dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
15
share rss forum feed


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO

1 edit
reply to Greg2600

Re: Ultra HD at CES

said by Greg2600:

Yes I could discern PQ if I walked up to the screen. People aren't watching that closely like they would on a computer screen.

Exactly. SD to HD was one thing. SD was glaringly insufficient for 50"+ TVs. Most people just don't have room for the 70"+ inch TV that will be necessary to see the difference at a typical viewing distances.

People had trouble seeing the difference between 480p and 720p at standard viewing distances on 42" plasma TVs, back when that was an option. I'm not even really itching to replace my 720p 50" set. I'm actually more interested in that OLED set for black level and color reproduction characteristics than I am the pixel density.

You know what I *CAN* see on my 720p set watching typical broadcast channels? Compression artifacts galore! Why are we talking about 4k when we can't even get the most out of a 720p set?

I anticipate 4k to get filed in the same bin as DVD-Audio and SACD. Better audio quality exists, but CD audio is good enough for most people's ears. Consumers became more interested in actually losing some quality for improved convenience and portability. Along the same lines, I would not be surprised to find that the average population finds HD quality video to be all they need for home viewing.

U-verse TV is mighty popular in my neighborhood, despite the HDpicture quality being noticeably worse than cable or DirecTV. People love the multiroom and wireless set top features. People love their satellite radio, despite the sound quality being trash. I saw a poll a while back and some ridiculous 50% of the responders thought XM audio was the same as CD quality. Some even thought it was better.

I will be happy to be wrong, if I am wrong. I would love to have the best quality possible. I just don't think consumers care enough about quality for it to ever take off.

--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
said by djrobx :
Exactly. SD to HD was one thing. SD was glaringly insufficient for 50"+ TVs. Most people just don't have room for the 70"+ inch TV that will be necessary to see the difference at a typical viewing distances.

You need to consult an optometrist if you think 1080p is even remotely sufficient for current HDTV screen sizes.

quote:
People had trouble seeing the difference between 480p and 720p at standard viewing distances on 42" plasma TVs, back when that was an option. I'm not even really itching to replace my 720p 50" set. I'm actually more interested in that OLED set for black level and color reproduction characteristics than I am the pixel density.

You need to consult an optometrist if you think 720p is even remotely sufficient for current HDTV screen sizes.

quote:
You know what I *CAN* see on my 720p set watching typical broadcast channels? Compression artifacts galore! Why are we talking about 4k when we can't even get the most out of a 720p set?

There are already numerous sources available that can 'get the most' out of a 1080p set.

quote:
I anticipate 4k to get filed in the same bin as DVD-Audio and SACD. Better audio quality exists, but CD audio is good enough for most people's ears. Consumers became more interested in actually losing some quality for improved convenience and portability. Along the same lines, I would not be surprised to find that the average population finds HD quality video to be all they need for home viewing.

U-verse TV is mighty popular in my neighborhood, despite the HDpicture quality being noticeably worse than cable or DirecTV. People love the multiroom and wireless set top features. People love their satellite radio, despite the sound quality being trash. I saw a poll a while back and some ridiculous 50% of the responders thought XM audio was the same as CD quality. Some even thought it was better.

I will be happy to be wrong, if I am wrong. I would love to have the best quality possible. I just don't think consumers care enough about quality for it to ever take off.

HD, and Ultra HD, has never been about catering to the lowest common denominator. They are irrelevant.


jawhip

@verizon.net
I have seen the new 84" 4k sets and I must say, I was unimpressed. Sure, it you sit really close, you can't see the pixels, maybe 5 or 6 feet away. However, I don't sit that close and never would want to. I like to sit 9 or 10 feet away and at that distance, the increased resolution is barely noticeable, if at all. You need a screen size of 100 inches or more, which is why 4k works so well in a theater and would be great in the home for a front projector set up. IT also does have some application at smaller sizes for passive 3D. Other than that, it is more marketing hype. The real exciting stuff is OLED with its fantastic blacks and color. That is what the eye really pics up. Resolution is not as significant as those factors.

fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA
reply to djrobx
said by djrobx:

People had trouble seeing the difference between 480p and 720p at standard viewing distances on 42" plasma TVs, back when that was an option.

I understand your perspective but on this point, are you kidding? I'd love to meet that person and see their corrective lenses perscription. Seriously, there's no comparrison here...
--
People who don't get good service on average tell 10 others while people who do get good service on average tell 1.