We've had a 28" Sony 'flat' CRT for more years than I care to remember, but I think it's on the way out - one side of the screen is getting a bit 'ghosty' and not as sharp as it used to be & when the screen is supposed to be pre-dominantly white (Silent Witness morgue for example) the screen goes a nice pink colour.
So, we've bought an LG 4k TV. It's arriving next Monday. Yay.
But, I have no idea what else I need....
We've got a HD Humax box with an HDMI out, so we will be plugging that in.
But, we also have an old Sony DVD player that I think only has SCART out so we probably need to get a bluray player.
Do we go for standard Blu-ray - you seem to be able to get them pretty cheap, or spend a little bit more & get a 4k upscaling one? As I understand it, the TV will upscale anyway so perhaps it just comes down to whether the upscaler in the DVD player is better than the telly as to whether it is worth it.
From what I have seen, the Panasonic bluray players get great reviews for their upscaling. £100 gets an upscaling Panasonic Bluray with Wi-Fi (not sure what the point of that would be given that the TV will be Wi-Fi so am not clear if my bluray player needs to be Wi-Fi or not). They do a cheaper Panasonic upscaling bluray player for around £70 and the only difference as far as I can tell is that it doesn't have Wi-Fi (it needs to be connected via Ethernet).
4k Blurays are coming out, but there are barely any present at the moment & the players are expensive (as are the discs) so not too bothered about any of that for the moment.
A couple of friends mentioned a curveball of getting the new Xbox One S to use as a Bluray source as it can play 4k blurays.
But not convinced by this as I am extremely unlikely to use it as a games console & I saw a review of an older Xbox that basically says 'yes it works to play DVDs, but it's crap at doing so'......I'd rather has a box that plays bluray discs well, rather than a box that does loads of stuff badly.....
Your wisdom (or anything else for that matter) would be appreciated!
It's not worth upscaling, no. Telly does it, you won't be able to tell. You won't be able to tell the difference between HD ad 4K anywya unless you're 5ft away.
molgrips - MemberIt's not worth upscaling, no. Telly does it, you won't be able to tell.
That's what I was wondering. The TV seems to do the upscaling.
Looking on places like What Hi-Fi etc. though (I know, but I can't help it) seemed to suggest that the upscalers in some TVs were a bit rubbish & the ones in the DVD players did a better job. I suppose it depends from model to model....
I wonder what the TV will make of all our boggo standard DVDs?? Will it upscale them to 4k?! I can't see that being very successful! 😀
Can you get 4K blu ray discs or are they HD only?
If yes, and you are likely to buy them, then that's the only advantage I can see for going for a 4K Blu Ray player to match the 4K TV. When playing 4K content everything will be natively in 4K and won't need scaling. Obviously when playing a DVD or non 4K blu ray content it will have to be scaled. Unless you are spending mega bucks on the player then the TV scaling should be up to the job.
Also check out the graphs and tables online which slow you how close to your TV you need to sit to actually be able to resolve the finer details. If you have a small screen and you sit far away difference between 4K and HD maybe negligible, so not worth spending more on 4K compatible hardware or content.
jairaj - MemberCan you get 4K blu ray discs or are they HD only?
They are available but not much choice & they are around £20, rather than about £13 for Bluray so don't think I'll be bothering with them.
Plus the players are around £4-500 I think.
jairaj - MemberUnless you are spending mega bucks on the player then the TV scaling should be up to the job.
Yeah, kind of what I was thinking (and alluding to above).
I wonder if you can turn the upscaling off in the menus of the players?
There isn't a great deal of price between upscaling & non-upscaling DVD players. So, I could get an upscaling one that gets good reviews & compare the upscaling quality of the player & the TV.
As with everything, I am probably massively overthinking this.
Upscaling is banded about a lot when it comes to TV and source material. What you say is correct assuming your TV scales well then you will be okay.
Having said all that it's possible that a s****y upscaler in some of the upmarket BD players will upscale a bit better. But if you're serious about the quality you will probably go down the 4K path at some point anyway.
Scalers in tellys used to be poor but now they're generally pretty good. (I remember paying £1500 for an outboard scaler years ago when DVD players couldn't scale so great!)
