 55" 1080p TV at that 9 foot distance that was used. Because it 4k's ability to display details smaller than the pixels of a 1080p display, that enables that 4k display to be sharper and more detailed.

The simple fact is that if you can't see the pixels of a 55" 1080p display at 9 feet, then there is no way for you to differentiate that display from a UHD 4k display at that same distance, when the very thing that gives a UHD display its superiority, is its ability to display details that are smaller than the pixels of a 1080p
display.

We need to take a poll of AVS members who are willing to undertake the simple test of determining whether
or not they can actually see the pixels of a 55" 1080p display at a 9 foot distance. If people are honest, a lot of folks will be shocked at the small minority of our members who can actually accomplish that feat. I'll
tell you right now that it requires vision that is a lot better than 20/20.
See my response to z mad.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #1278 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 11:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahb75 View Post
If 49 of 50 people saw the superior resolution of a 55" UHD TV vs a 55" 1080p TV in that UK demo
It was 48 out of 49 that entered the draw and correctly picked the 4K TV.

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 08-10-2014 at 11:31 PM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #1279 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 11:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,436
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
Yes, that doesn't alter the fact that he said the majority of what we watch is not moving. It also doesn't alter the fact that UHD content with motion blur - because not high enough real frame rate - won't be taking full advantage of UHD resolution (and using a shorter shutter will introduce strobing). You'll get less resolution for whatever is in motion - because of motion blur (even though things are shot as a series of frames - or fields for under UHD res).
My 120hz uhd set has better motion then my 240hz set.

It's because it has better backlighting. Motion itself has many factors not just the resolution.

Again I can't agree as my uhd set is the best motion I've ever seen on a LCD. Many reviews agree.

Let me add with good source. Bluray up looks better. That's more of what I ment.

I'm just pointing out the fact there is more to the conversation.

Last edited by Mrorange303; 08-10-2014 at 11:32 PM.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #1280 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 11:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
Z-Mad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Here is another interesting link. Even Mrorange should appreciate the described setup and how the test was conducted. Showcases some of the greatness of 4K details, but also highlights how close you have to be to the screen to see it (supported by pictures, etc.) Good picture is that of "LENDL GLOBAL" fine print that shows how fine of a difference it is: How close would one need to be to the screen to actually read that??? Doesn't take much imagination re realize it'd have to be just a couple of feet from the screen, not more...

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...oney/index.htm
Z-Mad is offline  
post #1281 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 11:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
Z-Mad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Ok don't say I didn't give you a chance. This is the second time I'm posting this information. Since you want to bring up THX lets see what they say about that exact thing.


"Your eyesight, quality of the display itself and various other factors influence the point at which a person can distinguish individual pixels on a display of a given size. Nonetheless, for the overwhelming majority of consumers with a home television viewing distance of (six feet or greater) the benefits of increased screen resolution will be recognized when viewing 4K content on a display (55 inches) or larger."


http://www.thx.com/test-bench-blog/when-does-4k-matter/
Yes, and??? Dependent on various factors, 6 feet or greater... How is that different from what I've been saying all along. 6 feet! Greater may be a foot or two...
Z-Mad is offline  
post #1282 of 1679 Old 08-10-2014, 11:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,436
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Mad View Post
Yes, and??? Dependent on various factors, 6 feet or greater... How is that different from what I've been saying all along. 6 feet! Greater may be a foot or two...
no it's not. Your saying it won't be distinguishable. You said the chart came from thx.

Don't play that with me. I don't have time for people without integrity.

You even been liking the other memebers stuff that. Argues a benefit of 4k on a 55" set at 9'.

Have you already forgotten the test you said was corrupted. Remember the 50 people test?

Now you have been agreeing with it all along? I think we can all agree you are playing both sides.

And it's rediculious.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #1283 of 1679 Old 08-11-2014, 12:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
losservatore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,119
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 295
A quote from Mark Schubin (For any given sensors size, higher resolution means smaller pixels, which means less sensitivity, less contrast and less dynamic range)

Panasonic 65VT60 / Marantz SR7005 / Marantz UD7007 /PSA XS30 /Revel Performa3 F206 / Revel Performa3 C205 / Revel Surrounds/Sonos Connect/ Roku 3 / Amazon Fire tv / Xbox One / HTPC / Darbee 5000 /Sonos play:1 for bedrooms,kitchen,bathroom/Master bedroom Sonos sound bar/Sonos sub and Sonos play 1 surrounds.

