UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy - Page 47 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews

AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews > News Forum > Latest Industry News > UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy

Latest Industry News

bobby2478's Avatar bobby2478
03:32 PM Liked: 22
post #1381 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 230
Joined: Jun 2012
Just an anecdotal observation, but I just decided to upgrade from my 7 yr old 50" Panasonic TH50PX-60U 720p plasma to the 64" F8500 plasma, and at my viewing distance of 11-12 feet all I can say is WOW. The level of detail and clarity I can see now on my new TV isn't even close to what the same content looked like on my old 50" 720p TV. The picture is absolutely stunning and puts what I thought was a good TV to shame.


Yet according to several of the recommended seating distance charts, I should barely if at all notice a difference between 720p and 1080p. Of course it isn't an apples to apples comparison as I went from a 50" to a 64" (rather than keeping screen size the same), but first hand I was amazed at how it looked. Looking at the same 64" F8500 in store didn't do it any justice.


So just wanted to say don't solely rely on some recommended seating distance chart to tell you if you will notice difference between 1080p and 4k. Go and see for yourself, although because you aren't watching your content in your home environment it isn't necessarily an easy comparison. The biggest factor to consider right now is the utter lack of 4k content.


If it were 4k content on a 4k TV vs 1080p content on a 1080p TV, I would wager you will almost certainly tell a difference in picture clarity because of the enhanced resolution even if you aren't super close to the TV and are at normal viewing distance. However because there is hardly any true 4k content for the time being, you will be more than likely be watching 1080p content on a 4k set. Under this situation, I would agree that it would likely be hard to tell a difference between 4k and 1080p TVs as both are only getting 1080p source content. But once actual 4k content is prevalent and readily available, I would bet you would be able to tell a difference between the 2 even if you aren't right on top of it.


The whole 4k to 8k comparison now, that is just laughable. Unless you have a 100" screen, I'd bet no one would know a difference between 4k and 8k at normal seating distances.
8mile13's Avatar 8mile13
03:37 PM Liked: 306
post #1382 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 4,310
Joined: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
"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?
The only point that i wanted to make was that differences in motion resolution are very difficult to discern with actual program material. I did not look beyond that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs
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.
There was an article, they probably removed it. I couldn't find it anymore, i looked several times for it in the past, in which C|NET stated that they could buy such a camera but it was a very expensive camera. The measurement of motion resolution was not worth that kind of money to them.
Joe Bloggs's Avatar Joe Bloggs
03:41 PM Liked: 77
post #1383 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 2,684
Joined: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
There was an article, they probably removed it. I couldn't find it anymore, i looked several times for it in the past, in which C|NET stated that they could buy such a camera but it was a very expensive camera. The measurement of motion resolution was not worth that kind of money them.
There was some site that mentioned they were using the same (cheapish I think) camera+track & tracking thing that "blurbusters" was using/got built.
Z-Mad's Avatar Z-Mad
03:54 PM Liked: 283
post #1384 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 703
Joined: Sep 2012
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 find that point interesting as well: at sizes where 4K is actually more beneficial it becomes harder to sell due to price. This seems to rather indicate that when the set is cheap enough and you throw in 4K, why not, most people will go for it, especially since many mainstream consumers tend to buy TV's based on numbers alone which are heavily marketed by the manufacturers too (i.e. "4K is a bigger number than 2K, it's the newest model, so it must be better, and I'll buy it since it's not that much more expensive" without necessarily understanding to review other details of picture quality - just like consumers often like to set their TV to dynamic mode and "torch" their screen since that's how they're demoed in the stores)... Just an observation...
sage11x's Avatar sage11x
04:15 PM Liked: 587
post #1385 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 2,591
Joined: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
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.
Lol! No it doesn't. The bold text is expressing difficulty in discerning differences between the measured results of specific panels. Again, David is expressing concern about the test itself not the issue it is attempting to quantify. In other words: David is not arguing about the existence of motion issues but rather the methods we have to test for it.

Let's make this as simple as possible, if you don't see a smeary mess when you turn all the motion aids off on your LCD: congratulations! I'm honestly jealous as it would take away one more thing that makes LCD a tough sell for my eyes.
Z-Mad's Avatar Z-Mad
04:31 PM Liked: 283
post #1386 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 703
Joined: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post
Just an anecdotal observation, but I just decided to upgrade from my 7 yr old 50" Panasonic TH50PX-60U 720p plasma to the 64" F8500 plasma, and at my viewing distance of 11-12 feet all I can say is WOW. The level of detail and clarity I can see now on my new TV isn't even close to what the same content looked like on my old 50" 720p TV. The picture is absolutely stunning and puts what I thought was a good TV to shame.


