dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
19
share rss forum feed

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to bull3964

Re: Ultra HD at CES

said by bull3964 :

Higher resolution does not necessarily mean the picture will be higher quality.

Yes it does. Resolution is the single most important factor in determining picture quality, followed immediately by bitrate.

There are very few 1080i channels which look worse than the 720p networks no matter how bitrate-starved they are.

Disney and News Corporation and all their 720p channels are firmly at the bottom of the barrel in the picture quality department.

I will take a "shitty" TV with 8 million pixels over a "good" TV with only 2 million pixels any day.

Even the worst 4k TV will be better than the best 1080p TV.


bull3964

@stargate.net
said by MURICA:

Even the worst 4k TV will be better than the best 1080p TV.

So you would take a panel with 50% higher minimum black level or apparent clouding just because it's 4k over a 1080p TV that doesn't?

Yeah, that's all well and good for you, but I'll take the one with better contrast and a more uniform picture.

The 4k displays that are seen right now are not representative of the quality we'll see when these are consumer level displays. You can afford to take a bit more time on QC on a $12k display that's a limited production run. When Samsung starts churning out $3k UHD panels for their mainstream line, corners will have to be cut elsewhere to make the economically feasible and you could very well end up with an objectively worse display than a 1080p display at the same price.

I do not think we'll see average TV size double again. Many people have already bought a TV that's constrained by the physical space in their viewing area. For me, that was 55", for my parents, that was 37". Neither one of use will ever buy a larger TV unless we move as the viewing area does not allow for a larger display no matter how thin and light it is.

I'm not getting any perceived screen door effect now with my TV at my viewing distance. Any increase in resolution is going to be a marginal change in perceived quality no matter how the numbers shake out. On top of that, I'm simply not going to go through the cycle of updating the resolution of my media again, so 4k sources are going to be few and far between.

It's simply not something I can get excited about and neither can most of the market. That's why they rebranded it from 4k to Ultra HD. No one cares about 4k pixels verses 1920, but the word "ultra" denotes a quality improvement without nailing down exactly how the quality is supposed to be improved. It also prevents people from asking the question of "do I need to re-buy all my movies again for this higher resolution."

Eventually everyone will have 4k just like eventually everyone will have 3d capability. It will eventually be a no-cost add feature due to economies of scale. 4k sources will continue to lag though and I doubt many people will go to the effort to seek them out. It was hard enough to convince people that they need to subscribe to HD service when they bought their HDTV. Telling them that they need something better than blu-ray is going to be a non-starter.


miataman

join:2010-10-27
Chelmsford, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by bull3964 :

Many people have already bought a TV that's constrained by the physical space in their viewing area. (None) of us will ever buy a larger TV unless we move as the viewing area does not allow for a larger display no matter how thin and light it is.

Well said. Most overlooked factor in marketing new sets. New "features" can always be had, with a new set same size as the current one.
--
"My hat, my cane, Jeeves".


danclan

join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA
I'm not sure why I'm going to reply to this thread but I will. Yes you will eventually see 4K channels but not for a while as they sort out compression. No one expects UHD to feed raw uncompressed video, no one is getting raw uncompressed 720 or 1080 so why would anyone expect less for 4K. Expect it to be roughly 2X to 3X what a 1080 is today..once they finish all the work that still has to be done on the codecs.

Is is gimmick? Sure, the average home owner wont be seeing any 4K TV's in their home for 5+ years when they finally come down out of the stratosphere.

Finally you need a LARGE space for them to be of any benefit. Sure the eye can discern blah blah blah...but fact is...720p and 1080 are "good enough" Joe public doesnt give a crap. The name "UHD" is pure marketing that is all, the whole bigger is better.

»s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_ch ··· art.html

From that chart....one of many I know..you need a min size of 50" and be sitting 5' away, that's pretty close. Most folks just don't have a need of or space for a 65" tv, which is what you need if you are the average 8' away from your TV.

I do expect 4K TV's to be norm and reasonable priced within 5 years. I also expect there to be OLED monster reasonable priced TV's within the next 3 years which the consumer will truly be gushing over given the huge contrast and picture improvement they represent. They are more than "good enough" and most who just dropped a few hundred to a few thousand (2k) aren't going to upgrade to UHD anytime in the next 10 years.

It's not DOA technology. It's time has just not yet arrived.

The British did closed circuit 4k and 8K broadcasts to massive screens around London during the Olympics. Those that got to see them first hand were in awe of the clarity and crispness. Think digital movie theater on the street the screens were roughly the same size as the small screens at your local megaplex.

end of rant...


danclan

join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA
FYI all digital screens in theaters are 4K.

It's 48fps that's new and what is causing a stir.


bull3964

@stargate.net
said by danclan:

FYI all digital screens in theaters are 4K.

It's 48fps that's new and what is causing a stir.

I know, personally, I will never see another 48fps movie again. The whole thing just felt cheap.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to bull3964
said by bull3964 :

said by MURICA:

Even the worst 4k TV will be better than the best 1080p TV.

So you would take a panel with 50% higher minimum black level or apparent clouding just because it's 4k over a 1080p TV that doesn't?

Hell. Yes.

said by danclan:

FYI all digital screens in theaters are 4K.

It's 48fps that's new and what is causing a stir.

No they aren't.

The bulk of theaters still have crappy 2K screens - you know, the same resolution as your TV. And it's blown up to a giant screen.

This is why I refuse to see movies in theaters. They look like shit. My $1,500 46" LED 3DTV displays 2K and 3D better than the local movie theaters thanks to its higher pixel density.

