or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › Consumer Reports Asks—and Answers—Is UHD Worth Buying Now?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Consumer Reports Asks—and Answers—Is UHD Worth Buying Now? - Page 2

post #31 of 125

I went to a high-end AV store and directly compared UHD vs 1080p blu-ray today. I concur with this judgment. I was happy!

 

I hope this means the masses will not be all that impressed with UHD (I wasn't) and it will enhance the push to OLED to the masses.

 

The AV guy at the store who knows his stuff said one of the motivations for Panasonic to stop making Plasmas was to dump all its R&D into OLED.

 

Can't wait for a 40" flat-screen OLED! And I got no problem if it is 1080p only.

post #32 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by pqwk50 View Post

I went to a high-end AV store and directly compared UHD vs 1080p blu-ray today. I concur with this judgment. I was happy!

I hope this means the masses will not be all that impressed with UHD (I wasn't) and it will enhance the push to OLED to the masses.

The AV guy at the store who knows his stuff said one of the motivations for Panasonic to stop making Plasmas was to dump all its R&D into OLED.

Can't wait for a 40" flat-screen OLED! And I got no problem if it is 1080p only.

You said it.

I'd much rather have a 1080p OLED than a 4K edge-lit LCD.
post #33 of 125

No, its to expensive to be on the leading edge of tech.  Wait until 4K content is mainstream and 4k TV's don't come at such a price premium.

post #34 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by durack View Post


You said it.

I'd much rather have a 1080p OLED than a 4K edge-lit LCD.


I think the industry made a FATAL error when they went with 3840. One thing that would have won me over to 4K would be true aspect ratio. But bastardizing it to 3840 means I really don't care about it. It's nothing different than what we've already got IMHO. I'd much rather have OLED in 1080p or wait until we can have true 4K at 4096.

 

I HATE overscan. And 3840 basically amounts to a form of overscan.

post #35 of 125
Bit depth defines the number of gradations that can be displayed within the available range, regardless of whether its near luma white or black.

Strictly speaking it also defines the dynamic range, i.e. the ratio of the brightest to darkest image data.

However current display technology is still limited by S/N, not dynamic range, which is to say contrast ratio.

The stumbling block is the inability of light engines to fully extinguish light output in the absence of a luma signal, and this will be a much bigger detriment to performance at the dark end than bit depth.

The audio analogy is that 96 bits doesn't keep you from hearing amp hiss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

When it comes to displays, dynamic range means the ability to display more highlight and shadow detail. Bit depth is directly tied to dynamic range, both in audio and in video. Higher bit depth equals a lower noise floor, which translates to more headroom before clipping occurs.
post #36 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post

Not sure I agree with all of the comments about improvements having to be much better to make a big difference. 1080p was not that much better than 720p to most people who viewed it. And 99% couldn't even tell the difference between 1080i versus 1080p in blind or non blind tests. The big switching group was from 480i/p to 1080i/p. And we are not going to have that kind of phenomenon except in the 3D domain...as several people suggested. I agree that passive 3D will be the major feature of 4K adoption. And like all past tech launches...everyone will magically see a "Huge" difference (with passive 3D) when prices drop to $500-$3500 on sets ranging from 42"-65". That's just the way many folks are wired. They perceive the biggest differences in things they can afford.

OP question?
Was Darbee processing engaged on the Oppo during the tests? And did it influence the results?
Consumers Reports used a BDP-103, there is no Darbee processing.
post #37 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by pqwk50 View Post

I HATE overscan. And 3840 basically amounts to a form of overscan.

How so?

If 3840 is overscanned, then 1920 is too, right?
post #38 of 125
When format and finally broadcast media switch to 4k, we won't be having this argument, we shall be arguing over which 4k TV or projector to buy.
post #39 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by pieandchips View Post

When format and finally broadcast media switch to 4k, we won't be having this argument, we shall be arguing over which 4k TV or projector to buy.

or we'll be like the kuro guys clinging desperately to the 'good ol days'.