I think manufacturers like to put 4K upscaler on their BD machines so it makes you think your TV hasn't got one! Like your going to watch a 1920x1080 window in the middle of your telly.
Get the source box that suits your viewing habits the most.
You won't be able to see the detail in 4K unless you are realy close to a huge telly. So you definitely won't be able to tell the difference in upscaling algorithms.
allegedly a media source can upscale better because it can compare the previous/next frame when upscaling the current one to do it 'better'. Do they actually do this? My guess is no. I would be warey of the benefits being spouted by what hifi (etc) as I'm dubious they'd get as much advertising revenue from posh blu-ray players if they admitted they made no different (they 'rate' a £180 HDMI cable when its impossible for it to make a difference - http://www.whathifi.com/audioquest/hdmi-1/review )
I expect your TV will have a scart input - so check that first. Personally, I personally think physical media is mostly dead - rather than spending £200 on a player and 5 disks, get a years subscription to netflix (seems to have a better film selection than amazon) and use that instead. It supports 4k, and doesn't (assuming you have a smart tv - if not buy a fire tv box) need another ugly box below the TV. if you do want blu-ray, you could do worse than buying a cheap PS3 slim - which adds a whole load of extra functionality on top of blu ray playback (albeit at a higher cost than a standalone box)
molgrips - MemberYou won't be able to see the detail in 4K unless you are realy close to a huge telly. So you definitely won't be able to tell the difference in upscaling algorithms.
What Hi-Fi reckon they can.... 😉
Frankly, watching TV at my parents over Christmas on a 28" (I think) telly and could barely tell any difference between HD and SD.
Seriously!
I can tell the difference definitely on my 46" at home, but at theirs they've got Sky HD and they keep forgetting to change to the HD versions of BBC, ITV and C4 (as can't remember the channel numbers), leaving it on SD (and recording from also). I keep changing to the HD version, but then agreed with them that it barely made any difference so wasn't worth the hassle.
On my own TV I have to admit that nicely upscaled DVD actually can look pretty good at the distance I sit. HD is that bit nicer but if it's an older film it's not so obvious. Modern HD cgi-tastic material often has sharp edges to things and HD brings that out more. Softer edges of older films less so. Unless there's lots of on screen text. Film credits in particular I notice.
molgrips - MemberYou won't be able to see the detail in 4K unless you are really close to a huge telly. So you definitely won't be able to tell the difference in upscaling algorithms.
I can definitely see the difference between my shiny new 49" 4k TV, and the 38" 1080p one it replaced, sitting about 2.5m away.
Some 1080p content to me looks better, but sometimes the upscaling just makes it more obvious that it was filmed in a studio, due to the lack of blurriness.
"Stranger Things" in 4k on Netflix looks pretty good.
I think I definitely prefer it to the 1080p TV.
5lab - MemberI expect your TV will have a scart input - so check that first.
According to the specs it has 3 HDMI & 2 USB, but no scart.
5lab - MemberPersonally, I personally think physical media is mostly dead - rather than spending £200 on a player and 5 disks, get a years subscription to netflix (seems to have a better film selection than amazon) and use that instead. It supports 4k, and doesn't (assuming you have a smart tv - if not buy a fire tv box) need another ugly box below the TV.
Yeah. I do wonder if we are living in the media dark ages a bit. Probably need to have a think about what we want going forward, rather than buying stuff upfront that never gets used.
deadkenny - MemberFrankly, watching TV at my parents over Christmas on a 28" (I think) telly and could barely tell any difference between HD and SD.
I probably should have said in my OP, the current TV is 28", but the new one is 43".
I've also bought a new LG 4K tellybox, which arrives tomorrow. I researched 4k Blu-ray and it seems to me 4k players are pretty new and therefore expensive b) there are hardly any 4k discs yet c) the telly will upscale anything lesser just fine. So, I'm sticking with my cheap as chips standard Blu-ray player.
Did you get the sky Q offer with your TV?
WillTheRealForumPleaseStandUp - MemberDid you get the sky Q offer with your TV?
What SkyQ offer would that be, and where from? Sky? Or the tellybox retailer?
We don't use Sky, so nothing offered as far as I know.
My mate has Sky Q and pays over £150 a month for it - multiple boxes, this that and the other. Don't think it's for me.....
