Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it? - Page 10

Originally Posted by mastermaybe 

I'm still interested to learn what else comes with the "flexibility" of future screens.

Rolling up screens for easy transportation/installation? Sounds great, just what happens to the same material when you need to display it, flat...and even more imperatively, uniform?

I know what laminated posters and other materials look like, once unrolled and mounted...never anywhere near as aesthetically appealing as their non-rolled counterparts...no matter how much care is taken or the methodology applied to counteract it. Heck, even some of the best home movie screens lack fantastic uniformity and that's much easier to correct, top to bottom, then left to right some dozen+ feet.

Oh wait, by that time we'll have embraced curved (and even more so, irregularly curved) screens...much more "IMAX" and "life-like" that way.

We'll see.

James

Originally Posted by Don Landis 

If people just imagine what 4k. 2160p looks like on a 55" or 65" then they they really can't be sure if they benefit. If they actually see a 4k TV and still don't see the difference, thenI I'd recommend they go get their eyes examined and prepare for an Rx set of glasses.

There are distinct quality differences one can see on a 55" 4k whether it is OLED or just LED. They OLED adds color intensity and depth, the LED just adds detail and sharpness without edge enhancement.

Obviously the larger the screen size the more noticeable the advantages but I can see the distinct advantages of each of the upgrades. 4K OLED is the best of the best right now as shown at CES. This is only developed now to a 56" screen size. LG Is offering only 1080p OLED now. So, we all have plenty of options in the coming months to decide.

Now, do we need 8k? I've seen a few of these in 100" size and really, I'm not convinced that is needed for the ome unless your screen size is greater than 170" width. Few of us will sit that close to a 100" that will display the advantage.

If you are used to sitting 2-3 times screen height in your room, then maybe you will never see an advantage to 4K. Save your money. Instead, you might find OLED at 1080 p a better investment.

Originally Posted by BigC208 

A friend asked for help moving. I helped and she gave me her 1080P, 40, 46 and 52 inch Sony Bravia's she has no use for in her new house.

Originally Posted by kdog750 

Have you seen any 4K sets in action? I drove 3 hours to Houston specifically to see the 84" Sony 4K set. I remember when walking into the store and seeing the TV I was wondering why they had a 1080P signal running instead of 4K. It wasn't until I got closer than normal viewing distance I saw the higher resolution pop out. At normal viewing distance I really could not tell it wasn't 1080P. My vision is 20/20

If you look at the Sony advertisement for this set, they even say in writing to "get very close to the screen" as a selling point. They
made a marketing decision to sell the set based on getting much closer than normal viewing distance to see the difference.

Originally Posted by Don Landis 

Yes, Just last week! And I saw them from Sony, LG, Samsung, Panasonic, Toshiba, Sharp and others. I saw the OLED and LED versions. I saw them in 2D and 3D. I saw native content in 4K and upconverted 2K like you did (ie 1080p ^ to 2160p) as well as 2160p native in 2D and 3D. At CES you can see everything, even Projectors with 4K.

What do you call "NORMAL" viewing distance? The industry accepted standard for videophile viewing is 1.5 screen height.
.,.

Originally Posted by erkq 

That seems awfully close! It is closer (has a larger angle of view) than either SMPTE or THX guidelines as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by BartMan01 

And those guidelines seem to change as resolution increases. The 'recommended' MINIMUMS seem to give an FOV less that I get in my local IMAX theater with digital projectors. From everything I have read, the recommendations are set to get you as close as possible without display limitations becoming apparent. That is why the recommendations for SD sets were further away than HD sets and would reasonably be even closer with 4k sets showing 4k material.

Originally Posted by erkq 

I see. The recommendations I was referencing were for movie theaters in general, not IMAX. But I guess commercial movie theaters change with resolution too.

I guess I'm just old school. I just wouldn't want to sit any closer than I do now @ 1 sw. The perspective changes and these's more neck craning than I like.

Originally Posted by Toknowshita 

The way I see it...

4K is a solution to a problem that consumers don't have


[FLAME SUIT = ON]


Do they really think they can deliver true 4K content through the pipes? Isn't the average ISP connection speed in the US still under 12Mbits?

