[Seth Mamane]

I would like to know who does the best at upscaling 1080p content to their 4k screen.

last year i heard sony 950b had the best 4k upscaler, this year though everyone seems to have beefed up their processors and i want to know who has the best.

afterall an lg oled 4k screen is great and all but if it cant make 1080 look good on its 4k screen like sony can it wont be as great.

When watching standard HD cable, would a 2015 LG OLED 4k with a 2nd rate 4k upscaler still be better than a flagship SONY FALD (x940C) screen with the best 4k upscaler?

 

[tgm1024]

Sadly, this is impossible to say.

I have a lot of faith in the Sony upscaling algorithms though having seen what their BDP's and TV's managed to pull off with just an SD->FHD conversion (I have both at home). And seeing the (4K) 2013 XBR-65X900A manage a Blu-Ray 1080 signal upconvert was very impressive. At the time, the 4K Samsung across from it seemed soft by comparison.

 

[oink]

This is a subject I am very interested in and will probably be the determining factor in which make I will be choosing later in the year.


I have seen the Sony 950 and it is impressive.
In fact, all of the Sonys impress me, but I'm not married to the brand either.


Is there anything on the horizon to watch for?

 

[mattg3]

Perhaps Oppo will come out with a 4K player and Im sure the upscale will be excellent.

 

[oink]

Perhaps Oppo will come out with a 4K player and Im sure the upscale will be excellent.

I thought the 103 upscaled to 4K?

 

[mattg3]

I thought the 103 upscaled to 4K?

Im talking about a dedicated 4K player that plays 4K discs.None exist yet as far as I know.

 

[glemigh]

Any new discoveries on this topic?

I'm personally holding out to see what the Sony 55x900c has to offer (55" is the biggest I can fit in the required space).

I have read that some sets are having a bigger issue upscaling 720p than others, and so that begs further review and options coonsiderations such as using a receiver to upscale to 1080p and let the 4k set have at it from there.

In the post tube era I've only purchased Sony, but as the first post here stated, for 4k, having the best quality upcaler for the dollar could be a brand changer.

 

[tgm1024]

Any new discoveries on this topic?

I'm personally holding out to see what the Sony 55x900c has to offer (55" is the biggest I can fit in the required space).

I have read that some sets are having a bigger issue upscaling 720p than others, and so that begs further review and options coonsiderations such as using a receiver to upscale to 1080p and let the 4k set have at it from there.

In the post tube era I've only purchased Sony, but as the first post here stated, for 4k, having the best quality upcaler for the dollar could be a brand changer.

I believe defaulting to Sony is not a bad idea, and frankly, I'm dying for them to enter the OLED market,

 

[OttoKürschner]

Sadly, this is impossible to say.

I have a lot of faith in the Sony upscaling algorithms though having seen what their BDP's and TV's managed to pull off with just an SD->FHD conversion (I have both at home). And seeing the (4K) 2013 XBR-65X900A manage a Blu-Ray 1080 signal upconvert was very impressive. At the time, the 4K Samsung across from it seemed soft by comparison.

I have always secretly wished for Sony to make plasmas or any kind emissive technology, their expertise in analog/digital signal processing surpasses Panasonic, Samsung and LG combined and attention to the smallest details has always impressed me (never got the feeling they are just trying to shift boxes)

 

[mattg3]

I believe in the early days of HD sony did make a plasma but it could not compete with Pioneer and Panny.

 

[Chase Payne]

It is not possible to upscale 1080p to 4k resolution to look the same or better than native unless you sit further away from the TV. Even if you did pixel doubling, which duplicates the pixel information and makes it the same on the screen as a 1080p set, the fact that you are sitting two times as close to the TV than normal the 1080p content will never look better than native. Think of this like an aspect ratio, because it is very similar.

There is no up-scaling needed to 4k, since it is mathematically equivalent (double on both sides). On all sets, unless they interpolate without a reason, it will all look the same. If any TV claims it is making it look *better* than 1080p, this is not true. They are using detail enhancement which alters the original image; if this is what you are looking for then make sure to clarify that.

I would say the best detail enhancement is the LG sets as it increases the detail without causing as much halos as Sony.

 

[tgm1024]

It is not possible to upscale 1080p to 4k resolution to look the same or better than native unless you sit further away from the TV.

What???

Even if you did pixel doubling, which duplicates the pixel information and makes it the same on the screen as a 1080p set, the fact that you are sitting two times as close to the TV than normal the 1080p content will never look better than native. Think of this like an aspect ratio, because it is very similar.

