4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 97

This is getting from the eyes to the brain: Katzmaier, who is an eyes-on expert, says he could not see difference despite efforts and moving closer to the display and you are talking about charts. Display is not a chart, it is a real display. What is blowing up the whole 4K argument is his comparison of 4K uncompressed to 1080p compressed.

I do not trust that ''review''. The CNET review is the first 4K TV review that one can take serious AFAIK and because of that its the first 4K TV review .

Yours is argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum (because of widespread belief about "facts" surrounding Snellen). Research results are what matters, not opinions.
The only reason I'm mentioning visual acuity charts is because math side of the "4K is stupid" argument relies on those, and not even correctly ("average" not being average at all).
Edited by Randomoneh - 3/1/13 at 12:13pm

So let's see. Doing extensive research, interviewing experts, interviewing doctors, and I'm still "wrong" because your opinion is different. I've done my due diligence. I stand by what I've said, and empirical evidence backs up my findings.

If you want to disagree with the establishment, that's your prerogative. Implying that I just make this stuff up, or wrote it in an afternoon with no sources, is needlessly insulting (and factually incorrect).

I don't want to play the meaningless insult game. From several messages without any rebuttal, it can become "I don't have time for this." and I don't want that to happen. So, I won't bug you anymore.
As soon as I catch some time I'll create a thread debunking your claims and link it to you. After you read it, you choose if you'll answer or ignore it.

Best wishes to you.
Edited by Randomoneh - 3/1/13 at 1:00pm

Why would that be Geoffrey?

And yet you'll tell us endlessly of the benefits of 8K. Amusing to say the least.

No, I appreciate the post & link 8mile. Sorry if you misinterpreted my response, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. However, a review that's 'more friendly' should still convey the same pluses & minuses as did the verbiage. Otherwise you are simply sending out two different messages.

Some people will always 'cherry pick' the reviews that support their opinions. This is far from a fair & balanced approach. I just don't like when people pretend there's only one side to a story.

I happen to think you're right, the truth probably lies somewhere between. For some it will be the best thing since sliced bread and for others, they won't see the difference with their noses pressed up against the screen.

I'm not sure why people get hung up with an LCD's native contrast. If a manufacturer has found a way to greatly improve a panel's native contrast through local dimming, who cares how it started out? The Elite is a classic example of that. With whites that greatly surpass my Pioneer Kuro and blacks that are still a bit better, I could care less about what the native contrast started out as. Some people call this 'cheating' which I find hysterical. TV is 'cheating'. Why do some people feel that something like local dimming is 'cheating' when TV technology in general is the result of a myriad number of 'cheating schemes'.

Where I do agree with you is the lousy (for the most part) off-axis viewing. I also don't agree with you though regarding motion blur. The better LED/LCD panels look very good with motion.

Sadly, local dimming LCD models are even more rare than plasma models (and likely will get fewer in number, not greater). I liked the Sharp/ELITE and said so in my review. One of the best TVs I saw that year. Less well done local dimming, like the HX950, doesn't quite offer the performance boost. There's no replacement for displacement, as the saying goes, and there's no substitute for high native contrast. That said, turbos have gotten really good, and well done local dimming is great.

All LCDs have a problem with motion resolution, some are better than others, but it's a fundamental problem with the technology. Some aren't bothered by it, and I envy them. I notice it readily, and am quite bothered by it. It's amusing that all this focus is played on the pixel count of the 4K panels, but when the image moves, it's going to blur just like every other LCD.

BRING ON OLED ALREADY.

You are going to be waiting quite awhile for 84" 4K OLED and if the $17,000 price tag for the LG 84" panel was hard to justify, the price tag of a 84" 4K OLED set will make your head explode. Meanwhile, IGZO, MothEye, IPS, ICC engine, Quantum dots are all going to help LCD close the gap with the superior OLED tech.

I'm not waiting for any TV. I use a projector for all my viewing. IPS is cool, but inferior for contrast ratio. Quantum dots are amazing but they don't need LCD.

I hate to bring this up when everyone's so excited about OLED, but at the moment the technology has just as much motion blur as a fast-response LCD panel. That's because most of the motion blur is caused by the sample and hold effect at this point (though in TVs there's still plenty of response time smear, since no one's going to make a fast TN panel TV). All of the current OLED implementations are still sample and hold as far as I'm aware. They'll need to strobe or scan to actually reduce motion blur, and I haven't heard about anyone building an OLED panel that's going to do this at the moment. It seems to me that most TV manufacturers think frame interpolation is the solution to complaints about blur, and while it does help somewhat I think most people this forum would agree that it's not something we're going to use.

You can see this in practice if you take a look at one of the small OLED displays out there right now (phones, the PS Vita). They have very similar blur performance to similarly-sized LCD panels you might find in other smartphones, tablets, etc.

There's a whole thread in this forum where we've been discussing the "LightBoost" PC monitors and how they solve LCD motion blur by using a 120hz strobing backlight, however this effect really only works properly with 120fps content (ie, PC games or desktops). Throw 30fps content onto it and, while free of motion blur, it is somewhat juddery. They're 1ms rated TN panels (not suitable for high end home theater, obviously) and even with that response time they're nearly as blurry as a slow IPS panel until you switch on the strobe mode.

