4K tv's, looking good... in the store

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I'm 51. While my eyes can tell the difference objectively. I just don't care. 1080P is just fine to me.

Me too. My 8-9 years old Sharp 52" is perfectly fine with me. I don't have any plan to replace it with anything in a near future.


Looking at 4K material in the store, it is pretty compellingly good.

1080 is good, but there is a marked difference. Ive also never been satisfied with 1080p and less in terms of artifacts under fast motion, even with the 120 and 240Hz type screens. I suspect that the resolution makes these artifacts small enough on a 4k TV that they just cant be easily seen, because Ive not picked up on their presence.

Not that Ive really looked seriously. But when our CRT TV goes, I will buy 4k (or higher if prices come down), because despite the very limited watching of TV and movies that we do, it really is that good...
You just needed a plasma display. Resolution wasn't your problem.

 

[Cujet]

I just watched the BluRay Star Wars (episode III) 1080P on my 65 inch Sharp, from 15 feet away.

From a practical standpoint, it was wonderfully clear. The resolution and clarity was absolutely beyond the limits of my eye's resolution at that distance.

I'd love to see a side by side with a 4K TV and perfect source material. I'm 100% sure there is a distance/screen-size relationship at which the human eye cannot discern any difference.

In much the same way as 320KBPS MP3 music and the full CD bitrate. Maybe someone, somewhere can tell the difference, but I certainly can't. And, I consider myself an audiophile.

 

[BRZED]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
I just watched the BluRay Star Wars (episode III) 1080P on my 65 inch Sharp, from 15 feet away.

From a practical standpoint, it was wonderfully clear. The resolution and clarity was absolutely beyond the limits of my eye's resolution at that distance.

I'd love to see a side by side with a 4K TV and perfect source material. I'm 100% sure there is a distance/screen-size relationship at which the human eye cannot discern any difference.

In much the same way as 320KBPS MP3 music and the full CD bitrate. Maybe someone, somewhere can tell the difference, but I certainly can't. And, I consider myself an audiophile.


Keep in mind Episopde III was shot in only 1080p at only 24 fps. The digital intermediate was only 2 k. Even newer mvies like The Hobbit, which were shot in 5k and 48 fps, were actually downsampled to 2k for the digital intermediate before being scaled for various output formats. It's not only about resolution. And of course, if you sit far enough from the screen even low res will look good, but that's missing the point. You really want to sit close enough to have your field of vision mostly filled with the screen and have high enough resolution at that distance to not see pixels but fine detail. For a 60" screen, 7 feet sounds about right.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
I just watched the BluRay Star Wars (episode III) 1080P on my 65 inch Sharp, from 15 feet away.

From a practical standpoint, it was wonderfully clear. The resolution and clarity was absolutely beyond the limits of my eye's resolution at that distance.

I'd love to see a side by side with a 4K TV and perfect source material. I'm 100% sure there is a distance/screen-size relationship at which the human eye cannot discern any difference.

In much the same way as 320KBPS MP3 music and the full CD bitrate. Maybe someone, somewhere can tell the difference, but I certainly can't. And, I consider myself an audiophile.

I'm sure that side-by-side comparison between your 65" Sharp and 65" 4K Samsung at 15' and BluRay as source will show a big different.

But without a 4K next to it and it is perfectly clear on your 65" Sharp then it is all importance, no need to spend few thousands for 4K today. Few years later when your Sharp went south then 4K(or 8K if available) should be considered.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

I'm sure that side-by-side comparison between your 65" Sharp and 65" 4K Samsung at 15' and BluRay as source will show a big different.

But without a 4K next to it and it is perfectly clear on your 65" Sharp then it is all importance, no need to spend few thousands for 4K today. Few years later when your Sharp went south then 4K(or 8K if available) should be considered.


While I've looked at 4K's at Best Buy, they are using a 4K source for them. They do look awesome. But the few 4K's I've seen that "upscale" the bluray have digital artifacts. I find that annoying. I'd guess that one would need a higher end 4K with better processing power to avoid the "crawling face" effects.

The local "high end" shop will have both display types available, and I can probably bring my disk in and play with both. Since the owner of Audio Advisers has done big business with my boss, I can probably come to a conclusion myself on this.

I remain unconvinced at this point.

Here is the conclusion from various experts (which matches what is said above) : "A 4k TV is worth buying over a 1080p TV, provided you sit close enough to see the extra detail."

EDIT: I can absolutely see the individual pixels on an 80 inch 1080P TV from 15 feet away. So the graph I posted may not be all that accurate. But on my 65 inch, I cannot see the individual pixels at 15 feet.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
EDIT: I can absolutely see the individual pixels on an 80 inch 1080P TV from 15 feet away. So the graph I posted may not be all that accurate. But on my 65 inch, I cannot see the individual pixels at 15 feet.

Your eyes are better than mine. I couldn't see individual pixels on an 52" 2006 1080P Sharp Aquos from 8 feet away. The current picture alone is very satisfy to us(me and my wife), I don't have any plan to replace it anytime soon, unless it died.

 

[BRZED]

Originally Posted By: Cujet

Here is the conclusion from various experts (which matches what is said above) : "A 4k TV is worth buying over a 1080p TV, provided you sit close enough to see the extra detail."

EDIT: I can absolutely see the individual pixels on an 80 inch 1080P TV from 15 feet away. So the graph I posted may not be all that accurate. But on my 65 inch, I cannot see the individual pixels at 15 feet.


To maximize your viewing experience, you should sit so close to the screen that you are just past the point where your eyes can resolve individual pixels. Many people buy unnecessarily large tv screens for rooms that are too small to allow for the proper viewing distance. On the other hand, using a smaller than ideal screen or an inappororiately long viewing distance to make a low res screen look good is also a poor solution. Screen size and resolution should dictate how far from the screen you sit. The three important paramters are screen size, screen resolution and biewing distance. And then you want proper surround sound.

