4K is already useful...

[Visionist]

...for people like me who sit close to their screen. I sit 5.5' from a 50" screen, and sampling Avatar's final battle (in 2D) I decided to move as close as 3' for a more immersive experience. I could not resolve individual pixels at that distance, but the picture quality obviously wasn't up to par, and the experiment was a failure. The same footage upscaled on a 4K display would have completely eliminated that "I can almost see the pixels and it's distracting me" issue.

...I think

Obviously most people don't sit 3' from their screen, but I'd like to be able to sit 7 or 8' from a 65"-80" screen and upscaled 4K is surely a good idea in that case?

[bhampton]

So,... you're talking about how you think 4K could be good...

4K will certainly be good for me in one of 2 ways...

A) It will make my next 1080p set cheaper

or

B) I'll get a 4K set and upconvert.

Either way... my collection will remain Blu Ray ...

[Canada]

Originally Posted by Visionist

...for people like me who sit close to their screen. I sit 5.5' from a 50" screen, and sampling Avatar's final battle (in 2D) I decided to move as close as 3' for a more immersive experience. I could not resolve individual pixels at that distance, but the picture quality obviously wasn't up to par, and the experiment was a failure. The same footage upscaled on a 4K display would have completely eliminated that "I can almost see the pixels and it's distracting me" issue.

...I think

Obviously most people don't sit 3' from their screen, but I'd like to be able to sit 7 or 8' from a 65"-80" screen and upscaled 4K is surely a good idea in that case?

A 4K TV would be useful if you A) Either took a lot of photographs or B) Used your PC for gaming an used the 4K TV for a computer moniter.

[steve1971]

First sitting so close to a tv is not good for the eyes and second if you have to sit so close to your tv to enjoy 4K's image quality then you have an issue. To enjoy 4K, and I mean really enjoy it you need to go big like a BIG tv or projection anything smaller 4K is useless. That's just my opinion.

[ahmedreda]

4K would definately be useful with my projector. That said, I won't be rushing to upgrade or convert my movies. I will eventually buy a 4K setup but only when it doesn't come at a premium. For my TVs (42-52"), I don't think it matters much.

[igotcabada]

Originally Posted by steve1971

First sitting so close to a tv is not good for the eyes

I'm pretty sure thats an old wives tale that has been proven to be untrue

[Jack9909090]

Frankly there still people who say they cant see the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray. I see the difference but for the most part i don't give a shit. Sure ill buy a movie in blu-ray that is visually stunning or in 3D. But i could give a rats ass about buying "When Harry Met Sally" on blu-ray. The only thing good about 4k is maybe 3D Tv's might come down in price.

[punkguy03]

Originally Posted by igotcabada

I'm pretty sure thats an old wives tale that has been proven to be untrue

You are correct it's been proven that it doesn't do a thing! So take that mom lol. That being said, who sits 5 feet from a tv? I mean I'm close to the one in my bedroom, but it's only a twenty inch tv.

[igotcabada]

Originally Posted by punkguy03

You are correct it's been proven that it doesn't do a thing! So take that mom lol. That being said, who sits 5 feet from a tv? I mean I'm close to the one in my bedroom, but it's only a twenty inch tv.

I sit about 5 ft from my 50" tv when I play video games on it

[jpthomas27]

Originally Posted by igotcabada

I'm pretty sure thats an old wives tale that has been proven to be untrue

The damage to your eyes has nothing to do with the fact that it is a TV. The damage is cause by ANY light source, which a TV happens to be at it's most basic level.

Shining a bright light directly into your eyes IS IN FACT damaging. If you stand 50 feet from a 500 watt spot light and look directly into it, your probably going to be fine. Put that 500 watt spot light 1 foot from your face and look directly into it and it will not be good for your eyes.

My example is an exaggeration to make a point, but the science is solid.

[igotcabada]

You sound like you'd be fun at a party...

[Kristian Idol]

Your Eyes in a High-Tech World (eyeSmart)

The Claim: Sitting Too Close to the TV Is Bad for Your Eyes (New York Times)

You'll Go Blind: Does Watching Television Close-Up Really Harm Eyesight? (Scientific American)
.

[Wingman1977]

Originally Posted by igotcabada

I'm pretty sure thats an old wives tale that has been proven to be untrue

Originally Posted by punkguy03

You are correct it's been proven that it doesn't do a thing! So take that mom lol. That being said, who sits 5 feet from a tv? I mean I'm close to the one in my bedroom, but it's only a twenty inch tv.

Tell that to my friend who used to sit close to the tv and ended p wearing glasses (he wears contacts now).

[igotcabada]

Originally Posted by Wingman1977

Tell that to my friend who used to sit close to the tv and ended p wearing glasses (he wears contacts now).

Maybe he should have eaten his carrots

[bhampton]

Originally Posted by Wingman1977

Tell that to my friend who used to sit close to the tv and ended p wearing glasses (he wears contacts now).

Did he read?.... Reading is really the thing to kill you eyes.

[steve1971]

4K may seem useful to some of you guys but not me. Give me a great LED tv like my Sony 55W900A anyday.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by steve1971

4K may seem useful to some of you guys but not me. Give me a great LED tv like my Sony 55W900A anyday.

