dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
13
zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC

1 recommendation

zod5000 to existenz

Member

to existenz

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

Except you need an 80 inch TV (unless your sitting really close) to benefit from the higher resolution.

This is why I think 4k is a niche product. Unless there's a fundamental shift to people having 80"+ tv's in their living rooms, why are the masses going to upgrade?

HDTV made sense because there was a simultaneous turn to people wanting the new larger thin flatscreen sets, so HDTV and Plasma/LCD walked hand in hand.

People are yearning for 80 inch sets, so how useful is 4k going to be to the masses? I think it'll end up being another 3d. A niche product, rarely used, than ends up being a feature in tv's that isn't used that much.

why60loss
Premium Member
join:2012-09-20

2 recommendations

why60loss

Premium Member

said by zod5000:

Except you need an 80 inch TV (unless your sitting really close) to benefit from the higher resolution.

This is why I think 4k is a niche product. Unless there's a fundamental shift to people having 80"+ tv's in their living rooms, why are the masses going to upgrade?

HDTV made sense because there was a simultaneous turn to people wanting the new larger thin flatscreen sets, so HDTV and Plasma/LCD walked hand in hand.

People are yearning for 80 inch sets, so how useful is 4k going to be to the masses? I think it'll end up being another 3d. A niche product, rarely used, than ends up being a feature in tv's that isn't used that much.

I call BS, I sit 8 FT from the 55in set and 4K looks sharper than HD. I for one think HD looks bad past 50/55in.

How about you own or at lest see 4k content before making statement's about something you never had.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned)

Member

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

said by why60loss:

I call BS, I sit 8 FT from the 55in set and 4K looks sharper than HD. I for one think HD looks bad past 50/55in.

How about you own or at lest see 4k content before making statement's about something you never had.

And I sit 12 feet from a 42 inch set because I'm not blind. Who in the fuck sit so close to a TV? If I had a 55 inch TV I wouldn't have it closer than 12 feet and I doubt I see a difference between 1080p and 4K.

duh
join:2008-08-18
Atlanta, GA

1 recommendation

duh

Member

said by 78036364:

And I sit 12 feet from a 42 inch set because I'm not blind. Who in the fuck sit so close to a TV?

People who like to pretend that they're in a movie theater all the time. The solution to that existed decades ago: video projectors.
said by 78036364:

If I had a 55 inch TV I wouldn't have it closer than 12 feet and I doubt I see a difference between 1080p and 4K.

I can see the difference between 1080 and 4k, but I simply don't have the need to see the inside of each of Aaron Paul's individual pores.

I'm still watching most media from sources less than 500 pixels in the vertical, the rest 720, and perfectly happy with that, even if I am capable of seeing more resolution. I just happen to have a little more control over my wallet.
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

WhatNow to why60loss

Premium Member

to why60loss
I am not sure I want to see every skin pore and makeup brush stroke when they do a normal head shot. For some reason that has started to bother me on my 46in LED TV.
As long as this set lasts I will use it. When it dies I may try a 4K. People like me may be the problem with new technology. We wait a few years until the bugs get worked out and the price drops. By then they have added some advanced bells and whistles at a cheaper price..
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home

smcallah to 78036364

Member

to 78036364
There are optimal HDTV viewing distances.

For a 20 degree viewing angle, the farthest recommended, you should be at 105 inches away for a 42 inch TV. That is the recommendation of manufacturers, it is 2.5x the diagonal of the TV.

The SMPTE recommended viewing range is 30 degrees at 1.6 x Diagonal. The 4k specification was actually designed with SMPTE 30 in mind.

And THX recommended is 1.2x the Diagonal to give a 40 degree viewing angle. It is the maximum horizontal viewing angle based on average human vision.

So why60loss is at a good range from his TV. And you are out of these ranges, but within RCA's recommendation of 5'5" - 15'10" for 42 inches.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned) to duh

Member

to duh
In home projectors are crap. Too expensive, bulbs are exspensive to replace, can't have the lights on or you wash it out, consumer grade models have rainbowing and color blending problems.

