New Xbox out by the end of the year

1246789

Comments

  • almillar
    almillar Posts: 8,621
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 21 June 2017 at 11:44AM
    But there's a big improvement from standard definition to bluray
    I know what you mean, but with standard definition, there are 500 odd lines counted top to bottom. With full HD BluRay, that's 1080. With 4K, it's 2,160. That's the real, actual difference.
    If you're talking about SD vs HD, are you telling me that, like my example above, Dad's Army looks better in HD than SD? Should it look better again in 4K? The source is only of a certain quality, and can't really get any better.
    I think you're talking about TV channels. Lots of SD TV channels look rubbish, and yes, HD ones look far better. But that's not about resolution, it's about compression. Lots of the SD channels are just squeezed far too much, making the picture rubbish.
    You should be comparing a DVD (the best of SD) against a 1080P BluRay (the best of full HD), against a 4K BluRay (the best of 4K). This will show up the limits of each technology, rather than broadcasters squishing the quality out of their own programming.
    I think that if you watch Dad's Army on a DVD as above, then watch it again on a 1080p BluRay disc, that you won't notice a difference. All of the above, of course, ignores any remastering.

    It's a flaw if it can only make a difference with stuff filmed in 4K.

    When we (the public) got HD, broadcasters/filmmakers had been making content far better than what our SD equipment could show well. Once we all got HD, we saw what we had been missing all that time, plus newer, real, HD programming.
    There has been a much smaller gap between studios having 4K equipment, and us having it in our living rooms. Therefore that wealth of material out there that you've seen an improvement in SD-HD, simply doesn't exist to notice the difference HD-4K. But there IS a difference!
  • Haven't decided if I'm going to get one or not, my PC is already out performing my Xbox and PS4, and with a little bit more spent on it, it'll outperform the One X for a while. Still haven't even got round to getting a PS4 Pro even though I have a 4K TV, happy with the One S for the minute.
  • donnajunkie
    donnajunkie Posts: 32,412
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    almillar wrote: »
    I know what you mean, but with standard definition, there are 500 odd lines counted top to bottom. With full HD BluRay, that's 1080. With 4K, it's 2,160. That's the real, actual difference.
    If you're talking about SD vs HD, are you telling me that, like my example above, Dad's Army looks better in HD than SD? Should it look better again in 4K? The source is only of a certain quality, and can't really get any better.
    I think you're talking about TV channels. Lots of SD TV channels look rubbish, and yes, HD ones look far better. But that's not about resolution, it's about compression. Lots of the SD channels are just squeezed far too much, making the picture rubbish.
    You should be comparing a DVD (the best of SD) against a 1080P BluRay (the best of full HD), against a 4K BluRay (the best of 4K). This will show up the limits of each technology, rather than broadcasters squishing the quality out of their own programming.
    I think that if you watch Dad's Army on a DVD as above, then watch it again on a 1080p BluRay disc, that you won't notice a difference. All of the above, of course, ignores any remastering.

    It's a flaw if it can only make a difference with stuff filmed in 4K.

    When we (the public) got HD, broadcasters/filmmakers had been making content far better than what our SD equipment could show well. Once we all got HD, we saw what we had been missing all that time, plus newer, real, HD programming.
    There has been a much smaller gap between studios having 4K equipment, and us having it in our living rooms. Therefore that wealth of material out there that you've seen an improvement in SD-HD, simply doesn't exist to notice the difference HD-4K. But there IS a difference!
    If something looks better in hd, will it look better in 4K? Well that's the claim isn't it. If it doesn't it brings us back to what I said which is I rarely see much improvement with 4K from hd. Even with modern films. It was suggested it needs to have been filmed in 4K. So what percentage of films are made in 4k? What that point suggests is it will be years before the benefit is common place enough to be worth it. And it still leaves all the great films from the past not benefiting.
  • almillar
    almillar Posts: 8,621
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    If something looks better in hd, will it look better in 4K? Well that's the claim isn't it
    No. The SOURCE MATERIAL is always important. If something is recorded in HD, it won't look ANY better in 4K, ignoring any so called enhancements or fancy upscaling. There are 1080 lines of information, either being spat out of a 1080 line screen, or 2,160 lines. If the TV's scaler is poor, that picture could even look worse! Exactly the same theory applies to SD on HD BTW.
    It was suggested it needs to have been filmed in 4K. So what percentage of films are made in 4k?

    I'd guess anything from the last 5 years.
    What that point suggests is it will be years before the benefit is common place enough to be worth it. And it still leaves all the great films from the past not benefiting.

