AVS Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,315 Posts
4K is brand new. You really have to be out on the edge to buy it now. In many ways, it's like the early days of HD when 42" plasmas were AWFUL and cost $10,000. I waited a few years when enough broadcasters had launched HD programming and I still spent $5,000 for a 42" Panasonic 720P plasma. And that was REAL money then. Shopping for 4K right now requires a LOT of considerations. The less expensive 4K sets will almost certainly never work with any broadcast or streamed 4K content if/when that becomes available. The built-in 4K scaling of lower res content is highly suspect. You need to get a monster sized set and sit close to it to get any potential benefit, and that would, for now, involve mostly just watching 4K sample clips on Youtube. The novelty of that wears off pretty quick. Still, I'm looking at it. There will be bad performing 4K TVs and good ones. There are so few published reviews that it's very tough to separate them out. I've been doing store visits examining the current crop of 4K sets as well as the better 1080P sets (including plasma). It's awfully early and I'm mostly getting frustrated trying to evaluate the 4K sets. This year will be a shakeout period for 4K introductions. Maybe next year too.


Unlike that article you cite, seeing as OLED development didn't die along the way already in what has been a very LONG, HARD road, I don't believe 4K will kill it off. It still requires more efficient manufacturing processes, like inkjet printing, to make it a mass market reality, but I'm more hopeful now than I was several years ago. OLED isn't perfect either, but it seems darn close.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Bill ball thanks for your in depth opinion.I agree the less expensive 4k will not live up to expectation.I've been to best buy and spent a few hours checking out the sets and I find the sony w850a as good as it gets. Great price point for what you get. I do like the sony and samsung 4k sets, but expensive. I am leaning to the sony w850a but I might wait for the sony w 950b to compare,all the specs seem better than the earlier model.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,396 Posts
That article really doesn't make a lot of sense. A 4k TV isn't really going to look any worse than a 1080p set with 1080p material so there isn't really a tradeoff by getting a 4k set. That said 4k content, particularly high quality 4k content remains elusive.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
106 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·

Why buy 4K if the picture looks even worse with the 720 P or 1080P ?

Money does not matter here, only the image quality

 

What's the point of buying 4K screen if the picture is worse ?

 

It seems very logical that the picture is not good Enough

Manufacturers have not invested more power in processor 

Panasonic left with two cores 

Samsung stayed with 4 cores

 

Why buy tv with color screen 8BIT when 1080P with 10 BIT Color  ?

Why buy tv ENhanced Refresh Rate 120HZ  when 1080P with 240 HZ  ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,710 Posts
Good old cnet. Basically they're sore because 4K has killed their beloved plasma. Yes, their concerns about the lack of 4K content are entirely valid but are no more pressing than they were last summer, and besides, displays always precede the content, it's nothing new.


The issue of a bad 4K signal being worse than a good 1080p one is preaching to the converted. I wonder if they were moaning about how much better CRT was than LCD/plasma 14 years ago, and how a good SD image was better than a bad HD one?


As for OLED's development being retarded by 4K, that tech has been touted as the next big thing for about the last decade, so the manufacturers have been doing a good enough job on their own of making its development as protracted as possible.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
106 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·

They have no interest in lying

They have serious Laboratory

 

I saw no difference in Sony 55"  X9005 4K TO  1080P  IN Blue Ray 

Sometimes 4K seemed unnatural

 

4K passive 3D looks terrible without depth as Wallpaper

 

Maybe there is a problem that is not UPSCALE quality at 4K 

The CPU in tv  weak from Smartphones

For 4K manufacturers did not improve anything  
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,011 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6311  /t/1524586/push-for-ultra-hd-4k-forces-picture-quality-tradeoffs#post_24538233


Why to buy 4K?


It will destroy the picture

Spot on.

Instead of getting the Rec.709 colour space we only get Rec.101 with 4k sets and instead of the mighty 8 bit 4:2:0 we only get 2 bit 1:0:-1.

Shocking!!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,026 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6311  /t/1524586/push-for-ultra-hd-4k-forces-picture-quality-tradeoffs#post_24538233


Why to buy 4K?


