4k vs 1080p...stupid question, or am I just too old! - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
Thread Tools
post #1 of 57 Unread 07-16-2014, 03:15 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
mmcclure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Question 4k vs 1080p...stupid question, or am I just too old!

Ok! I've looked at several sets now on display at a few HDTV sales outlets, and maybe I'm just too old, but is there a threshold that exists where the human eye is no longer capable of perceiving any more DPI?

BTW: I'm 47 and wear reading glasses, but i also have 20x15 vision.

Here's why I ask.:

When I look at sets less than 50 inches, I don't see any difference between 4k and 1080p.

When I look at sets over 60 inches, from around 8 feet away, I can see a good bit of difference between 4k and 1080p.

When I look at these sets from greater than 10 feet away, I can no longer see any difference, and with a 70 inch set, you'll need to be at least that far away to view the whole screen.
mmcclure is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 57 Unread 07-16-2014, 04:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
barth2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 135
You're neither stupid nor old, just honest
Mark12547 likes this.
barth2k is online now  
post #3 of 57 Unread 07-16-2014, 04:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TVOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 70
This may sound obvious, but the source material needs to be in 4K. Upconverted HD, particularly material already degraded from compression, will probably not look much different.
videobruce likes this.
TVOD is offline  
post #4 of 57 Unread 07-16-2014, 05:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
barrelbelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVOD View Post
This may sound obvious, but the source material needs to be in 4K. Upconverted HD, particularly material already degraded from compression, will probably not look much different.

True. But unfortunately 4K is less than 1% of the content world right now. And broadcasters don't even give us native 1080p yet! At this rate the 4k content world won't exist until 2024 or later. And the industry will already have moved on to upscaled 8k or 16k.
videobruce and Vegas oled like this.
barrelbelly is online now  
post #5 of 57 Unread 07-17-2014, 07:43 AM
Senior Member
 
Desk.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 103
I haven't had much of a chance to experiment with 4K displays, but my concern is that I buy a set only to find that 1080p content looks worse on it, due to upscaling, than if presented on a native 1080p set.

I've heard suggestions that 4K LED sets can sometimes present blurring or even juddering when trying to upscale 1080p on the fly. If so, that begs the question about what SD would look like.

Can anyone assure me that 1080p should look at LEAST as good on a 2014-onwards 4K set as it would on an HD display, given what I expect to be a paucity of 4K content in the short to medium term?

Desk

Last edited by Desk.; 07-17-2014 at 07:56 AM.
Desk. is offline  
post #6 of 57 Unread 07-19-2014, 01:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Vegas oled's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,881
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1018 Post(s)
Liked: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desk. View Post
I haven't had much of a chance to experiment with 4K displays, but my concern is that I buy a set only to find that 1080p content looks worse on it, due to upscaling, than if presented on a native 1080p set.

I've heard suggestions that 4K LED sets can sometimes present blurring or even juddering when trying to upscale 1080p on the fly. If so, that begs the question about what SD would look like.

Can anyone assure me that 1080p should look at LEAST as good on a 2014-onwards 4K set as it would on an HD display, given what I expect to be a paucity of 4K content in the short to medium term?

Desk
4k or not 4k is a choice for each to make. On thing I can confirm is no Upscaling I have seen to 4K makes it look worse.
Vegas oled is offline  
post #7 of 57 Unread 07-19-2014, 04:35 PM
Member
 
kjfalls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 17
I think it depends more on you panel size. A larger panel will definitely benefit using 4k with more pixel density. Who wants a 70"+ display with only 1080 definition? Let alone 84". Who wants to watch video through a screen door?
kjfalls is offline  
post #8 of 57 Unread 07-19-2014, 04:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
Mark12547's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Salem, Oregon, United States
Posts: 727
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 186 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjfalls View Post
I think it depends more on you panel size. A larger panel will definitely benefit using 4k with more pixel density. Who wants a 70"+ display with only 1080 definition? Let alone 84". Who wants to watch video through a screen door?
Don't forget that viewing distance also matters. If I am viewing a 70"+ screen from 20 feet away, 1080 may be good enough, but not if I am viewing it from 5 feet.

