Anyone notice that 1080p looks so much better on a 4k tv?

[yepimonfire]

I recently visited my in laws on vacation, they have a 1080p 55" tv. I recently purchased a cheap Vizio 55" M series 4k tv, and have mostly used it for 1080p Blu-ray playback using a Samsung upscaling bdp, which does a marvelous job in comparison to the internal scaler in the tv, or the scaler in my only TX NR 656.

Obviously, upscaling can't add detail that isn't already there, but what I did notice was a much more uniform and solid picture due to the increased pixel density. The whole image just looks more natural and sharper. With a 1080p display, I could very slightly make out the pixels, and the image just looked lower resolution.

With glasses I have 20/14 vision, so my ability to see a difference in pixel density is a bit better than someone with 20/20 vision. Both TVs we're viewed at a distance of about 9'. The Vizio M series is nothing special when it comes to color or contrast, so I'm pretty sure it wasn't just because it was a better display. It wasn't color, brightness, or contrast I noticed, just resolution. On the 55" 4k screen, I cannot make out the pixels until I am 5' away. On a 55" 1080p display, I have to sit almost 12' back to lose the ability to make out pixels.

My guess is that it looks better simply because it "depixelizes" the image.

Anyone who has used PC emulation software to play old SNES or N64 games at 1080p using scaling algorithms such a Super2xsai for texture upscaling, can attest to the fact that it looks 1000x better than the awful 256x224 native resolution, even though there isn't extra detail. It's a similar concept.

Anybody else with 4k TVs noticed a much better picture with upscaled 1080p content?

Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk

 

[XEagleDriver]

I recently visited my in laws on vacation, they have a 1080p 55" tv. I recently purchased a cheap Vizio 55" M series 4k tv, and have mostly used it for 1080p Blu-ray playback using a Samsung upscaling bdp, which does a marvelous job in comparison to the internal scaler in the tv, or the scaler in my only TX NR 656.

Obviously, upscaling can't add detail that isn't already there, but what I did notice was a much more uniform and solid picture due to the increased pixel density. The whole image just looks more natural and sharper. With a 1080p display, I could very slightly make out the pixels, and the image just looked lower resolution.

With glasses I have 20/14 vision, so my ability to see a difference in pixel density is a bit better than someone with 20/20 vision. Both TVs we're viewed at a distance of about 9'. The Vizio M series is nothing special when it comes to color or contrast, so I'm pretty sure it wasn't just because it was a better display. It wasn't color, brightness, or contrast I noticed, just resolution. On the 55" 4k screen, I cannot make out the pixels until I am 5' away. On a 55" 1080p display, I have to sit almost 12' back to lose the ability to make out pixels.

My guess is that it looks better simply because it "depixelizes" the image.

Anyone who has used PC emulation software to play old SNES or N64 games at 1080p using scaling algorithms such a Super2xsai for texture upscaling, can attest to the fact that it looks 1000x better than the awful 256x224 native resolution, even though there isn't extra detail. It's a similar concept.

Anybody else with 4k TVs noticed a much better picture with upscaled 1080p content?

Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk

Great write up, your analysis has caused me to rethink eventual TV replacement options.
Thanks,

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

 

[Auditor55]

I recently visited my in laws on vacation, they have a 1080p 55" tv. I recently purchased a cheap Vizio 55" M series 4k tv, and have mostly used it for 1080p Blu-ray playback using a Samsung upscaling bdp, which does a marvelous job in comparison to the internal scaler in the tv, or the scaler in my only TX NR 656.

Obviously, upscaling can't add detail that isn't already there, but what I did notice was a much more uniform and solid picture due to the increased pixel density. The whole image just looks more natural and sharper. With a 1080p display, I could very slightly make out the pixels, and the image just looked lower resolution.

With glasses I have 20/14 vision, so my ability to see a difference in pixel density is a bit better than someone with 20/20 vision. Both TVs we're viewed at a distance of about 9'. The Vizio M series is nothing special when it comes to color or contrast, so I'm pretty sure it wasn't just because it was a better display. It wasn't color, brightness, or contrast I noticed, just resolution. On the 55" 4k screen, I cannot make out the pixels until I am 5' away. On a 55" 1080p display, I have to sit almost 12' back to lose the ability to make out pixels.

