or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › 720p vs. UHD Showdown: Two 50-inch Budget Panels Compared
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

720p vs. UHD Showdown: Two 50-inch Budget Panels Compared - Page 3

post #61 of 107
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icon13 View Post

Let's also not forget that there is currently no 4k material available, and even if there was all OTA broadcasts must be upscaled anyways. It all comes down to this: a TV will look its best with native resolution material. 1080p material will look best when not upscaled on a 1080p display *1, and 4k material will look best when not downscaled on a 4k display.

I know that no 4k material was used, but maybe you missed my point. The difference of 4k vs 1080p will not be as noticeable on a tiny screen as it will be on a very large one, native or not, due to pixel density. The larger you go the more 4k will pay off. *2 Even if the comparison used 4k material and was tested on a 4k and a 1080p display, and the 4k looked better, so what? Why would anybody feed 4k into a 1080p display being downscaled when the native 1080p blu-ray will look better?

*1 All the evidence I have seen points to the opposite conclusion—that upscaling actually does work when it is done properly. That's a fairly complex topic, but I've seen it all before with still imagery and there's definitely something to the science. There are also very valid reasons why a UHD signal downscaled (again with a good algorithm) to play on a 1080p TV will look better than native 1080p (oversampled color, increased sharpness, higher bitrate, lower noise).

*2 There is also increased benefit to UHD the closer you sit, for example using a 50" screen as a computer monitor, which can be a bit awkward with 1080p TVs but with UHD, 50" becomes much more appealing for that sort of use.
Edited by imagic - 8/26/13 at 4:22pm
post #62 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icon13 View Post

uuuuuum, how is that true? 2160p is 4x the resolution of 1080p.
Pixel count not being "the resolution" and all that. From the beginning of times resolution was a measure of frequency per unit length. If your TV was actually made of 4 huge pixels (2x2) and tomorrow it became 16-pixel TV (4x4), perceived clarity / quality / resolution increase would be x2, not x4.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic 
It's quadruple the pixel count and double the resolution. Digital photography 101, that's how resolution works; I'm a professional digital photographer, so it's more than just a matter of trivia to me—I had to wrap my head around that one many years ago.

As a result, doubling the pixel count (going from 1 megapixel to 2 megapixels, from 720p to 1080p) only increases resolution by 50%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Henshall, epi-centre.com 
Doubling the resolution of an image isn't as simple as just having twice as many pixels. In fact doubling the resolution of an image requires four times as many pixels (...) This is the square law in action.
(...)
To double the resolution of a one-megapixel camera, we have to go to four-megapixels -- not two-megapixels. To double the resolution of a three-megapixel camera we have to go to twelve megapixels. To double the resolution of a four-megapixel camera, we'd have to go to no less than sixteen-megapixels.
(...)
This means that, to havec DOUBLE the resolution, you have to FOUR TIMES the number of pixels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Newcombe, kennewcombe.com 
Theory predicts there is little resolution difference between a 6 and 8 megapixel camera. To double resolution all other things being equal requires that the pixel count be increased four times as both vertical and horizontal dimensions need to be doubled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell, kenrockwell.com 
Small differences in pixel count, between say 5 MP and 8MP, are unimportant because pixel counts are a square function. It's exactly like calculating area or square footage. It only takes a 40% increase in linear dimensions to double the pixel count! Doubling pixel count only increases the real, linear resolution by 40%, which is pretty much invisible.
(...)
One needs at least a doubling of linear [in two directions] resolution or film size to make an obvious improvement. This is the same as quadrupling the megapixels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia  
...broadcast television resolution properly refers to the pixel density, the number of pixels per unit distance or area, not total number of pixels. In digital measurement, the display resolution would be given in pixels per inch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Chubb, phonesreview.co.uk 
Report says iPad 3 display has double linear resolution (naslov)
(...) The iPad 2 display is already impressive and so just imagine what we might see with double the clarity!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond Soneira, displaymate.com 
...was it really necessary to double the resolution and therefore quadruple the number of pixels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Yarow, businessinsider.com 
[New iPad] will have a screen that's twice as sharp as the current iPad, according to some icons hidden in the iBooks application. MacRumors found the icons, and says the resolution on the next iPad will likely be 2048x1546, which is a doubling of the current iPad's resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedaily.com editorial 
...the lil’ MacBook boasts a stunning 2560 x 1600-pixel display that’s twice as sharp as its non-retina brethren [1280x800].
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Bertolucci, informationweek.com 
With an eye-grabbing 2048- by-1536 pixel resolution at 264 pixels per inch, the new iPad's screen has twice the resolution and four times the number of pixels as its predecessor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Eisner, retrevo.com 
(talking about 3rd generation iPad) ...Twice the resolution and four times the pixels...

