UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy - Page 46 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 621Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1351 of 2112 Old 08-11-2014, 05:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
losservatore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,450
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 363 Post(s)
Liked: 353
I took this picture at best buy they have a hd and uhd side by side.yes it doesn't prove anything ,I also see other uhd display in BB with native content. Again I don't watch TV at too close distance.




Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	fhjfhjghjerg.jpg
Views:	160
Size:	221.2 KB
ID:	208337  

Last edited by losservatore; 08-11-2014 at 05:36 PM.
losservatore is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1352 of 2112 Old 08-11-2014, 05:37 PM
Advanced Member
 
vddobrev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 812
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/result-201406013793.htm

try google next time very easy to find.


it won vs the u8500 even with the bad scaling strange...
Yea google is easy, but next time you quote somerhing do the honors and provide a link. I have read that article prior to purchase, however, it did not change mymind since I let my eyes be the judge.

In fact, the Samsung 65HU8500 is the best LCD tv I have ever owned, over a couple of decades. This is the TV that gives me the best experience and enjoyment so far, fullstop. My opinion, don't want to impose it on you, and no matter what science you throw it will not change.

Sure there will be much better TVs to come, and there may as well be at the moment. But for 2013 for my viewing needs this was the king.
vddobrev is offline  
post #1353 of 2112 Old 08-11-2014, 05:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 807
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 365 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by vddobrev View Post
Yea google is easy, but next time you quote somerhing do the honors and provide a link. I have read that article prior to purchase, however, it did not change mymind since I let my eyes be the judge.

In fact, the Samsung 65HU8500 is the best LCD tv I have ever owned, over a couple of decades. This is the TV that gives me the best experience and enjoyment so far, fullstop. My opinion, don't want to impose it on you, and no matter what science you throw it will not change.

Sure there will be much better TVs to come, and there may as well be at the moment. But for 2013 for my viewing needs this was the king.
I don't put your opinion in question of what you think is the better picture with this.

did you make sure the screen wasn't using any post processing when you compared UHD with FHD?

just to make sure you judge the resolution and not a post processed image.

if you don't you can't be sure the picture was "better" thanks to the resolution. it can be just "better" to your eyes thanks to this post processing and nothing else you can't make this sure without a fair UHD FHD comparison.
mightyhuhn is online now  
post #1354 of 2112 Old 08-11-2014, 05:46 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,745
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2044 Post(s)
Liked: 3370
Quote:
Originally Posted by vddobrev View Post
@imagic - I am eagerly awaiting your review of the Panasonic UHD you have, just curious to see what you come up with, because that TV came at the bottom of the 2014 UHD TVs when I was buying, especially in upscaling it was the worst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
In the uk hdtvtest side-by-side comparison the AX802 was the best UHD not best screen of cause. think about that.

the screen you think is the worst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vddobrev View Post

In fact, the Samsung 65HU8500 is the best LCD tv I have ever owned, over a couple of decades. This is the TV that gives me the best experience and enjoyment so far, fullstop. My opinion, don't want to impose it on you, and no matter what science you throw it will not change.
I'm glad the U8500 is working out for you, vddobrev.

Mark Henninger
imagic is online now  
post #1355 of 2112 Old 08-11-2014, 05:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
vddobrev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 812
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
HDTVtest is more credible than CNET and Consumer Reports, both of which it purports to debunk with the test? I think not. All of them are plenty credible. I also never suggested that there was anything at all wrong with the writing at HDTVtest, which fully acknowledged the limitations of that test.

No conspiracy, BTW. No politics. I'd appreciate it if you didn't insinuate that there is. I'm just offering my opinions and insights, you are totally welcome to disagree with me.
I think we are disagreeing here. I did not question credibility against cnet or cr, but rather members of avs. Also isn't CR strictly US? In addition the cnet quoted was the US based, not country/ region specific. Forgive my ignorance, but US is not the whole world.

On conspiracy - I took it that you personally suggested the participants cheated, and even explained how. Well, you were not there, so that is conspiracy, no matter what you may conclude otherwise. Also, suggesting that participants cheated implies that hdtvtest did not take measures to prevent cheating. If you must conspire about this, I think it is only fair if you stated your relationship with hdtvtest - are you in competition, as a writer, or otherwise have any relations?
vddobrev is offline  
post #1356 of 2112 Old 08-11-2014, 05:58 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,745
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2044 Post(s)
Liked: 3370
Quote:
Originally Posted by vddobrev View Post
I think we are disagreeing here. I did not question credibility against cnet or cr, but rather members of avs. Also isn't CR strictly US? In addition the cnet quoted was the US based, not country/ region specific. Forgive my ignorance, but US is not the whole world.

