AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,834 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I had a few minutes to kill this morning and went into Best Buy to check out their TVs, For the first time, I looked at some 4K TVs. They looked incredible. They had a 65" Samsung LCD that showed a 4K demo loop. Had images of a city at night, desert scenes, etc... . The image blew me away. Looked like the image was painted on the screen. I couldn't see any individual dots from any distance. Even from 8 feet back, the image looked fantastic. It was way better looking than any of the 1080p TVs on display. The image quality absolutely blew away my Panasonic ST50. After reading how many state you can't tell a difference between 4k and 2K, I wasn't expecting much. But, there is clearly a huge difference. Sadly, they didn't have any OLED TVs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,540 Posts
That's very interesting, and not the first such favorable report we've seen here. I must get down to BB soon and take a look. Given the rather theoretical arguments we've seen that 4K resolution is not discernible from ordinary viewing distances, maybe we should start thinking about reasons it might look better, nonetheless.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,567 Posts
It is interesting the variety of opinions about the benefits of 4K. Even among so called experts, there are vastly different impressions. I have come to the conclusion it is dependent upon 4 factors.


1. Display size

2. Viewing distance

3. 4K source/encoding

4. Viewer eyesight.


One and two are self explanatory. The bigger the screen and the closer you view the better 4K will look. Number 3 is source dependent. Most of the 4K images you saw were likely static or slow moving pictures. You will always see more detail in them than a regular fast moving tv show or film. Also, most 4K sources are using modified h.264 codec, like the modified one Eyeio supplied to Sony for their 4K media server. 4K using the least compressed profile of the new HEVC h.265 codec will look superior. Finally, there is the viewer's eyesight. Now this one is highly debatable, but as someone that needs glasses for minor vision correcting, I actually think it is those of us with poorer vision that are seeing a bigger advantage than those with perfect vision that have been viewing quality 1080p.


End result is that 4K with its increased resolution, color profile, and data space is a clear advancement over current 1080p specs. Now that cost have dramatically dropped for 4K sets, it will be a moot point. In 5 years you will probably have a hard time finding a non 4K set.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,696 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech  /t/1521445/went-to-best-buy-this-morning#post_24453501


It is interesting the variety of opinions about the benefits of 4K. Even among so called experts, there are vastly different impressions. I have come to the conclusion it is dependent upon 4 factors.


1. Display size

2. Viewing distance

3. 4K source/encoding

4. Viewer eyesight.


One and two are self explanatory. The bigger the screen and the closer you view the better 4K will look. Number 3 is source dependent. Most of the 4K images you saw were likely static or slow moving pictures. You will always see more detail in them than a regular fast moving tv show or film. Also, most 4K sources are using modified h.264 codec, like the modified one Eyeio supplied to Sony for their 4K media server. 4K using the least compressed profile of the new HEVC h.265 codec will look superior. Finally, there is the viewer's eyesight. Now this one is highly debatable, but as someone that needs glasses for minor vision correcting, I actually think it is those of us with poorer vision that are seeing a bigger advantage than those with perfect vision that have been viewing quality 1080p.


End result is that 4K with its increased resolution, color profile, and data space is a clear advancement over current 1080p specs. Now that cost have dramatically dropped for 4K sets, it will be a moot point. In 5 years you will probably have a hard time finding a non 4K set.

Agree with everything you have written. In addition, I believe there is the question of cost/benefit. There is no question that 4K looks better - get close enough and it is stunning. The question is whether it looks superior during 'normal viewing conditions' and whether that superiority is worth the additional cost. As 'the additional cost' drops close to $0 (versus 1080p panels with similar PQ in terms of all other attributes other than resolution), the point becomes moot. 4K looks better when playing a video game from up close, it looks better when friends are visiting and looking at your fancy new 4K TV from up close, it looks better when watching true 4K content as long as you are sitting 'close enough' to see the difference (which might be closer than your normal viewing distance), and it pretty much will never look worse. So if the delta cost is $0, who in their right mind wouldn't jump on a 4K set (all other characteristic being equal)???


My own prediction is that very soon (if not already), premium picture quality in terms of contrast, action rate, etc... is only going to be offered on 4K panels. The lone holdout with be the Samsung plasmas which will probably rule the 1080p best PQ roost until the bitter end...