Just get the big multi zone LED backlit panel.
firedrakes
join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL

firedrakes to why60loss

Member

to why60loss
hate to brake this to you but 1080p content is. on a video compression (file has been compress and not full size anymore) meaning your not getting full raw footage . i have seen real 4k set ups by ILM which with using raw footage and on a 2 store screen looks insane. otherwise. what your getting on 4k now is a finer detail due. to less compression in video format

why60loss
Premium Member
join:2012-09-20

why60loss

Premium Member

said by firedrakes:

hate to brake this to you but 1080p content is. on a video compression (file has been compress and not full size anymore) meaning your not getting full raw footage . i have seen real 4k set ups by ILM which with using raw footage and on a 2 store screen looks insane. otherwise. what your getting on 4k now is a finer detail due. to less compression in video format

Yes I realize that, I know Video steams are very compressed and true raw 4k looks a lot better. I have seen raw before so I know what it looks like.

aztecnology
O Rly?
Premium Member
join:2003-02-12
Murrieta, CA

aztecnology to zod5000

Premium Member

to zod5000
said by zod5000:

Except you need an 80 inch TV (unless your sitting really close) to benefit from the higher resolution.

This is why I think 4k is a niche product. Unless there's a fundamental shift to people having 80"+ tv's in their living rooms, why are the masses going to upgrade?

HDTV made sense because there was a simultaneous turn to people wanting the new larger thin flatscreen sets, so HDTV and Plasma/LCD walked hand in hand.

People are yearning for 80 inch sets, so how useful is 4k going to be to the masses? I think it'll end up being another 3d. A niche product, rarely used, than ends up being a feature in tv's that isn't used that much.

I have a 70" Vizio ($1500 Superbowl 2013) in my living room that I'm just about ready to move to my bedroom. I'll be looking to to go 80"-90" in my living room and will probably stick with HD for another gen before I go 4K, unless I get a really good deal on a 4k set...
floydb1982
join:2004-08-25
Kent, WA

floydb1982 to why60loss

Member

to why60loss

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

I have both a 47" 1080/60Hz CFL LCD HDTV and a 55" 1080p/120Hz LED LCD HDTV. With a 2 Blu-ray hooked to each and it does a pretty good job of displaying 1080p/20Hz HD. Why would I want to go 4K anyhow. U would need at least 100" HDTV to really get the true benefits of 4K 2160p or to see a difference between 1080p and 2160p video quality. Besides I live in a double wide mobile home and I would need to buy a house with walls make of steel and iron to hold up to the weight of a 100" HDTV. The TVs I currently have would cause the paper thin walls to claps under there own weight if I huge those TVs on the wall. Besides 1080p does me just fine for watching HD cable broadcast and Blu-ray.

cork1958
Cork
Premium Member
join:2000-02-26

cork1958 to zod5000

Premium Member

to zod5000
said by zod5000:

Except you need an 80 inch TV (unless your sitting really close) to benefit from the higher resolution.

This is why I think 4k is a niche product. Unless there's a fundamental shift to people having 80"+ tv's in their living rooms, why are the masses going to upgrade?

Exactly!

"Just 17% of Broadband Users Know What 4KTV Is"

I had heard of it but could care less about it!
zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC

zod5000 to why60loss

Member

to why60loss
And what content are you comparing? Are you comparing a high bit rate bluray to a comporable 4k image, or are you comparing a 1080p netflix feed, or 1080i cable feed to 4k? High Quality 1080p looks fine on a TV up to 80inch. The problem is that aside from Bluray most HD titles dont take full advantage of 1080p and thus aren't a good comparison to 4k.
existenz
join:2014-02-12

existenz

Member

Re: 60" 4K for under $1500 is doable

The conversation of how 4K vs 1080 looks becomes moot when economies of scale for the higher end tech reaches point of being the same or better than older tech. There will soon be a point where it doesn't make sense to make 1080 displays just as it makes no economic sense to make SD displays from manufacturing perspective.

And on the recording end, even low end tablets will soon be recording in 4K...
»www.pcworld.com/article/ ··· .rss_all
firedrakes
join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL

firedrakes to why60loss

Member

to why60loss
ok. most poeple have no clue with that. so that's why i said that. i have seen 4k tv set up. really only thing i see is more detail . due to less compression . still those tv are way over price
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned)

Member

Wrong, theres MORE compression in a 4K video feed, but since theres 4x as many pixels to work with the artifacting becomes far less noticeable.

Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

Corehhi to aztecnology

Member

to aztecnology
70 inch in your bedroom??? You're not going to like those huge butt holes looking at you. I've been told there's 3D porn so it might be interesting to see a 10 inch on a 70 inch???
ScottNJ
join:2003-04-13
Hackensack, NJ

ScottNJ to why60loss

Member

to why60loss
He's absolutely correct. I've seen quiet a few 4K TV's. You have to get pretty close to see a real difference for anything 55" and smaller, and the average person own cheap HDTV's that barely surpass 55"'s in size.