or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 4K Resolution Is Visible vs 1080p on 55″ TV from 9′ Viewing Distance
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

4K Resolution Is Visible vs 1080p on 55″ TV from 9′ Viewing Distance - Page 3

post #61 of 111
When I was fanatical about checking out every flat panel available, I never once saw one set up in a store that showed the level of image quality that was possible. It was always getting the panel home (mine and friends), ensuring a quality signal, signal path, calibration, that the true potential image quality was revealed. I always keep that in mind when watching a flat panel in the stores, even if I happen to be impressed by it.
(For instance, the first Sony 4K flat panels struck me as having a bit softer image than I was expecting even with 4K content; but that's just the type
of impression that tends to change with a better in-home set up).

That said, I've seen the Samsung 85" UHD display several times, and in one of those set ups it looked truly mind-boggling with some 4K content. Definitely a level of image quality/resolution beyond anything I'd seen before.
post #62 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

For instance, the first Sony 4K flat panels struck me as having a bit softer image than I was expecting even with 4K content; but that's just the type of impression that tends to change with a better in-home set up
A common misconception is that increased resolution means increased sharpness. Increased resolution means you have less pixel structure and the potential for more detail.

If anything, having less resolution can appear to be sharper because downsampling (rather than displaying at native resolution) and the aliasing that often results in can create very sharp, high-contrast edges which were not in the original source. The image quality is worse, but the result can appear sharper.
post #63 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

A common misconception is that increased resolution means increased sharpness. Increased resolution means you have less pixel structure and the potential for more detail.

If anything, having less resolution can appear to be sharper because downsampling (rather than displaying at native resolution) and the aliasing that often results in can create very sharp, high-contrast edges which were not in the original source. The image quality is worse, but the result can appear sharper.

Well thanks, though I'm not under such a misconception.
post #64 of 111
16K on an LCD that sucks still equals an LCD that sucks!

I'll believe in 4K LCD when all the other picture quality parameters exceed those of plain old 1080 LCD Sharp elites!

What's that I hear...the sound of silence?!

Oh and by the way--I never thought a Sharp Elite LCD beat out the best Pioneer Kuro plasma sets.

So WHY are we excited about 4K LCD?

Oh yeah--it's because the last SALES FORCE effort known as 3D tanked!

4K is the only thing the display industry thinks that will get people to spend trillions on LCD that sucks.

Face it--OLED--the perpetual around the corner pipe dream--just isn't happening fast enough and OLED costs way more than 4K LCD that sucks and also costs way too much!

Now where is that newest and last Samsung plasma that still isn't as good as the Panasonic ZT60 which still wasn't as good as the best Pioneer Kuro plasma?

4K LCD is to video performance what a 1979 King Cobra Mustang was to car performance--and that's being charitable!

It's years later and yes we still miss those 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle 454 LS6/Pioneer Kuro 600Ms!
post #65 of 111
Being excited about 4K resolution, does not mean we are excited for 4K edge-lit LCDs.
I really want a 4K (or 8K) display, but I won't be buying an edge-lit LCD.
post #66 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Being excited about 4K resolution, does not mean we are excited for 4K edge-lit LCDs.
I really want a 4K (or 8K) display, but I won't be buying an edge-lit LCD.

 

You might not have much of a choice.  You love Sony, but Sony isn't going away from edge any time soon.  They sure didn't in 2013.  And truly full array is getting harder and harder to find.

 

At this time, Artwood has 4,564 posts.  4,560 of them are precisely the same.

post #67 of 111
Look who's dooming and glooming now.
post #68 of 111
Artwood, we aren't really excited about 4K as much as the industry needing us to be excited about it. In their defense, 4K was never supposed to be the next big thing. OLED was. It's only after the unsuccessful attempts from manufacturers to improve upon the 90% OLED panel failure rate that forced the push to 4K. At some point they have to throw in the towel on the tech (at least temporarily) before it bankrupts them in R&D costs.
post #69 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

Look who's dooming and glooming now.