At 7 feet, my 50-in 1080 screen has enough resolution, but there are times I wished it had more color steps, especially in scenes where you think the Producer forgot to pay the electric bill so you are watching near-black on black.

My very humble setup:
Man Cave:Vizio E500i-A1 "Smart TV" (50-in 1080p 120Hz LED/LCD, has Netflix app.), Blu-ray player (Sony BDP-S3100), Roku (the original model: N1000), PC (Windows 7), Comcast Internet (29Mbps/6Mbps).
Bedroom:LG 32LV3400-UA TV (32-in 768p 60Hz LED/LCD), HD DVR (Motorola RNG200N), Xfinity Comcast cable (Digital Starter Package), DVD/VHS player.
Mark12547 is offline  
post #9 of 57 Unread 07-19-2014, 04:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
losservatore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,318
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 336
The front page article may help you decide ,I'll said wait till 4k have some of the most important enhancements for 4k.




SMPTE Webinar: Quad HD to UHDTV

Last edited by losservatore; 07-19-2014 at 05:40 PM.
losservatore is offline  
post #10 of 57 Unread 07-19-2014, 05:02 PM
Senior Member
 
Richard Cohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY
Posts: 345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 15
You are correct in your view. It will take a screen 100" plus to have a significant imorovement at routine home viewing distances. The current sets are also not providing the other enhancements that will come when the full spec is implemented that may include higher frame rates, enhanced color and higher dynamic range. These enhancements could provide greater enjoyment than the increased 4k resolution.

With little or no content, the lack of other enhancements and the plain fact that at normal viewing distances the resolution improvement alone is not huge, the current crop of 4k Tvs are going to be hard to sell.

Home Theater is GREAT
Richard Cohen is offline  
post #11 of 57 Unread 07-20-2014, 03:40 AM
Senior Member
 
Desk.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas oled View Post
4k or not 4k is a choice for each to make. On thing I can confirm is no Upscaling I have seen to 4K makes it look worse.
We'll, that's certainly encouraging. So long as no content is compromised by being viewed on a 4K set, then there's only benefits to be gained from going for a set with this resolution (albeit coming with an extra cost at present).

I was viewing 4K sets yesterday, and although you might not see an advantage over 1080p when watching from a distance of perhaps more than 7 feet on sizes up to about 65", the increased resolution does mean that you can comfortably sit much closer without screen structure becoming apparent and can therefore have a really immersive experience. You can, also, have a seriously kick-ass computer monitor. :-)

Desk
Desk. is offline  
post #12 of 57 Unread 07-20-2014, 12:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 325 Post(s)
Liked: 227
Here's my question. Since the vast majority of us will be watching 1080i and 720p (unless watching a blu-ray), does simply adding the extra pixels improve the over all PQ from say 15' on a 65" display? I mention, "Adding pixels" as a criteria because I'm sure major brand 4K set has better components included with the "adding pixels" feature. For instance I see some compression problems even from 15ft. on facial close ups (crawly texture). Will the average 65" 4k set do a better job of handling that kind of problem? How much does the video processor play a role here? Different or better chip sets?
andy sullivan is offline  
post #13 of 57 Unread 07-20-2014, 12:14 PM
Member
 
curtissp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 82
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post
True. But unfortunately 4K is less than 1% of the content world right now. And broadcasters don't even give us native 1080p yet! At this rate the 4k content world won't exist until 2024 or later. And the industry will already have moved on to upscaled 8k or 16k.
8K is already out they're $25,000 usd
And I think it will be awhile before the boadcasting system will be able to cope with that high of resolution.
curtissp is offline  
post #14 of 57 Unread 07-20-2014, 12:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 18,389
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 732
Last year I saw a Samsung 4K demo at a home show. It was about a 55" set; looked very close to mine in size. They were playing native 4K content on a loop. I gotta' tell you -- it was spectacular. The so-called window effect HD was supposed to give us but didn't really. Especially after cable and satellite providers started degrading the PQ with severe compression, rate shaping, high-frequency filtering, etc.