I think most ppl in here agree that UHD is ok in theory. the problem is when it seems to be tied to lower quality displays. if there were going to be UHD plasmas, or UHD oled, then sure, why not? but if the choice is between UHD LED and 1080p plasma, I wouldn't even take the UHD if it were cheaper to buy, let alone pay several times as much.

it's just not THAT important of an upgrade. there's other major flaws(especially with LED's, but all tech's as well) that I would prefer get addressed and fixed instead of adding more pixels. and for that reason, I see UHD as a bit of a cop-out. instead of tackling the difficult, and important challenges to make a better display, manufacturers are taking the easy road and adding more pixels instead.
post #40 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post


How so?

If 3840 is overscanned, then 1920 is too, right?


Yeah, 1920 is too. My point is that 4K had the potential to fix this. Not fixing it makes it the same as 1080p. Yeah 3840 has more res, but at the sitting distances most people sit, more res is not a selling point. Aspect Ratio would be a selling point--it's true to what the director actually made. So if the industry adopted 4096 it would truly be an advance over 1080p (i.e., it wouldn't have any "overscan").

post #41 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by pqwk50 View Post


Yeah, 1920 is too. My point is that 4K had the potential to fix this. Not fixing it makes it the same as 1080p. Yeah 3840 has more res, but at the sitting distances most people sit, more res is not a selling point. Aspect Ratio would be a selling point--it's true to what the director actually made. So if the industry adopted 4096 it would truly be an advance over 1080p (i.e., it wouldn't have any "overscan").

excuse my ignorance, as you're talking about something I've never heard of before, but is this really an issue of 'overscan' or are things just being downscaled?

i'm getting confused when you equate pixel count to aspect ratio. if the content is 16:9, then isn't the aspect ratio the same, and there's no overscan when it's 1920x1080?
post #42 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post

OP question?
Was Darbee processing engaged on the Oppo during the tests? And did it influence the results?

I don't know if it was a Darbee-equipped unit, but I doubt it.

post #43 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnAV View Post

Consumers Reports used a BDP-103, there is no Darbee processing.

Thanks. My bad. I forgot the Darbee was a newer version named Oppo 103D. With the D obviously meaning Darbee. I hope to buy the 103D in 2014. After it has been thoroughly reviewed. Because I already own the Darbee Darblet 5000. That's one of the reasons why I asked that question.
post #44 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post

Thanks. My bad. I forgot the Darbee was a newer version named Oppo 103D. With the D obviously meaning Darbee. I hope to buy the 103D in 2014. After it has been thoroughly reviewed. Because I already own the Darbee Darblet 5000. That's one of the reasons why I asked that question.

Why the rush? Only adding Darbee into the unit that's to last several years, I would prefer to wait until the UHD Outputs are decided on - seems to be 3 different connections, and the touted HDMI 2.0 is supposedly the worse of the 3!
post #45 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post


excuse my ignorance, as you're talking about something I've never heard of before, but is this really an issue of 'overscan' or are things just being downscaled?

i'm getting confused when you equate pixel count to aspect ratio. if the content is 16:9, then isn't the aspect ratio the same, and there's no overscan when it's 1920x1080?


A great discussion of this issue occurs in Home Theater Geeks #158. Start watching at 5:00 to see some of the diagrams. I am using "overscan" to describe the "zoomed in" effect that was often present on CRT TVs when dealing with non-HD cable TV. Current Plasmas and LCDs have a setting that allows you to eliminate any overscan. But we still aren't seeing all of the picture as the director originally created it when we watch in 1080 or 3840. This is a shame!

 

Hopefully if you take a look at HTG#158 at the 5 minute mark it will help clear up confusion about what I am talking about. I may not be describing as best it could be. Sorry.

 

http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/158

post #46 of 125
Not worth it until HDMI 2.0 (hardware not limited with firmware update) becomes a standard in everything
Edited by Daniel Chaves - 10/23/13 at 9:55pm
post #47 of 125
If you ask me is it worth buying right now,No because there aint hardly any content out there,a few 4k bluray movies is not going to get it.Big question is when 265 HEVC,is going to kick in for cable and satellite boxes,that's when I buy a new 4k tv.
post #48 of 125
There is one aspect were 4K can make a difference. And that is watching still images. Fine detail is not as easy to spot at 24 fps but watching a still image and you can see a difference. Its also more likely that you move closer to the screen when examine a still image then you do watching a movie.
post #49 of 125
UHD is going to take off and if you want to buy a high end TV in the next 5 or so years, it's going to be a 4K TV. Just like you can't buy a high end TV that's not 3D. Manufacturers are going to put all their future R&D into 4K and/or OLED.