Chromecast Ultra? Doesn't help with playing old content, but might be the easiest way to get new 4k content?
JPR - MemberChromecast Ultra? Doesn't help with playing old content, but might be the easiest way to get new 4k content?
This is where my lack of knowledge about the latest technology is going to start tripping me up.
If my TV has the Netflix app onboard & I sign up to that (for example) what would be the point of the Chromecast Ultra?
Or to put it another way, what can Chromecast ultra do that the apps on my smart TV can't do?
www.lg.com/UK/skyq
Free for 6/12 months depending on how posh a telly you bought. Although you have to pay for installation. There's probably a catch, but I haven't worked out what it is yet
what would be the point of the Chromecast Ultra
That depends on how smart the smart bit of your tv is. I like being able to control netflix, iplayer, youtube, etc. from my phone. Searching and finding content is quicker, plus you can rent and buy movies on google play.
WillTheRealForumPleaseStandUp - MemberFree for 6/12 months depending on how posh a telly you bought.
I don't think the telly we've bought is posh enough - it has to be OLED or SuperUHD for that deal. I think the one I've just bought is the already obsolete NonSuperUHD standard......
Get an Xbox with Forza Horizon 3 and you'll never need to talk to anyone again, not that you'll play any 4K DVDs on it. Otherwise basic decent bluray player.
But Xbox aren't 4K.
WillTheRealForumPleaseStandUp - Member
Free for 6/12 months depending on how posh a telly you bought. Although you have to pay for installation. There's probably a catch, but I haven't worked out what it is yet
Excessive install cost if you don't get their broadband or sports/movies packages. You don't own the boxes. Subscription lock in, and hearing from a few who've tried it it's is crap / buggy.
The only bonus Sky Q seems to give you is it's a media streaming system, but you can get that with a NAS and/or Kodi-like devices. Add Netflix and/or Amazon, iPlayer etc and you can do away with much that Sky offers anyway.
But Xbox aren't 4K.
Xbox One S is 4k UHD. Its also the cheapest 4K blu-ray player.
Drac - Moderator
But Xbox aren't 4K
I think the new One S is.
In my OP it's what I said a couple of mates have recommended.
I can definitely see the difference between my shiny new 49" 4k TV, and the 38" 1080p one it replaced, sitting about 2.5m away.
I recon I could tell a 38" telly from a 49" tv from quite long way away....
allegedly a media source can upscale better because it can compare the previous/next frame when upscaling the current one to do it 'better
Surely the telly has access to this inforamtion as well...
I read that you most people can tell 4k from 1080p at 9 feet on a 55" telly. I can't decide which way this swings the argument. I have a 40" telly and still find 720p amazing
My two-penneth worth. There are so many variables that combine to produce a good picture quality. Resolution is only one and it is not very high up in the priority list either - maybe about 6th or 7th in a list of top ten most important things. If you are comparing two different TV's any difference you can see is most likely to be that one panel is simply better than the other, or even that to your eye you prefer the style of one picture to the next. I personally think the picture of my plasma display can't be beaten - I think LED backlit LCD screens and certainly OLED just don't look realistic enough - too bright, too colourful, too unrealistic, but some people look at the picture on my Plasma and think it look dull and dim. Each to their own.
I've been blown away by the picture quality of a 4k set on demo in a shop playing a specific demo video via a USB stick - however I am under no illusions that the actual picture quality I would get in my living room from all the various sources available to me would be anywhere near as good. Its not a reason to not get a 4k telly - they'll all be 4k soon anyway, certainly the larger ones, but at the same time it is not worth busting a gut or paying a premium to get a 4k input - not all 4k inputs are the same.
If you don't watch many blue rays today then there is little point in investing in a 4k BR player, not until they come down in price - and they will soon enough. The chances are you're going to watch your satellite/freeview/internet streamed input most of the time anyway and you'll get what you get. I notice a big difference between the SD and HD channels with my current HDTV/Sky HD setup, and I also notice a signifiant difference from one HD broadcast show compared to the next. And anything that comes from the internet just looks inferior to even SD broadcast stuff no matter if it is HD or SD. For example the quality of The Grand Tour in HD via an Amazon Fire Stick is not even in the same league as Top Gear was on BBC HD. The picture on Top Gear via BBC HD, and alot of the BBC HD stuff is so clear, precise and defined it almost looks 3D as there is a definite depth perception. I've not seen this effect on any internet streamed content, and only ever seen it from Blue Ray.