^^^LOL. No it isn't. You have the concept entirely messed up.

There is no up-scaling needed to 4k, since it is mathematically equivalent (double on both sides). On all sets, unless they interpolate without a reason, it will all look the same. If any TV claims it is making it look *better* than 1080p, this is not true. They are using detail enhancement which alters the original image; if this is what you are looking for then make sure to clarify that.

I would say the best detail enhancement is the LG sets as it increases the detail without causing as much halos as Sony.

Dedicated 2K->4K (1x1->2x2) upscaling is entirely different than detail enhancement which is a 2K->2K or 4K->4K modification of the source. In the detail enhancement case, they're modifying the source pixels in place. In the 2K->4K upscaling case, they're using the original 2K grid as a framework for filling in the missing pixels. I have a thread elsewhere around here showing simple algorithms in this regard, and I have a few of my own as well that exploit this.

PLEASE refrain from discussing things like the above until you know more about the issue.

 

[Chase Payne]

What???



^^^LOL. No it isn't. You have the concept entirely messed up.

http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/eyesight-4k-resolution-viewing

Basically, 4k is 50 FOV, 1080 is 32 FOV, it is not possible to make them the same. That website above explains the relative basics of it.

I have done extensive research on this matter most people are unaware of how our peripheral vision works. There's a certain point to where your vision gets worse, and 4k is beyond that point. I've explained this numerous times, in many posts. If you want to read up on it check my post history. As in the article above the full benefit of 4k will not happen until the field of view is corrected.

 

[tgm1024]

http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/eyesight-4k-resolution-viewing

Basically, 4k is 50 FOV, 1080 is 32 FOV, it is not possible to make them the same. That website above explains the relative basics of it.

And actually I do know what I am talking about, most people are unaware of how our peripheral vision works. There's a certain point to where your vision gets worse, and 4k. I've explained this numerous times, in many posts. If you want to read up on it check my post history. As in the article above the full benefit of 4k will not happen until the field of view is corrected.

You are completely misunderstanding what that article is saying.

Be clear, you said this:

Chase Payne: "It is not possible to upscale 1080p to 4k resolution to look the same or better than native unless you sit further away from the TV."
​

Let's agree, first of all, that by 2K and 4K we mean 1080 and 2160 vertical, to keep that silliness out of the way.

Once you are at a particular distance from a 4K display doing 1x1->2x2 NN replication, in what way are you required to sit further back once it begins a more complicated upscaling?

 

[Chase Payne]

You are completely misunderstanding what that article is saying.

Be clear, you said this:

Chase Payne: "It is not possible to upscale 1080p to 4k resolution to look the same or better than native unless you sit further away from the TV."
​

Let's agree, first of all, that by 2K and 4K we mean 1080 and 2160 vertical, to keep that silliness out of the way.

Once you are at a particular distance from a 4K display doing 1x1->2x2 NN replication, in what way are you required to sit further back once it begins a more complicated upscaling?

I tried to explain it in more simple terms as the other methods really didn't work out... but here's a recap:

When you move closer to an object, the size increases.
It takes more space in your vision.
Our 20/20 vision is limited to a certain amount of space
It just so happens the 1080p-1440p spectrum fits perfectly in that space
4k is going outside the boundaries of our vision, and since it is flat and none of the content is properly adjusting the field of view.
The overall resolution is much lower, because the once 1080p image is now stretching beyond the ideal view.


So what happens? Playing video games with collectibles becomes difficult, because your overall vision is worse, you'll tend to miss a lot of details that you could see plainly before.

But wait there's more to it.

4k content is unlikely going to change at all, because if they change the angle it is effectively changing the aspect ratio making it incompatible with older displays which shortens the market.

The only hope to fix this issue is Oculus Rift (for video games), because it requires extensive field of view changes; once this implemented games will provide a field of view option which will make the 4k experience significantly better that blows 1080p out of the water.



Does this make sense?

This is why the jump from SD to HD was much more noticeable, because it adjusted the field of view. What I mean by changing aspect ratio ism the content has to be shot in a different field of view; which means it would looks awkard on a 1080p display, they're not going to shoot the same scenes twice for different viewing angles.


This is also why people think 4k at further distances look better, this is true because if they are at the point where they can see 1440p they are near 30-36 field of view. In actuality, it will look better than 4k did up close.

 

[tgm1024]

I tried to explain it in more simple terms as the other methods really didn't work out... but here's a recap:



This is why the jump from SD to HD was much more noticeable, because it adjusted the field of view. What I mean by changing aspect ratio ism the content has to be shot in a different field of view; which means it would looks awkard on a 1080p display, they're not going to shoot the same scenes twice for different viewing angles.