If you like it, keep it. My favorite set is my Kuro; second is my XBR 70" 1080i From 2003. Still an amazing set, and a workhorse. Things are improving, but this is not some giant leap that they're doing.

[sonic_debauchery]

Here is a study done to see if 4K will benefit the average consumer. For the most part it won't, unless your a pc gamer and sit 3.5 feet from your screen.

http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

Here is a quick chart that measures how far back you will have to sit in order to get the benefits of 4K.



It obviously looks to me like the television corporations are seeing their profit dwindle and want to generate new sales by introducing a new standard with minimal effect.

Once OLED is straightened out in the next 3 years or so, then upgrades seem a little more justified in my opinion. I believe that OLED manufacturers will have to figure out how to make OLED tv's that are flat and can be mounted on the wall. Curved screens at this point in time are not mountable.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by sonic_debauchery

Here is a study done to see if 4K will benefit the average consumer. For the most part it won't, unless your a pc gamer and sit 3.5 feet from your screen.

http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

Here is a quick chart that measures how far back you will have to sit in order to get the benefits of 4K.



It obviously looks to me like the television corporations are seeing their profit dwindle and want to generate new sales by introducing a new standard with minimal effect.

Once OLED is straightened out in the next 3 years or so, then upgrades seem a little more justified in my opinion. I believe that OLED manufacturers will have to figure out how to make OLED tv's that are flat and can be mounted on the wall. Curved screens at this point in time are not mountable.

Hi Sonic, that chart is nice but doesn't tell the whole story (much info out there to that fact. The chart is more of a very large and general guideline).

Also with UHD when mature (and hopefully included with the next BD standard) we should likely see HFR, HDR and a much improved color space (seems XYZ is what is considered), all improvements that will make even the higher rez a secondary thing. And what would the point be in adding that to a now ancient 1080p standard with no hardware support, so 4K UHD is more than just amount of pixels, it's the fact every pixel will look so much nicer hehe.

I find it odd that the only factor most talk about is rez (many times with little science backing it, not you by the way, just in general) when in fact the really cool things to come with it are not even known by most (Not fully baked yet, but at least they are 4K, remember all the HD ready sets before BD? Many were only EDTV, most 720p and a few 1080i, but they accepted 1080p inputs, I find it at least more honest how they are doing it now).

I understand the reaction, like for many where BD is not better enough to leave DVD, 4K isn't better than 1080p. But I believe we should wait till 4K BD shows up with the rest of the upgrades to the standard before we want to kill it. Anyways, there is no going back so let's hope they do it right this time and not have 4k BD v 1.0 and so on. Make it right and complete at start.

[sonic_debauchery]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

Hi Sonic, that chart is nice but doesn't tell the whole story (much info out there to that fact. The chart is more of a very large and general guideline).

Also with UHD when mature (and hopefully included with the next BD standard) we should likely see HFR, HDR and a much improved color space (seems XYZ is what is considered), all improvements that will make even the higher rez a secondary thing. And what would the point be in adding that to a now ancient 1080p standard with no hardware support, so 4K UHD is more than just amount of pixels, it's the fact every pixel will look so much nicer hehe.

I find it odd that the only factor most talk about is rez (many times with little science backing it, not you by the way, just in general) when in fact the really cool things to come with it are not even known by most (Not fully baked yet, but at least they are 4K, remember all the HD ready sets before BD? Many were only EDTV, most 720p and a few 1080i, but they accepted 1080p inputs, I find it at least more honest how they are doing it now).

I understand the reaction, like for many where BD is not better enough to leave DVD, 4K isn't better than 1080p. But I believe we should wait till 4K BD shows up with the rest of the upgrades to the standard before we want to kill it. Anyways, there is no going back so let's hope they do it right this time and not have 4k BD v 1.0 and so on. Make it right and complete at start.

I don't think it is a reaction, but more like is this really going to be better or is it corporations shoving something new to make profit. Profit being the endgame.

I think that this study is correct in that it does not make enough of a difference at normal viewing distances.

I experienced this myself when looking at projectors. Looked at the 4K and could see a slight bit better color and sharpness, but only when standing a few inches from the screen. When i stood back the color and sharpness were at best minutely better. Certainly not enough to justify $1500 difference.

I have read this on more than one website and experienced it for myself while auditioning projectors and at various electronics shows.

I do agree with you that once it matures, it may get better. Right now the "native" 4K releases are 1080p sourced.

BD was always better than DVD not just for picture but for sound. UHD and HD are arguably in the same boat, but i think there was more separation from DVD to BD.

It will be interesting to see how much cable bills go up when cable companies implement 4K.

The lack of difference in picture between a good 1080p signal and 4K signal has been written about in many articles. If 4K wins it will be because its colors are a wee bit more vibrant.

Where it will win is when OLED is perfected. A tv capable of what OLED can produce would be the ideal medium for 4K.

Until the time when OLED become affordable (a 55inch tv for $1100 lets say) ,UHD tv may have a hard time hanging on??

When the model number in a tv is XXOLEDUHD then i feel that will be a significant upgrade. UHD to me seems to be the go between, between now and then.