So just connect up your stuff using HDMI into your normal sources and just enjoy the results. If you spend anything then invest in a decent soundbar or AV system if you're still on the TV's on-board audio - that will be far far worse than the picture quality and audio is equally as important as visual.
I think the new One S is.
It only plays 4k Blu Ray or streams.
keep what you have lots of TV's still have a scart socket and if not you can use an adaptor
I'd ditch the DVD player and get a normal BR one. They're dirt cheap - £50 will buy you one, then you're HDMI'd up, got the benefit of the significantly better picture quality and better audio too (if you've got decent speakers).
You often get an adapter with the TV.
Right then...cheers for all the replies.
We'll get the tv set-up with the freeview box (luckily it is new enough to have a hdmi output) and in all likelihood get a bluray player....at least then if we do buy more films we will be able to get the bluray version....
Sound-wise, for films we currently have the DVD player hooked up to my amp and floorstanders. I am a bit concerned about the sound quality from the tv itself, so can see us stumping up for a soundbar or soundbase in a month or so.
Not sure we'll have space for the new TV and the floorstanders so might have to get rid of them for the time being....we'll see...
We also need a new stand as the current one is specific to the TV and it's in a right state.
Funds are tight at the mo' due to young daughter and single income so this is all quite a big investment for us to make...
I have SkyQ. Two boxes, connected together by the house wifi. No sports, no kids TV, but everything else. £52/month
LG 37in HD LCD? TV that's about 8-10 years old now. The sound quality is fine. When this dies I'll think about 4K but in the meantime it's fine. Besides, I'm not sure you can buy TVs today that are not 4K
Just bought a replacement BluRay home cinema system, which also has 3D capability - not bothered about that as the TV isn't 3D and isn't getting replaced until it dies (see above). Playing DVDs on a PS3 is a PITA
We'll get the tv set-up with the freeview box
It'll have a freeview receiver in it - no box needed.
Sound-wise, for films we currently have the DVD player hooked up to my amp and floorstanders. I am a bit concerned about the sound quality from the tv itself
Your new TV will have an audio output that you can pipe straight to the amp - no need for a soundbar.
My TVs has an optical audio out & the bluray player has an equivalent optical in. But sometimes it's bad enough juggling two remotes, never mind three
Right - well your TV can probably control the blu-ray player via HDMI, most modern kit does this.
Also - you don't HAVE to turn the external amp or AV receiver on - you just use the TV speakers as normal. But when it's movie night, you can turn the volume down on the telly and put the surround sound on.
Seating distance and resolution is one of those vague internet stats that is actually quite unhelpful when choosing display devices. Assuming the production was acquired in 4K you will get the best results in 4K. No iffs or buts.
It's worth checking whether the stuff you watch is originated in 4K or above. You can clearly see the difference it's huge.
I do worry a lot of reports are based on some "video" masters being taken from a 2K DI (2K production and mastering is still current too). So stick that on 4K telly even from a 4K disc and it could still come from a 2K source which will not be exploiting your 4K system at all. And is in fact only a bit better than 1080. Which is why people often think 4K doesn't look much better.
I join these threads every now and again hopefully to pass on a bit of my 4K production experience with which we are in our 5 year of usage.
Whether you will appreciate and want to pay for it is clearly up to you.
I've had the pleasure of seeing 4K source material from our cameras on a top line 4K projector and it's mind blowing. Proper impressive. And 4K is now actually getting on a bit. 8K is now the cutting edge for acquisition.
Having said all this, calibration and quality hardware play a significant part.
You get a whole bunch more colour samples on a 4K image too for a given screen size.
It's part of consumer progress. Up to you whether you join in.
Assuming the production was acquired in 4K you will get the best results in 4K. No iffs or buts.
No, you won't, if you are too far away. Imagine being 30m away from a 32" telly - you wouldn't be able to tell what was even on.
So there is clearly a threshold beyond which our eyes cannot resolve detail. Question is, what is that threshold? The better your eyes are, the further away you can sit and still tell the difference though.