Yet according to several of the recommended seating distance charts, I should barely if at all notice a difference between 720p and 1080p. Of course it isn't an apples to apples comparison as I went from a 50" to a 64" (rather than keeping screen size the same), but first hand I was amazed at how it looked. Looking at the same 64" F8500 in store didn't do it any justice.


So just wanted to say don't solely rely on some recommended seating distance chart to tell you if you will notice difference between 1080p and 4k. Go and see for yourself, although because you aren't watching your content in your home environment it isn't necessarily an easy comparison. The biggest factor to consider right now is the utter lack of 4k content.


If it were 4k content on a 4k TV vs 1080p content on a 1080p TV, I would wager you will almost certainly tell a difference in picture clarity because of the enhanced resolution even if you aren't super close to the TV and are at normal viewing distance. However because there is hardly any true 4k content for the time being, you will be more than likely be watching 1080p content on a 4k set. Under this situation, I would agree that it would likely be hard to tell a difference between 4k and 1080p TVs as both are only getting 1080p source content. But once actual 4k content is prevalent and readily available, I would bet you would be able to tell a difference between the 2 even if you aren't right on top of it.


The whole 4k to 8k comparison now, that is just laughable. Unless you have a 100" screen, I'd bet no one would know a difference between 4k and 8k at normal seating distances.
The F8500 is a great set (and congrats by the way - awesome TV) and impresses with many things, among others with black levels, light output, good colors... So it's not difficult at all to get the WOW effect when it is replacing a 7 yr old 720p plasma set. I have no doubt whatsoever that you can tell a tremendous difference. But how much of that difference is due to the higher resolution alone??? It'd be interesting to display some 720p content on the F8500 screen and see how big the difference is (although it's still a 1080p screen, but it'd be a sightly better indication of level of difference)...

Also, the smaller and denser the pixels get, the harder to discern them - just a simple matter of limitations of the human eye. So the difference between 720p and 1080p is likely a bit easier to notice at that distance (which is in that outer range of the charts where 1080P may still show a benefit over 720P), but that benefit would certainly be even greater if you set yet a couple of feet closer. Now, if you stepped it up all the way to 4K, at 12 feet, that'll get even harder to discern (if at all) - again, perfectly understandable when considering the finite resolution of the human eye. As you stated, 8K would just get ridiculous at that point...

Anyway, just an observation on what you described. At the end of the day, you got yourself a great TV - enjoy
Z-Mad's Avatar Z-Mad
04:44 PM Liked: 283
post #1387 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 703
Joined: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Lol! No it doesn't. The bold text is expressing difficulty in discerning differences between the measured results of specific panels. Again, David is expressing concern about the test itself not the issue it is attempting to quantify. In other words: David is not arguing about the existence of motion issues but rather the methods we have to test for it.

Let's make this as simple as possible, if you don't see a smeary mess when you turn all the motion aids off on your LCD: congratulations! I'm honestly jealous as it would take away one more thing that makes LCD a tough sell for my eyes.
Indeed it is known that LCD's lose a lot (as much as 40%) of their static resolution when displaying motion - simply limitation of LCD technology and the slow reaction time of LCD crystals... That's one reason a lot of enthusiast don't quite appreciate the manufacturers pushing 4K (much debated benefit at this point) to improve their margins, instead of focusing on fixing those more important issues, motion handling certainly being one of them that's been sort of a handicap of LCD technology all along...
losservatore's Avatar losservatore
05:52 PM Liked: 364
post #1388 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 3,485
Joined: Jan 2011
Yes blur on LCD when there is a face close up in motion is kind of distracting ,is not much a distraction at a seating distance, but it is there.


it's part of the sample and hold tech of LCD.
bakerwi's Avatar bakerwi
05:54 PM Liked: 37
post #1389 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 2,869
Joined: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparty1020 View Post
This thread might be the most useless thread on avs. If you don't have 4k TV then you shouldn't have a definitive opinion one way or another. Only way to know for sure is by forming your own opinion over time.

4K ownership is not a prerequisite to have an opinion. These displays are on display at Best Buy, Frys and HH Gregg just to name a few places.
bakerwi's Avatar bakerwi
05:56 PM Liked: 37
post #1390 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 2,869
Joined: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
There certainly are people participating in this thread who have UHDTVs. And, actually having a UHDTV does not automatically make you an expert on the topic.

+1
sarahb75's Avatar sarahb75
06:48 PM Liked: 32
post #1391 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 75
Joined: Mar 2011
Mrorange303 I really was glad to read your courteous response to my last post. If things were starting to get somewhat heated with all the back and forth between AVS members concerning that controversial UHD demonsration in the UK, it wasn't my intent to raise that heat, but never the less, don't think I can claim to be entirely
blameless.

