TV screen size to notice 4k resolution?

[DJ Matt]

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by DJ Matt

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

ah, that ole chestnut

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by kashif

Guys at Digital Trends and so many others argue that the TV should not be less than 65 inches and even on 65 the difference is subtle and you need to sit to close to TV.

This is the video.
4K UHD TV vs. 1080p HDTV - Side by Side Comparison - YouTube

Not that it pertains to your specific purchasing choice but, something’s been added to 4K tvs since the time of that ^ YouTube with the Samsung HU8550…..namely…..HDR capability , which is distance independent.

Tell the Digital Trends people to run this HDR clip - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...p#post11356104
in a Samsung JS9500 (of which the content was actually mastered on…well, to be precise, a studio modified one ) with firmware 1219 or later, and see what they think of 4K UHD now....present day.

[bbwiscfan]

So my story is I had a 50 inch Samsung Plasma. I had it for almost 5 years and counting and I loved it. However, sooner or later I wanted to upgrade to a larger size TV and it was only a matter of when. Well, my mother needed a new TV for quite some time (hers was an old tube that I could not even connect a blu ray player to) and since she watches Netflix on her ipad, she needed a newer TV so we could hook up a player and give her Netflix through it as well as other apps like youtube, etc. I decided to give her my 50 inch Plasma so I could go and get another TV for my wife and I and with the holiday sales it was the perfect time to check things out.

We went to Best Buy to get the TV. I knew what I wanted, 65 to 75 inch, 4K and probably Samsung or Sony. We tried a Sony first, and while the picture was indeed nice it had some issues with the panel and could not, for some reason, stream you tube videos in 4K. So, we took it back for a Samsung instead. We settled on a Samsung 65 inch 4K 3D LED LCD. We've had this now for almost a week and we love it.

Now to the reason for 1080p vs 4k. My advice is this; if you are purchasing ANY TV now, unless you are tight on cash, go with 4k and future proof yourself. Another reason, the bigger the screen, the more you'll benefit from having a 4K display. I was at the store looking at a 75 inch (we didn't get the 75 because the price was higher than I wanted to pay) that was a 1080p Samsung. Standing only a few feet away, I could easily see the pixels on the screen. Looking at a 4K 75 inch, you can't see ANYTHING. It's that simple of a difference. Colors also are incredible and so life like, just a truly jaw dropping image.

Now that I can stream 4k content through Netflix and Youtube on my Samsung, it's literally like looking out a window, it's very impressive. I own almost 700 titles on blu ray and watching various movies up converted on this 4k TV it DOES look even better than watching the 50 inch 1080p Plasma I had. I get as close to the TV as possible to test and I still don't notice the pixels, you literally have to put your nose to the TV. While I will probably wait for the 4K blu ray players to drop in price first, I cannot wait to see what the difference in quality will be when I can actually play a full 4K blu ray movie on this TV, especially movies released in the last few years filmed with the latest cameras that really show what this amazing resolution is all about.

I think 2016 will be a big year for 4K and I highly would advise having 4K if you plan on investing any money for a new TV moving forward. Its worth it.

[kashif]

Thanks a lot guys for your support and help and valuable suggestions. I ordered online a 60 Inch LG TV. I will get it in like 3 to 5 days:

http://www.lg.com/ae/tvs/lg-60UF770T

I hope its good. What you say?

[Opips3]

Wow super nice! A ultra slim UHD 4K tv on the wall mount or high height.

You doesn't need a bench tv stand.

[kashif]

Originally Posted by Opips3

Wow super nice! A ultra slim UHD 4K tv on the wall mount or high height.

You doesn't need a bench tv stand.

Thanks.

[SillySauce]

Originally Posted by kidglov3s

2K is what all but a handful of theaters display and is also what all but a handful of films over the past 15 years have been finished in.

That isn't true. All three major theater chains Cinemark, AMC, Regal use 4k projectors and so do a lot or smaller chains.

[pmil]

Originally Posted by kashif

Ok this is what I read from tech guys that the minimum screen size must be at least 65 inches in order to notice 4k resolution otherwise there is no point in getting a UHD TV as below 65 the difference is almost impossible to get. How true is this? If its true than I dont see a reason to buy say a 50 inch tv and the transition to ultra hd will be expensive. I dont know many people having 65 or over tvs. What you say?

Ignore the idiots that always bring up viewing distance dismissals. It's all about how close one is willing to get to the screen. A higher PPI display encourages and allows viewers to get really close.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by pmil

Ignore the idiots that always bring up viewing distance dismissals. It's all about how close one is willing to get to the screen. A higher PPI display encourages and allows viewers to get really close.

Do you regard Joe Kane as an idiot?

[Opips3]

Originally Posted by spectre08

ah, that ole chestnut

It science in home theatre. Math information right measure for tv.
If someone buy 50 inches size screen with 1080p, where you stand far measure?