It will destroy the picture

Complete nonsense.  A 4K TV can faithfully reproduce a 2K signal, even if all it does is pixel replication.  Further, the upscaling on the Sony 4K sets is tremendous!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Geoff D

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,209 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6311 

They have no interest in lying

They have serious Laboratory


I saw no difference in Sony 55"  X9005 4K TO  1080P  IN Blue Ray 


Sometimes 4K seemed unnatural


4K passive 3D looks terrible without depth as Wallpaper


Maybe there is a problem that is not UPSCALE quality at 4K 

The CPU in tv  weak from Smartphones

For 4K manufacturers did not improve anything  
get yourself a 1080p OLED
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,026 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6311  /t/1524586/push-for-ultra-hd-4k-forces-picture-quality-tradeoffs/0_60#post_24539909

 

They have no interest in lying

They have serious Laboratory

 

I saw no difference in Sony 55"  X9005 4K TO  1080P  IN Blue Ray 

Sometimes 4K seemed unnatural

 

4K passive 3D looks terrible without depth as Wallpaper

 

Maybe there is a problem that is not UPSCALE quality at 4K 

The CPU in tv  weak from Smartphones

For 4K manufacturers did not improve anything  
 

First of all, if you're talking about the 3D on the 2013 Sony XBR-55X900A, then note that the 55" version of that set implemented passive as 540 vertical (like their 2K sets).  They suffered too tight a vertical viewing angle at 1080.  Their 65" version (2013 XBR-65X900A) in passive 3D is a full 1080 vertical (half of 2160 as expected).

 

Note also: This means that even a 2K (1080p) 3D blu-ray will display at 1080p vertical on the 65X900A even though it is passive 3D.

 

Secondly, if you saw no improvement in a 2K blu-ray being upscaled to 4K on that set then I have to wash my hands of this conversation because I have no idea what on earth you're talking about.  I spent a long time in front of one and it was great.

 

Third, 720p source should look slightly better on a 4K set because it's at worst a 1x1-->3x3 even pixel replication ("nearest-neighbor" algorithm).  A 2K set will display that as 1x1-->1.5x1.5, which is not an ideal multiple to maintain sharpness (again, unless the set is able to perform a fancier upscale like the Sony TVs and BDP's do).

 

And finally please keep in mind that the part of the article that's bothering you was about 4K feeds (4K reduced quality source on a 4K set), not 2K feeds on 4K sets.  2K to a 4K set should suffer no image degradation at all.  Not with nearest-neighbor pixel replication upscale, nor with their fancier algorithm (whatever it is).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
106 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·

Quote:
heir 65" version (2013 XBR-65X900A) in passive 3D is a full 1080 vertical (half of 2160 as expected).
I'm sorry you're wrong It also cuts in half like a 55 "
http://store.sony.com/65-class-64.5-diag-xbr-4k-ultra-hd-tv-zid27-XBR65X900A/cat-27-catid-All-XBR-Series-TVs
http://store.sony.com/55-class-54.6-diag-xbr-4k-ultra-hd-tv-zid27-XBR55X900A/cat-27-catid-All-XBR-Series-TVs
Registered as 55 "
  • 3D Format Support : Yes(2K-only)

Blue Ray comes only 1080P and 4K 3D

So how is the multiplier pixels  ?

This same model where you see that doubling the pixels ?

 
Quote:

Secondly, if you saw no improvement in a 2K blu-ray being upscaled to 4K on that set then I have to wash my hands of this conversation because I have no idea what on earth you're talking about.  I spent a long time in front of one and it was great.

 
I did not see any improvement of 4K versus 2K as many other sites!