Edited by Randomoneh - 8/26/13 at 4:18pm
post #63 of 107
I'm waiting for a reasonable priced 4k projector. Upconverted Blu-ray, and everything else, will definitely look better at 90"+.
Edited by Bill - 8/26/13 at 7:46pm
post #64 of 107
You can get Sony VPL1000 as low as $16K. Considering how bright it is, the amazing quality of the lens and the amazing upscaling capability, I think $16k is reasonable. Heck, a decent 2K projector still costs around $10k.
post #65 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post

Not if the motion resolution is a bad as the article claimed it to be...

Agree it the Seiki UHD has a slow response time which is causing the loss of motion resolution, as do many budget LCD/LED HDTVs. However, I don't know how the Seiki compares to other LCD/LED UHDTVs or HDTVs as far as response time goes, but remember since for the article the Seiki was also doing upscaling to 4K resolution this may be introducing some motion issues that will not be present with native 4K sources. We do know the Seiki's upscaling performance is nowhere near as good and that on the Sony UHDTV. I've also heard that LG's UHDTV don't upscale very well.
post #66 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

*1 All the evidence I have seen points to the opposite conclusion—that upscaling actually does work when it is done properly. That's a fairly complex topic, but I've seen it all before with still imagery and there's definitely something to the science. There are also very valid reasons why a UHD signal downscaled (again with a good algorithm) to play on a 1080p TV will look better than native 1080p (oversampled color, increased sharpness, higher bitrate, lower noise).

*2 There is also increased benefit to UHD the closer you sit, for example using a 50" screen as a computer monitor, which can be a bit awkward with 1080p TVs but with UHD, 50" becomes much more appealing for that sort of use.
The larger the screen the more 4k will pay off is in regards to using the set as a television at normal viewing distance. Yes, obviously I agree with your point; just to clarify.
post #67 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post

Of course it's not a good panel! Lol! When normally sensible, informed consumers on AV enthusiast sites begin to doubt that fact you have to wonder how Joe Sixpack feels! And THAT, I think, is the real point of the cnet article: if it sounds too good to be true...

However, I DO have a car you might be interested in: it's a classic, engine's in the rear, AIR COOLED, rear wheel drive, GERMAN... Just like a Porsche!



...(Legally I have to disclose it is not a Porsche BUT it was designed by many of the same people!) wink.gif

Pontiac Fiero ? Sold ! How much do I owe you ?
post #68 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post

Agree it the Seiki UHD has a slow response time which is causing the loss of motion resolution, as do many budget LCD/LED HDTVs. However, I don't know how the Seiki compares to other LCD/LED UHDTVs or HDTVs as far as response time goes, but remember since for the article the Seiki was also doing upscaling to 4K resolution this may be introducing some motion issues that will not be present with native 4K sources. We do know the Seiki's upscaling performance is nowhere near as good and that on the Sony UHDTV. I've also heard that LG's UHDTV don't upscale very well.

That's another good point people worrying about U-HD need to worry about.

There are new 1080P tv's especially out there (even today) - that (do) have a difficult time scalling lower resolution to fit 1080P panels.

The processing (for a start) is going to have to be a few times better. Some of the scalling we will see is going to be laughable lol.

