AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it? - Page 3

post #61 of 385
1/5/13 at 1:39pm
Anything that eliminates a 'pixel grid' is a good thing. I categorize the visible pixel grid as a video artefact, and we all should know that anything visible that isn't intended is considered an artefact. A 1080p pixel grid doesn't belong in the original picture intent and can be distracting just as the old 480p plasma's pixel grid was seriously distracting.

Going to 4K and putting 4 pixels in the place of one 1080P HD pixel will help this and is more noticable than what people think even for 1080p content. I absolutely agree that viewing distances plays a huge role, but it's quite easy to see stepping on HD content around text on a 60" panel from 10 feet away. What about the "darkness" on the picture created by the space of pixel fill 1080x1920? It's there, let's get rid of it. Why not try to eliminate this for those people who can see it at this distance and especially for those who sit closer? I don't understand this debate. Some people may be content with 1080p, but my guess is that 95% of people who write about not seeing 4K as a necessary jump haven't seen 4K at all while the remaining 5%, including myself, have never seen it optomized in any way (equipment and source material combined).

There were people who believed that DVD was good enough; 480p done right was a very good system and the change to 1080 may not be a necessary jump. (heck, even Joe Kane said that a little over 10 years ago in an article he wrote). But we adapt to the improvements. The average size panel in a living room that I calibrate is 60" now. Most are 65", and now with the Sharps I've been doing many more 70"s and 80"s. Front projection screen sizes are minimum 100" - 110". Seats are on average for the plasmas about 8-12ft, and 10-14ft with front projection. These sizes will only become greater over the years. With the bigger screen sizes coming out, it's clearer people desire wider viewing angles at the same seating distance. Again, what's the harm of "eliminating" the pixel grid by making smaller pixels even if the source content remains 1080p and 1080p -> 2160p is done well? Once we get this into people's homes, we can then talk 4K quality content which has its own many hurdles to overcome. I'm all for making film images more analogue as possible, as 4K keeps the integrity of grain structure much better than 2K can.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #62 of 385
1/5/13 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

Screen size doesn't matter. It's all about angle of view because the angle is what the eye's acuity measures in. How many screen widths do you want to sit at? How good are your eyes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdg4vfx View Post

I work in film post production as a finishing artist for vfx and film titles and we often get demo's of the latest 4K projectors and prototype 4K monitors. Myself and the colorists typically evaluate the new gear to advise the execs/owners on what to purchase. In a real sense our task is to get past the hype - yes, even in the pro gear market hype is a big problem ; )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devedander View Post

The only legit use I can see is Passive 1080p 3D... which of course is kind of an odd one because by the time 4K screens become reasonably priced we will probably start seeing 4K content come along and then you will hit another passive 3D half resolution wall...

It's a big plus for Passive 3D. But don't expect a lot of "native" 4K content anytime soon. (More down below on that.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedocivic View Post

... Oh and by the way, I've never understood the argument "you can't see it on X" screen unless you're Y' away". I've always found 1080 to be a better image than 720, even on small screens. It just looks more real. Not that I can pick out the individual pixels.

Actually the "you can't see it on X" screen unless you're Y' away" is a very salient argument. Assuming you're dealing with two calibrated, equal quality monitors (not an easy setup to find/create) there are clearly sizes at which increased resolution matters and doesn't matter. I would guess that the consumer perception of this is often skewed because typically newer, higher-resolution monitors also have improved picture quality overall - better color, better blacks, etc. Regularly during our testing A-list colorists (the artists who do final color and QC on feature films) sitting at normal viewing distance could not accurately pick out which monitor was 1080p and which was 4K on screens less than 75" or 80". If anything the colorists as often as not picked the 1080p screen as better - this is because it is still technically difficult to get evenly distributed color/luminance on the 4K monitors, often making the 1080p monitor the more accurate of the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosteh View Post

I'd like to see 4K simply because it means seeing it natively as it was edited, not a scaled down version for home. Too often you see poor transfers to Blu Ray: hopefully the advent of 4k will allow studios to not have to compromise on quality when they release for home ...