No, 4K is the real deal. Obviously the improvement becomes more apparent the larger the display, but any size display will benefit from 4K. I don't know about upsampled content as I haven't seen that.

That said, I'm in no hurry. It will be several years before it's mainstreamed, prices drop, and there's enough native content to make it worthwhile.
archiguy is offline  
post #15 of 57 Unread 07-20-2014, 01:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
barrelbelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by curtissp View Post
8K is already out they're $25,000 usd
And I think it will be awhile before the boadcasting system will be able to cope with that high of resolution.

I'm unsure the mainstream marketplace ever needs or requires more than 1080p for broadcast medium. Think about it. The average casual viewer (80%+ of the market) is 100% satisfied with 480p-720p-1080i-1080p. It works for them and imparts enough ooo's and ahs in un-low compressed broadcasts, severely compressed cable/Sat, Blu-Ray, DVD, Games and streaming. IMO, much more can be gained in the mass market segment by just continuing to improve the overall PQ and color gamut of 1080p.


4K resolutions and beyond could and perhaps should be a significant centerpiece of high end A/V systems and professional markets like film making & Theaters, Large screen HT-HTPC setups, the emerging Virtual Reality micro- display market, Blu-Ray Movies (2D-3D). In other words...focused on the higher profit 20% of the market that drives real innovation and trends.
barrelbelly is online now  
post #16 of 57 Unread 07-20-2014, 02:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 249
Will 4K ever catch on with OTA stations? Considering they are already compressing because of multiple sub channels, and the FCC wanting OTA stations to sell or share some of their bandwidth with mobile phone providers, how will they ever have enough bandwidth to even broadcast 4K?
wxman is online now  
post #17 of 57 Unread 07-20-2014, 04:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
tom669's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 964
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Terrestial/Satellite 1080i for us in the UK is about 10Mbit... not too bad but you can see compression artefacts on fast content.
I can't imagine 4K over DVB-T/DVB-S any time soon because it will require about 4 x this bandwidth, for an interlaced format at 50 fields/sec. If it is progressive, even more...
tom669 is offline  
post #18 of 57 Unread 07-20-2014, 04:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,608
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 176 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom669 View Post
Terrestial/Satellite 1080i for us in the UK is about 10Mbit... not too bad but you can see compression artefacts on fast content.
I can't imagine 4K over DVB-T/DVB-S any time soon because it will require about 4 x this bandwidth, for an interlaced format at 50 fields/sec. If it is progressive, even more...
They're going to be using HEVC instead of AVC/H264, and progressive should be more efficient than interlaced.

They've already been trialling UK terrestrial UHD broadcasts at ~59.9401 fps at 37 Mbps U.S. Broadcasters Diss 4K

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 07-20-2014 at 04:39 PM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #19 of 57 Unread 07-20-2014, 05:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
tom669's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 964
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Yeah... that's not going to work at the moment.

BBC has just about got 5 simultaneous HD streams. (BBC One HD, BBC Two HD, BBC Three HD / CBBC HD timeshare, BBC Four HD / Cbeebies timeshare, BBC News HD.) This has taken years and a whole new multiplex to get this far, plus millions of £ in spending on equipment and bandwidth.

4K requires 3.7x as much bandwidth even if using HEVC. Even Sky TV have only got 70 HD channels on a dedicated satellite, so they will have look having 1/4 this in 4K (if they can even find the bandwidth given they have been squeezing as much as possible out of Astra.)

I predict we will see 20Mbit 4K as a compromise and to most, it will come out looking worse than 1080i at 10Mbits.
tom669 is offline  
post #20 of 57 Unread 07-20-2014, 05:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,608
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 176 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom669 View Post
I predict we will see 20Mbit 4K as a compromise and to most, it will come out looking worse than 1080i at 10Mbits.
I agree they're going to reduce it from 37 Mbps, like they reduced the HD bitrate from the initial tests. I think they may reduce it to 20 Mbps, maybe even more. But 20 Mbps 2160p 50-60 fps HEVC should look better than 1080i 10 Mbps AVC. But that's just phase 1, phase 2 UHD1 if we get it a bit later (assuming high enough bitrate) should be even better.