    Absolutely. And the same argument was had a few years ago, when HD TVs came along, and no-one had BluRay players, there were no HD TV channels.
    You make a good point about old films, and how they mightn't benefit. If they get 'remastered' that often means going through each frame, literally 24 frames per second, of FILM, cleaning up each image, and digitising it. Like taking a photo. This has been done plenty into HD, but I'm sure that if the film (the material the movie is stored on) isn't very high quality, then remastering it into 4K instead of HD would not be very beneficial at all.
  • motorguy
    motorguy Posts: 22,452
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    If something looks better in hd, will it look better in 4K? Well that's the claim isn't it. If it doesn't it brings us back to what I said which is I rarely see much improvement with 4K from hd. Even with modern films. It was suggested it needs to have been filmed in 4K. So what percentage of films are made in 4k? What that point suggests is it will be years before the benefit is common place enough to be worth it. And it still leaves all the great films from the past not benefiting.

    Its all about the level of detail / density that it was recorded in in the first place.

    If the detail wasnt there, then 4K isnt going to magically make it be there. Theres only a certain amount of advantage you're going to be able to exploit.

    I looked at some pics taken from a digital camera maybe 15 years ago now on my laptops 3,200x1,800 resolution display. It looks "ok" but once you zoom in it becomes very grainy. Thats because the level of detail required was never there in the first place. No amount of fancy screen / laptop processing power can change that.

    If i take a photo now with my much better spec digital camera / mobile phone then it looks fantastic on the screen.

    And likewise, its going to take a much bigger screen before you're going to see the real advantage of 4K - and lets be honest, everyones expectation of screen size is increasing.

    It was said that you could only see the benefit of HD if you were running a 32 inch TV screen or bigger. Below that your eye couldnt see the extra detail anyway.

    Likewise with 4K. I would say you'd need to be looking at north of 55 inch TVs before you'll see any real advantage.

    Yes, as i've said, it will take time to become the new norm, but it IS the next step from HD, and it will become the default choice over time.
  • motorguy
    motorguy Posts: 22,452
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    If something looks better in hd, will it look better in 4K? Well that's the claim isn't it. If it doesn't it brings us back to what I said which is I rarely see much improvement with 4K from hd. Even with modern films. It was suggested it needs to have been filmed in 4K. So what percentage of films are made in 4k? What that point suggests is it will be years before the benefit is common place enough to be worth it. And it still leaves all the great films from the past not benefiting.

    And another point - you would have no expectation that a latest colour TV can magically make an old black and white movie (when the detail of colour wasnt added in the first place) into a colour one, so why do you have the expectation that a 4K TV will magically enhance an old low quality movie?

    Where there has been the demand, computer editing has allowed colour to be added and imperfections to be removed from old movie reels, and if there is the demand, then that will be done (where possible) to enhance old movies into a more 4K like quality.

    But you cant really criticise the technology for not enhancing old low quality stuff?
  • donnajunkie
    donnajunkie Posts: 32,412
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    My initial point was that I don't see much improvement with 4k. It was then assumed this is because the original source quality of what I saw isn't good and that was the reason. I acknowledge that 4k bluray may perform better as I have not seen them in action. What I have seen is a variety of films via the sky q box. Some old classics, some modern films.i am yet to think to myself, that looks better than 1080p.
  • motorguy
    motorguy Posts: 22,452
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    My initial point was that I don't see much improvement with 4k. It was then assumed this is because the original source quality of what I saw isn't good and that was the reason. I acknowledge that 4k bluray may perform better as I have not seen them in action. What I have seen is a variety of films via the sky q box. Some old classics, some modern films.i am yet to think to myself, that looks better than 1080p.

    Your initial point was that UHD had little chance of success. This was clearly based on your subjective view and limited exposure.

    Objectively, its a step forward and will become the mainstream choice over time.
  • almillar
    almillar Posts: 8,621
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 23 June 2017 at 12:11PM
    My initial point was that I don't see much improvement with 4k
    It was. And my point is that, just like with 1080, which you seem to think IS worthwhile, you WON'T see an improvement with 4K, unless the source material is good enough. There is a massive improvement (4 times as many pixels) in 4K, same as with 1080 being 4x as many pixels as SD. But if the detail isn't there to fill it, you won't notice a difference. My point being that you are judging it unfairly unless you put something good through it.

    What I have seen is a variety of films via the sky q box. Some old classics, some modern films.i am yet to think to myself, that looks better than 1080p.

    I'm still not quite convinced that you're actually watching stuff in 4K. Was it a 2TB Sky Q box? Was everything set up right? Was the film downloaded in 4K?
  • donnajunkie
    donnajunkie Posts: 32,412
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    motorguy wrote: »
    Your initial point was that UHD had little chance of success. This was clearly based on your subjective view and limited exposure.

    Objectively, its a step forward and will become the mainstream choice over time.

    It is based on it appearing to not offer a big enough noticeable difference in quality and costing even more than 3d and 3d costs more than the standard blurays. Many people still just have DVD because they don't want to pay extra even for standard bluray never mind 3d or 4k. What manufacturers would need to do is force people onto 4k by ending older formats the way they did to move people from vhs to DVD. They stopped releasing movies on vhs and largely ended vhs recorder manufacture quite quickly. Compared to that DVD players are still widespread many years after bluray arrived and movies are still always released on DVD. I am curious why they haven't chosen to force people away from DVD.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 606.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.7K Life & Family
  • 247.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards