What To Look For In A Flat Screen TV Purchase

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by mjz

Let's see. They were 55" and I was 3 feet away.
How does that stack up on the chart.?

Well, the chart is there for you to see, and it's right at the limit where 4k starts to realize its full potential.

So, if one routinely watches a 55" TV from 3' away, I suppose it's worth it . . . . except you still can't get any real content . . . and getting content "real time" (via cable/satellite/etc) doesn't seem to be coming any time soon.

I'd say that for 95%+ of the viewing public, the chart supports my assertion that 4k is overkill. Unless you're one of those who likes to watch "still frames" from movies or re-run things in slow-motion paying attention to only a small part of the screen.

But for those of us who watch at "normal" (or beyond) distances and watch the WHOLE screen (as the movie was intended to be watched), 4k is simply overkill.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

How do you contrive an image for 4k sets? Take it with a 4k camcorder!

And you "contrive" it by using shots where the detail can be seen . . . WHEN somebody is looking VERY closely at a small part of the screen, from an abnormally close distance. That's how.

Now take that set to your house and watch at your normal viewing distance and the difference simply won't be noticeable. Or at best SLIGHTLY noticeable.

And that assumes you have "content".

[mjz]

So let's hear it Songwriter, what is your experience with viewing 4K?
Where have you seen it?
What was the special feed?

And what's Carlton Bale's experience?
Read the comments below hi sarticle-- specifically from the gamers.
They are always the first adopters.

And again. Anyone can walk into a Costco and see the display of two 4K panels just placed in rotation. We are not talking bridge pins here.

max

[mjz]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

And you "contrive" it by using shots where the detail can be seen . . . WHEN somebody is looking VERY closely at a small part of the screen, from an abnormally close distance. That's how.

Now take that set to your house and watch at your normal viewing distance and the difference simply won't be noticeable. Or at best SLIGHTLY noticeable.

And that assumes you have "content".

Dude, walk into Costco and look at them side by side.

max

[mjz]

Edited because I just remembered....

Netflix is streaming 4K today.
House of Cards is available in H2.65/HEVC as well as a few other programs.
And the plan is the continued rollout of it in their service

Red finally started shipping its Red Ray Streaming appliance.
First device not part of the tv to ship

4k content will continue to grow over the next 6 - 12 months


By the way -- you can plainly see the difference while approaching the tv displays at Costco.
Two stick out immediately from 30 feet

You would be mistaken to assume 4k is just about line resolution

max

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

And you "contrive" it by using shots where the detail can be seen . . . WHEN somebody is looking VERY closely at a small part of the screen, from an abnormally close distance. That's how.

Now take that set to your house and watch at your normal viewing distance and the difference simply won't be noticeable. Or at best SLIGHTLY noticeable.

And that assumes you have "content".

Take a picture with a 2MP camera, then take one with a 4MP camera. I don't care how far or close you are, you notice, unless you're an absurd distance away.

Content is another question, which everyone agrees on. You don't contrive the image; it is shot at the resolution for the TV. You can upscale a 1080 image to 4k but it won't look the same as the same image taken at 4k.

The key is pixel density. You wouldn't buy a 32" TV and sit 20' away from it. On the contrary, many would buy a larger TV and have a shorter viewing area for a more immersive experience. No one is saying it s for everyone, but to state that people won't see a noticeable difference is pretty absurd. Some will and some won't and it is up to the buyer to judge for themselves, not for someone to tell us it is so.

[mjz]

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

How do you contrive an image for 4k sets? Take it with a 4k camcorder! Take same image and downscale it to 1080 and a/b them; you WILL notice the difference. Just compare hair at 4k and 1080...

I take the same image and downscale it everyday and look at 4K and 1080 of the same image. You are right. Hair looks very different downscaled on 1080. As does the overall picture no matter how many feet you stand from the monitor.

But here's the thing.
Downscaled 4K looks different than the same shot originated 1080.
Now that does take some sophisticated eyes to see, but folks who routinely work with it can typically tell HD origination vs 4k down scaled.
Again, there's more than resolution at work. There is color science and compression.

max

[mjz]

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

Some will and some won't and it is up to the buyer to judge for themselves, not for someone to tell us it is so.