This season, I believe the only vendor to offer a relatively top-of-the-line 1080p panel was Toshiba, which has offerings based on its new Radiance panel in both 4K (L9400U) and 1080p (L7400U).


I predict that by 2015, if you want to get an LED/LCD with the best PQ (outside of resolution), you are going to end up with 4K, period (meaning that the '4K' cost $0 - it came along for the ride at no premium cost given that you are paying extra for premium PQ.


Vizio has already executed this strategy in their 2014 Line-up. Skipping over the Reference Series for the moment (which may or may not exist and in any case will not be a mainstream product), Vizio offers both a FALD 1080p product (M Series) as well as a FALD 4K product (P Series). But the P has double the number of dimming zones and so should have better dark-level performance. It also has a higher Clear Action Rate (and probably also a brighter backlight), so it should do a superior job reducing motion blur. Even if you don't give a hoot about 4K, if you want the best mainstream PQ from the 2014 Vizio lineup, you are going to have to get the P Series and 4K resolution is going to come along for the ride for $0 additional cost...


If the content industry does not ever deliver any 'true' 4K content, the entire initiative could unwind ('m not sure upscaling 1080p to 4K by itself is sufficient value to keep marketing the feature), but with any support for true 4K content at all (Netflix streaming 4K, 4K bluerays or whatever), I believe 4K is here to stay. And I believe Panasonics decision to get out of the Plasma business is a direct result of coming to the same conclusion...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,834 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech  /t/1521445/went-to-best-buy-this-morning#post_24453501


Most of the 4K images you saw were likely static or slow moving pictures. You will always see more detail in them than a regular fast moving tv show or film.

Some of the images were slow pans, but many were time lapse of a city. The cars were zipping along really fast. Both looked great. The TV was clearly a top of the line Samsung. BB is asking $4499. I would guess Samsung threw everything they had in the model so it not only benefited from 4K, but from all the top of line components.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
These demos are carefully engineered to provide the most impact. For example, why time-lapses instead of fast-paced video? Because every frame in a time-lapse is a sharp, crisp still image. It is a known practice, when one shoots video with a DSLR, to use shutter speed roughly double of frame rate. Try a 60fps video using 1/000s shutter speed, and it's going to look very jerky. Same video shot at 1/120s will look natural, and each individual frame will have a bit of motion blur to it.


Another thing: peppering the image with small high-contrast detail. A night city is always a hit because of all the tiny lit windows scattered about dark buildings. A slow night city pan is one of those things that will look better on a 4K even from a significant distance - especially when one is actively trying to pick out the difference.


Truth is, about 0.1% of regular material people watch is slow pans and time-lapses. And when watching an exciting movie, last thing on my mind is trying to pick out individual hairs in the villain's beard. Another hard truth is those engineered demos is the only video material that really 'delivers' 4K, and it's going to be a VERY long haul before we have widespread availability of anything but those demos.


Yes, 4K is not going to look worse. Those of us shopping for a new TV set in 2015 will likely have no reason NOT to get 4K. A far more troubling for the TV makers question is: WHO will be shopping for a new TV in 2015? If I already have a nice, thin LED 1080p screen that's about as big as practically possible for its location, is there a compelling reason to take it off and go shopping for a 4K? I don't think so. The TV market is close to saturated. Most people who wanted a big screen, bought one. The coming of 4K is likely to result in some rock bottom bargains on quality 1080p sets, putting them in range of left-over penny pinchers.


So, when 4K sets arrive en masse, who will upgrade?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,834 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by scorrpio  /t/1521445/went-to-best-buy-this-morning#post_24473459


These demos are carefully engineered to provide the most impact. For example, why time-lapses instead of fast-paced video? Because every frame in a time-lapse is a sharp, crisp still image. It is a known practice, when one shoots video with a DSLR, to use shutter speed roughly double of frame rate. Try a 60fps video using 1/000s shutter speed, and it's going to look very jerky. Same video shot at 1/120s will look natural, and each individual frame will have a bit of motion blur to it.