 

[Cujet]

I'd love an 80 inch TV in my room. But it will not fit between the windows. Hahahaha, I guess I'm out of luck.

Even so, I do find the 65 inch TV quite satisfying. No, it's not "movie theater" wide as far as apparent size. But it is pretty big and quite enjoyable.

While many movies are made for the big screen, watching regular/typical TV news and other TV programs are different than movies. The news anchor-man's head is 4 feet tall and seems silly.

 

[BRZED]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
Even so, I do find the 65 inch TV quite satisfying. No, it's not "movie theater" wide as far as apparent size. But it is pretty big and quite enjoyable.


You just need to sit closer to fill your field of view. But hen you may want a higher res screen. This topic is going in a circle.

 

[HTSS_TR]

My family room is fairly small, my viewing distance is about 8 feet so that the 52" is a little small. I think the next size up is 65" is too big, if they have 60" it will be perfect. 80" is absolutely too big for my room and viewing distance.

 

[Zeus33]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
My family room is fairly small, my viewing distance is about 8 feet so that the 52" is a little small. I think the next size up is 65" is too big, if they have 60" it will be perfect. 80" is absolutely too big for my room and viewing distance.



There are a lot of 55" & 60" models before you get up to 65". Obviously, a 55" would be a waste of money as an "upgrade" compared to your 52".

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: BRZED
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Even so, I do find the 65 inch TV quite satisfying. No, it's not "movie theater" wide as far as apparent size. But it is pretty big and quite enjoyable.


You just need to sit closer to fill your field of view. But hen you may want a higher res screen. This topic is going in a circle.


Yes, of course I understand the distance/apparent field of view thing.

Sorry if you think the topic is going in circles. But I did do some side by side testing with 2 different 65 inch TV's. A 4k and 1080P. Interestingly, they really looked the same from any distance I'd view from.

However, while I could not discern individual pixels on the 1080P TV from 10 feet, I could see the an artifact in the 1/4 inch wide nature + waterfall scene. The waterfall clearly had a "step" in the edge of it, the width of one pixel. The contrast of the white water and the dark rocks clearly brings out the digital artifacts.

So, the 4K TV wins. But, it's only because in some situations, it really is possible to see digital artifacts. That is, once I knew what to look for. Otherwise, I really could not tell the difference.

 

[raytseng]

the best software/processing is reserved for the 4k tvs and flagship tvs.

Specs are not everything, just like a 15megapixel camera is meaningless if it's 15megapixels of blurriness.

 

[sleddriver]

Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
Okay, so noticed some 4K tv's going in the store yesterday when helping my gf get a 1080p. Looked awesome, but are there any providers broadcasting in 4K....Time Warner, Comcast, DirectTV, etc.? What use is it if there is not content?

Good Question! As usual, it depends.
I recall when both Costco & Sams began selling HD sets, signs soon appeared in their TV section that you won't see this resolution with a standard signal.

In some of the early sets, the video amps lacked sufficient BW to pass a HD signal, despite being marketed as such. Even today, I'd like to wring out a few of these sets with test patterns + an analyzer to see just what they're capable of.

Proper set-up and room lighting are KEY to get the best from any set. I'm amazed at the number of people who'll watch a shiny glass faced set with outdoor reflections washing across the face of it! That's just nuts....

As an audio engineer, I'm still amazed at lop-sided "home theater": Big Video. Tiny, poor audio. The former is easy: You go to your favorite big box, buy it, hang it, plug it in. The later? Not so much....

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: sleddriver
As an audio engineer, I'm still amazed at lop-sided "home theater": Big Video. Tiny, poor audio. The former is easy: You go to your favorite big box, buy it, hang it, plug it in. The later? Not so much....

I agree, proper audio setup for home theater system isn't easy for most people. That why my BIL(he's a medical doctor) spent a ton of money to have professionally setup his home theater audio system.

I told him it is okay to have a pro setup his audio system with equipments they recommend, but avoid Monster Cables especially speaker, HDMI, USB ... or any other digital cable because they are not better, only cost much more money. But he didn't listen to my advice and ended up paid more than $1k for speaker wire, HDMI ... All those cables and wires should not be more than $100, at most $200.

 

[FastGame]

I got to agree with the thread title 4K tv's, looking good... in the store but, IMO my Samsung 1080 plasma looks better in the home. I also have a big sound system.

 

[sleddriver]

One of these days, I'll upgrade. Unfortunately, that'll involve designing and building a new entertainment center to replace the current one designed for a 36" 4:3 TV. Furthermore, I'm not interested in a shiny screen: Too many reflections.

Great audio gets used far more anyhow. The sound is simply stunning to those who've never heard what they've been missing.

 

[Jetronic]

I run all the sound through the stereo system amp.

2*120W RMS and decent speakers makes a LOT of difference.

I don't have the space or inclination to get a home theater setup, the ones I've heard don't sound better (often even worse) than what I got now

 

[Errtt]

Was looking at a 65" curve 4k recently. Might pull the trigger (waiting a bit to see any sale toward holidays).
Someone was telling me Amazon prime was going to pump some 4k prime movies (dunno, just what he said). No matter, I still liked what I saw. Pending...

 

[marine65]

i went to my sons house for the last Super Bowl.
In the living room was a brand new high end Samsung 50 inch 4K.And I say high end because he paid $1500 and from what I've read the off brands and the cheap known brands do not have the best upconvert circuits in them.
In the family room was a 46" again high end Samsung LCD.
The differance in the two sets was dramatic. The 1080 LCD had a great picture but when I went and watched the new 4K set i did not want to go bact to the other set. It was that much better.