4k v 1080p HD TV

paddyrg

That chart appears to be based on the 20/20 angular resolution of the eye. Some people have better than 20/20 vision, many don't.

Maybe people should take a test card to Curry's with them, and stand at the measured distance to their sofa. A good card will give increasing granularity of black and white squares going from every (say) 80px to 1px in a checkerboard - the point at which you cannot see them as distinct colours but as grey will tell you the resolution you can resolve at a particular screen size and distance.

RumRat

ukcarper wrote: »

No it depends how far you sit from TV as I said i sit 12ft from TV which is 37in can't see difference nothing wrong with my eyes or TV if I had a bigger TV or a smaller living room it would see difference.

If you are sure it's not your eyes....Sort your TV or the feed out, or, if you are happy with it fine. The 37" in my office is about 12 feet away from my desk and the difference between HD and SD is obvious. That said the seat I use to watch anything in length is about 6 feet away. The Lounge TV is larger and at about 8 feet. The best distance from the TV is a different discussion and depends on many variables.

thescouselander

I did a bit more experimenting with this at home. If I sit at the distance recommended to get the full benefit of 1080p from my 42" plasma panny I can see the dithering noise on the screen. So in that respect I assume I'm close enough to see the individual pixels. On the other hand if I sat further away on the couch (as the manufacturer intended) I can't see the dithering noise but I can still see the difference between SD and HD.

My conclusion therefore is that you don't need to be able to see down to the level of individual pixels to notice a benefit from HD and so the chart above is a bit misleading.

ukcarper

RumRat wrote: »

If you are sure it's not your eyes....Sort your TV or the feed out, or, if you are happy with it fine. The 37" in my office is about 12 feet away from my desk and the difference between HD and SD is obvious. That said the seat I use to watch anything in length is about 6 feet away. The Lounge TV is larger and at about 8 feet. The best distance from the TV is a different discussion and depends on many variables.

My eyes are fine I'm only watching 1080i but three is no difference at the distance I view from if I sat 6ft away I can see difference. The is a limit to what the eye can resolve some TVs are not very good are displaying SD pictures as I found out when buying present TV it's ability to display SD pictures is one of the reasons I bought it.

MrJester

tonygold wrote: »

hi
in the market for a new tv around 50" size.
at present i have a 5 year old samsung LCD 1080p 40" that has been great but i am giving it to my step daughter as she is furnishing her first flat.
i've always thought that as no broadcaster transmits in 4k then whats the point of having one of these tv's yet? but i was in costco the other day and they had 2 tv's side by side showing the same feed (which i'm sure was a tv feed not a promo video) and the difference in picture quality between the 4k tv and the HD tv was very noticeable. i have done a bit of research about the upscaling of a picture to fit a 4k screen and i'm reading conflicting reports as to it's quality difference.
does anybody have actual experience of this and can offer any advice as to whether the picture is noticeably sharper watching the upscaled tv.
i have seen this one on offer at currys:

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-dvd-blu-ray/televisions/large-screen-tvs-32-and-over/lg-49ub820v-smart-4k-ultra-hd-49-led-tv-10029077-pdt.html?srcid=8324&cmpid=em~CURRYS~WKL~WED_PRO~wk29~M~20141119~3~PRO~TVN~1NOM1~227628&emid=33670632&&cm_ite=1NOM1_TVN&cm_lm=tonygolding@sky.com&cm_ainfo=&&&&&&ET_CID=227628&ET_RID=8840803#cat-0

which seems good value but would love to hear from anyone that is in the know about this stuff.
many thanks.

Around the £600 mark is decent price to pay for a 4K TV of that size. Anymore than that, you're overpaying and TV prices always level out at around 32 inch £300 and 50-60 inch £6-800 (without gimmick features) and everything in between so paying over that is daft.

If I was looking for a TV bigger than 40 inch, I would consider 4K for it definitely. 1080p can feel stretched even on a 40 inch TV in my experience, so 4K would be suitable for that size and above.

If you use this calculator:
http://auctionrepair.com/pixels.html

You can get an idea of how the pixels size converts into inches.
For example, that TV you are looking at is 49 inches (lets round it to around 50). Let's find out the DPI for it, by diving the resolution pixels by the inch size, which would be 3840/49 = 78 DPI.

So now in the calculator, the nearest DPI to select is 75 so go with that, then input the 4k resolution which is 3840x2160. This gives us 51 inches width.
So from this, you know that going any higher than a 51inches width TV with 4K resolution is likely to result in up-sizing.
I think this is a useful way to check what size you need because you then know exactly how the pixels convert into real-world sizing.

Note: I just did this research on a whim, I could be talking nonsense. Someone correct me if I am.

Strider590

missile wrote: »

I wondered who produced that chart? It looked like pseudo scientific BS to me.

I couldn't have put it better myself......

As soon as someone starts to wheel out the meaningless charts and graphs, you know your about to get covered in bull excrement.

It's the primary reason I cannot stand going into work meetings with management, the person with the most BS is usually the one that gets listened to and generally even though it makes no sense, nobody questions the data because they don't want to look like the only person that doesn't understand it.

bod1467

Strider590 wrote: »

It's the primary reason I cannot stand going into work meetings with management, the person with the most BS is usually the one that gets listened to and generally even though it makes no sense, nobody questions the data because they don't want to look like the only person that doesn't understand it.

If this is your world then you need to read Dilbert (if you haven't already).

Strider590

bod1467 wrote: »

If this is your world then you need to read Dilbert (if you haven't already).

Yes, good old Dilbert, I never really understood it until I started working in an office environment :rotfl:

almillar

found out when buying present TV it's ability to display SD pictures is one of the reasons I bought it.

You could have had a CRT TV for free if you only want good SD pictures!
If you think a TV isn't good at displaying SD it's usually for 2 reasons - the first one I've already covered - you've probably just moved to a bigger TV, and you're blowing the same quality of picture up to a higher size.
Reason 2 - lots of the clever picture improving stuff in TVs can actually make the picture worse. Sharpness? Everyone wants a sharp picture, turn it up to max. Actually don't, leave it in the middle, it'll just artificially sharpen a picture and can make it look worse.
There are twice as many lines of information in a 1080 picture over SD - that's a fact. There are many different qualities of recordings and broadcasts and it's not always easy to tell, but you really should be able to.

RumRat

ukcarper wrote: »

My eyes are fine I'm only watching 1080i but three is no difference at the distance I view from if I sat 6ft away I can see difference. The is a limit to what the eye can resolve some TVs are not very good are displaying SD pictures as I found out when buying present TV it's ability to display SD pictures is one of the reasons I bought it.

The discussion can go on endlessly. What really matters is that individually we believe we have the best picture we can individually attain given all the individual variable in force.