My guess is that it looks better simply because it "depixelizes" the image.

Anyone who has used PC emulation software to play old SNES or N64 games at 1080p using scaling algorithms such a Super2xsai for texture upscaling, can attest to the fact that it looks 1000x better than the awful 256x224 native resolution, even though there isn't extra detail. It's a similar concept.

Anybody else with 4k TVs noticed a much better picture with upscaled 1080p content?

Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk

Probably all in your mind, or what we call a placebo or expectation of effect. Factually or objectively speaking, there shouldn't be reason why on a 55 inch 4K set, even with your superman eyesight, from 9 feet you would be hard pressed to see a difference. Probably your TV is a good TV in other ways (wide color gamut, HDR) that contribute to what attribute to 4K resolution that's making the differences.

 

[2channel lover]

I recently visited my in laws on vacation, they have a 1080p 55" tv. I recently purchased a cheap Vizio 55" M series 4k tv, and have mostly used it for 1080p Blu-ray playback using a Samsung upscaling bdp, which does a marvelous job in comparison to the internal scaler in the tv, or the scaler in my only TX NR 656.

Obviously, upscaling can't add detail that isn't already there, but what I did notice was a much more uniform and solid picture due to the increased pixel density. The whole image just looks more natural and sharper. With a 1080p display, I could very slightly make out the pixels, and the image just looked lower resolution.

With glasses I have 20/14 vision, so my ability to see a difference in pixel density is a bit better than someone with 20/20 vision. Both TVs we're viewed at a distance of about 9'. The Vizio M series is nothing special when it comes to color or contrast, so I'm pretty sure it wasn't just because it was a better display. It wasn't color, brightness, or contrast I noticed, just resolution. On the 55" 4k screen, I cannot make out the pixels until I am 5' away. On a 55" 1080p display, I have to sit almost 12' back to lose the ability to make out pixels.

My guess is that it looks better simply because it "depixelizes" the image.

Anyone who has used PC emulation software to play old SNES or N64 games at 1080p using scaling algorithms such a Super2xsai for texture upscaling, can attest to the fact that it looks 1000x better than the awful 256x224 native resolution, even though there isn't extra detail. It's a similar concept.

Anybody else with 4k TVs noticed a much better picture with upscaled 1080p content?

Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk

I have two Sony 4k TVs. Yes, the 1080p picture is better on those TVs than my Samsung plasma, but not so much better that I would replace a TV that's working fine. My vision is not that great unless I'm looking for my golfball in the woods...but I would equate it like going from 720p to 1080p.

If 4k content ever gets off the ground, 4k TVs will make a lot more people replace a working TV.

 

[TheWarrior]

Also, the 4K panels are the latest and greatest so they should perform better than some made 5-10 years ago.

 

[yepimonfire]

Also, the 4K panels are the latest and greatest so they should perform better than some made 5-10 years ago.

Even the low end crappy vizio D/M series?

Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk

 

[TheWarrior]

Even the low end crappy vizio D/M series?

Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk

All things being equal (including rate of progress), Yes!

I still cherish my plasma, but there's no denying what OLED can do!

 

[yepimonfire]

All things being equal (including rate of progress), Yes!

I still cherish my plasma, but there's no denying what OLED can do!

It's certainly no OLED, but I have noticed newer TV's look a lot better each year, even in the budget range. I have a 720p Insignia I paid $279 for in 2013, which looked better than a friends older mid priced vizio. Bought a 2015 Westinghouse 720p TV for $150 in the same size (which I ended up selling) that looked even better than that. My brother still had an old (2009) LG, and honestly, I can't believe how bad LCD displays used to look.

Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

All things being equal (including rate of progress), Yes!

I still cherish my plasma, but there's no denying what OLED can do!

Yeah, I do love my plasma too. But oled is undeniably beautiful. I think hdr is a more vital component than 4K. LCD sucks in general and when my ol pan you dies I'll have to suck it up for oled. Should be competitively priced by then. Maybe...