Two different issues really. A bad transfer to Blu-Ray has less to do with resolution than it does with colorspace issues:
For the last few years films are typically "finished" digitally in P3 colorspace while blu-rays are in Rec709 colorspace. Converting between those two colorspace's is not a simple, linear process, and often includes re-timing (or re-grading) a large percentage of the movie's shots individually (P3 has ranges/variations in color/luminance that don't exist in Rec709). The last couple of years there has been a trend with higher profile movies to do more than one grade in the movie's original color/finishing sessions - i.e. they do separate color-timings for projection (P3), BluRay/Broadcast (Rec709) and streaming (RGB/sRGB linear). This new trend is also because movies are making more of their money post theatrical-release on BR, broadcast, streaming etc. And of course on top of all this there is the issue of how the blu-ray compression is handled.

"I'd like to see 4K simply because it means seeing it natively as it was edited, not a scaled down version for home."
An understandable comment but not a very accurate one. Almost no feature films (excluding IMAX) are shot, posted and finished in 4K.
HD resolution is 1920x1080. DCP (digitial cinema projection) resolution is only 2048x1080. So 2K projection has the same top/bottom resolution as HD and is only 9% wider.
Doing the vfx and post on a 2K project can often cost as much as 50% more than doing the vfx and post on an HD project, so, a lot of A-list movies (most movies with budgets under 100 million and many "blockbusters" with budgets over that) are actually posted/finished in HD. These "HD" finished movies are converted to 2K (DCP) by either up-scaling them 9% or adding 64 pixel wide black columns to each side. 99% of the IMAX theatrical releases of "Hollywood" movies are high-quality up-rez's. The higher-end digital projectors (such as Christi) at theaters with larger screens read 2K DCP files and up-convert on-the-fly to 4K for projection.

Viewing native 4K content won't be much of a reason to upgrade to 4K TV's for another 10 years or so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

4K TVs (read screens 60" or less) are just plain stupid and everyone with a brain knows it. Projectors? Completely different issue.

But, sigh, you now have the usual suspects claiming that the human eye actually resolves far beyond what it actually does...nevermind the further reduced resolution when it comes to moving images.

It's all over the boards already...people insisting that people with 20/20 or 20/10 vision easily discern 1080 from 4k on a 60" screen from 15 feet. Yeah. Sure. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Reality is not much beyond what Bott noted in the OP: screens are too small (99% are 60" or less) and we (95+%) sit much too far from them to get any benefit from 4k. That's simply a fact, plain and simple. Are there outliers? Of course there are. Does that mean we should start producing 4k TVs while there are so many other picture quality aspects that, if improved, would make a significantly greater improvement in picture quality (better contrast, black levels, color fidelity, off axis viewing angles, etc)?

Of course not. But the drones love their numbers...and even more than that, beating their chest over them- regardless of the depths of their inconsequence. And who knows this better than CEMs? Hence, 50" 4k televisions.

Go figure.

James
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

^ the problem is rabident, that it's not resolution (in the majority of cases, anyway) that keeps an image from looking like it does out of your window. And increasing it (resolution) to "x" is going to have little to zero effect on making it look more like your window view.

Again, most already cannot resolve their 50/60" 1080 screens...upping it to 4, 8, or 16k is going to accomplish nothing more at their 10-15' viewing distances.

I would again implore CEMs to improve contrast, black/white levels, color, off angle, motion, etc to REALLY up PQ but we all know none of the aforementioned will sell new TVs like "super" "ultra" and "mega-magnificent" HD.

Again, go figure.

James

'4K+ Systems - Theory Basics for Motion Picture Imaging'
http://archiv.arri.de/4kplus-systems/index.htm

Thank you to all the above. It's also worthwhile to note Joe Kane's recent comments on this topic, in his 'Science Of Imaging' series, in last October and November issues of 'Widescreen Review.' Electronic imaging theory is founded upon thoroughly proven science, engineering best practices, and a long history of established human visual perception studies. Anecdotal experiences and incomplete analysis by novice observers, no matter how assertively stated, just can't compete for veracity or validity in this debate.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
G. Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging'
Edited by GeorgeAB - 1/5/13 at 2:16pm
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 385
1/5/13 at 3:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdg4vfx View Post

It's a big plus for Passive 3D. But don't expect a lot of "native" 4K content anytime soon. (More down below on that.)