On conspiracy - I took it that you personally suggested the participants cheated, and even explained how. Well, you were not there, so that is conspiracy, no matter what you may conclude otherwise. Also, suggesting that participants cheated implies that hdtvtest did not take measures to prevent cheating. If you must conspire about this, I think it is only fair if you stated your relationship with hdtvtest - are you in competition, as a writer, or otherwise have any relations?
I suggested how they could have cheated, and why. I did not say they did cheat. HDTVtest already discussed the limitations of the test, including the fact that participants could have told each other the answer.

Mark Henninger
imagic is online now  
post #1357 of 2112 Old 08-11-2014, 06:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
vddobrev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 812
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
I don't put your opinion in question of what you think is the better picture with this.

did you make sure the screen wasn't using any post processing when you compared UHD with FHD?

just to make sure you judge the resolution and not a post processed image.

if you don't you can't be sure the picture was "better" thanks to the resolution. it can be just "better" to your eyes thanks to this post processing and nothing else you can't make this sure without a fair UHD FHD comparison.
Edit: I only compared UHD TVs.

Thanks, it really was. I spent days at the store, with my own blu rays. I was allowed to change settings. I calibrated the sets for brightness/contrast level and color using a blue filter and test patterns, no measurong equipment. Not pro but it was better than nothing.

Compared Philips, Sony, Panasonic and Samsung. The HU8500 was the best to me.

Last edited by vddobrev; 08-11-2014 at 06:13 PM.
vddobrev is offline  
post #1358 of 2112 Old 08-11-2014, 06:07 PM
Advanced Member
 
vddobrev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 812
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
I suggested how they could have cheated, and why. I did not say they did cheat. HDTVtest already discussed the limitations of the test, including the fact that participants could have told each other the answer.
Thanks, might have misunderstood your original posts. BTW, I enjoyed browsing your site, cool photographs.
vddobrev is offline  
post #1359 of 2112 Old 08-11-2014, 06:23 PM
Advanced Member
 
Z-Mad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 692
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Actually I'm sure im right. You dont read and respond.

Nice rant about education though.

"Your dismissiveness and disrespect of well recognized and reputable names in TV industry alone"

I work on evidence. Names are titles for humans. Humans have flaw. We all do.

"You are clearly not familiar with science, testing procedures, etc."

It is you who does not understand science.

Also doesnt read.
LOL, evidence you choose to accept without a deeper understanding, while rejecting more plausible and believable evidence from more reputable sources with a lot more authority on the subject, lol. Childish... and not worth paying attention to...

I have a bachelor of science, or should I disregard the University professors and rather go by your assessment of my scientific understanding, LOL. You are sounding like a total child - you react to every fact and argument like a child who got a candy taken away from him, lol

Here I am responding again - it's really time to stop...
bakerwi and losservatore like this.
Z-Mad is offline  
post #1360 of 2112 Old 08-11-2014, 06:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,564
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 367 Post(s)
Liked: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
300/400 lines moving resolution.

I do not really see a problem here. Many reviewers, including Katzmeier will tell you to turn all motion smoothing off. They will tell you that the LCd motion is good enough that way..

Shure 300/400 lines is not 1080 lines.. In this C|NET article one guy felt that the Pioneer 5020HD had 900 lines, another guy was pretty shure it were 1200 lines. So there is a 300 lines discrepancy here. And that is when you are counting lines. What does that tell you about motion resolution when you are not counting lines, just watching TV? With all kind of stuff masking the picture (dark room, viewing distance, pro-calibration)? 400, 500, 600? + 300/400 In the end, in real world viewing condition it is not that big of a deal. Shure, you can clearly see that PDP has better motion resolution than LCd. Good for you

ttp://www.cnet.com/news/counting-blurry-lines-should-cnet-test-for-motion-resolution-on-hdtvs/
So, you're completely right that 300/400 lines is definitely not 1080 lines-- nailed it.

However, you completely missed the point of the article you linked. The article was pointing to inconsistencies in test methodology NOT to the lack of need for a test. And I quote: "But I hear lots of readers complaining about motion blur on their LCDs, or citing blurring as one reason why they chose plasma over LCD, which leads me to believe some sort of motion resolution test, no matter how flawed it may be, would be welcome."

Lastly, in real world viewing conditions, yes, it absolutely does make a difference. That was sort of the whole point. The motion resolution test is simply a way to confirm what we see with our eyes-- in this case that LCD is not as good at handling motion as pulse driven tech like plasma. Btw, David K choosing poor motion over soap-opera-effect is not an endorsement of poor motion-- it's his opinion of what is the lesser of two evils. Lol! If you haven't experienced a modern plasma or don't watch any fast action material then maybe this doesn't bother you-- whatever. Ignorance is bliss. For myself and plenty of others it's a problem.

