Originally Posted by Jetmeck 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 left out this information from that same CR issue.
Compared to the image on a 1080p TV, the same content upconverted to 4K gives you most of the benefits we saw with the true 4K image, minus the extra detail. When displayed on the 4K screen, the finest details in the HD image were better resolved, with edges that were visibly smoother and less jagged than on the HDTV’s coarser 1080p pixel grid. And I saw no obvious upconversion artifacts to speak of, which demonstrates that the benefits of an Ultra HD TV's higher pixel density can still be appreciated even without true 4K content to watch.
Looking at the upconverted images (photos 4 and 8) and comparing them to the HD versions (photos 3 and 7) and true 4K versions (photo 2 and 6), you'll see that while they don't recover all the detail shown in the 4K photos, you do get a smoother, less-coarse image and slightly better detail than you'd see on a regular HDTV.
The image quality of film-based movies often depends on the type of film stock used, which in turn can affect picture detail and the level of film grain present.
The first thing that grabbed my attention was the quality of opening title sequences and graphics, where the edge detail of text rendered in 4K was razor sharp, to a level that just can’t be achieved with 1080p. Whether I was watching the “Eldorado” clip, the “Bucket” music video from Annah Mac, or any of the short movie videos, it was evident I was experiencing something new and special. With this type of content, Ultra HD image quality is simply stunning, revealing a depth of detail and texture that’s unprecedented for home video. Colors were vibrant, with an intensity that never looked false, and subtle shades revealed no hint of banding or compression-based noise.
I also didn’t see any aliasing or moiré (false patterns) on complex fine detail. In short, the picture was as seamless as a projected film, with no visible clues that I was actually watching video. In my opinion, 4K videos are the real showcase for what Ultra HD can deliver, with cleaner, better detail than I saw with the film-based movies.
That Ultra HD can yield better picture quality than HD is indisputable, and it can help HD programs look better, too. But to best appreciate this benefit you'll either have to slide your sofa very close to the screen, or go for the largest Ultra HD display you can get your hands on. Either way you'll dish out a premium—often considerable—for the privilege, and still have no native 4K content to watch (unless of course you go the Sony route).
But when UHD prices drop to near HD levels—and you know they will—and 4K content becomes widely available, the choice will be simple: Go Ultra.
Originally Posted by Jetmeck
Now go along little sheep and buy what they tell you to..........
Originally Posted by Artwood
There are many people that post here that do not have ANY ability to resolve--they are the ones who love LCD!
I can’t find any relevance to either of those statements. Condescending arrogance – most definitely.