That's good ole chestnut.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by Opips3

It science in home theatre. Math information right measure for tv.
If someone buy 50 inches size screen with 1080p, where you stand far measure?

That's good ole chestnut.

sell it as "science" is hyperbolic to misleading at best.

For one, it relies entirely on the simplistic "arc seconds of visual acuity" metric, a metric that varies widely from person to person and only tells a fraction of the story about how our eyes receive and our brains process visual data.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

Do you regard Joe Kane as an idiot?

No; nor is he a god.


A quick stroll through any TV store will have even a video novice seeing the difference, without regard to screen size. This is also without worrying about source material.


The real problem is hyper-inflating the performance of 4K. It's nice, but at this point, it's not a real game-changer. With no 4K players within reason, there's no to get one other than to stay current with the technology.


There's no reason to get rid of a really good 1080p set, and there is no reason to get a 4k set because you're "missing something".


The viewing distance charts are junk, anyway. Get the biggest TV that's practical and compatible.

[Opips3]

Originally Posted by spectre08

sell it as "science" is hyperbolic to misleading at best.

For one, it relies entirely on the simplistic "arc seconds of visual acuity" metric, a metric that varies widely from person to person and only tells a fraction of the story about how our eyes receive and our brains process visual data.

Yes i sold it I don't care about measure charts for resolution screen.

Tree drop an apple go to down. Why...gravity!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

Do you regard Joe Kane as an idiot?

No, just plain wrong….often

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Opips3

It science in home theatre. Math information right measure for tv.

It’s not as simple as 30 cpd….upon which that simplistic chart by Bale is based upon and represents the minimum standard required to justify one in regarding an eye as having *normal* visual acuity. Even a SMPTE fellow who is no real friend of 4K admits it….

zee E and zee Eye……
http://www.schubincafe.com/2010/02/26/the-e-and-eye/

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

The viewing distance charts are junk, anyway. Get the biggest TV that's practical and compatible.

Purrty good advice.

[JediFonger]

not sure if i read every post in the thread... but the long and short of it is this:
-without good sources, it's hard to tell. and even with the best sources, i'd venture to say 2k is probably as good as gets.

we performed the below test on a 1080p projector at my friend's house, i can't remember the model# but it was a $3,500 one... so not one of those entry level el cheapo.

most people can barely tell diff. between 720p vs. 1080p so 4k is definitely a moot point. i made a sort of 'double blind' test by muxing live action BD movies into files and then encoding 1080p down to 720p and muxing the SD DVD copy that came with.

i played all 3 sources at random and asked friends to pick between the 3 quality scenes:

for example scene1 might have A as 720p, B as 1080p, and C as SD. and next round might be all mixed up.

of the 10 friends (none of which are videophiles/enthusiasts btw), 7 out of 10 can pick out SD correctly. only 2 of the 10 picked up 720p vs. 1080p

the more astute made note of it.

this is all on a 120" diagonal stewart screen.

i know this entirely anecdotal but i was having fun =P.

if the 'avg joe' can't tell the diff. between 720p vs. 1080p on 120" it'll be hard pressed for anything else to make a diff in terms of resolution.

i think the benefit of 4k and allure is more the HDR expanded color range. there is a possibility at this point of digital surpassing 35 or 70mm in capturing color ranges higher than what film couuld accomplish.. and that is quite an amazing feat... if the standards all line up.

hell i would actually take 720p at a VERY high color range... rather than 4k.

[xenoyako]

The 4K specs are still in flux. 2080P UHD anyone?

http://www.lightreading.com/video/4k.../d/d-id/719304

Also: what are you going to watch?

As someone posted above most movies are finished in 2K (I don't know about that). So what's the good of a 55" or 70" 4K set right now?

Not enough content for me. How about you? 8K anyone?

Originally Posted by spectre08

as this point buying a 1080p tv of any over 36" is buying into obsolescence.


We are not at a point where, with only a few exceptions, all of the best TVs have 4K resolution. It's not longer an "added feature" but rather a baseline spec.

The only reason anybody should end up with a 1080p tv right now is simply if they were looking to spend as little money as possible.

I still say that if you're current 1080p is still meeting your needs, then it's not the right time to go out and upgrade just for 4K. But if you NEED a new tv, either because you want a larger size or your old tv kicks the bucket, you should get 4K. Period.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by xenoyako

The 4K specs are still in flux. 2080P UHD anyone?

http://www.lightreading.com/video/4k.../d/d-id/719304

Also: what are you going to watch?

As someone posted above most movies are finished in 2K (I don't know about that). So what's the good of a 55" or 70" 4K set right now?

Not enough content for me. How about you? 8K anyone?

stopped reading at this

The ugly truth about Ultra HD is that the increase in resolution isn't worth it. Under most viewing circumstances, the human eye simply cannot perceive the difference.

peddle your wares elsewhere, because this author already had his mind made up 1 paragraph into his blog piece.