Louie, you let him off the hook to easily.
Honestly, everyone will.
If you've seen it, you know that.

max

[David Eastwood]

Originally Posted by mjz

You would be mistaken to assume 4k is just about line resolution

max

I'd be interested to know what else it is about. From a layman's viewpoint, line resolution is what seems to get all the press.

I believe I've been able to observe the difference in a side-by-side display at Best Buy, but it was at fairly close quarters, and I don't recall the content. I shall pay closer attention next time I'm there.

I'll be happy to wait until more content is available, across a wider range of delivery methods. By then, 4K will probably be ubiquitous, and it will be as hard to avoid as 3D-capable sets are now.

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by mjz

Louie, you let him off the hook to easily.
Honestly, everyone will.
If you've seen it, you know that.

max

I used to do home improvement and remodeling for upscale customers, and part of the deal was installing high end a/v systems. We only did a couple homes with 4k but the difference is night and day, even at what is considered "normal" distance. The difference was more apparent when paired with a PC-based home theater system; text and graphics approach print quality, but it takes a pretty powerful graphics card. Less need for anti-aliasing though because of the pixel density, which boosts contrast in graphics.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by eatswodo

I'll be happy to wait until more content is available,

By then, they'll be telling you it's worth it to get 8k.

If the LIVE content (most places, even with advertised high-rate cable, can't stream 4k reliably for real-time) were available and the price differential weren't so high, I'd say get the 4k now. But that's simply not the case at this point in time.

Until WHAT YOU ACTUALLY WATCH will show you a meaningful difference AT THE TV SIZE AND DISTANCE YOU VIEW AT, there's simply no reason to upgrade.

And even if buying a new TV right now, I'd still say there's just no reason. I don't see any evidence that most viewing on a TV screen will be done at 4k any time soon. Even BluRay can't handle the typical movie today at 4k.

[David Eastwood]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

By then, they'll be telling you it's worth it to get 8k.

Agreed. I have absolutely no plans to upgrade in the foreseeable future. I'm quite happy with what I currently have.

I do like to keep up with the technology, however, so I can be the judge of when the time has come to consider adopting it.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by eatswodo

however, so I can be the judge of when the time has come to consider adopting it.

When they're pushing 8k, it might be time to consider 4k.

By then, OLEDs might be affordable in the large-screen format, too.

[mjz]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

By then, they'll be telling you it's worth it to get 8k.

And there's the motivation for Songwriter's posts. I note that song has related no experience viewing actual 4K. As is mostly the case in off topic, the post was high on opinion, low on any factual experience. Par for the course.

The reality is, 4K was in development about the time y'all started getting giddy for flat panels. It's been around for a very long time. Technology allowed it to work in production and mastering facilities, but hard drive space and computer chips were far too expensive for general consumer sales. This has changed in the last few years and it's development is speeding up -- fast!

(By the way, you know how some movies theaters look especially great and the other one in the same cineplex look just very good? Your local movie theater has projected 4K for years now. They are expensive projectors, so typically the larger of the theaters gets the 4K projector and the smaller ones get the 2k projectors. You've likely all seen the difference if you are regulars at one of the cineplexes and been to a number of different theaters within. Some folks are saying --- Oh yeah. That one screen always looks better! -- yeah...that's why. Not sure how that works on the chart )

There is no 8k in development. 6K is upon us in the production world, but it's there to give us a little more resolution for stabilization effects and anamorphic ratios to finish in 4K. 8K monitors are not in the near future.

To be clear -- I did not recommend purchasing a 4K display. Heck, I recommended a Plasma 1080 that is about to be discontinued. However, 4K panels are worth a look right now. The 55" Samsung at Costco for $3200 gave me pause the last two times I've seen it. If it drops just a bit in price -- I'm scooping it up.

Go to Best Buy, or Costco, or anywhere else. Look at the offerings. Buy the one that you think looks the best for the money. Truth is -- they are all pretty good these days.

max

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by mjz

I note that song has related no experience viewing actual 4K.

Yeah, I guess they didn't bother putting 4k videos on the 4k TVs that I looked at when I made my decision.