The fact I can see more detail on this current tv when I move closer tells me my eyes can't even resolve all the detail in normal HD from my sofa.
molgrips - MemberIt'll have a freeview receiver in it - no box needed.
Your new TV will have an audio output that you can pipe straight to the amp - no need for a soundbar.
Yeah, it's got Freeview, Freeview Play, Freesat and perhaps something else built in (can't remember) but the Humax box we have records and we've got about 350Gb of programs and films on it still.
I think the TV will allow us to record directly to a usb hdd but that would mean having to buy a drive to plug in.
We can plug the tv into the amp but because the TV is so much bigger than the current one, I don't think the floorstanders will physically fit in the corner with the TV unless we pull it miles out from the wall. So, a soundbar or soundbase (hopefully with sub) Will probably be on the cards and my 20 year old RTLs will end up gathering dust in the study...
The set-up has to satisfy the Wife which means potentially large compromises in performance for a nice looking, uncluttered lounge...... 🙄 😆
john_drummer - Member
I have SkyQ. Two boxes, connected together by the house wifi. No sports, no kids TV, but everything else. £52/month
I take it that includes phone and broadband?
We currently pay £18/ month for 'normal' broadband and phone and nothing for freeview. I'd prefer to keep it like that.
I looked at Sky Q today and adding 4k capability immediately put the price up quite a bit...and we wouldn't need more than one box as we don't have any other tv's in the house...it seemed like an expensive way to get not that many more channels than you do with Freeview, but having never had Sky that could be just my lack of familiarity.
Just my observations and no help to the OP but I have a 40" 4k Panasonic TV, my viewing position is 3m from the screen, there is a significant increase in picture quality when viewing 4k material vs HD, the iplayer 4k Planet Earth 2 sequence that is available is easily better than the HD version of the same clip, just my tuppeneth as a joe average user and not an 'expert'
No, phone (hardly ever used) is with BT, broadband with Virgin.
.No, you won't, if you are too far away. Imagine being 30m away from a 32" telly - you wouldn't be able to tell what was even on
Let's assume we're working within the bounds of something practical!
You won't be able to tell the difference between HD ad 4K anywya unless you're 5ft away.
Nonsense. Obviously, depends on the screen size, as well as the viewing distance (and the viewers eyes), but I see a very clear difference between HD and UHD (even more so with true 4K and/or HDR sources).
rone - MemberLet's assume we're working within the bounds of something practical!
Whaddya mean?! molgrips' 30m lounge is truly a sight to behold. Shame after having the house built there was no more room in the budget for anything bigger than a 32" telly....
😀
There are so many variables that combine to produce a good picture quality. Resolution is only one and it is not very high up in the priority list either - maybe about 6th or 7th in a list of top ten most important things. If you are comparing two different TV's any difference you can see is most likely to be that one panel is simply better
The difference in picture quality between my 50" Panasonic Plasma and the 32" Samsung 1080 LCD in the kitchen is huge. The Samsung was supposed to be the best 32" set available and is only a year old. They're both fed from the same source and set up with recommended settings but it's like moving from DVD to BluRay - the depth of colour is so much better on the panasonic.
The fact I can see more detail on this current tv when I move closer tells me my eyes can't even resolve all the detail in normal HD from my sofa.
Again, nonsense. That simply does not relate to the practical viewing experience and the difference you can experience between a HD and UHD set (if your eyes are up to it).
Having said all this, calibration and quality hardware play a significant part.
I'm still blown away by films/drama shot on an Alexa and broadcast properly by BBC/Netflix on my HD Sony (that only needed setting on to 'cinema' and +2 green to get rid of a very slight magenta bias. Looks far better than a lot of 4K demos I have seen where contrast and colour are turned up to the max and it just looks gritty and over processed, a friend who sits on the technical committee of SMPTE and is a VP of mastering technology in the digital cinema world tends to agree with me.
I'll not be going 4K soon until the sort out the data rates compression for delivery over the internet. I demand clean blacks with no banding or I'm not interested. That may be fine for watching footy at super high frame rates on fluro green pitch with red jerseys popping out at you but not for drama/films.
Again, nonsense. That simply does not relate to the practical viewing experience and the difference you can experience between a HD and UHD set (if your eyes are up to it).