Viewing native 4K content won't be much of a reason to upgrade to 4K TV's for another 10 years or so.

That's why I qualified the statement with "by the time 4k screens become reasonably priced".

I would expect that similar to 1080p right around the time average joe is easily able to get 4K content 4K screens will also be priced in his range. Kind of like we are at a point where having a BR and BR player is nothing special anymore and there really isn't much under 1080p on the market anymore as 1080p has saturated even the budget market.

I expect to see the current "average size" 4K TV on a blackfriday doorbuster for todays equivalent of $500 in about 10 years (kind of like how current average size seems to be 55 inches and we have seen massive sales on that size this year). Right around then I would be fine buying a 4K just to have full 1080p passive for the sake of 1080p passive, but right around then I suspect 4k source will be easily accessible and we are right back where we are today...

The whole "solution to passive" thing with 4K strikes me as an argument that has a lot of holes in it for all the timing/pricing reasons.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 385
1/5/13 at 4:43pm
I'll probably never get it due to the fact that I will never have a 80" in tv.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 385
1/5/13 at 5:26pm
IMO it would be absolutely GREAT! BUT......

what about content? We are also moving away from discs and hopefully cable to streaming. It just doesn't make sense to pay Comcast $120 a month when I can stream any program I want for a couple of bucks apiece. But 4K streaming means a bandwidth problem that will take time to solve. And, of course, there are those TVs costing well into five figures. I'm in the market NOW for a new set, so for me the 4K question is not for this time around, but in ten years or so when it all settles out. By that time we ought to have sets that cost $5K and content that would justify it, but for the next decade or so I do not think it is a viable alternative for most of us and will be a niche market for the really rich.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 385
1/5/13 at 5:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeAB View Post

'4K+ Systems - Theory Basics for Motion Picture Imaging'
http://archiv.arri.de/4kplus-systems/index.htm
Thank you to all the above. It's also worthwhile to note Joe Kane's recent comments on this topic, in his 'Science Of Imaging' series, in last October and November issues of 'Widescreen Review.' Electronic imaging theory is founded upon thoroughly proven science, engineering best practices, and a long history of established human visual perception studies. Anecdotal experiences and incomplete analysis by novice observers, no matter how assertively stated, just can't compete for veracity or validity in this debate.
Best regards and beautiful pictures,
G. Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants affiliate
"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging'

It's also important to note that this science and the resulting guidelines are based around human norms. I still have better than 'normal' vision and frequently find the conventional 'you have to be this close to be able to see the difference' rules that have come out of this science are just flat wrong for me.

The need for 4K is really dependent on application. I have zero need for 4k with my living room set - a 42" TV typically viewed from 12-15 feet away. On the other hand, in my media room where I sit 9-10 feet from a 10 foot screen, 4K would be an improvement.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 385
1/5/13 at 5:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschuyler View Post

IMO it would be absolutely GREAT! BUT......
what about content? We are also moving away from discs and hopefully cable to streaming.

If you are streaming content with current consumer level tech, you have NO need for 4k. It can't even take full advantage of 1080p.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 385
1/5/13 at 5:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeAB View Post

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
G. Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants affiliate
"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging'

This sounds like PR or an advertisement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeAB View Post

Thank you to all the above. It's also worthwhile to note Joe Kane's recent comments on this topic, in his 'Science Of Imaging' series, in last October and November issues of 'Widescreen Review.' Electronic imaging theory is founded upon thoroughly proven science, engineering best practices, and a long history of established human visual perception studies. Anecdotal experiences and incomplete analysis by novice observers, no matter how assertively stated, just can't compete for veracity or validity in this debate.

But this rings very true to the scientist inside me. smile.gif

The bottom line for me is, if 2160p is useful for a minority of the market, and that minority wants and can economically support 2160p, let's have it.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 385
1/5/13 at 6:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

The bottom line for me is, if 2160p is useful for a minority of the market, and that minority wants and can economically support 2160p, let's have it.