Last edited by sage11x; 08-11-2014 at 08:49 PM.
sage11x is offline  
post #1361 of 2112 Old 08-11-2014, 06:49 PM
Member
 
sarahb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 71
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Thumbs up Guess GregLee Misunderstood Me Again

Greg, I assumed, that since resolution and detail are the only performance criteria that I've ever discussed in making 1080p vs 4k comparisons, that my statement that 4k offers no advantage over 1080p, under the conditions I described, should have been easily understood, as only referring to an advantage in the area of resolution and detail.
You should have been able to get that, without me having to spell it out for you in capital letters, that I was only talking about resolution and detail. Now you want to play a game of "Gotcha" by saying that there is an advantage for 4k, under the conditions I set, if color is considered. Well, color was never an attribute that was included in any of my
posts about 4k vs 1080p. So I'm kind of disappointed in you, for now trying to inject color into the discussion, making this your 2nd unsuccessful attempt to nail me.(well, at least a different kind of 2 for 2 is great in baseball) My initial reaction was to be pretty annoyed by your responses to my posts, but after more careful reflection, I just concluded that you must be like the guys I went to school with, who the teacher was always yelling at, to pay closer
attention. And I've got to admit that, sometimes, one of those guys was me.

Anyway, hope you have a restful and enjoyable evening.
CruelInventions likes this.
sarahb75 is offline  
post #1362 of 2112 Old 08-11-2014, 08:41 PM
Super Moderator
 
Bob Sorel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 8,466
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 121
P!ssing contest posts deleted...grow up.
Bob Sorel is offline  
post #1363 of 2112 Old 08-11-2014, 08:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,564
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 367 Post(s)
Liked: 579
Unfortunately OLED currently suffers the same sample and hold issues as LCD. But there are some solutions (in theory) that they have yet to implement.

Sony, Samsung and panasonic have done a pretty good job of applying frame interpolation that doesn't create SOE on their LCDs. Samsung in particular have done a great job of allowing you control over the different motion adjustments. Unfortunately, with almost all LCDs, you either get good motion or low lag-- you can't have them both. For PC games or console games that run at 60fps this can be greatly mitigated. Here's hoping for higher frame rates in 4k releases.

Last edited by sage11x; 08-11-2014 at 08:51 PM.
sage11x is offline  
post #1364 of 2112 Old 08-11-2014, 08:47 PM
Advanced Member
 
Z-Mad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 692
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Sorel View Post
P!ssing contest posts deleted...grow up.
Thanks, I agree it was more than time to put a stop to it and had just arrived at that point...
Z-Mad is offline  
post #1365 of 2112 Old 08-11-2014, 08:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,023
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Unfortunately OLED currently suffers the same sample and hold issues as LCD. But there are some solutions (in theory) that they have yet to implement.

Sony, Samsung and panasonic have done a pretty good job of applying frame interpolation that doesn't create SOE on their LCDs. Samsung in particular have done a great job. Unfortunately, with almost all LCDs, you either get good motion or low lag-- you can't have them both. For PC games or console games that run at 60fps this can be greatly mitigated. Here's hoping for higher frame rates in 4k releases.
Having a slight soe level can help the motion. Of you keep it minimum it can be hard to detect the motion issues.

4k sets have better immersive qualities with clarity and thay is also helping the appearance of motion on them.

What i mean by that is thats why uhd material looks better. Nothing like pixelation and motion issues. With uhd the stills are cleaner and so the
Motion appears more clear.

But it will get better. It is now. Particularly sports look great with todays systems.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1366 of 2112 Old 08-11-2014, 10:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
Z-Mad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 692
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Having a slight soe level can help the motion. Of you keep it minimum it can be hard to detect the motion issues.

4k sets have better immersive qualities with clarity and thay is also helping the appearance of motion on them.

What i mean by that is thats why uhd material looks better. Nothing like pixelation and motion issues. With uhd the stills are cleaner and so the
Motion appears more clear.

But it will get better. It is now. Particularly sports look great with todays systems.
Not picking any contest with you, just offering additional thought on the subject:

SOE is one of those preference things. While it fills in some frames in attempt to make the motion seem smoother, at the same time it actually makes the motion look rather "unnatural" for the intended cadence of the film/TV material. Very few sets handle this very well and allow an almost unnoticeable SOE while improving the motion - most sets just make the motion look completely weird, hence "soap opera". So SOE "helping" with motion is a subjective thing in this case. Personally I hate SOE, especially if watching movies, but some people may not mind it...

