Originally Posted by rightintel
Those are all relevant factors. However, I think the question is which one has a larger impact on making a "better" picture. Seems instinctive to think rez would generally be a bigger factor. For comparison, I'm thinking along the lines of 480 vs 1080. Would a 480 picture w/ all the improvements you mentioned be better than a straight-up average 1080 rez? Seems hard to imagine that being the case. I guess it depends on how you define "better". I think most people's eyes probably notice the higher rez over chroma/10 bit color/contrast ratio, but I've been wrong b4...
So it's interesting. Your instinct, in this case, is completely wrong with respect to resolution, but not so wrong otherwise. Something like 10-bit color is nearly useless for image quality because the sources don't support it and there's not a lot the display can do to make it useful. Contrast ratio, as noted by JWhip below, however, is far and away the most perceivable -- and therefore important -- improver of image quality.
Originally Posted by tgm1024
...................not a great comparison. There is a law of diminishing returns with the 2K to 4K transition that just isn't there with .6K(LOL) to 2K. You usually can't simply off-hand weight the impact of one transition of values as the same as another transition---and certainly not in this case.
And this is a great point. On any
attribute of image quality, there will be diminishing returns. Take it from a place of mediocrity (e.g. standard definition video) to a place of excellent (e.g. HD video at most viewing distances) and you won't get much by increasing the same attribute. But something like contrast ratio can benefit from a ratio of about 15,000:1 simultaneous CR very easily (we can perceive that roughly) and perhaps an order of magnitude more on direct simultaneous contrast (i.e. going from a dark scene to a lighter one) and orders
of magnitude more over the course of our total viewing experience. That is to say, the difference between seeing a single star on the screen in a "void" in space and the brightest scene you'll see of a closeup of the midday sun might be 15 million
to one. Your display can provide benefits up to some meaningful fraction of that level.
On resolution, the benefit of resolution you can't actually see is pretty limited to begin with. The benefit of resolution above the resolution you can't see doesn't really exist. So that makes 4K of minimal use for a of people who don't sit especially close and 8K utterly useless for that group of people.
Originally Posted by JWhip
There have been several studies on this very issue. Of the top 4 factors in terms of PQ, resolution is 4th behind contrast ratio, color fidelity and color saturation. With 1080p, if you make all of the top 3 factors better, you will have a much better picture than if you just increase the resolution from 2k to 4k.