I really don't think it'll be a minority in 10 years time. Like all technologies, it's good to start early "before we need it" rather than the time "when we need it". An early start gives time to work on the bugs and the inefficiencies before the majority of the market has a use for it. By that time, the quality of hardware and content will be in sync with each other. For the next few years we'll enjoy looking at a few premium products geared to a minority part of the market with limited content. Let's take a look back to flat-panel displays 10 years ago - remember the price? Remember the image? For those of us who embraced Blu-ray in the beginning, play back some of those discs from 2006 today and you'll see that it's taken quite a few years just to get the image quality of content up to par - and I think many people would argue in both cases (hardware and software) that we can still do better with the current 1080p technology, but probably not within the standards that's currently given to it and being viewed on the way PDPs and LCDs show images. ....which is why many of us are hoping to 'right the wrongs' of the previous system for UHD.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 385
1/5/13 at 6:58pm
It would seem that this would be the next logical step in that expading universe of the video media. The higher the resolution, the larger you can make the display and not loose clarity. One other step would be needed and that would be to standardize the digital/video format so we don't need a raft of drivers to handle the various compression schemes.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 385
1/5/13 at 7:55pm
How about, instead of filling up disk and network space with bloated 4K images, we instead reduce the compression on the content instead, and see it as God intended it to be seen?

But no, we'll probably see 4K content compressed to hell and streamed over coax cables, since "no-one wants disks anymore."

Sigh.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 385
1/5/13 at 8:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor26 View Post

How about, instead of filling up disk and network space with bloated 4K images, we instead reduce the compression on the content instead, and see it as God intended it to be seen?
But no, we'll probably see 4K content compressed to hell and streamed over coax cables, since "no-one wants disks anymore."
Sigh.

Agreed. I would much rather have less (or no) compression and a full color space before 4k. We seem to be heading the opposite direction though with streaming.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 385
1/5/13 at 9:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMLocal175 View Post

Do we need it? Probably not. Do we need to upgrade a receiver every few years? Probably not. Do I need to upgrade speakers, remotes, blu ray players? Probably not.
It all comes down to money. If the price is right we will make the jump whether we need it or not.


Well Said ! smile.gif

Reply
Reply
post #74 of 385
1/5/13 at 11:25pm
When I viewed the Sony 4k 80" I had to stand within about 6' or so before it struck me as looking any better. It wasnt side by side with anything but I didn't feel like it was much sharper and had more "hd pop" until I got really close and honestly how often are you going to be viewing 6' from an 84". I dunno that's just my two cents
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 385
1/5/13 at 11:39pm
Here is a chart which should help people understand if they will get any benefit at all from 2160 - let alone 1080:



For example, my screen is about 108 or so inches. We will use the 100 inch line on the chart to make it easy. This means to even begin to notice any benefit from 2160, I need to sit closer than 14 feet from the screen. To get the full benefit means I have to sit closer than 7 feet from the screen.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 385
1/6/13 at 12:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes2702 View Post

When I viewed the Sony 4k 80" I had to stand within about 6' or so before it struck me as looking any better. It wasnt side by side with anything but I didn't feel like it was much sharper and had more "hd pop" until I got really close and honestly how often are you going to be viewing 6' from an 84". I dunno that's just my two cents

Was it true 4K content?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Here is a chart which should help people understand if they will get any benefit at all from 2160 - let alone 1080:

For example, my screen is about 108 or so inches. We will use the 100 inch line on the chart to make it easy. This means to even begin to notice any benefit from 2160, I need to sit closer than 14 feet from the screen. To get the full benefit means I have to sit closer than 7 feet from the screen.

I find it odd that the 720-1080p wedge is pretty much the same size as the 1080p-2160p wedge while 1080p is not nearly twice 720p...