Not sure if I'd necessarily generalize 4K TV's as more immersive - I think that has more to do with viewing angles, distance, size of screen, etc. and not so much with clarity that is so much debated on when it is even noticeable... Just a thought...

Not sure I follow the logic that motion looks clearer because the stills are clearer??? Or that 4K sets have no motion issues - they are still LCD's with the same technology and somewhat slower response time of liquid crystals compared to other technologies. Higher resolution doesn't fix that, but if it helps a bit, I'll take your word for it at this point... I just wouldn't go as far as stating 4K fixes everything, is more immersive, has no motion issues at all, etc, etc. It is still only a measure of resolution with a number of other picture aspects that generally rank higher on priority list for achieving good picture quality...

Again, just an additional point of view...
Z-Mad is offline  
post #1367 of 2112 Old 08-11-2014, 11:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,023
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Mad View Post
Not picking any contest with you, just offering additional thought on the subject:

SOE is one of those preference things. While it fills in some frames in attempt to make the motion seem smoother, at the same time it actually makes the motion look rather "unnatural" for the intended cadence of the film/TV material. Very few sets handle this very well and allow an almost unnoticeable SOE while improving the motion - most sets just make the motion look completely weird, hence "soap opera". So SOE "helping" with motion is a subjective thing in this case. Personally I hate SOE, especially if watching movies, but some people may not mind it...

Not sure if I'd necessarily generalize 4K TV's as more immersive - I think that has more to do with viewing angles, distance, size of screen, etc. and not so much with clarity that is so much debated on when it is even noticeable... Just a thought...

Not sure I follow the logic that motion looks clearer because the stills are clearer??? Or that 4K sets have no motion issues - they are still LCD's with the same technology and somewhat slower response time of liquid crystals compared to other technologies. Higher resolution doesn't fix that, but if it helps a bit, I'll take your word for it at this point... I just wouldn't go as far as stating 4K fixes everything, is more immersive, has no motion issues at all, etc, etc. It is still only a measure of resolution with a number of other picture aspects that generally rank higher on priority list for achieving good picture quality...

Again, just an additional point of view...
I said in my first paragraph there are motion issues with lcd. Ive never said other wise.

That was just a poke at pixelation and motion gone wrong. I ment it is the worst to have pixilated auto motion.

Now for some of the stuff im talking about things like searching

4k red epic - in youtube on a 4k set will play compressed uhd files.

All red epic files look much much better with auto motion on when viewed on a 4k set.

Also it suffers little motion issues in these videos.

Also like 4k time lapses.

Blurays. All have clean motion when viwed on my 4k set.

Not perfect. Clean.

Once you go under bluray there is more visible motion issues. The source of content plays a big role in how the set reacts motion wise.

What i was saying about the static image is i think it helps the appearance on those higher quality sources handle motion. The image is clean and clear and so we pay attention to other aspects of the picture like facial stubble or cracks in a rock, fur on a flowers leaf etc. Those type of details pop out more now.

Maybe its taking some attention away from the motion itself.

The uhd image has less pixels to the eye so that makes the picture seem more clear.

I do know this. My 120hz 2014 4k set has better motion handling then my 2013 1080p 240hz lcd.

Just a few reasons i thought that may be. I cant say for sure about this topic. I just know general stuff with interpolation.

Last edited by Mrorange303; 08-11-2014 at 11:48 PM.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1368 of 2112 Old 08-12-2014, 02:49 AM
Member
 
sarahb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 71
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Thumbs up A Comment And And Some Questions For Mrorange303

Monday afternoon in post #1326 , in his response to a previous post of mine, Mrorange303 wrote "You also keep thinking the argument was about pixels. It was could the 4k screen be identified compared to a 1080p screen from 9'.
Never once did i say the tests was about pixels from 9'."

And Mrorange303, never did I indicate that you, or anyone else, had said that the UK 55" display comparison involved people trying to see pixels. I was the one that came up with the 1080p pixel visibility idea as a device to help
demonstrate how fantastic it is that about 98% of the crowd of people in the UK demonstration, would all have the extraordinary vision to detect a difference in resolution, at that distance, with those size screens.

My argument was quite logical if the only characteristic that differed between the two displays was their resolutions.

My logic was simply this: If people can detect a difference in resolution between a 55" UHD 4k TV and a 55" 1080p HDTV at 9 feet, then those same people must have the ability to see the pixels of the 55" 1080p TV at 9'.
This is because the details that give the UHD 4k TV its greater sharpness, are smaller than the pixels of the 1080p TV. So if you can't see those pixels, then you can't possibly see the even smaller details that make a UHD TV superior. In another post I went further and said that the majority of AVS members surely can't see the pixels of a 55" 1080p TV at 9 feet. Monday evening I became more sure of that than ever. Using a static frame on my friend's
calibrated 55" Panasonic 1080p plasma, for the 3rd time yesterday we carefully measured the distance at which my 20/20 eyes could still see pixels. I lost sight of pixels right at about 7 feet one inch. I would love to know what
percentage (it must be small) of my fellow AVS members can actually see the pixels of a 55" 1080p TV at 9 feet.