I don't get why so many on these forums are against progress. They don't like 3D, so they are against it completely, even though no TV forces you to watch 3D and as far as I know, it doesn't make the TV worse or much more expensive. UHD doesn't make 1080 look worse. In of itself, it can only make it look better. If I can get a UHD TV that's essentially the same as a 1080 TV with higher resolution for not much more cost, then I'm all for it.

UHD is new, so give it time. It will only get better. Once content creators get more experience with it, maybe they'll find good uses for those extra pixels.
post #50 of 125
There's no question that 4K is the future, but right now it would not make much sense at all to buy into it. First and most obvious is the lack of 4K viewing material out there. HDMI 2.0 is not available just yet. The price tag is still horrendous and I think you would really need to get a bare minimum of a 70" set to see any real benefit of 4K. I thought the whole idea of 4K was to address degradation of image quality of 1080p sets at larger sizes. And, if you believe in conspiracy theories, the movie industry is no doubt hoping everyone will toss out their DVD's and 1080p Blu-rays and buy the same movies yet again in the 4K format when it becomes commonplace.
post #51 of 125
Pretty much confirms my suspicion that unless you are using a projector with a large screen, 100"+, that UHD is not the earth shattering experience the industry wants consumers to believe.

I am skeptical that these movies on the servers are the best they could possibly be. It sounds like some of the feature film data files are about the same size of BD discs in the 35GB to 40GB range. I know new codecs are being used, but I would rather see a larger disc with the new codecs being used like we did with Blu-ray, DVD-9GB MPEG2 disc to BD-50GB AVC disc.

Another question, why can't BD introduce another spec that takes advantage of the newer color gamuts? Sony is already doing something proprietary with their 'mastered in 4k' line of BDs that is still backwards compatible with standard BD players and displays. Sounds to me that the resolution increase for most is going to be lost. I think a BD spec with expanded color gamut and/or greater color-bit depth could be doable and it wouldn't necessarily require a new 4K/UHD set to get the benefit.

VHS and Beta got some upgrades... HiFi, HQ/Super and eventually digital. BD has had some profile updates... what's another one if it can be done to maintain backwards compatibility with existing players and maybe only requiring a new player to get expanded color benefits?
post #52 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by pqwk50 View Post

I went to a high-end AV store and directly compared UHD vs 1080p blu-ray today. I concur with this judgment. I was happy!

I hope this means the masses will not be all that impressed with UHD (I wasn't) and it will enhance the push to OLED to the masses.

The AV guy at the store who knows his stuff said one of the motivations for Panasonic to stop making Plasmas was to dump all its R&D into OLED.

Can't wait for a 40" flat-screen OLED! And I got no problem if it is 1080p only.

I watch a 100-in screen. I have no problems staying at 1080p resolution. It's essentially the same resolution as the majority non-scope Digital Cinema screens today, 2K. Now sure I lose a little resolution on 2.35:1 titles but it's not a deal killer at even my screen size. On cinema screen I am all for the ultra resolution projectors where screens are measured in feet, not inches. At home its overkill.
post #53 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by pqwk50 View Post


I think the industry made a FATAL error when they went with 3840. One thing that would have won me over to 4K would be true aspect ratio. But bastardizing it to 3840 means I really don't care about it. It's nothing different than what we've already got IMHO. I'd much rather have OLED in 1080p or wait until we can have true 4K at 4096.

I HATE overscan. And 3840 basically amounts to a form of overscan.

The reason 3840x2160 was chosen was because it is a lot easier to scale with an integer multiple than a fraction. Less intensive processing needed to double the resolution in each dimension...
post #54 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by pqwk50 View Post

A great discussion of this issue occurs in Home Theater Geeks #158. Start watching at 5:00 to see some of the diagrams.

Watched that portion of the video; so the issue is that 4K movies are shot at 4096 pixels wide but will be displayed at 3840, 6% less.

Doesn't bother me, as seen on the diagram that's just two 3% slivers on each side, and I imagine that the chances that the director would have something crucial there are slim to none.