Last edited by losservatore; 08-11-2014 at 01:36 AM.
losservatore is online now  
post #1284 of 1679 Old 08-11-2014, 12:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,436
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Mad View Post
Here is another interesting link. Even Mrorange should appreciate the described setup and how the test was conducted. Showcases some of the greatness of 4K details, but also highlights how close you have to be to the screen to see it (supported by pictures, etc.) Good picture is that of "LENDL GLOBAL" fine print that shows how fine of a difference it is: How close would one need to be to the screen to actually read that??? Doesn't take much imagination re realize it'd have to be just a couple of feet from the screen, not more...

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...oney/index.htm
Let me get this right. Now your posting an article from not sony or thx. It's from cr.

Ok. That says you need to be 2 feet from a 4k screen to tell the difference.

THATS ALMOST AS DUMB AS THE PICTURES LOSSERTORIE IS POSTING!!
See I can do caps too.

But it's legitimate. Ok so since you just now found this let me point again to why they conducted the original test in question.


You literally just copied a post from pages ago.

"US publications CNet and Consumer Reports. The Richer Sounds event is inspired by these precedents,******** with a slight twist thrown into the mix to let the public see for themselves if 4K Ultra HD resolution leads to any visible improvement in picture quality.******"

So the 50 people test was in response to your article.

Thanks but I'll take my test with masking of the set and high quality computer feed any day.

The best part? 50 real people who didn't care what you and I think. They just seen 2 sets from 9 feet away. They told like it was.

Your gonna have to learn to live with that.

I'm done with you. Stop copying old post. If you don't want to take the time to read then don't get into the conversation like you have.

Rediculious.

Last edited by Mrorange303; 08-11-2014 at 12:26 AM.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #1285 of 1679 Old 08-11-2014, 12:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,436
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 679 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
" There have been several indepth accounts about the lack of perceptible difference between 4K and full HD content when viewed from a normal sitting distance of at least 7 feet away, notably from heavyweight US publications CNet and Consumer Reports. The Richer Sounds event is inspired by these precedents, with a slight twist thrown into the mix to let the public see for themselves if 4K Ultra HD resolution leads to any visible improvement in picture quality"

"We consulted with Chris Heinonen, creator of the de facto 4K calculator, who suggested imposing a distance of 8 to 9 feet even though it’s theoretically beyond the visual acuity for 4K on a 55″ screen. According to a BBC R&D survey, the average distance UK viewers sit from their TV is 2.7m, which is very close to the 9 feet Lechner distance often quoted for North American viewers. 9 feet it is."


"
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-10...1311153442.htm


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

Really crazy you went through all that instead of reading the article I've posted several times. It was inspired by the exact stuff you just posted. Did you read the results?

Again another member saying 49 out 50 people were wrong. I just don't get it.
Wow look what I found . My last comment saying the same thing. Just by reading the thread.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #1286 of 1679 Old 08-11-2014, 12:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
losservatore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,119
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 295
If you want you can watch the video from Mark Schubin ,the last picture on that previous post is from this video. Also this one.











Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot (363).png
Views:	67
Size:	495.5 KB
ID:	207137  
Joe Bloggs likes this.

Panasonic 65VT60 / Marantz SR7005 / Marantz UD7007 /PSA XS30 /Revel Performa3 F206 / Revel Performa3 C205 / Revel Surrounds/Sonos Connect/ Roku 3 / Amazon Fire tv / Xbox One / HTPC / Darbee 5000 /Sonos play:1 for bedrooms,kitchen,bathroom/Master bedroom Sonos sound bar/Sonos sub and Sonos play 1 surrounds.
losservatore is online now  
post #1287 of 1679 Old 08-11-2014, 03:33 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,671
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1129 Post(s)
Liked: 2277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Let me get this right. Now your posting an article from not sony or thx. It's from cr.

Ok. That says you need to be 2 feet from a 4k screen to tell the difference.

THATS ALMOST AS DUMB AS THE PICTURES LOSSERTORIE IS POSTING!!
See I can do caps too.

But it's legitimate. Ok so since you just now found this let me point again to why they conducted the original test in question.