You mentioned that you have a 65" UHD display, which you may have discussed, on a post I haven't read yet.

Would appreciate hearing what model display yours is, and especially knowing what performance characteristics of your UHD unit, that you may have found to be the most surprising. I would think that your UHD TV looks great with
Blu-ray, but does it also manage to improve upon the appearance of channels like HBO HD and CNN HD compared with the way they look on your 1080p display?

I mentioned in an earlier post that what has me the most excited about one day getting a UHD TV is the way it would allow a much closer seating position in our home theater. I'm a movie addict so I really appreciate the immersive experience one gets when a large portion of his field of view is occupied by a sizable screen at a pretty close distance.

BTW, I'm asking Mrorange303, but also any of you other AVS members if you have seen Samsung's curved 78" UHD TV. It's not that I'm crazy about the curve, but with the clip of a ride on a roller coaster, that was playing on the set, at our local Best Buy last weekend, that display looked very impressive. That Saturday I didn't have time to talk to the salespeople, who were busy with other folks. But a DirecTV rep who was standing there claimed that the clip was not native 4k, but rather, upconverted 1080p. Can anyone tell me if that's true. Because if that is a case of upconversion, that Samsung has one hell of a scaler.

Well gotta go now, the wife wants me to after some Penne' takeout from a local Italian Restaurant.

Mrorange303 and the rest of you AVS members, have a great night.

Hey, real quick. Mrorange303, was your moniker inspired by Reservoir Dogs?
Z-Mad's Avatar Z-Mad
06:49 PM Liked: 283
post #1392 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 703
Joined: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakerwi View Post
4K ownership is not a prerequisite to have an opinion. These displays are on display at Best Buy, Frys and HH Gregg just to name a few places.
Agreed - probably most of us in this thread have looked at/examined and evaluated 4K sets without necessarily owning one. You can indeed walk into any store that sells electronics and you can see 4K sets, look at them from different distances, compare them to 1080P sets next to them, etc. Hardly anyone can make those kind of comparisons at home... One could even pose a question if owning one only goes to get your eyes used to it, making it harder to observe some of the things???

In any case, certainly doesn't take to own one to be able to participate in the discussion
bobby2478's Avatar bobby2478
08:05 PM Liked: 22
post #1393 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 230
Joined: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Mad View Post
The F8500 is a great set (and congrats by the way - awesome TV) and impresses with many things, among others with black levels, light output, good colors... So it's not difficult at all to get the WOW effect when it is replacing a 7 yr old 720p plasma set. I have no doubt whatsoever that you can tell a tremendous difference. But how much of that difference is due to the higher resolution alone??? It'd be interesting to display some 720p content on the F8500 screen and see how big the difference is (although it's still a 1080p screen, but it'd be a sightly better indication of level of difference)...

Also, the smaller and denser the pixels get, the harder to discern them - just a simple matter of limitations of the human eye. So the difference between 720p and 1080p is likely a bit easier to notice at that distance (which is in that outer range of the charts where 1080P may still show a benefit over 720P), but that benefit would certainly be even greater if you set yet a couple of feet closer. Now, if you stepped it up all the way to 4K, at 12 feet, that'll get even harder to discern (if at all) - again, perfectly understandable when considering the finite resolution of the human eye. As you stated, 8K would just get ridiculous at that point...

Anyway, just an observation on what you described. At the end of the day, you got yourself a great TV - enjoy

Thanks! Part of the wow factor was definitely the better colors, black levels, and in general plasma technological advances over the past 7 yrs. But I was specifically mentioning the added resolution. I watched Game of Thrones with the sharpness set at 50 on my F8500, and my jaw dropped at the level of detail and sharpness I can see in some of the scenes. Simply amazing. I did another test where I watched a show streaming over Netflix on my 720p, next I watched the same scene on my F8500, and even if I turn up the sharpness on my 720p the image is nowhere near as detailed as on the 1080p even from the 11 to 12 foot distance.


I wanted to call that out because I read the same chart that said I'm on the outer bounds of the benefit of 1080p and hence it would barely be noticeable and wouldn't necessarily be a reason for upgrading. I was worried I may be spending money for no reason, but once I got the F8500 up and saw content on it I have no regrets whatsoever. The added resolution is one of the biggest things I noticed. But like you said it isn't a totally fair comparison as it's comparing 7 yr old technology to brand new technology, but still.