 

LOL.

post #70 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog750 View Post

Artwood, we aren't really excited about 4K as much as the industry needing us to be excited about it. In their defense, 4K was never supposed to be the next big thing. OLED was. It's only after the unsuccessful attempts from manufacturers to improve upon the 90% OLED panel failure rate that forced the push to 4K. At some point they have to throw in the towel on the tech (at least temporarily) before it bankrupts them in R&D costs.

That is exactly as I called it. The 4K hype marketing train would cause 2K OLED to be stillborn. 4K OLED still has a chance if the printing method pans out, but once again we are left waiting at least another 2 years to ramp up to mass production. That is if Kateeva really was able to do something that neither Panasonic or Sony could not do for over 10 years. I don't see how they couldn't have thought of a nitrogen chamber to reduce defect themselves. Anyway, until a Chinese maker commits to making OLED a mass produced product it will never take off. You can't run a display company by selling a few 100,000 top of the line displays. Pioneer failed with Kuro and Sharp with the Elite. Even Panasonic which had a few good years in plasma fell to the cost/performance of the Chinese makers. While we may think their displays are crap, 90% of the buying public feels they are good enough given the low price.
post #71 of 111
SO what should we give to the Chinese so they will produce OLED?

Vietnam has lower labor costs than China--would they be the way to stop the LCD apocalypse?

Yes Many of my posts have been the same--exactly how long have I warned of this catastrophe--remember when everyone said--no that will newer happen--plasma will last many more years--Full Array Local Dimming will last for many more years--OLED is coming and coming fast!

Who was right all you know it alls?!

So many posters who frequent this place and consider themselves to be intelligent experts are now defending 4K LCD that sucks!

How smart is that?

Look I would respect some of the self anointed smart set around here if they would say--"Look--we KNOW that LCD sucks but's it's the only thing we can buy now--we have to buy crap! Don't be such a killjoy when we are trying to help the industry around here sell Dog Mess!"

"Maybe 10 years from now there will be FLAT OLED that doesn't cost millions and is flat and doesn't suck--look Artwood we'll even make this deal with you--every year we will ADMIT that the new 4K LCD products suck and aren't worth nothing compared to ancient plasma if you'll just let us do a little of the selling of the garbage--heck we might even advocate that Samsung extend plasma production another year or two and produce a Kuro killer-- until that golden moment when OLED gets it right--until then YES you told us so!"

Thanks folks--I now feel like House and even if some of you CARE about LCD that sucks you're still just a bunch of Wilsons!!! LOL cubed!
post #72 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog750 View Post

Artwood, we aren't really excited about 4K as much as the industry needing us to be excited about it. In their defense, 4K was never supposed to be the next big thing. OLED was. It's only after the unsuccessful attempts from manufacturers to improve upon the 90% OLED panel failure rate that forced the push to 4K. At some point they have to throw in the towel on the tech (at least temporarily) before it bankrupts them in R&D costs.

That is exactly as I called it. The 4K hype marketing train would cause 2K OLED to be stillborn.

 

If it's true that 4K OLED is dramatically tougher to make than 2K OLED (this isn't the case for 4K vs 2K LCD), then yeah, 4K showed up at precisely the wrong time.

post #73 of 111
I picked up a Sony 65inch 4k. Compared to by Kuro 151, at 13ft away, the resolution bump is very noticeable. The are plenty of other issues with the set but resolution isn't one of them.
post #74 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR1 View Post

I picked up a Sony 65inch 4k. Compared to by Kuro 151, at 13ft away, the resolution bump is very noticeable. The are plenty of other issues with the set but resolution isn't one of them.

 

If you're referring to the X850, I have a suspicion that they're crippling that picture intentionally to leave room for the X900A.  It's not simply "X900 without the speakers" as it was referred to in the press.  Note: I'm not saying it's a bad set by any means....but I do think there's something going on there limiting its performance far more than their motion handling.

post #75 of 111
"OLED is coming and coming fast!"

