4K panels "Stupid, Dumb"

[Ras777]

I read an article from CNET recently stating that 4K TV's are stupid/dumb. They claim that there is no way anyone can tell the difference unless your screen size is greater then 77" The only caveat was if you sat very close to the screen(3ft). Any thoughts on this claim? I was in Walmart the other day and saw a Samsung 55" 4K that appeared to have considerly more resolution then my top of the line 65" Panasonic 1080p Plasma which I puchased only 3 years ago. According to the article its all about the contrast ratio not the resolution.

 

[Adam]

Human visual acuity is a player in this discussion. That determines if you can see a difference between two images, one being more detailed than the other. The size of your screen, resolution of the image, and distance that you sit from it all contribute to the angular distance between each line of pixels and your eyes. If your eyes can't distinguish the difference between two resolutions, than getting the higher resolution arguably isn't worth the money. The same argument has been made for 720 versus 1080 depending on screen size and sitting distance.

Another piece of this is if you care. My parents can watch DVDs on their 1080 set and say that it looks just as good as a blu-ray. Makes me cry, but it is what it is. So, some people can't even see a difference, and some people (like my parents with their TV size and sitting distance) can see the difference but don't care about it.

So, that's what goes into statements like that. However, if you can tell the difference and care about it, then it's absolutely not stupid or dumb. Maybe I can't see a difference between 1080 and 720 at my normal sitting location, but I like to have my TV not appear like I'm looking through a screen door when I get close to it. So, I'm a fan of higher resolutions, and when the price is right for me, I'll get one.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I looked at HD sets at 70" and I looked at 4K sets in the same size, and from 9 feet away the 4K models looked better every time. I don't give a damn what CNET says. Picking one with the best technology, like LED multi zone full array backlighting helps. Nothing beats plasma, OLED gets closer, but the best 4K LCD sets look pretty good.

 

[markw]

Next up. source software in 4k and more universal pass through capabilities in all new hardware. Let's hope it meets with a better reception than 3D did.

 

[TheWarrior]

Its a misnomer, 4K Panels are superior, they are the latest tech. But saying 4k is better than 2k won't be completely true until after we upgrade to HDCP 2.2. And thats basically a 'throw out your old system' kind of change, that we as audioholics, should have little interest in ;-)

 

[Alexandre]

One thing I had not realized until I started reading some posts on AH was that 4K isn't just about resolution. Or rather UHD isn't just about 4K. I don't care much for 4K, I do believe that at my screen size/sitting distance it would make very little difference, but the high dynamic range and the extras that come with the standard, which as far as I understand aren't being implemented yet by tv manufacturers, all sound pretty interesting.

I would however agree with TheWarrior: 4K panels will eventually all be better mostly because that's where manufacturers are investing their R&D. I wouldn't buy a 480p monitor today… not sure I'd find one actually. But again, I wouldn't buy a 4K display either. I bought one of the last mid level plasma 1080p TVs from Samsung last year and it's good enough.

Alex.

 

[Irvrobinson]

One thing I had not realized until I started reading some posts on AH was that 4K isn't just about resolution. Or rather UHD isn't just about 4K.

Exactly. Pixel count is just one factor; there are many other factors that affect the quality of the displayed picture. Like CPU power for video processing, back-lighting strategy, brightness, the quality of the power supply, motion smoothing... video processing isn't my field of expertise, but I know enough to know that pixel counts are not everything. For example, even a two year-old Samsung Galaxy S4 has about 10% more pixels per inch than the newest iPhone 6S, at 440ppi versus 401ppi. So why does the iPhone's display, even an old iPhone 5S display at 326ppi, usually look better for anything but photos? Because Apple invested a lot in font scaling and smoothing software. For photos and videos I'd rather use the old Samsung, but for apps I find the Apple easier to read.

 

[BMXTRIX]

A big thing to understand is that in stores, they are often using 4K content which has been optimized to deliver the absolute best it can possibly be with punchy colors and very high encoding rates for the absolute best possible image.

This many people are comparing to their Comcast cable TV signal at home.

Or worse... Streaming from Netflix.

Garbage in, garbage out, should be the first level mantra. Blu-ray Disc currently offers the absolute best quality image available to your display right now, and that comes from 30Mb/s encoded video. Any 4K streams are typically 7Mb/s, maybe a bit faster, but nowhere near what Blu-ray is giving us.

So, no source content is an issue. A big one. Once you leave that specially created demo, you are feeding your TV the same junk you are already looking at.

But, a better TV with solid contrast, good brightness, good black levels, great shadow detail, etc. may very well be an upgrade to whatever you happen to be currently looking at.

I have a upper mid-level Samsung plasma which replaced a Pioneer plasma. The Samsung looks very good, and I've seen nothing which looks clearly better than it.

Still, I would consider going from my 64" diagonal to a 80"+ sized diagonal that looked good.

 

[Seth=L]

Technologies like HDR that will coincide with 4K televisions could make a sizeable difference. I believe I've seen one HDR television and it was a Sony 4K and it was about $7000. As far as LCD panels go with high density backlight, it was as close to Plasma as I've seen in terms of color and contrast. It was a very beautiful picture.

The likelihood of seeing HDR and other 4K centric technologies trickling down into 1080p sets seems unlikely as it would defer consumers from paying the higher premium upgrades. It's probably too early to tell though.

 

[lsiberian]

A big thing to understand is that in stores, they are often using 4K content which has been optimized to deliver the absolute best it can possibly be with punchy colors and very high encoding rates for the absolute best possible image.

This many people are comparing to their Comcast cable TV signal at home.

Or worse... Streaming from Netflix.

