4k v 1080p HD TV

InsideInsurance

Strider590 wrote: »

It's all a load of non-sense, you use it once to show off to your mates and then you spend the next few years paying for it.... After which the price comes down to half what you paid and the next new thing is just coming out.

There is a difference between being bleeding edge and being a moderately early adopter.

Paying £600 for a 4k 48" TV isnt exactly a massive premium for the 4k feature.

Given a screen always displays at its native resolution its also not a feature you "use once to show it off" as everything you watch will be displayed as upscaled 4k resolution (or native for the small amount of content that exists)

Strider590

InsideInsurance wrote: »

There is a difference between being bleeding edge and being a moderately early adopter.

Paying £600 for a 4k 48" TV isnt exactly a massive premium for the 4k feature.

Given a screen always displays at its native resolution its also not a feature you "use once to show it off" as everything you watch will be displayed as upscaled 4k resolution (or native for the small amount of content that exists)

I take it you understand upscaling?

When you take an image and expand it out, the new extra pixels don't suddenly unhide themselves, they were never there in the first place. Most of the time, most of what you watch is going to be no better quality than Joe Bloggs has down the road, in fact it may even be inferior.

InsideInsurance

Strider590 wrote: »

I take it you understand upscaling?

When you take an image and expand it out, the new extra pixels don't suddenly unhide themselves, they were never there in the first place. Most of the time, most of what you watch is going to be no better quality than Joe Bloggs has down the road, in fact it may even be inferior.

Didnt you see my original post on the same?

When you factor in screen sizes the upscaling can make a positive impact. Putting standard definition through a giant screen and pixels start becoming visible so images become pixelated. The most primitive upscaling is effectively anti-aliasing and so pre and post upscaling is effectively a more extreme version of:


Most would argue that anti-aliased text looks better than without it, hence why we are almost all sat on computers who are applying anti-aliasing.

Some upscalers try to become more clever which is why you get some difference between the same screen and same source but it being upscaled by the TV, the source or an intermediary component like an AVR or dedicated scaler. Do these give better results? Its debatable just as some people will always say that you cannot beat 8mm film

jaydeeuk1

After failure of 3d, TV manufacturers are desperate to get mugs.. sorry, consumers to buy in to 4k (and then 8k) format despite parts of the uk barely getting 1mbps and !!!!!! all content.

If the 4k TV has a really good processor, then some people might think that the softer image looks better than a pin sharp 1080p image on a 1080p TV. It isn't like in games or even text where the GPU has geniune data to apply anti aliasing to, the TV has to make crap up to blend, and therefore cannot be superiour to good old 1:1 pixel mapping.


Its a bit like buying a hydrogen powered car, great in principle useless in the UK at the moment.

It took HD tv's at least 6 years to get anything decent.

Whole thing not helped by the new consoles being so under powered, they can barely do 1080p gaming.

In days gone by it was the !!!!!! industry that drove new tech like this, but I doubt even Ron Jeremy can save the day. PC gamers are getting fed up with pixels, its stuff like the occulus rift that will be the thing to have next year. Graphics artists won't want a budget 4k tv. I can't see where the market is, which is why the prices have crashed so much over last 12 months.

Give it 5 years then there might be something worth watching in full original glorius 4k, until then 99% of the population need not apply.

bod1467

We're using 4K monitors (50"+) in our latest process control console (for Oil & Gas and similar industries).

The console was initially configured with 4 x 24" 1080p monitors (same overall pixel resolution as 4K) but the 4K monitor allows a seamless graphical interface (no monitor bezels getting in the way) so allows the screen "canvas" to be better-utilised.

almillar

Strider and anyone else who doesn't see the point in 4K TV - get yourselves down to Currys or similar and look at them. They ARE better than HD and you CAN see the difference at respectible viewing distances. If you don't, hopefully there's a Specsavers nearby, and hopefully you have someone to take you there!
Not saying 4K is worth it now - there's nothing to watch, but we're going to have screens ready for the content at reasonable prices long before the content comes along...

jaydeeuk1

almillar wrote: »

Strider and anyone else who doesn't see the point in 4K TV - get yourselves down to Currys or similar and look at them. They ARE better than HD and you CAN see the difference at respectible viewing distances. If you don't, hopefully there's a Specsavers nearby, and hopefully you have someone to take you there!
Not saying 4K is worth it now - there's nothing to watch, but we're going to have screens ready for the content at reasonable prices long before the content comes along...

But if you wait to buy a screen when content is plentiful a £800 set will be a heck of a lot better than a £800 you get today?

TVs in currys are all badly setup. looking at sd content on a £800 4k tv looks worse than on a £800 1080p panel.

paddyrg

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

But if you wait to buy a screen when content is plentiful a £800 set will be a heck of a lot better than a £800 you get today?

Nah - they'll be flogging 8k/4D for all it's worth by then.

Lumstorm

almillar wrote: »

Strider and anyone else who doesn't see the point in 4K TV - get yourselves down to Currys or similar and look at them. They ARE better than HD and you CAN see the difference at respectible viewing distances.

Yes they do look better showing 4K demo content unfortunatly 4K content isn't readily available so everything will have to be upscaled and despite the lies in currys presentations upscaling does not show extra detail as others have said you can't create extra detail from something that isn't there. We should see 4K BD by Christmas 2015 I don't know when Sky will do 4K, I think they still can't do 1080p yet.

Also when 4K BD comes the present 4K TVs may not be compatible with the improved colour systems.

InsideInsurance

Lumstorm wrote: »

I think they still can't do 1080p yet.

Also when 4K BD comes the present 4K TVs may not be compatible with the improved colour systems.

Cant or dont?

I know with HDMI they are choosing not to pass DD via it and so forcing people to use a separate audio cable but this allegedly comes from licensing costs

They certainly dont do 1080p yet but dont know if its because they cannot, dont want to use up the extra bandwidth as they're running out or a more purely commercial decision

The "advantage" of most of the mid range TVs, at least for Samsung but I believe the others too, the brains of the TV are either in a separate box or can be replaced by a separate box thus meaning if the changes in formats are so great that a firmware upgrade cant make them compatible that you can upgrade the brains without upgrading the screen. Obviously not free but a lot cheaper than a whole new tv