AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 97 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
904 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm looking to get a new TV for our new family room 65 or 70 inch.


What would be the advantages to get a 4K vs 1080P set without any 4K content to display.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
917 Posts
The advantage is that by the time you need a new TV to replace this one there will be a lot of 4K content to show on it. And some people think that the current content looks better on a 4K. I doubt there will be any TV stations showing it but new movie discs may get it, sort of like 3D discs now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,049 Posts
I'm struggling with this very notion. I love movies and 4k is the future. Even now we have 4k movie content and it is trickling out. If you wait a year you will for sure get more for your money but that's the same thing every year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
904 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
So are we saying without any 4K content a 4K display wont do anything better than a 1080P display would.


A 1080P blu-ray won't look better on a 4K display vs a high end 1080P TV?


I thought I might have read somewhere that it does 3D twice as fast?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,945 Posts
Personally, I'd wait till at least next year to see how this year's 4k tv's deliver. Content availability aside, 4k is a bit of a misnomer. Is it truly 4k ( 4096 x 2160) or UHD ( 3840 x 2160), or does either resolution really matter because the 4k term is used a bit loosely? The same is true with HDMI 2.0 (which is being advertised with some 4k sets). Is it fully compliant HDMI 2.0 (very doubtful) or is it HDMI with some of the new 2.0 features?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,049 Posts
Uhd is 4k for all intents and purposes. It's not like next year real 4k will come out. Also a set advertising 2.0 hdmi is fully 2.0 compliant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,945 Posts
Maybe I need to brush up on my math but 3840 does not equal 4096. But , if there is no discernible difference, then I guess it doesn't matter. As far as HDMI 2.0 goes, that is not true. The problem that HDMI.org is having is that some mfrs are displaying the HDMI 2.0 logo when in fact their sets do not fully comply with the complete 2.0 specs. What HDMI.org wants the mfrs' to do is list which HDMI 2.0 features their devices have instead of just advertising HDMI 2.0. The HDMI chipsets that are capable of 4:2:2, 8, 10, or 12-bit, 17.82 Gbps aren't available yet (as far as I know of) in the 2014 tv's. Sony has a HDMI 2.0 upgrade for their tv's this year but that's only at about 8.91Gbps which is certainly part of HDMI 2.0 but does not mean full compliance. What about CEC Extensions, Dual-view, multi-stream audio, 21:9 aspect, dynamic auto lip-sync? It's a marketing game that the mfrs are doing to lure folks in which, imo, is a bit deceptive. This is one of the few things that I agree with HDMI.org about. The mfrs should list which features that their "HDMI 2.0" tv's have. CEC Extensions alone is worth knowing about if your tv has it for sure or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,049 Posts
That makes no sense. If you say your set is 2.0 hdmi then it must be 2.0 otherwise that's false advertising. It's odd their isn't a bigger deal being made of this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,945 Posts
There is a big deal about this from HDMI.org because if a mfr says HDMI 2.0, and they do in fact meet some of the HDMI 2.0 specs, they can say HDMI 2.0, at least that's my understanding. I don't know of a mfr that is stating "Full HDMI 2.0 Compliance". But it is confusing a lot of consumers just like the labeling of HDMI cables did a few years ago. HDMI.org finally got the mfrs to drop the "HDMI 1.4 Cable" from their marketing and got most of them to indicate high speed instead of 1.4 (which is the hardware spec). For me, until I see a device that is labeled as full HDMI 2.0 compliance, or which specific HDMI 2.0 specs they have, I'll wait. Besides, all of your devices have to be HDMI 2.0 to really take advantage of if and if they don't all have the same specs.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
FWIW - Most consumer TV's will likely be adhering to the CEA's minimum definition for "Ultra High-Definition" or "Ultra HD"...

---

The Consumer Electronics Association announced on October 17, 2012, that "Ultra High-Definition", or "Ultra HD", would be used for displays that have an aspect ratio of at least 16:9 and at least one digital input capable of carrying and presenting native video at a minimum resolution of 3,840×2,160 pixels.

---
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,809 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by al210  /t/1524692/why-buy-4k-now#post_24541158


So are we saying without any 4K content a 4K display wont do anything better than a 1080P display would.


A 1080P blu-ray won't look better on a 4K display vs a high end 1080P TV?

I thought I might have read somewhere that it does 3D twice as fast?

Not twice as fast, but 4K TV can deliver passive 3D in full 1080p resolution (twice as detailed).