There are many publicists

 
Quote:
Third, 720p source should look slightly better on a 4K set because it's at worst a 1x1-->3x3 even pixel replication ("nearest-neighbor" algorithm).  A 2K set will display that as 1x1-->1.5x1.5, which is not an ideal multiple to maintain sharpness (again, unless the set is able to perform a fancier upscale like the Sony TVs and BDP's do).
Just not true 

Everything you wrote
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,026 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6311  /t/1524586/push-for-ultra-hd-4k-forces-picture-quality-tradeoffs/0_60#post_24540345

 
Quote:
heir 65" version (2013 XBR-65X900A) in passive 3D is a full 1080 vertical (half of 2160 as expected).
I'm sorry you're wrong It also cuts in half like a 55 "
http://store.sony.com/65-class-64.5-diag-xbr-4k-ultra-hd-tv-zid27-XBR65X900A/cat-27-catid-All-XBR-Series-TVs
http://store.sony.com/55-class-54.6-diag-xbr-4k-ultra-hd-tv-zid27-XBR55X900A/cat-27-catid-All-XBR-Series-TVs
Registered as 55 "

  • 3D Format Support : Yes(2K-only)
 

The 55" (X900A) passive 3D cuts the vertical resolution by 4.  The 65" cuts the vertical resolution by 2.  Sony got into some very bad press over this.  Here is a side by side test exposing this very problem:

 


 

 
Quote:

Blue Ray comes only 1080P and 4K 3D

So how is the multiplier pixels  ?

This same model where you see that doubling the pixels ?
 

Please be careful with statements like this.  Blu-Ray is somewhat more encompassing that you are apparently aware.  For instance, here a resolution chart from the BDA (Blu-ray Disc Association) specification regarding BD-ROM video.  Note the 720 references.  You can find the whole specification here:

 

BD ROM - Audio Visual Application Format Specifications (Update: July 2011)

 



 

Now a Blu-ray player is of course free to upscale these automatically before they hit the TV, but there are more sources than just blu-ray.  720 shows up still.  And PCs commonly are configured that way and some video games are 720p.  In fact it's sometimes a necessity: for instance when driven from a PC, 720p on my Sony (60R550A) is the only way to get true 120fps *input* displayed without frame dropping.

 
Quote:
Quote:

Secondly, if you saw no improvement in a 2K blu-ray being upscaled to 4K on that set then I have to wash my hands of this conversation because I have no idea what on earth you're talking about.  I spent a long time in front of one and it was great.

 
I did not see any improvement of 4K versus 2K as many other sites!

There are many publicists
 

Ok, but that's far from an accepted argument.  It's an ongoing war over here.  Plus, at what distance were you?

 

Run this experiment for yourself on any reasonable monitor.  Note the results in the poll.

 

2K vs 4K vs 8K - Can You Tell the Difference?

 
Quote:
Quote:
Third, 720p source should look slightly better on a 4K set because it's at worst a 1x1-->3x3 even pixel replication ("nearest-neighbor" algorithm).  A 2K set will display that as 1x1-->1.5x1.5, which is not an ideal multiple to maintain sharpness (again, unless the set is able to perform a fancier upscale like the Sony TVs and BDP's do).
Just not true 

Everything you wrote
 

This is demonstrably nonsense.  Try to construct a reasoned reply based upon what I've shown you.  Keep in mind that AVS forum is filled with imaging professionals; most will not be as patient with you as I have been.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6311  /t/1524586/push-for-ultra-hd-4k-forces-picture-quality-tradeoffs#post_24540345

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024  /t/1524586/push-for-ultra-hd-4k-forces-picture-quality-tradeoffs#post_24540241




Third, 720p source should look slightly better on a 4K set because it's at worst a 1x1-->3x3 even pixel replication ("nearest-neighbor" algorithm). A 2K set will display that as 1x1-->1.5x1.5, which is not an ideal multiple to maintain sharpness (again, unless the set is able to perform a fancier upscale like the Sony TVs and BDP's do).


And finally please keep in mind that the part of the article that's bothering you was about 4K feeds (4K reduced quality source on a 4K set), not 2K feeds on 4K sets. 2K to a 4K set should suffer no image degradation at all. Not with nearest-neighbor pixel replication upscale, nor with their fancier algorithm (whatever it is).
Just not true 

Everything you wrote
.




Actually, everything he told you is true...
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top