Another thing: peppering the image with small high-contrast detail. A night city is always a hit because of all the tiny lit windows scattered about dark buildings. A slow night city pan is one of those things that will look better on a 4K even from a significant distance - especially when one is actively trying to pick out the difference.


Truth is, about 0.1% of regular material people watch is slow pans and time-lapses. And when watching an exciting movie, last thing on my mind is trying to pick out individual hairs in the villain's beard. Another hard truth is those engineered demos is the only video material that really 'delivers' 4K, and it's going to be a VERY long haul before we have widespread availability of anything but those demos.


Yes, 4K is not going to look worse. Those of us shopping for a new TV set in 2015 will likely have no reason NOT to get 4K. A far more troubling for the TV makers question is: WHO will be shopping for a new TV in 2015? If I already have a nice, thin LED 1080p screen that's about as big as practically possible for its location, is there a compelling reason to take it off and go shopping for a 4K? I don't think so. The TV market is close to saturated. Most people who wanted a big screen, bought one. The coming of 4K is likely to result in some rock bottom bargains on quality 1080p sets, putting them in range of left-over penny pinchers.


So, when 4K sets arrive en masse, who will upgrade?

I don't disagree with anything you're saying. Everything was staged to make the 4K TV look awesome and the staging succeeded. The 1080p TVs also showed demo loops that I would guess were also designed to make them look as good as possible and the difference between the 4K TV and 1080p TVs was dramatic.


12 years ago, people stated that there's no reason to buy a HDTV. There's no HDTV content. Save your money and buy a high end SDTV instead. Those who listened to this advice were kicking themselves a few years later. I think we're at a similar point with 4K TV. I would advise anyone to not buy a 1080p TV. No matter how much it's discounted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
I've seen the exact same demo as well. It does look amazing.


I am fully aware that most regular content (cable, sat and Blu-ray) won't show as dramatic a benefit as it is being upscaled instead of being native 4K content, not to mention the lack of motion in the demo.


However, as a marketing tool, it is highly effective. 1080P OLED is going to be DOA in a brightly lit showroom. Bring on the 4K OLED though
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
Actually, those cautioning against HDTV in 2001 were quite correct. Exorbitant prices, lack of HDMI and HDCP compliance, odd native resolutions, abysmal black levels of LCD and high chance of burn-in for plasma, combined with abject lack of HD content, made HDTV far from a smart buy. Those who chose to go with older tech at the time, and held off on upgrading to an HDTV until 2005-2006, IMHO came out ahead both money-wise and technologically.


My main point, however, someone who got himself a nice 60"+ LED panel within past 2-3 years, is very unlikely to upgrade. And with the prices what they were, about everyone who wanted a nice thin 60"+ TV was by now able to afford one. Also, a lot of those TVs are connected to their sources via receivers that don't handle 4K, but connection must be through receiver for the Blu-Ray lossless codecs to work. 4K Blu-Rays will require new receivers and new players. Upgrade inertia will be incredible.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,424 Posts
^What about someone who got himself a 60+ plasma in the same time span? I know, a smaller bunch, but they are equally as unlikely to upgrade. Sorry, KidHorn, but I think your say no to 1080p HDTV advice is premature for scorrpio's aforementioned reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,224 Posts
Well, I was one of the people who bought HD in 2001. Yes, there was precious little content, but what there was was stunning - nothing like todays limited bandwidth crap. I bought the 38" RCA behemoth and happily watched it for 7 years before upgrading. It's still going strong in my lower level rec area, I'm certainly glad I did not miss out on those years of great HD. Obviously moving from plasma or LCD to OLED will not be as dramatic, and there is less of an incentive to do so, so I'd agree if someone bought a 60" display 2, 3, or 4 years ago the itch to upgrade in much less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,834 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by scorrpio  /t/1521445/went-to-best-buy-this-morning#post_24477166


Actually, those cautioning against HDTV in 2001 were quite correct. Exorbitant prices, lack of HDMI and HDCP compliance, odd native resolutions, abysmal black levels of LCD and high chance of burn-in for plasma, combined with abject lack of HD content, made HDTV far from a smart buy. Those who chose to go with older tech at the time, and held off on upgrading to an HDTV until 2005-2006, IMHO came out ahead both money-wise and technologically.