There is a list of 4K movie theaters here. My closest 4K theater is 30 miles away. Not worth the drive when I can wait for the Blu-ray.

Once you've seen a 4K movie in a 4K theater you don't go back to 2K theaters.

In addition you can see all movies available in 4K here.

As you can see, The Hobbit is not among them. Unfortunately it is only a 2K title.


danclan

join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

1 edit
said by MURICA:

said by bull3964 :

said by MURICA:

Even the worst 4k TV will be better than the best 1080p TV.

So you would take a panel with 50% higher minimum black level or apparent clouding just because it's 4k over a 1080p TV that doesn't?

Hell. Yes.

said by danclan:

FYI all digital screens in theaters are 4K.

It's 48fps that's new and what is causing a stir.

No they aren't.

The bulk of theaters still have crappy 2K screens - you know, the same resolution as your TV. And it's blown up to a giant screen.

Sorry...I thought most had finally converted over. Where I live, all the theaters are 4K and have been for a long time.

However I disagree with your statements about quality. For the Video junkie it makes a difference. For the general public, it's "good enough". 48fps however is totally up to the viewer. Like many things artsy its totally in the eye of the viewer. 48fps for me felt like I was watching a soap opera and distracted me from the film itself.


danclan

join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

1 edit
The more I read the more I see 4K as a solution in search of a problem.

Sure there will always be those in search of 1000$ copper cables to make their speakers sound better. These TV's currently are very much in that same vein. If broadcasts were all 1080p I doubt very much we would be caring about 4K. As it is, with the horrible job many cable companies are doing with supplying HD content, 4K content will also be subject to horrific artifacts and compression residue.

The plus side of all this? Maybe cable co's will actually bite the bullet and move everyone over to mpep4. That alone would free up a HUGE amount of bandwidth to provide better quality broadcasts and freeing up bandwidth to boot.

Will it happen? Not likely the deployed base of slow dated cable boxes with no upgrade path will forever keep this away from the public.

If the FCC were to finally allow us to purchase and own our cable boxes we wouldn't be having this discussion as there would be a boom in features, capabilities and options for consumers as well as variety of choice and lower costs.

edit: grammer


Abraxas601

@pacbell.net
My biggest interest in 4K is the effect it will have on high resolution computer monitors. I look forward to the current standard of 1920x1080 to be replaced with 4096x2160 (or 3840x2160). It would be nice to start buying LCD monitors that are 30" or greater in size and not cost $1K.

I predict that since very little needs to change with existing hardware technologies, support will be adopted at a rate similar to 3D. It will be available whether you want it or not. I believe it's mostly just a chip hardware update. The latest HDMI (1.4) has support and existing panel technology shouldn't have a problem.

I think it will quickly become the standard for projectors since they would benefit the most. Already Blu-ray players and A/V receivers are adding 4K support at little to no additional cost.

The biggest failing will be content. Source material will come in the form of "criterion" style Blu-rays at double the cost and directed towards the Home Theater enthusiast. Similar to Laserdiscs in the early 90s.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to danclan
said by danclan:

However I disagree with your statements about quality. For the Video junkie it makes a difference. For the general public, it's "good enough". 48fps however is totally up to the viewer. Like many things artsy its totally in the eye of the viewer. 48fps for me felt like I was watching a soap opera and distracted me from the film itself.

But I am a video junkie.

I won't watch a TV show when it airs if I know there's going to be a Blu-ray release.

That's right; I am always consistently one season behind on shows like Modern Family, The Walking Dead, and Breaking Bad.

I won't watch a network affiliate. I'd rather take the time and effort to retrieve the national distribution feed off C-BAND.

And even I will admit that resolution is the single most important factor when it comes to video quality.

said by danclan:

If the FCC were to finally allow us to purchase and own our cable boxes we wouldn't be having this discussion as there would be a boom in features, capabilities and options for consumers as well as variety of choice and lower costs.

They do. It's called the CableCARD.

said by Abraxas601 :

I predict that since very little needs to change with existing hardware technologies, support will be adopted at a rate similar to 3D. It will be available whether you want it or not. I believe it's mostly just a chip hardware update. The latest HDMI (1.4) has support and existing panel technology shouldn't have a problem.

HDMI 1.4 does not support 4k at a refresh rate higher than 24 fps. This will need to change for computer monitor usage. Anything below 60 Hz is unacceptable.

said by Abraxas601 :

The biggest failing will be content. Source material will come in the form of "criterion" style Blu-rays at double the cost and directed towards the Home Theater enthusiast. Similar to Laserdiscs in the early 90s.

I think once again the porn industry will be leading the charge in providing 4K content. When HD was in its infancy it was the porn sites which offered the first widespread HD video via the Internet. Today, they are still leading the way when it comes to quality. Brazzers delivers 1080p MPEG-4 scenes at 12 Mbps for all of its new material. This blows everyone else away except for Blu-ray. It's higher quality than cable, Verizon, iTunes, Netflix, etc and twice the bitrate of DirecTV's MPEG-4 HD channels.

All a player like Manwin needs to do is get ahold of a few RED cameras. 4K digital cameras are gradually decreasing in price.

Because they already have a great Internet distribution system in place they are in a better position to get lots of 4K content out there at this stage in the game than mainstream Hollywood which is locked into bureaucracies with bandwidth-starved cable providers, a high definition home video format which does not have 4K support in its technical specifications, and Apple's iTunes service which won't support 4K until Apple decides to release a piece of hardware that plays 4K.