|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw a commercial today for a 4K TV set, and they said it has four times the detail of 1080p. Is that necessary, or even useful? I currently watch a 32-inch, 720p set, and I guess I'm one of the rubes who still thinks of that as HD. I've been thinking that 1080p was the ultimate, the most resolution that TV would ever need-- my ultimate upgrade. Like, when classic 4:3 shows are mastered at 1080p on Blu-ray, they are future-proofed and will never be considered low-res or sub-standard, ever. Apes rule the Earth, 1080p still good. I've even been told that the difference between 720p and 1080p is not that noticeable to the unaided eye. I heard recently that Blu-ray is currently the best-quality home video experience, and I think they were referring to 1080p. So again, do you need 4K at home? [Isn't 4K a top standard for digital movie theaters with 8-foot tall screens? And haven't some digital theatrical releases been 2K? What is this 4K at home stuff?] Also: What standard is being broadcast to home-antenna viewers? What standard is cable TV sending out? I have Verizon FiOS and they seem to suggest that it's 720p, but maybe some is 1080p, who knows, don't bother us: https://www.verizon.com/support/residential/tv/fiostv/troubleshooting/onscreen+menus/questionsone/123952.htm So... If I bought a 4K TV set, what content would I be watching at true 4K resolution? Can the eye even appreciate this stuff without holding a magnifying glass up to the screen? How much TV set do you need, and how much is a waste of money?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A 4K set is not a waste of money Thanks for that input, Saul. But if I buy the set, where do I get 4K content?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You may wish to skip the 4K revolution and wait a while for 8K. Does no one else think these levels of TV resolution are absurd?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All you need is a 1970s Sony Trinitron!! Ha ha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 15, 2017 - 9:46 AM
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Zap, Our human eye basically cannot resolve the difference between a 1080p and a 4k image at the average viewing ratios, say the average couch distance of 7-8 feet from a 50 inch screen. It is true that there are some color and light improvement with the new panels. The reason that plasmas screens, even at 720 or 1080p were so praised is how excellently they could produce deep blacks, which the prevalent LCD and LED screens do mostly poorly. The LG OLED panels have finally effectively replaced that deep black quality that we lost when the plasma screens left the market. The LG OLED produces an astonishing image, even in 1080p, that bests 4k. For the average viewer, if you did a blind test, they would not be able to tell any difference at all between a 4k and 1080p screening of the same movie. Now some of us here, the more cinephile types, might appreciate a 4k view of say 2001 or Lawrence of Arabia, but for the average consumer it is pretty much a waste of money. And 8k will be an even bigger waste of money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 15, 2017 - 2:09 PM
|
|
|
By: |
Col. Flagg
(Member)
|
I've yet to see 4K so I won't rule it out, but I remain a skeptic. With respect, if you haven't experienced a 4K set, why are you even giving advice on the subject? I've owned one for two months, and have been researching them for about a year and a half. The whole point of 4K, IMHO, is that you can finally get a large monitor (60" or greater) and immerse yourself in the image without any apparent resolution loss. When the image is that large, your eye has to trace across the screen, and the effect is very much like watching a movie in a theater. Since movies are designed and edited to take eye-trace into account, 4K is a very welcome development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 15, 2017 - 2:28 PM
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
I've yet to see 4K so I won't rule it out, but I remain a skeptic. With respect, if you haven't experienced a 4K set, why are you even giving advice on the subject? I've owned one for two months, and have been researching them for about a year and a half. The whole point of 4K, IMHO, is that you can finally get a large monitor (60" or greater) and immerse yourself in the image without any apparent resolution loss. When the image is that large, your eye has to trace across the screen, and the effect is very much like watching a movie in a theater. Since movies are designed and edited to take eye-trace into account, 4K is a very welcome development. I'm basing my comments on what I've seen as we went from 480, 720 to 1080. Higher resolution can look great, other times it looks awfully unnatural. So does the image look natural, on a 60" screen? Or does an actors face look like the surface of the Moon? Which to me is neither pleasing or natural to the naked eye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 15, 2017 - 2:50 PM
|
|
|
By: |
Col. Flagg
(Member)
|
I'm basing my comments on what I've seen as we went from 480, 720 to 1080. Higher resolution can look great, other times it looks awfully unnatural. So does the image look natural, on a 60" screen? Or does an actors face look like the surface of the Moon? Which to me is neither pleasing or natural to the naked eye. Like anything, it depends on the source material and whether the set is properly calibrated (with "motion flow" switched off.) My own choice was the Samsung 6290 – a budget model, but with excellent picture specs. By and large, things look great and are free of edge artifacts you'd associate with viewing something at that resolution. And yes, natural – an opinion I base on decades of experience approving final masters first on film, then on SD, then HD, and now 4K. My point is that we're lucky to have the 4K option because (a) it finally removes the "window" between your eyes and the content and (b) you can achieve this at the consumer level for about the cost of 1080p set. Technology in tasteful hands can be a wonderful thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|