It was the exact same 1080p content on 2 different sets at the exact same position and the difference in resolution and sharpness of picture was very noticeable. At times it almost feels like I am looking at a 4k set like when I watched the demos in Best Buy, the added detail and resolution is amazing (and that isn't factoring in the other enhancements in plasma over the past 7 yrs).
Mrorange303's Avatar Mrorange303
08:06 PM Liked: 291
post #1394 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 2,129
Joined: Apr 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakerwi View Post
4K ownership is not a prerequisite to have an opinion. These displays are on display at Best Buy, Frys and HH Gregg just to name a few places.
But is it an expirienced opinion? Can you truly get to know a set that way?

I did it for months before i bought my set.

Still iowning one is totally different then a store demo.

I agree you should be able to give an opinion. Thats the point of these forums.

Im just saying to keep the opinion within the level of accurate information you can provide.


Its incorrect if your opinion is an attempt to describe owners expirience. I dont know and im not saying you are.

But im just saying you cant say i seen one at the store and so i can give an expirienced opinion.

I know you didnt. Im just saying in general.

2 very different point of views.
Mrorange303's Avatar Mrorange303
08:22 PM Liked: 291
post #1395 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 2,129
Joined: Apr 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Mad View Post
Agreed - probably most of us in this thread have looked at/examined and evaluated 4K sets without necessarily owning one. You can indeed walk into any store that sells electronics and you can see 4K sets, look at them from different distances, compare them to 1080P sets next to them, etc. Hardly anyone can make those kind of comparisons at home... One could even pose a question if owning one only goes to get your eyes used to it, making it harder to observe some of the things???

In any case, certainly doesn't take to own one to be able to participate in the discussion
I agree we should all be able to participate.

Some 1080p sets are very good and those should be known to potential buyers.

Some things that mean more to a buyer may be better on a 1080p set.

Vice versa. So its also important to have 4k in here as well.

The buyers looking should get an honest presentation of both.

I know though after months with my set i am still wowed by the picture.

Again by searching " 4k red epic"
On youtube you will find content that will need a 4k set to look its best.

So the source mmatters. Netflix has a UHD channel.

Its says UHD movies. It has a handful or so now. They look stunning.

You cannot see this in a store. No store allows you to get to know all this content. Most people dont think there is any.

But there is quite a lot of beautiful media.

It also looks really good on my 1080p set. I watched it before i got my 4k. Im very familiar with it.

It looks fantastic on a 1080p set.

This content looks much better on a 4k set.

Months later. Thus far.
Mrorange303's Avatar Mrorange303
08:57 PM Liked: 291
post #1396 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 2,129
Joined: Apr 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahb75 View Post
Mrorange303 I really was glad to read your courteous response to my last post. If things were starting to get somewhat heated with all the back and forth between AVS members concerning that controversial UHD demonsration in the UK, it wasn't my intent to raise that heat, but never the less, don't think I can claim to be entirely
blameless.

You mentioned that you have a 65" UHD display, which you may have discussed, on a post I haven't read yet.

Would appreciate hearing what model display yours is, and especially knowing what performance characteristics of your UHD unit, that you may have found to be the most surprising. I would think that your UHD TV looks great with
Blu-ray, but does it also manage to improve upon the appearance of channels like HBO HD and CNN HD compared with the way they look on your 1080p display?

I mentioned in an earlier post that what has me the most excited about one day getting a UHD TV is the way it would allow a much closer seating position in our home theater. I'm a movie addict so I really appreciate the immersive experience one gets when a large portion of his field of view is occupied by a sizable screen at a pretty close distance.

BTW, I'm asking Mrorange303, but also any of you other AVS members if you have seen Samsung's curved 78" UHD TV. It's not that I'm crazy about the curve, but with the clip of a ride on a roller coaster, that was playing on the set, at our local Best Buy last weekend, that display looked very impressive. That Saturday I didn't have time to talk to the salespeople, who were busy with other folks. But a DirecTV rep who was standing there claimed that the clip was not native 4k, but rather, upconverted 1080p. Can anyone tell me if that's true. Because if that is a case of upconversion, that Samsung has one hell of a scaler.

Well gotta go now, the wife wants me to after some Penne' takeout from a local Italian Restaurant.

Mrorange303 and the rest of you AVS members, have a great night.

Hey, real quick. Mrorange303, was your moniker inspired by Reservoir Dogs?
Yep Reservoir Dogs!

I own the Samsung 65HU9000.

I decided to find a post from the owners forum that describes the kind of upscaling this set is capable of. The Sony also impressed. Before I do yes OTA and dish look better.

But here is a quote from the owners forum about the Samaung vs MadVR Thanks!!

"Originally Posted by soapbox View Post
I have now tested MadVR-upscaled-to-4K video playback on my HU9000 and done some comparisons to picture quality produced by TV's 4K upscale from MadVR-powered 1080p video signal.