That said when it comes to TVs I have always found people do not get bigger TVs just so they can sit further back, especially since this often would mean making your living room bigger... so 7 feet from a 100 inch screen is not impossilbe in my book. I used to sit about 8 feet from a 96 inch pj screen and was fine with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschuyler View Post

IMO it would be absolutely GREAT! BUT......
what about content? We are also moving away from discs and hopefully cable to streaming. It just doesn't make sense to pay Comcast $120 a month when I can stream any program I want for a couple of bucks apiece. But 4K streaming means a bandwidth problem that will take time to solve. And, of course, there are those TVs costing well into five figures. I'm in the market NOW for a new set, so for me the 4K question is not for this time around, but in ten years or so when it all settles out. By that time we ought to have sets that cost $5K and content that would justify it, but for the next decade or so I do not think it is a viable alternative for most of us and will be a niche market for the really rich.

If 4K sets are still $5k in 10 years I will be very surprised... I would expect to see a roughly 50% reduction in price every year until they hit roughtly their modern day pricing equivalent.

So $12k within a year or two, $6k within 3-4 years and under would probably exptect them to be around $1k in 5 years or so. I think 1080p has really only been around the consumer market for less than a decade and I seem to recall 42-50 inchers demanding $10k+ back in the day... I have seen some lesser known brand 55 inchers for well under $500 lately and even a 46 inch active 3D for under $400...

I think price drops are also going to be quick in coming since LCD has been in mass production for a long time now and there isn't all that much being done to it other than making the pixels smaller and more dense. I could see OLED holding prices up a bit depending on how hard it is to make but I would think LED LCD would then play an analogus role to what plasma and CCFL LCD do in todays market.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 385
1/6/13 at 2:20am
Nope don't need it. I won't have a tv greater than 60" so it won't be necessary for me. I've even got a 3D HDTV, but I don't use the 3D feature because I don't want to have to wear glasses to watch TV. I don't wear glasses & I don't want to have to wear glasses to watch TV. Just my opinion though.

Sounds like it will be more of a marketing feature than anything else.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 385
1/6/13 at 6:07am
The graph above is obviously for those with 20/blind vision...many people have corrected vision of 20/16 or better and can discern a difference between 720 and 1080 at much further distances. While I'm happy with 1080P, I would buy a 2160P projector when native content becomes available...lets all cross our fingers and hope for H.265 compression algorythms to gain widespread adoption.

I saw the Hobbit in 48FPS HFR 3D and Dolby Atmos...it was quite an experience but 3D is not one I'd ever use at home. I have a 1080P DLP pj and will not upgrade until 2160P pjs get below $5K.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 385
1/6/13 at 7:10am
We need water, oxygen,food,clothing in the cold but just like everything else here, if it enhances our experience as we personally see that, we want it. I'll get it as soon as I see that it can out perform what I have.

Art
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 385
1/6/13 at 7:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devedander View Post

Was it true 4K content?

I asked where they were getting the content and he showed me the Sony supplied computer hooked up via HDMI that supposedly had true 4k content.
Reply
Reply
post #81 of 385
1/6/13 at 8:23am
This would be great for a projector.
Honestly I could notice the difference between 720p and 1080p on +50" TV, whereas for a size like 32" or smaller your eyes really aren't going to notice at a far distance.
4K will shine in 70"+, esp. projection. 1080p is pretty bad on 100", a friend of mine had a Sony projector (was bloody expensive, forgot the model but cost him what 10K) and the picture still wasn't really there in terms of quality.

You *could* always hook up a number of computer panels (remove bezel, custom mount) for a lot less and have your 4K if you need it now. Technically it's been available since 2010 if you look at it this way (AMD's multi-monitor support is better now though) :P
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 385
1/6/13 at 8:34am
I'm also going to leave this here for good measure.
http://xkcd.com/1080/large/

^ That's usually the reason why gamers (PC) have a high-res. monitor (say 1600p best case) directly in the middle and ~1080p on both sides.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 385
1/6/13 at 9:35am
I'm not a fan of using graphs to highlight whether we need new technologies. The best judge is your own eyes. That's why I welcome anyone to go and see one of the new 84" 4K televisions playing native 4k demo content. I guarantee you, you won't think about 1080p the same and whether it's needed.

I've had the great privilege to also watch a presentation of the London Olympics in 8k and I was seriously in awe. I actually wish that we skip 4k altogether and just embrace 8k television. The depth, clarity, was phenomenal.