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 07-20-2014 at 05:14 PM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #21 of 57 Unread 07-20-2014, 05:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
tom669's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 964
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
I agree they're going to reduce it from 37 Mbps, like they reduced the HD bitrate from the initial tests. I think they may reduce it to 20 Mbps, maybe even more. But 20 Mbps 2160p 50-60 fps HEVC should look better than 1080i 10 Mbps AVC. But that's just phase 1, phase 2 UHD1 if we get it a bit later (assuming high enough bitrate) should be even better.
I think it's optimistic to hope for 50Hz, it will probably be 25Hz.
tom669 is offline  
post #22 of 57 Unread 07-20-2014, 05:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,608
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 176 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom669 View Post
I think it's optimistic to hope for 50Hz, it will probably be 25Hz.
No way. They're not broadcasting less than 50 fps in any of the trials (most films will be showing at the equivalent of 25 fps, but live TV will need no less than 50). They (EBU) want it increased to >=100 fps in phase 2 of UHD1 in around a couple of years.

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 07-20-2014 at 05:23 PM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #23 of 57 Unread 07-20-2014, 05:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 2,750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post
I'm unsure the mainstream marketplace ever needs or requires more than 1080p for broadcast medium. Think about it. The average casual viewer (80%+ of the market) is 100% satisfied with 480p-720p-1080i-1080p. It works for them and imparts enough ooo's and ahs in un-low compressed broadcasts, severely compressed cable/Sat, Blu-Ray, DVD, Games and streaming. IMO, much more can be gained in the mass market segment by just continuing to improve the overall PQ and color gamut of 1080p.


4K resolutions and beyond could and perhaps should be a significant centerpiece of high end A/V systems and professional markets like film making & Theaters, Large screen HT-HTPC setups, the emerging Virtual Reality micro- display market, Blu-Ray Movies (2D-3D). In other words...focused on the higher profit 20% of the market that drives real innovation and trends.


Even with a small screen and|or 1080 display, or with a 3840x2160|7680x4320 display placed too far away for full resolution to be visible, there are advantages to having the highest possible source content resolution because 'reframing with zoom' can make full use of any 'otherwise invisible' signal content . . . as I suspect both the broadcast sports and Adult Film industries already understand.

A video clip in this May 2012 article from TheVerge com, "The future of TV as seen in Super Hi-Vision" (link), clearly demonstrates the 'added value' which can be obtained from 7680x4320 source content using, e.g., only (two) 1080 displays:

"Super Hi-Vision zooming from 8K to 1080p demo" (link)
_
barrelbelly likes this.

[Home Office system schematic]
"My AV systems were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many speakers. And they have . . . A PLAN."

SoundChex is online now  
post #24 of 57 Unread 07-21-2014, 01:19 AM
Advanced Member
 
tom669's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 964
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 125
4K broadcast: 24 fps, 2880x2160i, 8-bit 4:1:0 at 5Mbits/second (just kidding.)
tom669 is offline  
post #25 of 57 Unread 07-21-2014, 06:19 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,136
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 666 Post(s)
Liked: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom669 View Post
4K requires 3.7x as much bandwidth even if using HEVC.
That's not even close to being true. If you keep using the same codec (H.264), doubling the number of pixels does not require double the bitrate to achieve the same perceived quality. It's about 1.4x the bitrate for double the pixels (not resolution). So going from 1080p to 2160p (keeping the same codec) will require about double the bitrate (since it has 4x the pixels). HEVC is designed to have twice the compression efficiency of H.264. So, it they hit their design targets for the codec 2160p HEVC content should have bitrates comparable to H.264 1080p.
Stereodude is offline  
post #26 of 57 Unread 07-21-2014, 09:28 AM
Member
 
etc50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Just because you cannot see individual PPI, does not mean they don't help. They emit light and enhance the picture. 4K looks better than 1080 at all distances.
You cannot say at such-and-such distance, it does not matter.