BTW, our fellow AVS member, imagic, has said that even with his above average 20/15 vision, while using a still picture, he can "barely" see a difference between 1080p and 4k, with a 65" screen size, at a 10 foot distance.

First, let's understand that imagic's 20/15 vision means he can see details at 20 feet that average people only see if they move to a closer 15 foot distance.

Now, imagic used a 10 foot distance which is 11% further than the 9 feet of the UK demo.

BUT, the 65" screen size imagic used for his test, is 18% larger than the 55" screens of the UK demo.

Therefore, because his screen was so much larger, imagic's result was not as difficult to achieve as the result that 98% of the crowd in the UK demo supposedly came up with. And remember, imagic possesses excellent 20/15 vision. Must be a special breed of people in the UK, for better than 20/15 vision to be so common. This is why I'm absolutely amazed that any of our AVS members attach even the slightest value to that UK demo. The results of that demo are what scientists would call an outlier, meaning they literally lie outside of the bounds of any other tests of viewers ability to perceive resolution, that I've ever heard of, or read about.

The UK demo is as far from other tests of visual acuity, as the analysts on Fox News were, when before the 2012
election, they were the only commentators on TV predicting that Romney would win the election by a large margin.

One last thing, since it's now after 4 in the morning.

Did want to ask Mrorange303 a question. You made a comment, Sir, that you are able to see the pixels of your 1080p TV from 9 feet away. I just wondered what size that TV is, since you didn't mention it. Also I'd very much
appreciate you commenting on the comparison I made between the test that fellow AVS member imagic conducted, and the results that have been claimed for the UK demo.

Anyway, I'm sure that, unlike me, you're sane enough to be sleeping now, so just have yourself a good Tuesday, as it unfolds.
sarahb75 is offline  
post #1369 of 2112 Old 08-12-2014, 06:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,292
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 484 Post(s)
Liked: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
So, you're completely right that 300/400 lines is definitely not 1080 lines-- nailed it.

However, you completely missed the point of the article you linked. The article was pointing to inconsistencies in test methodology NOT to the lack of need for a test. And I quote: "But I hear lots of readers complaining about motion blur on their LCDs, or citing blurring as one reason why they chose plasma over LCD, which leads me to believe some sort of motion resolution test, no matter how flawed it may be, would be welcome."
My post is not about the article, it is about the fact that there was a 300 lines discrepancy between folks who focussed on a motion resolution test (the monoscope) in a lab. My post is about that in actual home viewing you do not see 300/400 lines or 1080 lines of motion resolution, in actual home viewing situation you are not fully aware of how much lines you see. So motion resolution becomes less relevant..

I also want you to keep in mind that it is a september 2008 article meaning that folks who are complaining about blur owning (pre-september) 2008, 2007 , 2006 LCd TVs. Basically most pre 2009 and all pre 2008 LCd's suck.
8mile13 is offline  
post #1370 of 2112 Old 08-12-2014, 07:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,023
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahb75 View Post
Monday afternoon in post #1326 , in his response to a previous post of mine, Mrorange303 wrote "You also keep thinking the argument was about pixels. It was could the 4k screen be identified compared to a 1080p screen from 9'.
Never once did i say the tests was about pixels from 9'."

And Mrorange303, never did I indicate that you, or anyone else, had said that the UK 55" display comparison involved people trying to see pixels. I was the one that came up with the 1080p pixel visibility idea as a device to help
demonstrate how fantastic it is that about 98% of the crowd of people in the UK demonstration, would all have the extraordinary vision to detect a difference in resolution, at that distance, with those size screens.

My argument was quite logical if the only characteristic that differed between the two displays was their resolutions.

My logic was simply this: If people can detect a difference in resolution between a 55" UHD 4k TV and a 55" 1080p HDTV at 9 feet, then those same people must have the ability to see the pixels of the 55" 1080p TV at 9'.
This is because the details that give the UHD 4k TV its greater sharpness, are smaller than the pixels of the 1080p TV. So if you can't see those pixels, then you can't possibly see the even smaller details that make a UHD TV superior. In another post I went further and said that the majority of AVS members surely can't see the pixels of a 55" 1080p TV at 9 feet. Monday evening I became more sure of that than ever. Using a static frame on my friend's
calibrated 55" Panasonic 1080p plasma, for the 3rd time yesterday we carefully measured the distance at which my 20/20 eyes could still see pixels. I lost sight of pixels right at about 7 feet one inch. I would love to know what
percentage (it must be small) of my fellow AVS members can actually see the pixels of a 55" 1080p TV at 9 feet.