I do agree with the general sentiment that it's funny to see TV manufacturers pushing 4K when their 1080p TVs are still of questionable quality when it comes to things like screen uniformity. There's definitely a case for 4K -- mostly when talking about projectors -- but I'd personally like to see the more fundamental display quality issues handled before I'd even begin to care about higher resolution flat panels.
Edited by headlesschickens - 3/6/13 at 1:11pm

Heh.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1406439/state-of-the-kuro-where-the-9g-is-being-surpassed/30#post_23015625

As for your other points. I've been saying this all the time. Lets improve other PQ aspects before thinking about 4K. A 1080p set with better chroma subsampling, 10 bit color and perfect contrast ratio would look so much better than what we have now. Even current 4K sets which use the same tech as 1080p.

Is it a wonder why some don't see a huge difference from 1080p to 4K, or even care? All that's being done is increasing the pixels. ZOMG! Revolutionary!

Everyone who's screaming for 4K better hope when standards are in place it comes with Rec2020/4:44.

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...

...................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.

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.

^Indeed. Hence, why the ZT60 (and Samsung F8500) are more exciting than the promise of shoddily built 4K panels this year.

The horror of 4K LCD that sucks just like all the rest of the non Sharp Elite and Sony HX950s that currently suck and

OLED that will suck when it comes to motion?!

Repeat after me--we're not going to see any improvements in TV--the TV manufacturers are just going to make a lot of money!

Now why was it that Panasonic bought the Pioneer patents?

Are all the other TV manufacturers blackmailing them not to ever use them so they can all make plenty of money on 4K LCD and OLED
that both will suck?!!!

The day that someone builds a Kuro killing plasma and OLED or 4K LCD can put it into the toilet--then that's when I'll believe in those technologies.

What's the point of 4K LCD resolution if you have to have your eyeball on the screen and you still get all the LCD disadvantages?

It's not like you're going to get a Sharp Elite 4K LCD--4K will cost so much that they'll cut corners and you won't get Sharp Elite quality--you'll just get another LCD that sucks!

And if OLED motion resolution isn't any good--why would anyone want to spend millions on that piece of junk?

Last time I checked you could make a Kuro killing plasma that would cost less than a 4K LCD or an OLED FIASCO!!!

And where's the patents that Panasonic bought form Pioneer? Are they with the original Kentucky Fried chicken recipe--you know the one where they actually used all the Colonel's herbs and spices before they quit using them and went cheap mass market?

Now don't get me wrong friends--I'm not saying that plasmas is the answer for the future.

I am saying that LAME 4K LCD or LAME OLED is not the answer!

Anything that is not a Kuro killer is not the answer!

The only way to get people to shut up about the Kuro is produce a TV that kills the Kuro!

If it's going to take 10 years to produce 4K LCD or OLED that does that at a price comparable to a 65-inch ZT60 then Panasonic PLEASE--use the Pioneer patents so we can have something good to watch during the next 10 years!

I'm very sorry Artwood, but I gotta block you for a while.....I'm just getting overwhelmed by all this same ol' same ol'. You really seem like one of the good guys. I'm just kinda tired is all.

art, wait till folks can see an oled display (if that ever occurs) before ruminating about how they suck.

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.

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.

Well put.

That's why I stated "seems", because instinctively you'd think rez would be weighted more heavily to the human eye(not realizing the gap between 4K/2K while double would still be minimal). It'd be interesting to see exactly how they studied it/measured the results.

Just to correct you on that - even though we don't have 10-bit native sources, 10-bit displays are a definite improvement over 8-bit ones, particularly once you factor in all the CMS work displays are doing these days.

Even just converting 8-bit YCbCr to RGB requires more than 8-bits to avoid loss.

Exactly the point i'm making. But the industry wouldn't make money that way. Everything has to be NEW! NEW! 4K NEW! (with the same old standards like Rec709).

It's going to be funny when 1080p displays, like the ZT60 and F8500, measures and looks better than whatever 4K displays comes out this year.

I have pressed this very point for years with those I know at some of the CE companies. I am usually told there is not enough money to be made that way hence the push for "new" tech that is always much more expensive. The always point to what happened with Pioneer. At least Panny and Sammy are pushing the envelope. Sharp with the Elite brand were pushing in the right direction as well, but it seems that they have abandoned that to for 4k. Until a reliable 70" OLED cokes out, I will stick with my 141.

No one is claiming 4k has better black levels or color accuracy than 1080 TVs. Only better resolution. Which isn't something that's typically measured when comparing TVs.

When and if Panasonic and/or Samsung come out with 4k plasma's, I would expect them to outperform their 1080 counterparts.

You can continue to beat your drum all you want...and cite your "evidence" from a- wait for it- entity with a VESTED INTEREST in 4k/UHDTV, but no one outside a few are even close to buying it, including this guy...another "professional fool" I'm sure. Literally, lmao.

"And that was pretty much my experience with the 84X900. In the demo’s native 4K/1080p clip comparison using the two Sony TVs, the native 4K display’s extra detail could be clearly seen at a 5-6 foot (or closer) distance. But when I backed up a few steps — to around 8 feet — the differences faded. It wasn’t that the native 4K picture didn’t look great; it’s just that it no longer displayed clearly better detail than what I was seeing on the other set."

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article/hands-sony-xbr-84x900-ultra-hd-tv?page=0,1

Now imagine, that's at EIGHT feet from an EIGHTY FOUR INCH display. Imagine what real, 10-15 foot distances would yield.

Yeah, thought as much. Wait, we're all blind, or "just" 20/20 (well, I'm 20/15, but who's counting?).

Hey- but it IS an awesome-performing television for $25,000.

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 3/8/13 at 10:36am

Exactly. This is why I say 4K makes sense with the 110" in normal living room viewing. While the 110" has been demonstrated and so is not a fantasy, we are quite some time off the 110"@4K in a reasonable $$$$ range.