Of course U-HD will be just getting a foothold then all the talk of 8K will be starting. Maybe it would be better to skip U-HD altogether (unless thinking of 70" plus screen size) and wait for "Super U-HD". The Japanese are already doing this anyway. So it's only a matter of time.
post #69 of 107
This review, although I think it was a predetermined (fixed) from the start, is not going to influence the kind of people that are interested in the bargain basement Seiki 4K TV. A majority of the people simple want to be able to say, " Yea, I just bought a 4K TV. What ? You don't have one yet ? Don't tell me you're still watching 1080p ! "

These people don't care if a 720p TV looks better, it's all about having the "latest" thing. They wouldn't be caught dead hauling a 720p set out of a store and into their house, even if it was $500 cheaper and looked 2x as good.
post #70 of 107
Uh ooosss, the 4k fan boys are pissed now.......................lol
post #71 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexHarrison View Post

This review, although I think it was a predetermined (fixed) from the start, is not going to influence the kind of people that are interested in the bargain basement Seiki 4K TV. A majority of the people simple want to be able to say, " Yea, I just bought a 4K TV. What ? You don't have one yet ? Don't tell me you're still watching 1080p ! "

These people don't care if a 720p TV looks better, it's all about having the "latest" thing. They wouldn't be caught dead hauling a 720p set out of a store and into their house, even if it was $500 cheaper and looked 2x as good.



You just made the best point of all.................no benefit but I got one because I followed along like a sheep.


He said that without huge tvs/projectors and sitting very close 4k is worthless and I could link a multiple of articles saying

exactly that. He is not alone but in the very high majority. To cap this off I have seen the Sony 4k next to a top end 1080P

side by side showing exact content and this guy knows what he is talking about.


But forget all that, the tv manufacturers need your money for the "NEW" thing !


I don't buy something because someone tells me to. I look into it very carefully and read what others are saying as well

and take that into consideration and right now without native content 4k is dead in the water..............and sinking fast.


They could make a disaster movie about it in 3D......................................
post #72 of 107
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post

You just made the best point of all.................no benefit but I got one because I followed along like a sheep.


He said that without huge tvs/projectors and sitting very close 4k is worthless and I could link a multiple of articles saying

exactly that. He is not alone but in the very high majority. To cap this off I have seen the Sony 4k next to a top end 1080P

side by side showing exact content and this guy knows what he is talking about.


But forget all that, the tv manufacturers need your money for the "NEW" thing !


I don't buy something because someone tells me to. I look into it very carefully and read what others are saying as well

and take that into consideration and right now without native content 4k is dead in the water..............and sinking fast.



They could make a disaster movie about it in 3D......................................

Actually, growth in UHD is being driven by worldwide adoption. The USA might lag in terms of content, but the focus among manufacturers includes Japan and China. That's why UHD will eventually be ubiquitous—the world isn't going to wait for the USA to sort out its format issues. That's why a solid UHD standard, along with HDMI 2.0, is imperative.

UHD was always about more than just pixels, it is about an across-the-board improvement in picture quality.
post #73 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Actually, growth in UHD is being driven by worldwide adoption. The USA might lag in terms of content, but the focus among manufacturers includes Japan and China. That's why UHD will eventually be ubiquitous—the world isn't going to wait for the USA to sort out its format issues. That's why a solid UHD standard, along with HDMI 2.0, is imperative.

UHD was always about more than just pixels, it is about an across-the-board improvement in picture quality.



Hard headed fan boy ?

Heard the same BS with 3d............
post #74 of 107
Wow! Rude much?
post #75 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post

Hard headed fan boy ?

Heard the same BS with 3d............

3D really took off, there's what like 1 or 2 dedicated channels now ? I mean it's only been 5 years ! Just think about what's coming in the next decade, we might have 3 or 4 channels by then ! Woo hoo 3D is taking over!
post #76 of 107
Things are looking up for the high end owners of "lowly" 1080P displays for now. With these mastered in 4K blu-ray's some are running bit rates of well over 30bit. Some high end tv and monitors can go to 36bit etc. That means an improvement in colour, sharpness, clarity and detail on 1080P displays that can go a bit further.

For me i am in no rush to upgrade my 50" plasma monitor - yet. Not when there is next to no material. How long before there is genuine U-HD material i wonder (not to mention broadcast) they couldn't even manage 1080P broadcast in the UK or US in how many years.
post #77 of 107
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post

Hard headed fan boy ?

Heard the same BS with 3d............