BTW, our fellow AVS member, imagic, has said that even with his above average 20/15 vision, while using a still picture, he can "barely" see a difference between 1080p and 4k, with a 65" screen size, at a 10 foot distance.

First, let's understand that imagic's 20/15 vision means he can see details at 20 feet that average people only see if they move to a closer 15 foot distance.

Now, imagic used a 10 foot distance which is 11% further than the 9 feet of the UK demo.

BUT, the 65" screen size imagic used for his test, is 18% larger than the 55" screens of the UK demo.

Therefore, because his screen was so much larger, imagic's result was not as difficult to achieve as the result that 98% of the crowd in the UK demo supposedly came up with. And remember, imagic possesses excellent 20/15 vision. Must be a special breed of people in the UK, for better than 20/15 vision to be so common. This is why I'm absolutely amazed that any of our AVS members attach even the slightest value to that UK demo. The results of that demo are what scientists would call an outlier, meaning they literally lie outside of the bounds of any other tests of viewers ability to perceive resolution, that I've ever heard of, or read about.

The UK demo is as far from other tests of visual acuity, as the analysts on Fox News were, when before the 2012
election, they were the only commentators on TV predicting that Romney would win the election by a large margin.

One last thing, since it's now after 4 in the morning.

Did want to ask Mrorange303 a question. You made a comment, Sir, that you are able to see the pixels of your 1080p TV from 9 feet away. I just wondered what size that TV is, since you didn't mention it. Also I'd very much
appreciate you commenting on the comparison I made between the test that fellow AVS member imagic conducted, and the results that have been claimed for the UK demo.

Anyway, I'm sure that, unlike me, you're sane enough to be sleeping now, so just have yourself a good Tuesday, as it unfolds.
My 1080p set is 55". My 4k set is 65"

Its true i can see pixelation on the 55".

3 sets in my home are calibrated. Only my 4k set is not.

We in the 4k forums respect panasonic. We know they have things they do that are amazing.

The 4k forums are not the kindest place to the panasonic 4k line.

I have mentioned to mark that i believe if he had a Sony or Samsung the difference may be larger to him.

But thats not why mark has a hard time. Its because his 1080p set he compared is the f8500.

Also he has it completely dialed in and understands how make it shine.

Those 50 people in the other test had no control over the set yp. They had to give an opinion solely based on the 1080p lcd vs 4k lcd.


My last reason mark has different results is he has higher standards for picture fidelty then most people. I can appreciate his views and always respect his knowledge.

Again though i dont think the panasonic is this years strongest 4k performer.

But the f8500 mark uses is the best 1080p set this year.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1371 of 2112 Old 08-12-2014, 08:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 807
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 365 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
3 sets in my home are calibrated. Only my 4k set is not.
so you have a colorimeter and know about calibration?
mightyhuhn is online now  
post #1372 of 2112 Old 08-12-2014, 09:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,023
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
so you have a colorimeter and know about calibration?
Heck no i had to pay for it. I never touch the calibrated sets. I mean yeah i probably should get into it. Be cheaper by now.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1373 of 2112 Old 08-12-2014, 09:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,564
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 367 Post(s)
Liked: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
My post is not about the article, it is about the fact that there was a 300 lines discrepancy between folks who focussed on a motion resolution test (the monoscope) in a lab. My post is about that in actual home viewing you do not see 300/400 lines or 1080 lines of motion resolution, in actual home viewing situation you are not fully aware of how much lines you see. So motion resolution becomes less relevant..

I also want you to keep in mind that it is a september 2008 article meaning that folks who are complaining about blur owning (pre-september) 2008, 2007 , 2006 LCd TVs. Basically most pre 2009 and all pre 2008 LCd's suck.
Then why the hell did you post the article? Lol! Oops-- you just posted a link to an article that disputes the very thing you were arguing. Start the back pedaling!

Btw, I couldn't possibly disagree with you more.

I see a clear as day difference in motion performance between LCD and plasma. If you haven't lived with a modern plasma I could understand this topic perplexing you and your willingness to dismiss/disregard it.

Motion performance is very important and many members on this forum consider it an important part of their buying decision. I find it funny that LCD is pushing 4k so hard and yet few if any of these panels can actually retain a fraction of that resolution outside of stills or static shots.