How can it be nonsense? For any given object you can see more detail if you are closer, and less if you are further away. So the amount of detail you can see depends on how far you are away. Are you seriously disputing this?
Let's assume we're working within the bounds of something practical!
That was a thought experiment to prove the above point.
There IS definitely a distance from any given size of TV beyond which you will not be able to see the difference. That's unarguable. What we should be discussing is how far away you have to be from any given size before you can tell. The charts are on the internet, however if you disagree with the charts then fine - how far away do you think you have to sit from a 55" telly to see the difference?
How can it be nonsense? For any given object you can see more detail if you are closer, and less if you are further away. So the amount of detail you can see depends on how far you are away. Are you seriously disputing this?
Yeah but moving too close to a pixelated item means it spoils the detail.
How can it be nonsense? For any given object you can see more detail if you are closer, and less if you are further away. So the amount of detail you can see depends on how far you are away. Are you seriously disputing this?
Agreed but only to a point.
Where you appear to be going wrong is there is no actual industry standard for it all. There are guidelines and recommendations from various industry sites (not consistent). So which guideline are you using?
I've seen so much variation in the suggested viewing distances as to make it void in my opinion.
This deterministic approach just doesn't hold any water with people's individual acuity, room setup, immersion, calibration etc.
I can clearly see the difference between 1080p and UHD/4K at outside most of the charts out there. What gives? It doesn't take into account the aggregate quality you get from viewing a 4K source, done properly which goes beyond just a pixel.
Until you've seen a 4K source along side a 2K/1080p source using a well set-up viewing environment, I would reserve lots of judgment.
Here is a RED doc (who have a dog in this fight with 4,6,8K cameras) etc, demonstrating the science behind 4K viewing. It's as relevant as any guideline you could pull up. But RED do know image science.
[url= http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/eyesight-4k-resolution-viewing ]RED 4K viewing[/url]
Agreed but only to a point.
Yes, of course, to a point. What I want to know is what that point is?
So which guideline are you using?
Well, I gambled when I bought a much cheaper HD TV recently. And I seem to have won because when I move closer to the tv than my sofa I can see more detail. Therefore on my sofa I am not seeing all the detail in HD. Therefore the increased resolution of 4K should not be visible either. Am I wrong?
I might be able to, if I got special glasses, had better eyes or somehow set up my room for the perfect experience. But because I'm a normal person not a videophile, I'm not going to do that.
Well, I gambled when I bought a much cheaper HD TV recently. And I seem to have won because when I move closer to the tv than my sofa I can see more detail. Therefore on my sofa I am not seeing all the detail in HD. Therefore the increased resolution of 4K should not be visible either. Am I wrong?
Read the article above.
But because I'm a normal person not a videophile
That's fair enough and that comes down to your individual predisposition.
'm still blown away by films/drama shot on an Alexa and broadcast properly by BBC/Netflix on my HD Sony (that only needed setting on to 'cinema' and +2 green to get rid of a very slight magenta bias. Looks far better than a lot of 4K demos I have seen where contrast and colour are turned up to the max and it just looks gritty and over processed, a friend who sits on the technical committee of SMPTE and is a VP of mastering technology in the digital cinema world tends to agree with me.
That's ultimately because Alexa (and varients) is a great camera, but also ultimately why ARRI have developed the 65 which is 6K.
It does beg the question as most films are now shot on Alexa at 2.8K or more. So fairly *close* to HD. But Netflix has a 4K only remit - and the rest of the industry is pushing in that direction. Alexa also has fabulous colour and dynamic range too which isn't measured in pixels.
You do get shoddy 4K. I wouldn't dispute that. You can get shoddy anything.
As a simple experiment - next time you go to the pictures. Keep an eye on the text in adverts and films. You can easily see the pixels (unless your vision isn't great.) These are 2K top flight DLP projectors.
Not sure what that RED link is meant to say.
But it talks about 50 degree viewing angles as being optimal. But in my living room the 60" TV is 4.2m from my eyes. So:
60" TV is 52" across, or 132cm.
Divide by two to make the viewing triangle into a right angle gives 66cm for the opposite, and 420cm for the adjacent. Tangent is therefore 0.1581 and the angle is therefore around 9 degrees, but double that to get the viewing angle of 18 degrees.