In a nutshell, the two pictures produced are - quite different.

MadVR 4K upscale seems to produce much more accurate grain, but the picture is appearing rather soft. On the other hand, the TV's upscale of MadVR's 2K signal is appearing much more crisp, eye-popping, like the image was almost 3D in comparison. The negative side is the picture grain can be all over the place at times, but in general I like the TV's upscale much more as it really brings out the detail of the picture. It also saves on GPU power consumption, so for the time being I will continue using the TV for 1080p-to-4K upscaling."
Ted99's Avatar Ted99
09:01 PM Liked: 40
post #1397 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 720
Joined: Jul 2004
I recently bought the Sony XBR 79X900B. I wanted a big screen and every 80"+ 1080P set looked fuzzy at my viewing distance of 10'. I bought the Sony because it's upscaler was the best I observed of the 4K sets and I knew that I would be watching upscaled material for a long time. My upscaled Comcast X-1 box material looks almost like 4K. It is markedly better than the picture I saw on the Sony XBR-60LX 900 it replaced. I see details the actors would be very happy that I not see. An SD DVD has almost HD levels of detail on the screen. If you want a large screen, buy a good upscaling 4K set, because the better picture is worth it. I was holding out for an 85" OLED at less than $10K, but I decided it would be at least two years for that to occur, and probably as long for common availability of 4K material. So I said to Hell with it, buy a big one, now; and I have NO regrets. I have the size I want now and a better picture than the 60" gave. If the OLED blacks blow me away, I'll retire the Sony to a secondary location and go OLED. But, if not, I'm as happy with my 4K set as I was when I got my first 50" 720P set.
8mile13's Avatar 8mile13
09:41 PM Liked: 306
post #1398 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 4,310
Joined: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Lol! No it doesn't. The bold text is expressing difficulty in discerning differences between the measured results of specific panels. Again, David is expressing concern about the test itself not the issue it is attempting to quantify. In other words: David is not arguing about the existence of motion issues but rather the methods we have to test for it.
That is only one part of the story. The other part, the part you do not like, you just pretend it is not there.

The other part is that
A folks in a lab using test pattern to count motion resolution lines on TVs get various results.
B Differences in motion resolution found in test patterns are hard to find in actual content, a HD football game, when they place the best display in the test next to the worst.

According C|NET, Katzmeier had a hard time telling the difference in motion resolution between 300 lines and 1080 lines in actual content.
http://www.cnet.com/news/counting-bl...tion-on-hdtvs/
Quote:
Originally Posted by saga11x
''Turning it all off drops your moving resolution to around 300 lines. To my eyes this is all but unwatchable for fast action material such as sport or videos''

jasonmichaelh's Avatar jasonmichaelh
10:08 PM Liked: 16
post #1399 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 229
Joined: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post
Thanks! Part of the wow factor was definitely the better colors, black levels, and in general plasma technological advances over the past 7 yrs. But I was specifically mentioning the added resolution. I watched Game of Thrones with the sharpness set at 50 on my F8500, and my jaw dropped at the level of detail and sharpness I can see in some of the scenes. Simply amazing. I did another test where I watched a show streaming over Netflix on my 720p, next I watched the same scene on my F8500, and even if I turn up the sharpness on my 720p the image is nowhere near as detailed as on the 1080p even from the 11 to 12 foot distance.


I wanted to call that out because I read the same chart that said I'm on the outer bounds of the benefit of 1080p and hence it would barely be noticeable and wouldn't necessarily be a reason for upgrading. I was worried I may be spending money for no reason, but once I got the F8500 up and saw content on it I have no regrets whatsoever. The added resolution is one of the biggest things I noticed. But like you said it isn't a totally fair comparison as it's comparing 7 yr old technology to brand new technology, but still.


It was the exact same 1080p content on 2 different sets at the exact same position and the difference in resolution and sharpness of picture was very noticeable. At times it almost feels like I am looking at a 4k set like when I watched the demos in Best Buy, the added detail and resolution is amazing (and that isn't factoring in the other enhancements in plasma over the past 7 yrs).
Not sure which chart you are looking at but the one on reference home theatre dot com indicates that an 11 foot viewing distance is in the ideal range for a 64" 1080p resolution. Stepping down to 50" and 11 foot viewing distance the ideal resolution is 720p. So it seems that chart is spot-on with its recommendations according to your observations:

http://referencehometheater.com/2013...4k-calculator/

The calculator goes a step further than the chart, but doesn't have specific 720p information. I guess they are more concerned with the 2k/4k comparison now
Z-Mad's Avatar Z-Mad
10:30 PM Liked: 283
post #1400 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 703
Joined: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
I agree we should all be able to participate.