Also, we have a 2008 Samsung LCD and you know what? Not really much different than a 2014 samsung LCD except fewer bells and whistles and waaay better backlight uniformity. I keep seeing people on this forum express the notion that the underlying LCD tech has changed in some fundamental way: it hasn't. The backlights have changed, yes. Bells and whistles have been added, sure. But LCD is still LCD.
bakerwi and losservatore like this.
sage11x is offline  
post #1374 of 2112 Old 08-12-2014, 11:53 AM
Advanced Member
 
Z-Mad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 692
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahb75 View Post
Monday afternoon in post #1326 , in his response to a previous post of mine, Mrorange303 wrote "You also keep thinking the argument was about pixels. It was could the 4k screen be identified compared to a 1080p screen from 9'.
Never once did i say the tests was about pixels from 9'."

And Mrorange303, never did I indicate that you, or anyone else, had said that the UK 55" display comparison involved people trying to see pixels. I was the one that came up with the 1080p pixel visibility idea as a device to help
demonstrate how fantastic it is that about 98% of the crowd of people in the UK demonstration, would all have the extraordinary vision to detect a difference in resolution, at that distance, with those size screens.

My argument was quite logical if the only characteristic that differed between the two displays was their resolutions.

My logic was simply this: If people can detect a difference in resolution between a 55" UHD 4k TV and a 55" 1080p HDTV at 9 feet, then those same people must have the ability to see the pixels of the 55" 1080p TV at 9'.
This is because the details that give the UHD 4k TV its greater sharpness, are smaller than the pixels of the 1080p TV. So if you can't see those pixels, then you can't possibly see the even smaller details that make a UHD TV superior. In another post I went further and said that the majority of AVS members surely can't see the pixels of a 55" 1080p TV at 9 feet. Monday evening I became more sure of that than ever. Using a static frame on my friend's
calibrated 55" Panasonic 1080p plasma, for the 3rd time yesterday we carefully measured the distance at which my 20/20 eyes could still see pixels. I lost sight of pixels right at about 7 feet one inch. I would love to know what
percentage (it must be small) of my fellow AVS members can actually see the pixels of a 55" 1080p TV at 9 feet.

BTW, our fellow AVS member, imagic, has said that even with his above average 20/15 vision, while using a still picture, he can "barely" see a difference between 1080p and 4k, with a 65" screen size, at a 10 foot distance.

First, let's understand that imagic's 20/15 vision means he can see details at 20 feet that average people only see if they move to a closer 15 foot distance.

Now, imagic used a 10 foot distance which is 11% further than the 9 feet of the UK demo.

BUT, the 65" screen size imagic used for his test, is 18% larger than the 55" screens of the UK demo.

Therefore, because his screen was so much larger, imagic's result was not as difficult to achieve as the result that 98% of the crowd in the UK demo supposedly came up with. And remember, imagic possesses excellent 20/15 vision. Must be a special breed of people in the UK, for better than 20/15 vision to be so common. This is why I'm absolutely amazed that any of our AVS members attach even the slightest value to that UK demo. The results of that demo are what scientists would call an outlier, meaning they literally lie outside of the bounds of any other tests of viewers ability to perceive resolution, that I've ever heard of, or read about.

The UK demo is as far from other tests of visual acuity, as the analysts on Fox News were, when before the 2012
election, they were the only commentators on TV predicting that Romney would win the election by a large margin.

One last thing, since it's now after 4 in the morning.

Did want to ask Mrorange303 a question. You made a comment, Sir, that you are able to see the pixels of your 1080p TV from 9 feet away. I just wondered what size that TV is, since you didn't mention it. Also I'd very much
appreciate you commenting on the comparison I made between the test that fellow AVS member imagic conducted, and the results that have been claimed for the UK demo.

Anyway, I'm sure that, unlike me, you're sane enough to be sleeping now, so just have yourself a good Tuesday, as it unfolds.
I tried to support the same point on why one can't hang one's hat on that test and point to other more detailed and professional tests, but not getting into that anymore...

I support very simple facts:

4K is more resolution - that's great, why would anyone mind, especially as it slowly becomes mainstream and prices come down...

4K is still just resolution and doesn't automatically make a TV set superior: black levels, motion handling, dynamic range, color accuracy are all regarded as more important for picture quality and should always be taken into consideration when determining how good a TV is, or when purchasing a TV...

4K is a VERY fine detail, so it does require a combination of viewing distance, one's vision, viewing environment and sources to get any benefit from it (where that "magical" combination of these factors is may depend on each individual, but I'm sure there is a good ballpark for most people - imaging industry charts are a good guideline (not saying 100% guarantee for each person, but they worked for me) when determining if or when one should expect a benefit from 4K...