I have a 46" 1080 at this point. My viewing distance is 8-10 feet. If I move any closer, the picture begins to degrade rapidly, even on bluray. I can definitely seem room for improvement. 1080 is good, but not that good, and 4K is exactly what you need for the "wow" experience.

I would not want a 4K set much larger than the one I have now. For the maximum PPI, I would want probably 50" or 55" at most. Higher PPI numbers are always better than lower PPI numbers.

I would wait for the prices to come and down and for some content to appear.
etc50 is offline  
post #27 of 57 Unread 07-21-2014, 10:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,608
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 176 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by etc50
Just because you cannot see individual PPI, does not mean they don't help. They emit light and enhance the picture. 4K looks better than 1080 at all distances.
You can't say it looks better than 1080 at "all distances". There will be some distance where you cannot see the difference. Also, have 4 times the pixels may mean that there is less light + 4 times the sensors in a camera in the same space with the same amount of light reaching the sensor can mean each pixel is more noisy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by etc50 View Post
You cannot say at such-and-such distance, it does not matter.
From 100 feet, for a 50" TV, it doesn't matter. There will be a certain distance where, for a viewer and TV size they don't look any better (all other things except pixel resolution being equal), where you don't gain any advantage with a TV of that resolution over one of a lower resolution. You can't say it looks better from all distances if you can't see a difference (or a benefit) from a certain distance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by etc50 View Post
For the maximum PPI, I would want probably 50" or 55" at most. Higher PPI numbers are always better than lower PPI numbers.
4K and 1080 are not PPI numbers.

But other aspects of future UHD standards could mean you see an improved with UHD over 1080p even if you can't see the increase in resolution from a particular viewing distance for a partciular screen size.

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 07-21-2014 at 10:20 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #28 of 57 Unread 07-21-2014, 11:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 78
I'll guess that 4k will display 1080p video with at least as much apparent resolution as a 1080p TV set would. My experience is with a 50" 4k set, Samsung HU8550, displaying a 1080i satellite signal, and the resolution looks darn good. The main problem with it is second-rate off-angle viewing.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #29 of 57 Unread 07-24-2014, 11:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,940
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 721 Post(s)
Liked: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Cohen View Post
You are correct in your view. It will take a screen 100" plus to have a significant imorovement at routine home viewing distances. The current sets are also not providing the other enhancements that will come when the full spec is implemented that may include higher frame rates, enhanced color and higher dynamic range. These enhancements could provide greater enjoyment than the increased 4k resolution.

With little or no content, the lack of other enhancements and the plain fact that at normal viewing distances the resolution improvement alone is not huge, the current crop of 4k Tvs are going to be hard to sell.
Except:
  1. You're discounting the public viewing it as the next important thing to have. This by itself mitigates the hardness of the sell.
  2. You don't need 100"+ to see a noticeable improvement at normal viewing distances. That (and similar statements) have always been an absurd crock and needs to end. My eyes are 20/20 + 20/25, and I can see a big difference even on 65" at 12 feet.
  3. Upscaling (at least on the Sonys that I've seen) has been phenomenal.
  4. Many smaller TVs end up being repurposed later on as monitors or gaming displays and have people up close. A, say, 46" 4K display absolutely makes sense in this case.

Send this to all your friends! When will this stupidity end? So hysterical: Vertical Video Syndrome --- a PSA.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #30 of 57 Unread 07-24-2014, 02:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Richard Cohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY
Posts: 345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Tgm1024 I respect your view. In the end the real vote will be in dollars spent on new TVs. Also an indicator will be how quickly a widely available delivery format will emerge.

If I recall 3D was planned to be the next big thing.

Home Theater is GREAT
Richard Cohen is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Tags
1080p , 4k vs 1080 , dpi , eye , ultra hd
Gear in this thread - 1080p by PriceGrabber.com



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