Some 1080p sets are very good and those should be known to potential buyers.

Some things that mean more to a buyer may be better on a 1080p set.

Vice versa. So its also important to have 4k in here as well.

The buyers looking should get an honest presentation of both.

I know though after months with my set i am still wowed by the picture.

Again by searching " 4k red epic"
On youtube you will find content that will need a 4k set to look its best.

So the source mmatters. Netflix has a UHD channel.

Its says UHD movies. It has a handful or so now. They look stunning.

You cannot see this in a store. No store allows you to get to know all this content. Most people dont think there is any.

But there is quite a lot of beautiful media.

It also looks really good on my 1080p set. I watched it before i got my 4k. Im very familiar with it.

It looks fantastic on a 1080p set.

This content looks much better on a 4k set.

Months later. Thus far.
Sure, I can see the benefits of owning one in terms of being able to get more familiar with it through various content etc. Was rather posing a question, not necessarily giving an answer on that one... One can of course still get a good idea of the aspects being discussed here also from viewing one in a store, lots of sets to compare, etc...
Z-Mad's Avatar Z-Mad
10:55 PM Liked: 283
post #1401 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 703
Joined: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post
Thanks! Part of the wow factor was definitely the better colors, black levels, and in general plasma technological advances over the past 7 yrs. But I was specifically mentioning the added resolution. I watched Game of Thrones with the sharpness set at 50 on my F8500, and my jaw dropped at the level of detail and sharpness I can see in some of the scenes. Simply amazing. I did another test where I watched a show streaming over Netflix on my 720p, next I watched the same scene on my F8500, and even if I turn up the sharpness on my 720p the image is nowhere near as detailed as on the 1080p even from the 11 to 12 foot distance.


I wanted to call that out because I read the same chart that said I'm on the outer bounds of the benefit of 1080p and hence it would barely be noticeable and wouldn't necessarily be a reason for upgrading. I was worried I may be spending money for no reason, but once I got the F8500 up and saw content on it I have no regrets whatsoever. The added resolution is one of the biggest things I noticed. But like you said it isn't a totally fair comparison as it's comparing 7 yr old technology to brand new technology, but still.


It was the exact same 1080p content on 2 different sets at the exact same position and the difference in resolution and sharpness of picture was very noticeable. At times it almost feels like I am looking at a 4k set like when I watched the demos in Best Buy, the added detail and resolution is amazing (and that isn't factoring in the other enhancements in plasma over the past 7 yrs).
Yeah, the 720p to 1080p is certainly the more noticeable jump. I think I still remember first getting a 1080p TV and the noticeable difference at the time (I have to admit it's been like a decade ago, lol)

Just one advice from the calibration standpoint: sharpness should generally be set to zero on most sets (believe it or not) - any calibrator will tell you that. That's where the optimal sharpness is achieved (not the maximum or exaggerated edge enhancement that actually introduces artifacts, but truly optimal sharpness calibration). This even reduces artifacts in motion... Also color temperature is closest to reference usually at "warm" setting (not the default "neutral" or "cold"). I haven't calibrated an F8500 yet, (although I'd love to ), but these are good general guidelines... With a TV of that potential, I'd highly recommend getting it calibrated, or at least running some basic calibration with a WOW disc... Anyway, subject for a different thread...

Certainly enjoy a great TV
Z-Mad's Avatar Z-Mad
11:07 PM Liked: 283
post #1402 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 703
Joined: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted99 View Post
I recently bought the Sony XBR 79X900B. I wanted a big screen and every 80"+ 1080P set looked fuzzy at my viewing distance of 10'. I bought the Sony because it's upscaler was the best I observed of the 4K sets and I knew that I would be watching upscaled material for a long time. My upscaled Comcast X-1 box material looks almost like 4K. It is markedly better than the picture I saw on the Sony XBR-60LX 900 it replaced. I see details the actors would be very happy that I not see. An SD DVD has almost HD levels of detail on the screen. If you want a large screen, buy a good upscaling 4K set, because the better picture is worth it. I was holding out for an 85" OLED at less than $10K, but I decided it would be at least two years for that to occur, and probably as long for common availability of 4K material. So I said to Hell with it, buy a big one, now; and I have NO regrets. I have the size I want now and a better picture than the 60" gave. If the OLED blacks blow me away, I'll retire the Sony to a secondary location and go OLED. But, if not, I'm as happy with my 4K set as I was when I got my first 50" 720P set.
Wow, 85" is a nice size I am on 60" currently (55" in the bedroom), but I could still go probably to 80" in the living room and be in a good range and immersive viewing angles according to THX... You are one of the people who probably benefits from 4K the most with that size and viewing distance...
Mrorange303's Avatar Mrorange303
11:22 PM Liked: 291
post #1403 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 2,129
Joined: Apr 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Mad View Post
Yeah, the 720p to 1080p is certainly the more noticeable jump. I think I still remember first getting a 1080p TV and the noticeable difference at the time (I have to admit it's been like a decade ago, lol)