I'm sorry, but you're still incorrect if you think this has anything to do with 2K->4K upscale which is the same aspect ratio.

Stop throwing nonsense around and answer the question. I have to take your points one at a time, because you're using one to confuse another.

1. You're confused on resolution. You've misread optimum and max benefits to mean that you somehow must stand further back for 4K devices.
2. You're similarly confusing 2K->4K upscaling with "detail enhancement"

 

[HockeyoAJB]

It is not possible to upscale 1080p to 4k resolution to look the same or better than native unless you sit further away from the TV. Even if you did pixel doubling, which duplicates the pixel information and makes it the same on the screen as a 1080p set, the fact that you are sitting two times as close to the TV than normal the 1080p content will never look better than native. Think of this like an aspect ratio, because it is very similar.

There is no up-scaling needed to 4k, since it is mathematically equivalent (double on both sides). On all sets, unless they interpolate without a reason, it will all look the same. If any TV claims it is making it look *better* than 1080p, this is not true. They are using detail enhancement which alters the original image; if this is what you are looking for then make sure to clarify that.

Obviously, we are including detail enhancement as part of "upscaling". If we define HD-to-UHD or 2K-to-4K upscaling as merely pixel doubling and anything beyond that as detail enhancement, there would be no need to ask who has the best upscaling, as everyone would be the same.

Like it or not, this is how the term upscaling has been used for over a decade. Ever heard somebody ask which Blu-Ray player has the best DVD upscaling? They're not asking which player does the best job of merely multiplying 480 lines of resolution by 2.25 (NTSC) or 576 lines of resolution by 1.875 (PAL) to give you 1080 lines of resolution.

Do you feel the same about SD-to-HD upscaling as you do about HD-to-UHD upscaling, in terms of its capability to make the image look "better"? If so then I hope you still have an SD CRT on hand whenever you want to watch a DVD or SD programming. That way your viewing enjoyment will not be ruined by those horrible upscalers.

 

[tgm1024]

Obviously, we are including detail enhancement as part of "upscaling". If we define upscaling as merely pixel doubling and anything beyond that as detail enhancement, there would be no need to ask who has the best upscaling, as everyone would be the same.

Like it or not, this is how the term upscaling has been used for over a decade. Ever heard somebody ask which Blu-Ray player has the best DVD upscaling? They're not asking which player does the best job of merely multiplying 480 lines of resolution by 2.25 (NTSC) or 576 lines of resolution by 1.875 (PAL) to give you 1080 lines of resolution.

To you feel the same about SD-to-HD upscaling as you do about HD-to-UHD upscaling, in terms of its capability to make the image look "better"? If so then I hope you still have an SD CRT on hand whenever you want to watch a DVD or SD programming. That way your viewing enjoyment will not be ruined by those horrible up scalers.

I still want him to walk through my questions one at a time. I think I can (finally) unravel where he's going wrong if he does.

 

[Chase Payne]

I'm sorry, but you're still incorrect if you think this has anything to do with 2K->4K upscale which is the same aspect ratio.

Stop throwing nonsense around and answer the question. I have to take your points one at a time, because you're using one to confuse another.

1. You're confused on resolution. You've misread optimum and max benefits to mean that you somehow must stand further back for 4K devices.
2. You're similarly confusing 2K->4K upscaling with "detail enhancement"

 

[tgm1024]

There is no requirement for detail enhancement. It is altering the original image, the issue is that can also be done on 1080p sets as well. You are required to sit the same distance if you wish to see the true 1080p image, if you sit too close you are instead seeing an image that is worse than native resolution, simply because how our vision works.

No, you have this confused, and I'm trimming away the rest of the post (which I read) to get to the bottom of this. I'll now back the question up to a simpler level.

BTW, do you have experience in actually coding these things?

Ok, here's the simpler question:

If I have a 2K set and a 4K set of the same size (same aspect ratio) both showing the same 2K source, and the 4K set is performing a 1x1->2x2 Nearest Neighbor (pixel replication), and you're the same distance from each, do you believe that the fields of view are different in any way?

Again, answer that, and only that.

Note: There is an aliasing concern about NN that I've raised in the past that need not be addressed here, and that has to do with a sharper definition of the inner angles of a step when you're duplicating pixels perfectly, but that's to the side of the point here, and is ONLY the case with the 4K interpixel grid is demonstrably thinner....so let's keep the examples and concepts theoretical to get to the bottom of this. Answer the above question (the sentence in bold) please.