How are UHD and 3D related? rolleyes.gif
post #78 of 107
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexHarrison View Post

3D really took off, there's what like 1 or 2 dedicated channels now ? I mean it's only been 5 years ! Just think about what's coming in the next decade, we might have 3 or 4 channels by then ! Woo hoo 3D is taking over!

You'd be surprised how much sooner the resurgence of 3D will actually happen. A decade from now 3D will be totally ubiquitous. You'll have to wear a pirate's eye-patch to avoid it. eek.gif
post #79 of 107
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu03 View Post

Things are looking up for the high end owners of "lowly" 1080P displays for now. With these mastered in 4K blu-ray's some are running bit rates of well over 30bit. Some high end tv and monitors can go to 36bit etc. That means an improvement in colour, sharpness, clarity and detail on 1080P displays that can go a bit further.

For me i am in no rush to upgrade my 50" plasma monitor - yet. Not when there is next to no material. How long before there is genuine U-HD material i wonder (not to mention broadcast) they couldn't even manage 1080P broadcast in the UK or US in how many years.

You might be confusing two different things there, bit rate and bit depth.
post #80 of 107
Yes but on displays capable no one is imagining the obvious improvements.
post #81 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris5028 View Post

I am not aware of his previous statements on OLED so I cannot judge there, but having seen the way some low end LED and LCD displays handle blacks I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they were grey. My sister has a 42 inch Sammy and the black boxes on movies are grey...


Its really bad during night scenes, almost unwatchable.

The pillars (which are usually black) are able to be changed on some sets. Check the setup screens and see if you can change the color.
post #82 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

How are UHD and 3D related? rolleyes.gif
Well, as you already know, they are about to be related. 4k will allow for full 1080p glasses free 3d.
post #83 of 107
There's no reason to be rude to the ones that keep us informed or anyone else for that matter rolleyes.gif
post #84 of 107
Also, we all might as well wait for HDMI 2.0 to come out so we have non-gimped UHD. HDMI 1.4a can only support up to 30Hz of UHD, HDMI 2.0 will support 60Hz.
post #85 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexHarrison View Post

Pontiac Fiero ? Sold ! How much do I owe you ?

Ha! I didn't know Pontiac was German... wink.gif
post #86 of 107
As far as 3D goes, glasses less technology is what I've been waiting for and I assume many others too. I think it will really "take off" when it is released.
post #87 of 107
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

As far as 3D goes, glasses less technology is what I've been waiting for and I assume many others too. I think it will really "take off" when it is released.

Right, because once it is perfected it won't be seen as "3D" anymore, it will just be normal.
post #88 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Right, because once it is perfected it won't be seen as "3D" anymore, it will just be normal.



Yes and it really is an exciting time for video technology. Some are not happy about this or that but if they think about it, in a year or two all the things like HDMI 2.0 and UHD content will be worked out. UHD will be the norm and we'll probably wonder how we ever lived without it, just like blu ray now. 3D without glasses would be the icing on the cake.
post #89 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

As far as 3D goes, glasses less technology is what I've been waiting for and I assume many others too. I think it will really "take off" when it is released.

Probably yes, but lack of quality 3D content might turn this "game changer" into another forgettable gimmick. Leaving most people turning off the 3D effect and opting for a solid 2D experience instead.

Even now with current 3D content which require glasses, when its done right it can be amazing ie. The Life Of Pi 3D BluRay. But for every 1 quality 3D release, there are 100 crap titles ie. The Green Hornet, that don't even film with 3D cameras but add the 3d effect in post production. Once you've seen a couple half assed 3D efforts, the excitement factor goes down the toilet, and you'd rather save the inevitable eye strain for only the most well reviewed releases, which are far a few between.
post #90 of 107
That's why you should read some reviews before you buy a 3D movie. I own about a dozen and enjoy them all as do all of my friends that have watched them with me. As for broadcast TV, there you're talking about studios spending serious coin to shoot quality 3D and we all know how much studios like to invest in new technology. That's why we'll never see wide spread 4K broadcast TV.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Latest Industry News
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › 720p vs. UHD Showdown: Two 50-inch Budget Panels Compared