Substantially less than the 50 degrees they are suggesting is natural.
At the centre of the pic, each pixel subtends an angle of 18/1920 or roughly 0.01 degrees. According to wikipedia, the angular resolution of a (presumably average) eye is about 0.02 degrees.
If there's any more in-depth science to overturn this basic geometry, I'm all ears.
next time you go to the pictures
The cinema screen is quite a lot bigger than my telly!
The cinema screen is quite a lot bigger than my telly!
Yeah but you sit further away.
If there's any more in-depth science to overturn this basic geometry, I'm all ears.
Or eyes.
I think the point is to be subjective about it ultimately. Objectivity can get you so far. And with huge variance in the quality of source material and set-up it can be quite tricky to compare.
How many people have detail/edge enhancement turned up with HD sources I wonder?
Substantially less than the 50 degrees they are suggesting is natural
So in an ideal world you would be closer etc.
Even so. From the RED link, cinema viewing angles are 60 degrees in the middle of the cinema. In my room it's only 18 degrees. If I had my entire wall as a projector, that might approach the cinema screen.
I think the point is to be subjective about it ultimately.
Yes but as you say - it's subjective to a point. There are physical reasons that mean more detail above a certain level is not going to be visible.
Yes but as you say - it's subjective to a point. There are physical reasons that mean more detail above a certain level is not going to be visible.
I wouldn't argue with that but it's risky in my opinion to use a catch-all chart for individual viewing recommendations.
Seating position and screen distance is one part of the viewing experience. And that appears to be your yardstick, which is fine because you have the room and set-up you have.
I sit 1.8m away from a 70" wide screen.
Seating position and screen distance is one part of the viewing experience. And that appears to be your yardstick, which is fine because you have the room and set-up you have.
It's one part of the viewing experience, but it's the only one that dictates what detail you can resolve.
However - other fancy features like high dynamic range will make a difference regardless of distance.
I sit 1.8m away from a 70" wide screen.
😯
when I move closer to the tv than my sofa I can see more detail
I find I have exactly the same experience
....if I don't have my contact lenses in or glasses on 😆
molgrips - MemberAgain, nonsense. That simply does not relate to the practical viewing experience and the difference you can experience between a HD and UHD set (if your eyes are up to it).
How can it be nonsense? For any given object you can see more detail if you are closer, and less if you are further away. So the amount of detail you can see depends on how far you are away. Are you seriously disputing this?
Your theory is sound, but is completely out of context here. Unfortunately (as I said before)it does not relate to the practical experience, and is thus completely invalid.
Well, I gambled when I bought a much cheaper HD TV recently. And I seem to have won because when I move closer to the tv than my sofa I can see more detail. Therefore on my sofa I am not seeing all the detail in HD. Therefore the increased resolution of 4K should not be visible either. Am I wrong?
To try and explain it your your terms: Watching HD from my sofa, if I move closer I can see more detail. If I could go in close enough I could see individual pixels. Thing is, if I do the same exercise in SD or UHD, I also see more detail as I move closer. Regardless of this, from my sofa watching the same material, the UHD is clearly much more detailed than HD (and HD than SD). Your theory does not work in practice. [u]Have you actually tried UHD back to back with HD to test your theory? Give it a try, and see for yourself. I'm guessing you have used this theory to convince yourself that you made the right purchase, but have not been able to relate it to real world experience.
Note: I fully acknowledge that not everyone (for their given set up) will benefit from UHD. Some people can't see the difference between SD and HD, unless it is pointed out. However, in my set up, the difference is night and day.
Watching HD from my sofa, if I move closer I can see more detail. If I could go in close enough I could see individual pixels
Yes, but seeing pixels isn't seeing more detail in the image.
The only 4k material I seen is shop demos, and it really was impossible to make an objective decision in the shop since they prevented me from standing far enough away from the screen.
I fully acknowledge that not everyone (for their given set up) will benefit from UHD
That is what I am saying. I'm saying that in theory you'd have to be pretty close, in most cases more than a normal living room allows, to see the difference. If I were proved wrong, I'd want to know how. Rone's setup is far from what I'd call a normal living room.
However, in my set up, the difference is night and day.