Kane doesn't seem to be aware of the competence of modern scaling algorithms, as he says that preserving the full content that way would ruin the picture.
post #55 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mice View Post

There's no question that 4K is the future, but right now it would not make much sense at all to buy into it. First and most obvious is the lack of 4K viewing material out there. HDMI 2.0 is not available just yet. The price tag is still horrendous and I think you would really need to get a bare minimum of a 70" set to see any real benefit of 4K. I thought the whole idea of 4K was to address degradation of image quality of 1080p sets at larger sizes. And, if you believe in conspiracy theories, the movie industry is no doubt hoping everyone will toss out their DVD's and 1080p Blu-rays and buy the same movies yet again in the 4K format when it becomes commonplace.

Not sure I agree with all of this. Again...as mentioned earlier in the thread by others. Passive 3D will be the biggest beneficiary of 4K IMO. 3D doesn't mean much for consumers right now. Mostly because of the clumsy glasses requirement. And need for massive screen dimensions. But package it with OLED, or any display tech with 4K, realistic sizes and affordable prices (42"-60" & $500-$1500)...and the passive 4k/3D experience will become a very big deal. Especially if you add in more value like high quality 1080 upscaling and Darbee processing. I suspect people will condense all of that complexity and value down to 1 single, easy to understand benefit that they call, simply "UltraHD". And it will become must have TV. Just like "Full HD" sold a ton of 1080p HDTV at the expense of 1080i/720p.
post #56 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mice View Post

There's no question that 4K is the future, but right now it would not make much sense at all to buy into it. First and most obvious is the lack of 4K viewing material out there. HDMI 2.0 is not available just yet. The price tag is still horrendous and I think you would really need to get a bare minimum of a 70" set to see any real benefit of 4K. I thought the whole idea of 4K was to address degradation of image quality of 1080p sets at larger sizes. And, if you believe in conspiracy theories, the movie industry is no doubt hoping everyone will toss out their DVD's and 1080p Blu-rays and buy the same movies yet again in the 4K format when it becomes commonplace.
You've zero'ed onto one 4K justification that going to higher resolution is really to address degradation of image on very large displays or projection. But IMHO that view seems to forget that seeing increased detail, even if you can't make out the individual pixels results in greatly improved image quality on smaller displays. CNET published a good online article recently called "Showdown: 4K vs. Blu-ray movies" , take a look at these images:




Would you the viewer not notice even on a much smaller higher resolution monitor, even though you can't see the pixels, that edges are no longer jaggy, same with how colors blend better due to the increased resolution?
post #57 of 125
I think its worth remembering the question of the thread is "worth buying now". Right now I don't think so for all the reasons mentioned above. In 12 months I'm sure the question will elicit a far different response. That said I simply can't imagine lots of 4K content in the even medium future for new movies (at least action). Doing CGI/SFX at 4K is something I just can't imagine the studios will do because of cost. They'll film in 4K, maybe, but then do the CGI/SFX for 2K for cost reasons.

If 4K can induce mfgrs to make a FALD for 2014 in 65-70" I will be sold regardless of content, but that is not now.

I guess CES will be a key indicator of what is to come. I kind of wonder if I'll be forced to choose between 4K LCD or 1080p OLED. Hmmm. I'd take the OLED probably, unless the 4K LCD was FALD and the viewing angles are good. And the prices make sense (knowing OLED will be a premium).

The pics above are absolutely noticeable to me on the street lights. But I think its rightly pointed out those are still shots. I would imagine the viewer wouldn't have the chance to notice much diff at 24fps.
Edited by sippelmc - 10/24/13 at 12:42pm
post #58 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

UHD is going to take off and if you want to buy a high end TV in the next 5 or so years, it's going to be a 4K TV. Just like you can't buy a high end TV that's not 3D. Manufacturers are going to put all their future R&D into 4K and/or OLED.

I don't get why so many on these forums are against progress. They don't like 3D, so they are against it completely, even though no TV forces you to watch 3D and as far as I know, it doesn't make the TV worse or much more expensive. UHD doesn't make 1080 look worse. In of itself, it can only make it look better. If I can get a UHD TV that's essentially the same as a 1080 TV with higher resolution for not much more cost, then I'm all for it.

UHD is new, so give it time. It will only get better. Once content creators get more experience with it, maybe they'll find good uses for those extra pixels.