But as to whether it's needed or not, it depends on your own viewing tastes and personal income. More and more, people are buying larger televisions as they become sleeker. Sure if you are needing a television in your bedroom, 4k would be a waste, but if you are thinking about your media room, home theater or even living room, it could be time to embrace 4k soon.You really have to see it to make a judgment.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 385
1/6/13 at 10:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Madness View Post

I'm not a fan of using graphs to highlight whether we need new technologies. The best judge is your own eyes. That's why I welcome anyone to go and see one of the new 84" 4K televisions playing native 4k demo content. I guarantee you, you won't think about 1080p the same and whether it's needed.

I've had the great privilege to also watch a presentation of the London Olympics in 8k and I was seriously in awe. I actually wish that we skip 4k altogether and just embrace 8k television. The depth, clarity, was phenomenal.
But as to whether it's needed or not, it depends on your own viewing tastes and personal income. More and more, people are buying larger televisions as they become sleeker. Sure if you are needing a television in your bedroom, 4k would be a waste, but if you are thinking about your media room, home theater or even living room, it could be time to embrace 4k soon.You really have to see it to make a judgment.

Many people on here have already seen, including me, sony's 4K TV and was not that impressed.

The difference, imo, is not big. I had to stand really close to notice the extra 4K details. Even then, it didn't wow me. We really should be improving other things besides just adding more pixels.

I had no problems watching my 60" kuro after seeing the 84" 4K TV. I honesty was expecting better. I still want to see how native 4K films will look though.
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 385
1/6/13 at 10:26am
As a audio/video enthusiast I want the best that it can be. I think it's fair to say that most of us are all looking for the best systems possible given budget constraints, space, etc. Most of us know that 4K will be the defacto video source/display of the near future, and like many of us I won't be an early adopter of the technology ($$$). I will wait for the technology to sort itself out and for prices to drop. Besides, I have a Pioneer Kuro I'm in no hurry!
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 385
1/6/13 at 10:50am
I think that most of us who visit AVS Forum will want anything that pushes tech forward. We are not the masses, but the nitpick crowd who care about this little concept called "quality". Call us purists, enthusiasts, tech geeks, or whatever. In fact, I am all of those, as many of you guys are too, and we are proud of it!

My only concern is content. For instance, there still is not really any broadcast 1080p. Right now, I sit here as I type, watching a playoff NFL game through DirecTV on a horribly compressed signal from CBS. The picture is so bad that it looks flat with no depth. I compare it to the old iTunes compression where music lacked depth and warmth that I regularly got in a CD, even in my car.

The cable channel AMC is just as horrible as CBS. To contrast, ESPNHD looks excellent in 720p.

My point is, it's 2013 and we still are dealing with over compression of 1080i. I know that with the recent Netflix upgrade, that new compression rates and methods are coming; just not fast enough.

I have a year old 60' Samsung Plasma D series, and Blu Ray looks about as good as it can get at this screen size. In another 6-8 years when I look to upgrade this set, I will look to go larger, at least 80', and if 4K is affordable by then, then of course I'll buy it, but that will also mean a new receiver, which I only recently upgraded. For those of you lucky souls with projectors, 4K is more than necessary right now.

It will all come down to content and delivery, which may take a while unless some radical changes start to occur.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 385
1/6/13 at 11:30am
On a properly set up screen and commercial theatres, 4k is truly jaw-droppingly gorgeous. My personal preference is 4k over 2k 3D anyday. I'm fortunate enough to get the chance to play with 4k projectors and when fed 4k content, it is noticeably better than 2k and by a long shot.

But it's more the peak of commerically available technology today, what you get in the latest theatres. It's still not consumer-ready, nor are the mediums across which you get the content as mentioned before many times.

I also agree that it's not just the resolution that matters: when you get true 4k content displayed, because it's done professionally, the colour grading and everything else is also to the best possible standards, based on the DCI spec and what's available with proper DCP material.

Sure I'd love 4k at home, but I'm quite happy to have the experience on a "pay-per-view" basis at a cinema, providing it's done properly. The number of times some of my local theatres have all the latest equipment capable of 4k presentations, but are let down by slightly out of focus pictures or some other technical aspect is frustrating.