From everything I've read, this is not true at all. In fact, it seems further away now than ever before. Now that Sony and Panasonic have stopped thier pursuits of the tech, OLED for the time being seems to be a very niche and expensive market. Mass production will never get off the ground with the current 90% panel failure rate. If there's something that I'm missing please feel free to link some sources on news.
post #76 of 111
You misread Arty. He is saying the opposite is true (that OLED does seem to have become stillborn). Look more closely at the context of his post...

That said, a 90% failure rate sounds like an exaggeration to me. The last seemingly legitimate report I saw showed LG's yields to be approaching 70% (so a 30% failure rate).
post #77 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

If you're referring to the X850, I have a suspicion that they're crippling that picture intentionally to leave room for the X900A.  It's not simply "X900 without the speakers" as it was referred to in the press.  Note: I'm not saying it's a bad set by any means....but I do think there's something going on there limiting its performance far more than their motion handling.

From everything I've read, granted there isn't a whole lot, the biggest differences are 3D (active vs passive) which doesn't concern me and lack of speakers.

The problem with the set is motion resolution which is terrible, esp when compared to the clarity of still or slow moving images. Then there's cloudy patches all over the panel and off axis viewing is outright pitiful. At this point, I'm not keen keeping the set.
post #78 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post


I really don't buy the argument that 1080 can't be topped. If I watch TV and then look out the window, what I see out the window is sharper. So there's clearly room for improvement.

But those are two different things. When you look at a TV, you're looking at colored lights. When you look outside, you see light reflections. Two different things.
post #79 of 111
I think the real problem with all the high resolution TV's are not with the TV's resolution. Years ago, I watched a 105" HD TV in a store with a direct feed camera attached. The movement and resolution was outstanding - infinitely much better than what was playing on the much smaller TVs when they were panning.

It's really the quality of the recording.
post #80 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by charmerci View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post


I really don't buy the argument that 1080 can't be topped. If I watch TV and then look out the window, what I see out the window is sharper. So there's clearly room for improvement.

But those are two different things. When you look at a TV, you're looking at colored lights. When you look outside, you see light reflections. Two different things.

 

Sorry, but no, you're wrong.  Regardless of how the image light originates, it STILL has to reach the retina the same way.  Yes, IRL there are different issues involved (and we've discussed many of them at very long length), but his statement regarding resolution is correct.

post #81 of 111
When light hits an object, that object absorbs light and reflects back just those light frequencies that give the object its color. A television is nothing but colored light. Two different things.

I'll bet you that if you make a 105" TV sized window looking at a night scene with neon light signs and compared a direct feed against that - that you could not tell the difference from a distance in which you can't make out the resolution of the TV. Do it in the day time and you would for the reason that I suggest - not because of resolution.
post #82 of 111

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by charmerci View Post

When light hits an object, that object absorbs light and reflects back just those light frequencies that give the object its color. A television is nothing but colored light. Two different things.

 

No.  In both cases, an image (composed of light) must reach your retina.  In both cases, whether it's reflectance or flat out emittance, (regardless of what generates the light), it is light reaching your eyes.  You have a certain ability to resolve.  That ability applies whether or not you are looking at an array of dots, or a painting, a tree, or whatever.
 

post #83 of 111
There are many people that post here that do not have ANY ability to resolve--they are the ones who love LCD!
post #84 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

There are many people that post here that do not have ANY ability to resolve--they are the ones who love LCD!

Or we just prefer LCD and are not close-minded like you..... I honestly love my F9000, yes it is not perfect but at a cost/performance ratio it is sitting just nicely. I prefer output of LCD vs plasma and the black levels are getting closer, under my normal viewing conditions it suits us just fine - the Samsung UHD sets are not this horrible abomination lol (clouding/flash lighting etc normally attributed to LCD edge-lit sets is extremely minimal here). And 4K material looks superb, great detail clarity on top of a top performing LCD set which can accurately reproduce colors, great black levels, etc. I came to the realization that OLED was not going to happen any time soon and 4K is going to be here for a while, that and I was not going to be able to afford any type of quality OLED set for at least 10-12 years.