The sad hard fact for those hoping for real content is that it is going bitstarved heavily filtered '4K' content that you get over the pipes. Sounds a lot like most of the standard 'HD' streaming services to me.

Physical is the only real option for true high quality content, but they don't want to go that route. Instead they don't want a physical format because it will be much easier for the studios to have control over the content when it is only available in the cloud. The inventors of Circuit City's failed DIVX format are finally going to feel vindicated. They get paid everytime you hit play. How does that make those feel that hated DIVX with a passion?

No thanks. I'll stick with my 1080p/2K blu-ray discs that I don't have to pay for every time I throw them in the player.

Originally Posted by Toknowshita 

The way I see it...

4K is a solution to a problem that consumers don't have


[FLAME SUIT = ON]


Do they really think they can deliver true 4K content through the pipes? Isn't the average ISP connection speed in the US still under 12Mbits?

The sad hard fact for those hoping for real content is that it is going bitstarved heavily filtered '4K' content that you get over the pipes. Sounds a lot like most of the standard 'HD' streaming services to me.

Physical is the only real option for true high quality content, but they don't want to go that route. Instead they don't want a physical format because it will be much easier for the studios to have control over the content when it is only available in the cloud. The inventors of Circuit City's failed DIVX format are finally going to feel vindicated. They get paid everytime you hit play. How does that make those feel that hated DIVX with a passion?

No thanks. I'll stick with my 1080p/2K blu-ray discs that I don't have to pay for every time I throw them in the player.

 

 

Originally Posted by erkq 

I see. The recommendations I was referencing were for movie theaters in general,

Originally Posted by Don Landis 

Yes, Just last week! And I saw them from Sony, LG, Samsung, Panasonic, Toshiba, Sharp and others. I saw the OLED and LED versions. I saw them in 2D and 3D. I saw native content in 4K and upconverted 2K like you did (ie 1080p ^ to 2160p) as well as 2160p native in 2D and 3D.

Originally Posted by BartMan01 

...
There is a good discussion here: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1004723/chart-distance-x-screen-size-standards-smpte-and-thx

Originally Posted by stevenjw 

Do we need it? Not sure if WE need it or if we NEED it either. However, I am sure that I want and NEED it whenever it's affordable. Just saw The Hobbit in IMAX 3D High Frame Rate (thier words, not mine) and was completely blown away by the PQ. Peter Jackson used 48 Red Epic digital cameras at 5K resolution 48 fps to produce a fantastic looking 3D movie. I'm hoping that Red delivers on its promise of an affordable 4K 3D projector so that it's in my theater by the time the source is out. Hopefully, Red will figure out a way to deliver that source in 4K to the RedRay player I'll have too. Bright, high contract, passive 3D, 4K is what I'm looking for. Yes, 4K is a definite need for me.

Originally Posted by Frohlich 

Pretty sure you were blown away by 2K Hobbit scaled to 4k. I know it was shot in 5k but the CGI was all done in 2K...according to what I was reading yesterday. 48fps is also not coming to the home any time soon as there is no hardware capapble of playing it, now , or in the next few years.

XAVC uses level 5.2 of H.264/MPEG-4 AVC which is the highest level supported by that video standard. XAVC can support 4K resolution (4096 × 2160 and 3840 × 2160) at up to 60 frames per second (fps).

On November 14, 2012, Sony stated that it might release consumer products that use XAVC.

Originally Posted by kdog750 

So the looped demo playing at the Sony Stores is actually upconverted 1080p? I had thought for sure it was native 4K on a hard drive. If so, that screws up my judgement of perceived benefits of 4K

Originally Posted by Don Landis 

I think it depends on the store but if you saw a round black disk about 10" in diameter and about 2" thick, that was the 4K server with 4K content loaded. Its a really strange looking device shape. If it was a BD playing on a BR Player then it could have been standard 1080p disk or one of the new special disks that was made from 4K masters. Both of these disks will be upconverted to 2160p in the TV but only the 4K content on the server would be native 2160p.

I agree with others not to waste time and money on the first out BD said just to be "from 4K masters" or what some call super Blu Ray. Sony demoed that too at CES and I felt it looked a bit soft compared to the true 4K content on the round server.