 

[NINaudio]

Yeah, I do love my plasma too. But oled is undeniably beautiful. I think hdr is a more vital component than 4K. LCD sucks in general and when my ol pan you dies I'll have to suck it up for oled. Should be competitively priced by then. Maybe...

I keep waiting for them to become competitively priced! Maybe next year now that there are a few more players in the OLED field...

 

[slipperybidness]

The price isn't what bothers me about OLED......LG is what bothers me about OLED.....

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I keep waiting for them to become competitively priced! Maybe next year now that there are a few more players in the OLED field...

Exactly

 

[panteragstk]

I'll say that HDR content looks better than my Panny, but regular 1080p has a lot of catching up to do. My sony 700D LCD is nice, but it was super cheap and I got it to see if my PC could play my games @4k resolution.

That and I wanted to play with HDR. I will say, this LCD is MUCH better than most I've seen in the past. The tech still sucks, but it has gotten MUCH better.

Having said that, Vizio may not be a top tier brand (LG, Samsung, Sony) but they do make a great TV for the money. The cheapo 70" looks very good for a $1200 TV. Warranty after purchase is what you have to worry about with Vizio. Not that they won't support it, just their conditions are (or used to be, I haven't kept up) a bit over the top when it comes to getting the TV serviced. I'd buy a vizio with an extended warranty in a heartbeat if I just wanted a TV somewhere.

I do love Android TV in my Sony though...

 

[panteragstk]

The price isn't what bothers me about OLED......LG is what bothers me about OLED.....

Would you buy the Sony OLED even though the panel is LG?

 

[Swerd]

People tend to pay too much attention to the hardware details on digital TVs. They attribute any perceived improvements to the newer screen designs.

At the same time, they tend to ignore the software used to upscale lower resolution pictures to higher resolution. In my opinion, the software changes, and improves, more often than the hardware.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

People tend to pay too much attention to the hardware details on digital TVs. They attribute any perceived improvements to the newer screen designs.

At the same time, they tend to ignore the software used to upscale lower resolution pictures to higher resolution. In my opinion, the software changes, and improves, more often than the hardware.

I don't think that's too far off either. The think that fried me is, you buy a new tv and have to have it isf calibrated(or spears and munsil lol) so it's accurate. To me that's like bringing my new Vette in to get a tuneup to run right!!! Why can't they come from the factory calibrated?

 

[Swerd]

The think that fried me is, you buy a new tv and have to have it isf calibrated(or spears and munsil lol) so it's accurate. To me that's like bringing my new Vette in to get a tuneup to run right!!! Why can't they come from the factory calibrated?

Factory calibration implies that one size fits all. The brightness and contrast you need and prefer in your home varies too much compared with what others want and need.

 

[panteragstk]

People tend to pay too much attention to the hardware details on digital TVs. They attribute any perceived improvements to the newer screen designs.

At the same time, they tend to ignore the software used to upscale lower resolution pictures to higher resolution. In my opinion, the software changes, and improves, more often than the hardware.

That reason is why I got the Sony over a vizio (and android TV). Sony's video processing is fantastic for this being their entry level set.

Their OLED is supposedly the best TV you can get right now.

 

[everettT]

Factory calibration implies that one size fits all. The brightness and contrast you need and prefer in your home varies too much compared with what others want and need.

Not to mention if your calibration isn't just day and night viewing, but each source. To me it's worth the cost to get isf calibration, downside is it takes forever to get an isf tech scheduled, then recalibration at 20k hours.

 

[NINaudio]

I wouldn't even consider Vizio again. I tried them before I got my Samsung, had issues on three separate m-series models before I gave up on them. The first one had one of the dimming zones that was always brighter than the others, and a remote that would randomly stop responding, I'd have to unplug the tv for a half hour in order to get it to recognize the remote again. The second arrived with a shattered corner even though the box looked fine, not their fault I suspect. The third was ok at first, but after two weeks the issue with the remote not being recognized appeared again.