You think is was a good idea to watch SDTV for 5 years instead of buying a HDTV. I bought my first HDTV in 2003. I paid $1700 for a rear projection 50" with DVI. It still works great today and has never had a problem. I use a hdmi to dvi connection with no handshaking issues. While at first there wasn't much HD content. Only over the air during prime time and football, etc.. , but DVDs looked a lot better than on a SDTV. If I had it to do over again, I would still buy what I did.


By the end of the summer there will be a plethora of 4K TVs that will be sub $2,000. Some under $1,000. Not exorbitant prices. Maybe a few hundred more than a comparable 1080p TV. The 4K panels will be basically the same as the 1080p ones with 4x the resolution. Not any more prone to wear problems or poor black level performance.
Quote:
My main point, however, someone who got himself a nice 60"+ LED panel within past 2-3 years, is very unlikely to upgrade. And with the prices what they were, about everyone who wanted a nice thin 60"+ TV was by now able to afford one. Also, a lot of those TVs are connected to their sources via receivers that don't handle 4K, but connection must be through receiver for the Blu-Ray lossless codecs to work. 4K Blu-Rays will require new receivers and new players. Upgrade inertia will be incredible.

I've read that 4K Blu-ray players will likely have 2 hdmi ports. One to go to the TV and one to go to the receiver. I think only a small pct of those buying a 4K TV will be turned off having to spend another $300 on a 4K Blu-ray player to take full advantage of it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,026 Posts

^^^wondering when something else will end...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 67jason

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,026 Posts

Comparing the SD HD transition to the current HD UHD transition isn't exactly ......... appropriate.

 

Going from SD to HD meant three enormous leaps in technology at the same time:
  1. digital
  2. resolution
  3. flat panel

 

...and as such carried with it enormous cost.  Consider that to now:
  1. digital
  2. resolution
  3. flat panel

 

...and we're left with a far far easier transition.

 

There is no real reason to not go 4K with your next TV unless you're set on having OLED.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024  /t/1521445/went-to-best-buy-this-morning#post_24482083

 

Comparing the SD HD transition to the current HD UHD transition isn't exactly ......... appropriate.

 

Going from SD to HD meant three enormous leaps in technology at the same time:
  1. digital
  2. resolution
  3. flat panel

 

...and as such carried with it enormous cost.  Consider that to now:
  1. digital
  2. resolution
  3. flat panel

 

...and we're left with a far far easier transition.

 

There is no real reason to not go 4K with your next TV unless you're set on having OLED.
Cost? 

 

When I was shopping around I didn't really see any inexpensive 4k TVs. 
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,849 Posts
That's the whole point--instead of paying too much for LCD that sucks--pay INFINITE for 4K LCD that also sucks!


NO ONE wants to view even 8K LCD from the side at an angle because it sucks!


But the Sales Force here will try to convince you that even though it does suck--you have to MAKE your brain say that it looks great from the side and BUY it anyway! And pay MORE for it, too!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
My bad, wrong choice of words. Meant to say 'flat panel HDTV'. There were very reasonably priced CRT and rear-projection HDTVs at the time. This is what I meant by "go with older tech".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024  /t/1521445/went-to-best-buy-this-morning#post_24482083


Comparing the SD HD transition to the current HD UHD transition isn't exactly ......... appropriate.


Going from SD to HD meant three enormous leaps in technology at the same time:
  1. digital
  2. resolution
  3. flat panel


...and as such carried with it enormous cost.  Consider that to now:
  1. digital
  2. resolution
  3. flat panel


...and we're left with a far far easier transition.


There is no real reason to not go 4K with your next TV unless you're set on having OLED.

You got this a bit backwards. SD-HD transition specifically was highly desirable to the consumer because it offered a number of improvements at once. All these leaps made via a single expense, 'killing three birds with one stone'. And the resolution leap was something very clearly visible from typical viewing distance, for all kinds of content. No wonder people jumped on it the moment it came within their budget.


Offer me a product that offers 3-4 clear advantages over what I already have, and I'll be reaching for my wallet in no time.


Offer me something that offers a single dubious advantage over what I got, and I'll just say no thanks.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top