4k and if its worth it

[billyearle]

Me, I'm waiting for prices to come down, and for my barely 3yr old set to break down or need replacing if I move overseas again. But I disagree with people who say the human eye can't see the difference. I could see the difference on 50" sets in a brightly lit showroom. Hell, I can see the difference between the standard blu-rays and 4KRemastered reissues, and I'm no video geek. Whether the difference is discernable to Joe Sixpack, or worth it to certain individuals is another matter.

[detective392]

Originally Posted by billyearle

Me, I'm waiting for prices to come down, and for my barely 3yr old set to break down or need replacing if I move overseas again. But I disagree with people who say the human eye can't see the difference. I could see the difference on 50" sets in a brightly lit showroom. Hell, I can see the difference between the standard blu-rays and 4KRemastered reissues, and I'm no video geek. Whether the difference is discernable to Joe Sixpack, or worth it to certain individuals is another matter.

I agree, my eyes suck and I can see a difference between 4K and non 4K TV's at showrooms. They are between 50-60inch.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by detective392

I agree, my eyes suck and I can see a difference between 4K and non 4K TV's at showrooms. They are between 50-60inch.

You'd notice at home too with 4k content. Its clearly got value but again to whom that matters too is totally up to each individual.

[Interdimensional]

I saw a 4k demonstration on an 84 inch LG and it was like seeing real Imax for the very first time. The level of detail is so absorbing that when they pan across a landscape, you feel as if the floor you're standing on is moving.

I'd love to have the space and the money for such a set, but that's not going to happen any time soon. Although the real barrier at this point in time is the content situation. It remains to be seen how that's going to resolve itself.

At the moment I'm quite happy with my current setup and have no plans to early adopt that stuff in the immediate future.

1080p still looks more than good enough for most things, and for certain types of content, I'm still okay with dvd. It takes really pristine photography for 4k to shine, and most of the time you don't get that. You'll just be seeing the film grain a bit sharper, there won't be added detail. Generally speaking, I find 3d makes a bigger difference to me than 4k, and I certainly don't need everything to be in 3d either. It'll be nice to have the ability somewhere down the line to view certain special films with that level of clarity, but I'm really in no hurry to make the jump.

[Dirk504]

I can see the difference as well... easily. There's plenty of 4k TVs at my Best Buy and there's a noticeable difference.

[Mahatma]

I think my next purchase will be a 4K 21:9 TV in the range of 100" when the prices come down to reasonable levels.As it is now,either you get a sub-level 4K TV,or you have to spend silly money.

[starkent08]

Originally Posted by Havok83

Samsung makes among the best TVs in the industry. You cant make a blanket statement about that and then admit to not having experience with their TVs

I agree ive had nothing boyt samsungs in comparison I had an lg once Sammy was better.. I just recently got a Samsung 4k tv and to those that say theres no difference on a 55 sitting back 12 ft there definitely is

[starkent08]

Originally Posted by supersix4

You'd notice at home too with 4k content. Its clearly got value but again to whom that matters too is totally up to each individual.

I agree the diference is noticeable upclose as well as farther back

[starkent08]

Originally Posted by ahmedreda

Worth it only if you have a projector and a large screen 80"+ AND good content to go with it. Don't think netflix / amazon are that much better than 1080p because of the bitrate limitation. I am planning to switch to it eventually but won't be converting all my collection like I did with DVDs.

I watch braking bad streaming from netklix in 4k theres a huge difference between 4k and bluray way more detail and more precise coloring with the 4k

[Brian81]

After viewing those 55" UHD sets in person - they look so much better than the equivalent sized HD sets. Which got me thinking about a future TV upgrade for the bedroom. I decided to use the commonly found viewing distance graph (Carlton Bale one), and realized that for my 8.5 ft bedroom viewing distance, a 4K TV upgrade wouldn't be justifiable.

Fully resolving 2K res at this distance works to roughly 65" and to get any benefit of 4K would require a 70". I am using a DLP in which the bulk of the base is to the rear of the screen itself. To use a flat panel where the base likely takes up space in front of the screen would require placing the screen further back so that base is fully on the shelf, thus increasing the viewing distance to where a 70" would be about the point where 2K is fully resolved rather than at 65" if it were 6" closer.