I think that sums it up...
Z-Mad is offline  
post #1375 of 2112 Old 08-12-2014, 01:12 PM
PF
AVS Special Member
 
PF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 3,316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 14
For what it's worth, and pointy headed objections about 4K source material aside, the market has already decided - at least in my world of somewhat price insensitive Samsung (and occasionally Sony) buyers. 4K TVs are outselling 2K TVs ten to one (not a scientific survey) in the large sizes up to 65-inches. The price difference is so relatively small now, and the picture noticeably better, that 4K is an easy call for most of my clients.


It's a little less easy to decide in the 75-inch and up category where the price differences between 2K and 4K are still significant.
PF is offline  
post #1376 of 2112 Old 08-12-2014, 01:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
losservatore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,450
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 363 Post(s)
Liked: 353
Remember that every home that owns a TV around the world already own a 1080p set or 720p some even a CRT ,people do not buy a TV every year.


There is just a tiny small percent that buy TVs every year so it will take years to see everyone with a 4k.

Last edited by losservatore; 08-12-2014 at 02:40 PM.
losservatore is online now  
post #1377 of 2112 Old 08-12-2014, 01:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,564
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 367 Post(s)
Liked: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by PF View Post
For what it's worth, and pointy headed objections about 4K source material aside, the market has already decided - at least in my world of somewhat price insensitive Samsung (and occasionally Sony) buyers. 4K TVs are outselling 2K TVs ten to one (not a scientific survey) in the large sizes up to 65-inches. The price difference is so relatively small now, and the picture noticeably better, that 4K is an easy call for most of my clients.


It's a little less easy to decide in the 75-inch and up category where the price differences between 2K and 4K are still significant.
So in the 75" and up sizes-- where 4k should start being really noticeable-- it's not a slam dunk? Sounds like your clients aren't as price insensitive as you might think! Btw, how is the picture "noticeably better" and how do you demostrate these displays to your clients? Do you perform calibrations ahead of sale?

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

--Carl Sagan
sage11x is offline  
post #1378 of 2112 Old 08-12-2014, 02:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,673
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
300/400 lines moving resolution.

I do not really see a problem here. Many reviewers, including Katzmeier will tell you to turn all motion smoothing off. They will tell you that the LCd motion is good enough that way..

Shure 300/400 lines is not 1080 lines.. In this C|NET article one guy felt that the Pioneer 5020HD had 900 lines, another guy was pretty shure it were 1200 lines. So there is a 300 lines discrepancy here. And that is when you are counting lines. What does that tell you about motion resolution when you are not counting lines, just watching TV? With all kind of stuff masking the picture (dark room, viewing distance, pro-calibration)? 400, 500, 600? + 300/400 In the end, in real world viewing condition it is not that big of a deal. Shure, you can clearly see that PDP has better motion resolution than LCd. Good for you

http://www.cnet.com/news/counting-bl...tion-on-hdtvs/
"300/400 lines is not 1080 lines". I don't get this - are we looking at the right axis? With "is not 1080 lines" it sounds like the max is the 1080 lines of the 1080p TV, but the scores they can give are between 100 and 1,200 (is 1,200 the max for 1080p TVs or is it to allow for higher res TVs?). Is the test moving along the width of the TV not the height? What about the frame rate - won't it be affected by that? Also, shouldn't they be using a more objective method (perhaps the tracking camera if that really is better, or someting else) so the testers are all more likely to get the same figures.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #1379 of 2112 Old 08-12-2014, 03:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,023
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
So in the 75" and up sizes-- where 4k should start being really noticeable-- it's not a slam dunk? Sounds like your clients aren't as price insensitive as you might think! Btw, how is the picture "noticeably better" and how do you demostrate these displays to your clients? Do you perform calibrations ahead of sale?
I demonstrate my set mostly by using red epic 4k youtube clips.

On a 4k they are very fine in detail and motion is much better.

If the source is good. You can easily tell the extra resolution.

My set is 65" and im about 8' away.

Last edited by Mrorange303; 08-12-2014 at 03:14 PM.
Mrorange303 is online now  
post #1380 of 2112 Old 08-12-2014, 03:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,292
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 484 Post(s)
Liked: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Then why the hell did you post the article? Lol! Oops-- you just posted a link to an article that disputes the very thing you were arguing. Start the back pedaling!
My last three post were you responded to were specifically about motion resolution. The article which i posted also is specifically about motion resolution.

The article states exactly the same thing that i do -> ''First off and most-important, to my eye and those of Matthews at least, differences in motion resolution are very difficult to discern with actual program material'' <- Katzmeier.
http://www.cnet.com/news/counting-bl...tion-on-hdtvs/

Lots of your responses to my last three posts have nothing at all to do with motion resolution.
8mile13 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