Just one advice from the calibration standpoint: sharpness should generally be set to zero on most sets (believe it or not) - any calibrator will tell you that. That's where the optimal sharpness is achieved (not the maximum or exaggerated edge enhancement that actually introduces artifacts, but truly optimal sharpness calibration). This even reduces artifacts in motion... Also color temperature is closest to reference usually at "warm" setting (not the default "neutral" or "cold"). I haven't calibrated an F8500 yet, (although I'd love to ), but these are good general guidelines... With a TV of that potential, I'd highly recommend getting it calibrated, or at least running some basic calibration with a WOW disc... Anyway, subject for a different thread...

Certainly enjoy a great TV
On a 4k set it can be higher. The sharpness.
In fact its about 50 / 50 in the owners forums. Some use it high. Some use it low.
andy sullivan's Avatar andy sullivan
11:50 PM Liked: 233
post #1404 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 3,524
Joined: Mar 2005
Ah, what was that original question. Oh yea, I remember. If you are in the market for a new TV, especially one over 50", and your budget allows, then of course you should go 4K. Right now you can buy a top brand 55" 4K set for under $2,000 or a 65" for under$3,000. Of course that's a lot of money which is why the qualifier is your budget. In the last 2 months I've had two Sony 70w850b's which I returned because of screen uniformity issues. Now I am sitting here 18ft from my 70x850b. I and my wife easily notice a pq increase in broadcast TV. She came home from work Friday and her immediate comment was "wow that's a really nice picture". The 70w850b and the 70x850b are set up exactly the same and we're talking about 67 year old and 65 year old eyes corrected to 20/20 by good old glasses.
Mrorange303's Avatar Mrorange303
11:59 PM Liked: 291
post #1405 of 2142
08-12-2014 | Posts: 2,129
Joined: Apr 2014
Here is a good example i just wanted to help the issue with distance.

We all can agree it just depends.


"However, while we’d agree that you get the most impact from 4K if you sit close to it, we reject the notion that you get no benefit at all from more distant viewing positions. You still perceive more depth, colours still look more smoothly rendered, and objects within the picture still look more solid and three-dimensional. "
http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinio...ou-should-care


Remember these days. Going from 720 to 1080p.

"How Important is the Resolution of my HDTV?

The simple answer is that the native resolution of a particular HD screen isn't that important.

Whilst there are some circumstances where you will be able to see a difference between a 1080p and a 720/768 screen, in the real world this won't be a huge issue for most people.

Therefore it is not crucial that you buy a TV with a 1080p resolution."

"The factors that make a difference when it comes to the native resolution of your screen are:

The size of the screen
The distance you sit from the screen
The resolution of your source images
The quality of the TVs processing
To get the full benefit from a 1080p native resolution screen you need to be watching a true 1080p source, and then you need to be sitting relatively close to the screen - or you need to have a very large screen - or both!"

Read more: http://www.the-home-cinema-guide.com...#ixzz3AFSMfAew


Again i just want to point out how this is all easily the weirdest thing. History repeats itself.

I just got a kick out of how it mirrors the 720p to 1080p jump.

Now we see the exact same thing going 1080p to 4k.
Z-Mad's Avatar Z-Mad
12:31 AM Liked: 283
post #1406 of 2142
08-13-2014 | Posts: 703
Joined: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
On a 4k set it can be higher. The sharpness.
In fact its about 50 / 50 in the owners forums. Some use it high. Some use it low.
Haven't calibrated one yet, so I couldn't say where the correctly calibrated setting is. With settings like brightness, contrast, sharpness, saturation, it's really not so much "preference" but simply where the correct/optimal setting is (if we are talking about proper calibration). Correct sharpness is where you get a well defined edge (not blurred) without introducing artifacts - so there should be one optimal setting with not much room for "preferences". Same thing with brightness (how dark can you go without starting to crush the blacks) or contrast (how bright can you go without crushing the whites) - so there is pretty much that one optimal setting one arrives at with calibration, obviously requiring proper test patterns and equipment... With sharpness the optimal setting is almost always at zero on today's sets...
Z-Mad's Avatar Z-Mad
01:00 AM Liked: 283
post #1407 of 2142
08-13-2014 | Posts: 703
Joined: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Here is a good example i just wanted to help the issue with distance.

We all can agree it just depends.