Garbage in, garbage out, should be the first level mantra. Blu-ray Disc currently offers the absolute best quality image available to your display right now, and that comes from 30Mb/s encoded video. Any 4K streams are typically 7Mb/s, maybe a bit faster, but nowhere near what Blu-ray is giving us.

So, no source content is an issue. A big one. Once you leave that specially created demo, you are feeding your TV the same junk you are already looking at.

But, a better TV with solid contrast, good brightness, good black levels, great shadow detail, etc. may very well be an upgrade to whatever you happen to be currently looking at.

I have a upper mid-level Samsung plasma which replaced a Pioneer plasma. The Samsung looks very good, and I've seen nothing which looks clearly better than it.

Still, I would consider going from my 64" diagonal to a 80"+ sized diagonal that looked good.

I get excellent streams from Netflix.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I get excellent streams from Netflix.

Me too, at least I think they're excellent, up until the time I fire up a Bluray movie, and the illusion of good streaming quality evaporates.

 

[lsiberian]

Me too, at least I think they're excellent, up until the time I fire up a Bluray movie, and the illusion of good streaming quality evaporates.

I find a strong beer makes everything look better.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I find a strong beer makes everything look better.

Yeah, that's one of the prices I pay for avoiding drugs and alcohol. I never get to experience an "enhanced" world.

 

[lsiberian]

Yeah, that's one of the prices I pay for avoiding drugs and alcohol. I never get to experience an "enhanced" world.

It's not really a price. You save a lot of money IMO. I honestly haven't watched a blu-ray in a couple months and I don't exactly have super eye sight like BMX.

 

[Tao1]

It depends on angular size (size of display and viewing distance). In many cases, I am sure people will see a lot more detail on a 1080p image simply by sitting closer to the screen, or getting a larger screen. If you can see the pixels of your TV, then you probably would benefit from 4k (if you can find 4k content).


Approaching this in a different way:

I primarily play PC games. I have a 27 inch 1080p monitor about 24 inches away from my face. I can use DSR technology built into my graphics card to render the game in 4k, which is them down sampled to 1080p. (Note that rendering a game at 4k is not creating information out of thin air. It is indeed a true 4k source). Even though this is still technically a 1080p image, I notice more detail because more resolution is used to create the image (giving more info for subpixels). Background detail is much clearer which is similar to what DVDs accomplished when they first came out. That being said, a 4k monitor displaying the original 4k render would be even better.

 

[bonejob]

I CAN tell the difference - even with my tired 64-year-old eyes. But the availability of UHD program material is still skimpy, making the question mostly moot.
Resolution is certainly NOT everything, but then, neither is contrast ratio. Also very important are black level retention and color accuracy.

Personally, while I found the 4K UHD sets to be impressive, I was STUNNED by the OLED-screen sets. Color accuracy was spot on and general color rendition had subtlety similar to good photography. Black was DEEP black and never faded to dark grey. The images had an amazing illusion of depth, like you could reach through the screen and touch the actors' faces. The 4K screens, despite their higher resolution, weren't even close.

The 4K sets - with real 4K material - showed impressive detail, but the OLED screens' superior overall image quality was immediately and obviously noticeable. SO noticeable that I had no trouble deciding to dig deeper - MUCH deeper - into my wallet for the extra money for the 1080p OLED screen.

 

[Seth=L]

I've yet to see an OLED that was actually running a program or movie that would show off its capability. The only store nearby that has one is BestBuy and it runs a demo off a thumb drive and it is so compressed it looks terrible. It's almost like they're actively sabotaging the demo just to sell 4K televisions.

 

[Montucky]

I've yet to see an OLED that was actually running a program or movie that would show off its capability. The only store nearby that has one is BestBuy and it runs a demo off a thumb drive and it is so compressed it looks terrible. It's almost like they're actively sabotaging the demo just to sell 4K televisions.

Wow. And THIS is why Best Buy has struggled over the years. Haha. A store who's entire business model is based around consumer electronics, yet can't set up a proper demo. Sheesh.

 

[BMXTRIX]

I get excellent streams from Netflix.

I get their version of 'excellent' as well, but it's not excellent when you are watching on a 161" 1080p display from 15' away. That's when the difference between streams at 3Mbs vs. Blu-ray at 30Mbs really become apparent.

I believe that 4K Netflix is pushing 10Mbs or even a bit higher, with good video codecs, but BD is using the same codecs and the video bit rate is far higher.

Nothing is really 'bad', except some cable stations. HD cable, satellite, etc. all look good or better. Streams tend to be very solid. Blu-ray looks awesome.

But, where is the truly native 4K content? From the camera to your home? It's mostly upconverted 1080p as it is. Oh, and you better believe a premium 4K display will blow away the cheap displays. Better color, viewing angles, shadow details, black levels, etc. A better TV is always a good starting point.

 

[lsiberian]

I CAN tell the difference - even with my tired 64-year-old eyes. But the availability of UHD program material is still skimpy, making the question mostly moot.
Resolution is certainly NOT everything, but then, neither is contrast ratio. Also very important are black level retention and color accuracy.

Personally, while I found the 4K UHD sets to be impressive, I was STUNNED by the OLED-screen sets. Color accuracy was spot on and general color rendition had subtlety similar to good photography. Black was DEEP black and never faded to dark grey. The images had an amazing illusion of depth, like you could reach through the screen and touch the actors' faces. The 4K screens, despite their higher resolution, weren't even close.

The 4K sets - with real 4K material - showed impressive detail, but the OLED screens' superior overall image quality was immediately and obviously noticeable. SO noticeable that I had no trouble deciding to dig deeper - MUCH deeper - into my wallet for the extra money for the 1080p OLED screen.

Problem for me is that those OLED screens are so small.