What is your setup?
Yes, but seeing pixels isn't seeing more detail in the image.
Well, exactly.
The only 4k material I seen is shop demos, and it really was impossible to make an objective decision in the shop since they prevented me from standing far enough away from the screen.
So you haven’t done a back to back comparison in any way then. This is exactly my point. Until you have, perhaps be a little more careful about the advice you dish out? You may have convinced yourself with your theory, but imo it is completely invalid. Little point discussing it further until you have tried it for yourself.
If I were proved wrong, I'd want to know how.
One last try.....Because you are oversimplifying it ridiculously, not taking nearly enough practical factors into account. Until you try it for yourself, there is really little point discussing it – I don’t recall you accepting anyone else’s opinion before, even when you have no experience/evidence to back up your argument! Try it for yourself.
What is your setup?
Comparison done on high end 4K Samsung UHD HDR 65’ (so admittedly a big, and fairly high quality screen), viewing distance approx 4-5m (just an estimate would have to measure it). Sources include Blu-ray 4K; Sky Q UHD (and SD and HD); Amazon streamed UHD (HDR) and HD. Other HD screens around the house (24-50’).
You may have convinced yourself with your theory, but imo it is completely invalid.
Why?
even when you have no experience/evidence to back up your argument!
I've got some science here that I've posted up. Of course it's theory, and it could easily be incorrect, but I'll need more information other than 'YOU'RE WRONG'.
I'm all open to discussion, that's why I'm still commenting, cos if I'm wrong I'd love to understand why. But I still don't know why detail that would be invisible to the human eye can improve the picture.
Same as hifi amps with a frequency response of above 20kHz for example.
I had a feeling this would happen.....have a good weekend peeps!
😉
😆
Why would you want to move away from the screen? The whole point of increasing resolution is so you can get closer to the screen without the picture 'pixelating', or have a bigger screen while sitting at the same distance from it. In a shop you should stand as far away from the screen as you would be in your living room. What's the point in going any further back?
In a shop you should stand as far away from the screen as you would be in your living room.
That's what I was trying to do, but I couldn't - the rows of tellies were too close together.
Ahh, I see. A cunning ploy from the shop then.
The two tellies I was looking at (bounded by price) were either 55" 4K or 60" HD. I was trying to decide what each size would look like in our room, but it was hopeless to even try.
Just for kicks:
http://nofilmschool.com/2017/01/red-helium-8k-shatters-highest-dxomark-sensor-score-10-points
Just as shame there's not that much 4k content available.
FWIW, I'm pretty pleased with the telly we ended up with. Still not got round to buying a bluray player for it yet (or a stand).
It's probably got more features than we want/need & we haven't worked out some of the features.
I thought we could just send content from our tablet to the TV, but I have only managed to get this to work once - and it didn't send just the Youtube video, but ended up opening Youtube in a browser window & playing the video within that....I thought we could just find a music video for example and magically fling it at the TV & the TV would display it - this doesn't appear to be as easy as I thought it would be....
And the apps are a bit flaky - I downloaded the Spotify app with much excitement, but it's really slow to open & has failed to open more often than not - it just hangs & sits there.....hmmm.
But, on the whole it's pretty good.
The viewing charts are a right load of guff - they were when we upgraded to HD and they still are now we've gone 4k.
I sit 10ft away from our 55" set and can totally tell the difference, just as it was plain to see the difference between HD & SD on our 40" set before. Even Mrs STR is impressed.
There's quite a bit of 4k out there - Sky Q, Netflix, Amazon, Youtube and BD - Samsungs 4k UHD player can be had for £200 - we got ours free with the tv.
However - the general consensus on AV Forums is that you have to get a reasonably high end panel to reap the benefits
Absolutely. Couldn't put it better.
I think what consumers have to got accept is that we are replicating the cinema now not the generation game. That means sitting close and having an immersive field of view. 4K works better for that.
Like all things bike some people will take a while to appreciate it, others never will, and some will accept it straight away.
But it's the direction we're going in.
I think what consumers have to got accept is that we are replicating the cinema
it's hard to do this though as there is nowhere else you can go to pay as much for your snacks to eat whilst watching a movie at home...
Go to the cinema to buy your snacks and then watch the film at home. 😉