Passive 3D steers every other line into the left or right eye (example: all even lines into right eye, all odd lines into left eye) so the resulting image is only 540p instead of 1080p.


With a 4K set, there are 1080 lines to steer into the right eye and another 1080 lines to steer into the left eye, so the resulting 3D is full 1080p.


Their are not may 4K TVs offering passive 3D, but the CNET review of the LG9700 said that while the set had problems, the passive 3D was the best 3D they had ever seen.


The Toshiba L9400U may support full 1080p passive 3D - not clear yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,622 Posts
True 4k content is going to continue to be scarce for a long while and there's a lot of stuff that will never be 4k. Most movie workflows are still done at 2k even if the final output they send to the theaters is 4k. Ever since we moved to predominately digital workflows in the early 2000s, 2k has been the standard. For any of those films to get a true 4k release, they would need to be completely re-edited and have all the post (including SFX) work redone. 4k workflows are starting to become a little more common now, but expect a lot of post work to be done in 2k for a while still since it's cheaper (especially when heavy SFX are involved.)


For example, The Hobbit could never have a true 4k release unless they went back and redid ALL the SFX and post work. It was a 2k workflow, so 2k is all it will ever be unless they basically want to redo the movie. This isn't like the switch from SD to HD for home theater. There were nearly always higher than SD resolution assets available even if it just involved scanning the 35mm print. Nowadays, the 35mm print (when there even is one) is usually created from a 2k digital master so scanning it at 4k after the fact is going to make no difference. IF the movie was shot in 35mm or 4k digital and IF the studio wanted to re-edit it and redo all the post and special effects work, THEN it will get a true 4k release. Pre-2000 movies will fare better as there will likely be an edited film master that they can go back to and scan. However, unless you are dealing with 70mm, there are going to be some pretty sharp diminishing returns in image quality by doing so.


Upscaling is going to be a LOT more common in 4k than it ever was for HD. Don't shy away from a 4k TV if it has other qualities you want, but 4k should never be high on the list of buying features right now. It's going to be 5-10 years before 4k content is more than an occasional demo reel you pull out to wow guests so you'll likely be ready to upgrade displays by that point anyways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,945 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by HD_OCD  /t/1524692/why-buy-4k-now/0_20#post_24541609


FWIW - Most consumer TV's will likely be adhering to the CEA's minimum definition for "Ultra High-Definition" or "Ultra HD"...

---

The Consumer Electronics Association announced on October 17, 2012, that "Ultra High-Definition", or "Ultra HD", would be used for displays that have an aspect ratio of at least 16:9 and at least one digital input capable of carrying and presenting native video at a minimum resolution of 3,840×2,160 pixels.

---

That is very true. But I think a lot of consumers don't take the time to research what UHD/4k really means and may be upset if they find out that their 4k tv really only has a 3840 x 2160 native resolution. I just think that the marketing should be made clearer as far as labeling goes. As I've said, it may not make any perceptible difference to most but once true 4k content becomes more readily available, maybe the difference will be noticeable, unless the conversion algorithms remove that difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
904 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by bull3964  /t/1524692/why-buy-4k-now#post_24541676


True 4k content is going to continue to be scarce for a long while and there's a lot of stuff that will never be 4k. Most movie workflows are still done at 2k even if the final output they send to the theaters is 4k. Ever since we moved to predominately digital workflows in the early 2000s, 2k has been the standard. For any of those films to get a true 4k release, they would need to be completely re-edited and have all the post (including SFX) work redone. 4k workflows are starting to become a little more common now, but expect a lot of post work to be done in 2k for a while still since it's cheaper (especially when heavy SFX are involved.)


For example, The Hobbit could never have a true 4k release unless they went back and redid ALL the SFX and post work. It was a 2k workflow, so 2k is all it will ever be unless they basically want to redo the movie. This isn't like the switch from SD to HD for home theater. There were nearly always higher than SD resolution assets available even if it just involved scanning the 35mm print. Nowadays, the 35mm print (when there even is one) is usually created from a 2k digital master so scanning it at 4k after the fact is going to make no difference. IF the movie was shot in 35mm or 4k digital and IF the studio wanted to re-edit it and redo all the post and special effects work, THEN it will get a true 4k release. Pre-2000 movies will fare better as there will likely be an edited film master that they can go back to and scan. However, unless you are dealing with 70mm, there are going to be some pretty sharp diminishing returns in image quality by doing so.