I think that the problem is that people will make judgments based on the lowest common denominator, of course I would not consider any LCD set for purchase that is not a flagship model series from any of the manufacturers.... Truth is, the flagship models should actually be the baseline, instead they go backwards and for lower end sets they become crippled and perpetuate the general public being happy with s*** LCD. I cringe whenever anyone I know says they bought a Vizio, someone we know bought a 50" Vizio and said it was awesome, went over and it looked like it was 720p (and they sat < 6 feet, ACK!). Then people come to our house (we've had various Samsung 8000 series LCD sets over the years) and they realize there is a drawback when you flock out on black friday or any of those sales when the big stores peddle their crappy TV's off.

Sorry for my rant everyone. Just sick of Artwood, you've just been rubbing me the wrong way and NO I am NOT a salesperson. I just have my own preferences (might be hard for you to think that people can have different likes or dislikes from you). There is no perfect TV tech right now, even reference sets. There are drawbacks on every tech and will be until OLED comes to fruition (after they figure out longevity, production issues). Plasma - great PQ, but not good power consumption and brightness/white level usually, LCD - great PQ, but black levels not on par with plasma.

Artwood, I expect you will throw back a rant but I am done reading this thread now. I just couldn't stand your attitude.

Sorry again to everyone else, just needed to vent.... back to your normal business :-)
post #85 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

There are many people that post here that do not have ANY ability to resolve--they are the ones who love LCD!

I resolved to get a heater thats for heating. As for the other, an LED back light works for me. I am glad that everything I have is new and/or nearly new, all 6 of them. so I won't get in a big rush to go UHD-4K. But I well.

Go ahead and rant all you want upstate, the thread is about 4K/1080 and not the lame plasma is better then LCD, I believe what you get is what you like. I did, and this is my 2ed go around with hidef, and no more DLP, though I did think that they were good sets, we had one for 7 years.
post #86 of 111
Whether you like the Artwood or not is irrelevant.

I could post a dozen links and I didn't have to search for them all saying the same thing.

You need a very large tv to see any difference in 4k and then have your nose on it to tell the difference.

I went and did side by side comparison for myself which backs up all the industry experts..............


When you have a majority of people saying the same thing about lack of content and content delivery issues and

the fact you can't tell the difference unless your 2 FEET from the set like Consumer Reports said in their review

then you have what is called a CONSENSUS. Then when you back it up with your own eyes it would be considered

a fact in most people's world.



You guys can complain and bitch....all you like..........ARTWOOD is right on this issue.


Now go along little sheep and buy what they tell you to..........
post #87 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post

Now go along little sheep and buy what they tell you to..........

So you're saying we should not listen to what the plasma folks tell us? Sounds good to me.
post #88 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike99 View Post

So you're saying we should not listen to what the plasma folks tell us? Sounds good to me.
Nice straw man. No sheep need apply.
post #89 of 111
I would be happy if 4k projectors where under $3k.
That's where the real action would be.
post #90 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post

Whether you like the Artwood or not is irrelevant.

I could post a dozen links and I didn't have to search for them all saying the same thing.

You need a very large tv to see any difference in 4k and then have your nose on it to tell the difference.

I went and did side by side comparison for myself which backs up all the industry experts..............


When you have a majority of people saying the same thing about lack of content and content delivery issues and

the fact you can't tell the difference unless your 2 FEET from the set like Consumer Reports said in their review

then you have what is called a CONSENSUS. Then when you back it up with your own eyes it would be considered

a fact in most people's world.



You guys can complain and bitch....all you like..........ARTWOOD is right on this issue.


Now go along little sheep and buy what they tell you to..........


Apparently, you are wrong. 49 out of 50 people could tell the difference.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-resolution-201312153517.htm

And the kicker is they were not even running the real 4K we will be seeing in 4K-blu-ray. Namely 4K using HEVC h.265 codec standard. Lets not even mention the vastly superior 3D that 4K offers. Really it is moot point as 4K is coming and coming fast.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 4K Resolution Is Visible vs 1080p on 55″ TV from 9′ Viewing Distance