You literally just copied a post from pages ago.

"US publications CNet and Consumer Reports. The Richer Sounds event is inspired by these precedents,******** with a slight twist thrown into the mix to let the public see for themselves if 4K Ultra HD resolution leads to any visible improvement in picture quality.******"

So the 50 people test was in response to your article.

Thanks but I'll take my test with masking of the set and high quality computer feed any day.

The best part? 50 real people who didn't care what you and I think. They just seen 2 sets from 9 feet away. They told like it was.

Your gonna have to learn to live with that.

I'm done with you. Stop copying old post. If you don't want to take the time to read then don't get into the conversation like you have.

Rediculious.
You say CNET and Consumer reports are both wrong about UHD/4K despite their heavy involvement with TV testing. However you believe that HDTVtest found the answer, thanks to a single experiment conducted at a mall, using random strangers as test subjects, sponsored by a TV dealer, that featured a drawing for a prize—that happens to be store credit at the sponsor's establishment (£100 worth of Richer Sounds voucher)? You've already said that imaging science (calibrated color) is not relevant when it comes to UHD/4K. You dismiss the expertise of David Katzmaier, Geoff Morrison, Jim Willcox, and Claudio Ciacci.

Since I, as do you, have 20/15 vision, and since I already ran my own test and found that I could (barely) see a difference between static HD and HD, at about ten feet, with a 65-inch TV, I'd like to re-iterate that it's a test that at least some people can pass. There's no doubt about that. But it's not as if all 49 people were reacting to some obvious difference in quality, which the article itself duly noted. The only conclusion you can really draw from that exercise is that everybody who participated figured out how to come up with the right answer, except for one. How is not known, and it could indeed be that everyone came to their own conclusion. Not knowing for sure how each of the 50 participants arrived at their answer is the stumbling block that prevents the result from being scientifically valid.

I think it is time to relax. The Value Electronics shootout is less than a week away. Once the results are in, it will provide a great opportunity to delve into all of this again.
bakerwi and Z-Mad like this.

Last edited by imagic; 08-11-2014 at 06:37 AM.
imagic is offline  
post #1288 of 1679 Old 08-11-2014, 04:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,920
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
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...
In my view there is motion most of the time, lots of it is minimal. And indeed even in minimal motion there is some blur on a LCd.

When you are focussed on blur all the time you will notice it all the time but that is not how folks watch TV. Propper light conditions, propper viewing distance, pro-calibration and decent sources will mask the blur to a degree that it is not much of a problem on a LCd, even if you turn-off all motion smoothing.
here is a thread on the subject.

Recently some Plasma owners suggested that Plasma lookes more natural than LCd, partly because of motion handling, which is a bit odd since blur is a natural phenonema, and because of that LCd motion should give the tech a natural look because of the presence of blur.

Some folks are blur sensitive. They should not buy an LCd. Often folks who complain about LCd motion are Plasma owners who do not own a LCd.
8mile13 is offline  
post #1289 of 1679 Old 08-11-2014, 05:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 9,955
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 526 Post(s)
Liked: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
I think it is time to relax. The Value Electronics shootout is less than a week away. Once the results are in, it will provide a great opportunity to delve into all of this.
But dang it, he's right and the rest of us are all wrong and he can't relax until we all agree with him, dump our current TVs, and help those poor starving CE giants!!!!!
Stereodude is online now  
post #1290 of 1679 Old 08-11-2014, 05:29 AM
Senior Member
 
Ragnrok23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Swansea, Ma
Posts: 249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 11
After a couple of weeks of going back and forth on if I should get the F8500 or the UH8550, I decided on the F8500. I do plan on keeping this TV for 10 years or so, but decided that the Plamsa was the way to go

One of my reasons for even looking into a 4K TV was for passive 3D at 1080P, however the UH8550 is also active so there was little benefit at this time

Since my budget is only allowing for a 60" and I'm probably going to be sitting at least 10 feet away, I doubt I would be able to tell the difference

Since this is a "family room" and not a dedicated theater, I figured the off axis veiwing of a Plasma would better suit my needs

Finally I watch a ton of hockey, and really enjoy action movies, seeing all the 4K TV's in best buy had a dedicated feed of slow moving nature scenes, I'm not convinced I would be happy with motion blur
Ragnrok23 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