Originally Posted by Frohlich 

Pretty sure you were blown away by 2K Hobbit scaled to 4k. I know it was shot in 5k but the CGI was all done in 2K...according to what I was reading yesterday. 48fps is also not coming to the home any time soon as there is no hardware capapble of playing it, now , or in the next few years.

Originally Posted by saprano 

Since when was the demo upscaled 1080p? The demo on the sony TV is native 4K.

Originally Posted by HeadRusch 

Lately, and I'm sure this experience is shared by more than a few people, after the VHS to DVD to HD boom in the past 12 years or so (longer for you in the big cities), resolution just isn't much of a draw for me anymore. Of course I'm not 20 or 30 anymore either, when
"NEW, HOT, IMPROVED!" meant something as I was filling my first Apartment/Condo/House with all the hot new gadgets to impress my friends who were doing the exact same thing.

When I look at the movies I am watching and going "Gee, I sure wish this picture were twice as sharp".........oh wait, I never do that. I watch movies on my 720p projector, or my 1080p flatpanels....and the effect is largely the same. Is the movie any good? Is the show?
Do I care that I could see Tony Stark's Armor Scuffs "maybe a bit sharper if I pause and squint" if I had all new 4K equipment......no, not even a little bit.

We, on this forum, get really caught up in ScreenShots and other things that can largely be called "Bull****" when the day finally closes.....its a hobby, we all chase tech if we hang out here....but 4K is really starting to bump into the law of diminishing returns. At least to me.
I'm sure many will disagree.

4K will be the new norm because, lets face it....if we already have Television Sets that will last 50 years and provide a super sharp picture when presented with the right content (in focus, CGI, etc).....what else can they sell us? They have to bump the resolution, its almost the only
dog they have left in the fight. 3D? Meh. Better PQ? Seems to me they improve one thing and ruin something else with each new model release......"Black Levels are now great! Once you get past the flashlighting or buzzing or color inaccuracy or..."
They are already milking 1080p for all its worth with almost no place left to go.


I welcome our new 4K masters.......however I won't be jumping on the bandwagon until its "The norm" and not the fringe.

You early adopters, I thank you profusely for the trail you blaze, but I can say unlike the move to HD (which had everyone excited), I see this more as a "ok, evolution", not a game changer.

(although I will be happy to be proven wrong, too.....)

Originally Posted by HeadRusch 

Lately, and I'm sure this experience is shared by more than a few people, after the VHS to DVD to HD boom in the past 12 years or so (longer for you in the big cities), resolution just isn't much of a draw for me anymore. Of course I'm not 20 or 30 anymore either, when
"NEW, HOT, IMPROVED!" meant something as I was filling my first Apartment/Condo/House with all the hot new gadgets to impress my friends who were doing the exact same thing.

When I look at the movies I am watching and going "Gee, I sure wish this picture were twice as sharp".........oh wait, I never do that. I watch movies on my 720p projector, or my 1080p flatpanels....and the effect is largely the same. Is the movie any good? Is the show?
Do I care that I could see Tony Stark's Armor Scuffs "maybe a bit sharper if I pause and squint" if I had all new 4K equipment......no, not even a little bit.

We, on this forum, get really caught up in ScreenShots and other things that can largely be called "Bull****" when the day finally closes.....its a hobby, we all chase tech if we hang out here....but 4K is really starting to bump into the law of diminishing returns. At least to me.
I'm sure many will disagree.

4K will be the new norm because, lets face it....if we already have Television Sets that will last 50 years and provide a super sharp picture when presented with the right content (in focus, CGI, etc).....what else can they sell us? They have to bump the resolution, its almost the only
dog they have left in the fight. 3D? Meh. Better PQ? Seems to me they improve one thing and ruin something else with each new model release......"Black Levels are now great! Once you get past the flashlighting or buzzing or color inaccuracy or..."
They are already milking 1080p for all its worth with almost no place left to go.


I welcome our new 4K masters.......however I won't be jumping on the bandwagon until its "The norm" and not the fringe.

You early adopters, I thank you profusely for the trail you blaze, but I can say unlike the move to HD (which had everyone excited), I see this more as a "ok, evolution", not a game changer.

(although I will be happy to be proven wrong, too.....)

Originally Posted by erkq 

For me it's a combination of resolution, great contrast, accurate grayscale and gamma and accurate color.