Until the mass population can appreciate what well-done 4k looks like and appreciates it, I reckon it's still a little way away from even being commercially viable for the home consumer.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 385
1/6/13 at 12:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

Many people on here have already seen, including me, sony's 4K TV and was not that impressed.
The difference, imo, is not big. I had to stand really close to notice the extra 4K details. Even then, it didn't wow me. We really should be improving other things besides just adding more pixels.
I had no problems watching my 60" kuro after seeing the 84" 4K TV. I honesty was expecting better. I still want to see how native 4K films will look though.

But what were you expecting out of 4k? Granted the leap isn't like what it was when going from 480p to 720p/1080i and later 1080p... Might I ask what you would consider improving first? I find that standardizing resolutions across the board is the most important thing and then comes display technology. For example, have you seen NHK's 8K 145" plasma television? It's nothing special. It's a huge monstrosity plasma display that many ill-informed consumers would scoff at, until they see it up close and see the breathtaking detail and clarity that 8k brings.

It's not even necessarily standing close to 4k to see the difference. I was perhaps 7 feet away from Sony's new 84" 4k LED television. I could immediately see the difference in clarity, focus and detail. The larger screen size, increased pixel count, and native 4k content obviously makes a difference.

I also had the pleasure of watching BBC's 8K olympics ceremony for London and it was perhaps one of the best things I've ever seen. Yes I agree that manufacturers should improve other things besides, in your words "adding more pixels", but it's not that simple. The development of improved technologies will happen in conjunction with the increased resolution standards.

I don't see, all things being equal, any home theater afficionado saying that they're fine with 1080p content when 4k becomes standard. Besides, a new adoption of one technology doesn't diminish the other. On another note, I also had no problems going back to my 55" 1080p LED television, that doesn't mean I wouldn't rather have the 84" 4k television which was better in almost all aspects.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 385
1/6/13 at 12:37pm
As others have said; I love the idea, simply for full HD passive 3D. I hate active glasses, their price, the battery maintenance, the drop synchs. Passive is the future. And on an 80 inch screen, You can see the difference with pixels 1/4 the size of a 1080p screen. I would take this over OLED any day. OLED returns us to burn-in worries. Just read the very explicit warning on Burn-in on LG'a site:

"OLED is susceptible to burn-in. If a static image remains on the screen repeatedly or often or for a long uninterrupted stretch of time, you run the risk of degrading the phosphors from overuse in certain portions of the screen. This will leave an after-image or "ghost" on the screen. This burn-in is permanent and cannot be fixed. You can however minimize the chance of burn-in by avoiding those TV broadcasts and videogames with constant logos or text displayed."

No thanks! Give me 4K and LED with Local dimming please.
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 385
1/6/13 at 12:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by notabadname View Post

As others have said; I love the idea, simply for full HD passive 3D. I hate active glasses, their price, the battery maintenance, the drop synchs. Passive is the future. And on an 80 inch screen, You can see the difference with pixels 1/4 the size of a 1080p screen. I would take this over OLED any day. OLED returns us to burn-in worries. Just read the very explicit warning on Burn-in on LG'a site:
"OLED is susceptible to burn-in. If a static image remains on the screen repeatedly or often or for a long uninterrupted stretch of time, you run the risk of degrading the phosphors from overuse in certain portions of the screen. This will leave an after-image or "ghost" on the screen. This burn-in is permanent and cannot be fixed. You can however minimize the chance of burn-in by avoiding those TV broadcasts and videogames with constant logos or text displayed."
No thanks! Give me 4K and LED with Local dimming please.

OLED is a "bag of hurt". Burn-in is unacceptable. I have a very nice plasma now, but back when plasmas had the same issue, I had a DLP.

I think that only plasma and LED are going to be my options going forward until something beyond OLED comes down the pipe.

Of course, I am assuming that plasma can carry 4K, as I am not as well studied on it as most of you are...Yet! smile.gif
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Community News & Polls

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Sound Off: 4K (2160P) or whatever you care to call it, do we need it?