Originally Posted by Mrorange303
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.
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.