Upscaling is going to be a LOT more common in 4k than it ever was for HD. Don't shy away from a 4k TV if it has other qualities you want, but 4k should never be high on the list of buying features right now. It's going to be 5-10 years before 4k content is more than an occasional demo reel you pull out to wow guests so you'll likely be ready to upgrade displays by that point anyways.

Are you saying that that 4K video service that Sony offers is still really only 2K because the originals were shot that way?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,622 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by al210  /t/1524692/why-buy-4k-now#post_24541818


Are you saying that that 4K video service that Sony offers is still really only 2K because the originals were shot that way?

Depends completely on the movie. I do know that Sony is not above 'fudging' the lines when it comes to advertising on this point.


They used the Raimi Spiderman moves to push 4k in theaters. While it may have been mastered in 4k and had principle photography in 4k, all of the CGI was rendered in 2k. Sit back and think about how much of Spiderman did NOT involve CGI and you tell me as to whether or not that was a true 4k movie.


Edit:


Here's a prime example. They have Total Recall 2012 on their 4k movie list.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1386703/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec
Quote:
Cinematographic Process:


Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)

Panavision (anamorphic) (source format)

Super 35 (source format) (some shots)

So, unless they went back and redid all the post for that movie (extremely unlikely due to the box office returns), it's simply an upscale. The same goes with all the episodes of Breaking Bad they have. Breaking Bad was done with a 2k DI so it's very unlikely they went back to the source film, re-scanned at 4k, and then redid all the post work.


On the other hand, I would love to see their 4k version of Ghostbusters on their top of the line TV. That would be true 4k. The newer stuff like Captain Philips and Elysium were done with a 4k DI so they should be better than most. However, that does not guarantee that all the assets USED would be 4k. I would bet that most of the CGI in Elysium was done at a lower resolution because there's so much motion blur it won't matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
903 Posts
Isn't this the same argument we've had about720 vs 1080? Basically you won't see any difference unless you sit 2 feet from your 80" tv, of course then you have to worry about whiplash trying to see everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,945 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by indept  /t/1524692/why-buy-4k-now/0_20#post_24541913


Isn't this the same argument we've had about720 vs 1080? Basically you won't see any difference unless you sit 2 feet from your 80" tv, of course then you have to worry about whiplash trying to see everything.

Possibly. I think it went a little to the left though when I brought up UHD vs 4k and HDMI 2.0 when it comes to what people are actually getting and how it's being marketed just to get those sales going.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
(+1) I think the comment below from 'bull' is spot-on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bull3964  /t/1524692/why-buy-4k-now#post_24541676


(snip)

Upscaling is going to be a LOT more common in 4k than it ever was for HD. Don't shy away from a 4k TV if it has other qualities you want, but 4k should never be high on the list of buying features right now. It's going to be 5-10 years before 4k content is more than an occasional demo reel you pull out to wow guests so you'll likely be ready to upgrade displays by that point anyways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,396 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by al210  /t/1524692/why-buy-4k-now/0_50#post_24540921


What would be the advantages to get a 4K vs 1080P set without any 4K content to display.
They advantage is you'll get to pay more now, and buy another 4k TV later when more content is available because inevitably the 4K TV you buy now won't be compatible with whatever 4k video standard they eventually settle on.


Think of the poor TV makers and the salesmen. They're counting on you to buy early and buy twice!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,710 Posts
bull is right, 2K is still the DI finish of choice, and 3D has played a big part in keeping it there because stereo means you need to finish two movies essentially, one for the left eye and one for the right. That's fine for 2K res, but scale it up by a factor of four for EACH eye (4K having four times as many pixels as 2K) and you can see why MGM baulked at finishing Hobbit at 4K, for example.


But while I agree that even the studios who do have proper 4K workflows use upscaled 2K VFX, I think bull's being a bit too harsh by saying that a movie with a lot of CG couldn't really be a 4K flick, as the studios usually integrate the expertly-upscaled CG into the live-action 4K elements - so there's still something of 4K there unless the shot is 100% digital.


As for UHD versus 'actual' 4K @ 4096x2160, I don't see it as an issue at all because the latter has an aspect ratio of about 1.89, which is not a good fit for the 16:9/1.78 frame which has shaped TV production for the last twenty years or so. Exactly the same thing applies to theatrical 2K versus consumer HD (2048x1080 down to 1920x1080) so it's a bit late to get overly concerned about it because Hollywood will just carry on doing what it's been doing: cropping those DCI-spec 4K/2K finishes to the appropriate UHD/HD resolution.
 
1 - 20 of 97 Posts
Top