I cannot imagine putting a 70", let alone a 75" in a bedroom. Guess that's why it's called a 'bedroom' and not a 'TV Room'. I only regret not going for a 55" instead of the 50". But it looks like the uptick in resolution going 4K wouldn't be discernible at 8.5-9.0 feet for the sizes I'd be looking at, making the upgrade kind of pointless unless it's a situation where my TV goes and all that's out there is 4K sets.

That said, projector viewing distances is a total win for 4K. C'mon TI, get those new chips out ASAP.

[halon]

I have the 2013 Sony 65x900a. I may not be able to watch 4K since they released it before an agreed upon codec standard, but the upscale and the 3D alone was worth it. It won't be long until I can view 4k on it. I'm not paying $700 for Sony's ps4 look alike media player to view 4k.

[RWetmore]

Yes, 4k is definitely worth it and the difference can be fairly easily seen. 8K is where the difference gets to be far more subtle.

[Random Collector]

It's kind of hard to race technology, is 32K a thing yet? Remember when we use to race pixels on our digital cameras every two days? Sticking with standard blu as my format until it's no longer available to buy, I just got rid of dvds.

[RallyCat]

I just recently bought a 60" 1080p LG TV with passive 3D and the price was a factor for me in not getting a 4K display.

Here's a link describing the, "Lechner Distance" regarding screen size and viewing distance.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbcnews...8974/#53748974

In a way, what seems to be happening with 4K is what has happened with 3D. I am one who enjoys 3D and there are others who say 3D is not needed. With 4K, there are those who love it and others who say - it's not needed. At least not for every TV size. Will all TV's be 4K in the future? a 4K 20" TV for the kitchen?

I will wait until 4K content is more prevalent and the price of the TV's come down before considering a 4K set. It's like buying a HDTV early when most content was in standard definition. You weren't taking full advantage of what the display was capable of until channels moved to HD. HD was inevitable and it is here.

Also with HDTV's I don't remember picture resolution being a problem with consumers. But if 4K content does starts taking hold, on my TV it will still look like HD and HD is not that bad. Not to me anyway.

[halon]

This reminds me of when people asked if 1080p was worth it.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by halon

This reminds me of when people asked if 1080p was worth it.

No it isn't. There is such a thing as diminishing returns. The worth of 4K is dependent upon the size of screen the viewing distance from which you sit.

For some applications, it would be worth it, like a front projection system and or a large TV. However, 4K on a 60 inch TV from 10 feet is worthless.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by RallyCat

I just recently bought a 60" 1080p LG TV with passive 3D and the price was a factor for me in not getting a 4K display.

Here's a link describing the, "Lechner Distance" regarding screen size and viewing distance.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbcnews...8974/#53748974

In a way, what seems to be happening with 4K is what has happened with 3D. I am one who enjoys 3D and there are others who say 3D is not needed. With 4K, there are those who love it and others who say - it's not needed. At least not for every TV size. Will all TV's be 4K in the future? a 4K 20" TV for the kitchen?

I will wait until 4K content is more prevalent and the price of the TV's come down before considering a 4K set. It's like buying a HDTV early when most content was in standard definition. You weren't taking full advantage of what the display was capable of until channels moved to HD. HD was inevitable and it is here.

Also with HDTV's I don't remember picture resolution being a problem with consumers. But if 4K content does starts taking hold, on my TV it will still look like HD and HD is not that bad. Not to me anyway.

That's an interest video, it makes it clear in the simplest of terms. However, there are those that will totally disregard science in favor of that feel good moment of buying a new toy.

[halon]

4k on my 65" from 9.5' away is fantastic.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by halon

4k on my 65" from 9.5' away is fantastic.

You probably have a fantastic TV for many reason, not just resolution. Having said that, just because you are impressed with your TV doesn't mean that you can dismiss scientific fact.

[halon]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

You probably have a fantastic TV for many reason, not just resolution. Having said that, just because you are impressed with your TV doesn't mean that you can dismiss scientific fact.

Blah blah blah. 4k>1080. Just like 8k will be better when it comes out. And soon enough 1080p TVs will be rare.