I like progress, but I don't like the direction they are progressing. i'm sure it doesn't equate exactly, but I can't help but feel if less effort was spent trying to make 3D look good, more effort could be spent making other improvements.
i'd rather manufacturers fix things like LCD viewing angles, contrast and blacks, or plasma dithering, power consumption, brightness.

even now, it's like oled vs 4k lcd. the only thing 4k lcd is going to do is make oled more expensive, and take longer to get right. i'd rather have oled in 3yrs and no 4k, then have 4k and wait 6yrs for oled.

the question I always have is, what did we give up to get those extra pixels. unless that answer is nothing, it's not a simple matter of progress.
post #59 of 125
Kimeran- nice chart. I'm happy to see I will get the full benefit from ugrading my Sony 1000es to full 4K smile.gif
post #60 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by sippelmc View Post

I think its worth remembering the question of the thread is "worth buying now". Right now I don't think so for all the reasons mentioned above. In 12 months I'm sure the question will elicit a far different response. That said I simply can't imagine lots of 4K content in the even medium future for new movies (at least action). Doing CGI/SFX at 4K is something I just can't imagine the studios will do because of cost. They'll film in 4K, maybe, but then do the CGI/SFX for 2K for cost reasons.

If 4K can induce mfgrs to make a FALD for 2014 in 65-70" I will be sold regardless of content, but that is not now.

I guess CES will be a key indicator of what is to come. I kind of wonder if I'll be forced to choose between 4K LCD or 1080p OLED. Hmmm. I'd take the OLED probably, unless the 4K LCD was FALD and the viewing angles are good. And the prices make sense (knowing OLED will be a premium).

The pics above are absolutely noticeable to me on the street lights. But I think its rightly pointed out those are still shots. I would imagine the viewer wouldn't have the chance to notice much diff at 24fps.

Excellent points. But two things pop to my mind. 1) there is much more movie content available than you allude to. Many studios switched to 4K very early. And some even bumped it to 8K. Then downmixed to 1080p in the edit stage. Most of the blockbuster movies since the middle of the last decade were actually filmed in 4K or better. So when 4K HDTVs start to become more plentiful...Blu-Ray players fully adopt the 4K standard...and HDMI 2.0 proves to be a reliable interface...there really won't be any content barriers to its growth. Passive 3D and next generation gaming will even accelerate adoption. Especially with smaller HDTV displays (including VR micro displays like Oculus Rift). Relative to the pics:...The kind of difference shown really doesn't make a difference to me. While it is noticeable...I'm 100% sure I can achieve an imperceptible comparison of the same scene with a good 1080p display, processed with a $300 Darbee Darblet. In fact...I bet I could tweak the 1080p signal with Darbee to achieve a preferred image for 1080p. And the same could be done with the 4K display in reverse with Darbee. 4K versus Darbee 1080p. Because the better the signal...the more dramatic is the Darbee effect. Which brings me to the next quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

I like progress, but I don't like the direction they are progressing. i'm sure it doesn't equate exactly, but I can't help but feel if less effort was spent trying to make 3D look good, more effort could be spent making other improvements.
i'd rather manufacturers fix things like LCD viewing angles, contrast and blacks, or plasma dithering, power consumption, brightness.

even now, it's like oled vs 4k lcd. the only thing 4k lcd is going to do is make oled more expensive, and take longer to get right. i'd rather have oled in 3yrs and no 4k, then have 4k and wait 6yrs for oled.

the question I always have is, what did we give up to get those extra pixels. unless that answer is nothing, it's not a simple matter of progress.

I think they are getting it right this time around. 4K or better solves the major technical issues in both the large display and emerging micro display worlds perfectly. It showcases advantages of premier display technologies like OLED and LPD perfectly. And it is very compliant with middle tier technologies like LED/LCD/Plasma when combined with optimized video processing like Darbee. Add passive 3D along with the way all of this can be bundled into the widest display size range, with almost ala carte affordability mixes...And I don't think we gave up anything. I don't think there was any tradeoff whatsoever in the pursuit of 4K, OLED or any of the techs. In many ways we are living in an age of plenty. With too many options to comprehend how they all work together. I don't think you lose if you buy today versus tomorrow on anything other than price. Simply because ther are so many technical workarounds available to us.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Latest Industry News
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › Consumer Reports Asks—and Answers—Is UHD Worth Buying Now?