"However, while we’d agree that you get the most impact from 4K if you sit close to it, we reject the notion that you get no benefit at all from more distant viewing positions. You still perceive more depth, colours still look more smoothly rendered, and objects within the picture still look more solid and three-dimensional. "
http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinio...ou-should-care


Remember these days. Going from 720 to 1080p.

"How Important is the Resolution of my HDTV?

The simple answer is that the native resolution of a particular HD screen isn't that important.

Whilst there are some circumstances where you will be able to see a difference between a 1080p and a 720/768 screen, in the real world this won't be a huge issue for most people.

Therefore it is not crucial that you buy a TV with a 1080p resolution."

"The factors that make a difference when it comes to the native resolution of your screen are:

The size of the screen
The distance you sit from the screen
The resolution of your source images
The quality of the TVs processing
To get the full benefit from a 1080p native resolution screen you need to be watching a true 1080p source, and then you need to be sitting relatively close to the screen - or you need to have a very large screen - or both!"

Read more: http://www.the-home-cinema-guide.com...#ixzz3AFSMfAew


Again i just want to point out how this is all easily the weirdest thing. History repeats itself.

I just got a kick out of how it mirrors the 720p to 1080p jump.

Now we see the exact same thing going 1080p to 4k.
LOL, that is sort of amusing, I'll agree. Although some things are not exactly the same: that was in the era when TV's were more in the 40" range, while today we are talking 55"/60" and larger (some are rocking 85" screens ) so the argumentation of resolution vs. size vs. distance probably made sense at the time given the common screen sizes then, etc. But good point nevertheless. I agreed numerous times that 4K will be the standard like 1080p became one. By the time I buy my next TV (hopefully an 80") it'll surely be 4K (especially given the size I'm shooting for)...
losservatore's Avatar losservatore
01:18 AM Liked: 364
post #1408 of 2142
08-13-2014 | Posts: 3,485
Joined: Jan 2011
Z-mad is correct the sharpness on every picture default mode is always high.
Joe Bloggs's Avatar Joe Bloggs
02:36 AM Liked: 77
post #1409 of 2142
08-13-2014 | Posts: 2,684
Joined: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Lol! No it doesn't. The bold text is expressing difficulty in discerning differences between the measured results of specific panels. Again, David is expressing concern about the test itself not the issue it is attempting to quantify. In other words: David is not arguing about the existence of motion issues but rather the methods we have to test for it.

Let's make this as simple as possible, if you don't see a smeary mess when you turn all the motion aids off on your LCD: congratulations! I'm honestly jealous as it would take away one more thing that makes LCD a tough sell for my eyes.
That's not how I read it - the article is saying it's hard to see the difference with actual program material - and that when they watched a football game they found it hard to see the differences. Another reason could be that in actual program material (eg. football) there is actual blurring in the content (and it may not be as sharp/detailed as their moving chart/line test), which probably wouldn't have been in their moving chart/line tests.

http://www.cnet.com/news/counting-bl...tion-on-hdtvs/
Quote:
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. For one example, we watched a high-definition football game with the best display in the test (the Pioneer PDP-5020FD plasma) placed right next to the worst (the Samsung LN46A550--the only LCD in the test without a 120Hz mode) and we found it hard to detect more blurring in the Samsung LCD

sage11x's Avatar sage11x
05:47 AM Liked: 587
post #1410 of 2142
08-13-2014 | Posts: 2,591
Joined: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
That is only one part of the story. The other part, the part you do not like, you just pretend it is not there.

The other part is that
A folks in a lab using test pattern to count motion resolution lines on TVs get various results.
B Differences in motion resolution found in test patterns are hard to find in actual content, a HD football game, when they place the best display in the test next to the worst.

According C|NET, Katzmeier had a hard time telling the difference in motion resolution between 300 lines and 1080 lines in actual content.
http://www.cnet.com/news/counting-bl...tion-on-hdtvs/
You posted the link to the cnet article. The cnet article doesn't prove anything other than some people are lucky and don't or can't see the smear. Just for giggles I found you another cnet article from a different editor that looks at the problem from a different perspective.
http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-refresh-rate/

Quote:
"The issue is how your brain interprets motion. Because it's your brain, everyone is going to see motion resolution somewhat differently. Some people don't notice motion blur. Some people aren't bothered by it. Some (like me) notice it quite often and are bothered by it. Others, like our David Katzmaier, know it exists but don't notice it enough in normal program material to consider it a major factor in picture quality."

So again, I'll leave you with the fact that I'm very jealous of you for not seeing a smeary mess when you turn the aids off.
Tags: frontpage

Reply Latest Industry News

Subscribe to this Thread

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3