Any reason not to get 4K?

[philzilla]

Why not, if I was in the market for one today I would go 4K.
There is always something better coming soon.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

Actually, I have better than 20/20 but that's besides the point. A lot of folks can tell the difference between 4k and 1080p. If you cant I'm sorry but it doesn't give you the right to talk down to others for wanting to go 4K.

You just made a claim, now substantiate with data, facts and proof. Who are all of these "lots of folks" ? Please give me a your sample/test group that represent the masses of people that can discern 1080p from 4K using the same size screen at equal distances.

I deal with science, data, facts etc., objectivity.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by spectre08

ignore him. He drags out the same tired arguments and intentional confusion of the subject every time the topic of 4K comes out.

I see you're getting personal, not neccessary to do so. I'm debating the subject matter. Also, I why trying to give the poster something to consider when trying to make a purchasing decision. I used to be one that just bought in the marketing hype, I was your prototypical "early adopter" but not anymore as I've become older and wiser.

The fact remains, purchasing a 50 inch 4K LED set at a significantly higher price than a 1080p set LED and sitting 9 feet from it (a you eschew science all you want) represent, to me, a poor purchase decision. I was trying to give the poster a balanced and informed opinion to help him/her make a purchasing decision.

[Auditor55]

Also, I'm not against 4K in itself, obviously there are some situations where it makes sense. If you have a 84 inch set, sitting 10-12 feet away or you have a front projection system.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

You just made a claim, now substantiate with data, facts and proof. Who are all of these "lots of folks" ? Please give me a your sample/test group that represent the masses of people that can discern 1080p from 4K using the same size screen at equal distances.

I deal with science, data, facts etc., objectivity.

no, you don't. You deal with a single perspective that has been torn to shreds by scientists repeatedly already.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

In response to the bolding ^ by moi.

Well informed folks don’t.

Good science, meaning professionals dealing in vision science on a day-to-day basis, conclude the chart is *off* (i.e. too conservative) –
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ly#post9988016

In a nutshell, one way in which it fails in precision is because it’s based upon 1 arc minute V.A. Even a known 4K-disparagaing video engineer who is a SMPTE fellow admits that detail perception with video displays is not as simple as basing it all upon 1 arc minute visual acuity (V.A.) - http://www.schubincafe.com/2010/02/26/the-e-and-eye/

Good science by extremely well informed folks brings about good things, for example, see the Update at the end of this post.

[Lordy]

At some point doesn't the strength (or lack of strength) of the film being watched trump everything else, including the ability to discern the level of irritation of that whitehead on Brad Pitt's chin?

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by Lordy

At some point doesn't the strength (or lack of strength) of the film being watched trump everything else, including the ability to discern the level of irritation of that whitehead on Brad Pitt's chin?

My opinion is that the more realistic the image (the higher resolution) the more immersed I can be in a film. I go from watching Brad Pitt through a blurry piece of glass to being in the same room as him.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

Actually, I have better than 20/20 but that's besides the point. A lot of folks can tell the difference between 4k and 1080p. If you cant I'm sorry but it doesn't give you the right to talk down to others for wanting to go 4K.

About half of all American adults don't have the 20/20 vision physicians consider optimal because they are nearsighted, farsighted, or have an irregular corneal curve known as astigmatism, a large, new study reports http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=5559295

In light of the above report, I highly doubt it.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by spectre08

My opinion is that the more realistic the image (the higher resolution) the more immersed I can be in a film. I go from watching Brad Pitt through a blurry piece of glass to being in the same room as him.

"I talked to other reviewers who tested projectors, being able to instantly switch between a Sony 4K projector and a JVC X700R on a 120″ screen. They could barely notice the difference with the 4K resolution using content directly from a RED 4K camera. Even when they did notice, they preferred the JVC image because it had better blacks and a better contrast ratio, and the eye notices that more than resolution."http://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/

[Lordy]

Originally Posted by spectre08

My opinion is that the more realistic the image (the higher resolution) the more immersed I can be in a film. I go from watching Brad Pitt through a blurry piece of glass to being in the same room as him.

Pssst...hey...a little tip here for ya....it's all fake....not really happening. Oh, you didn't know? Yeah, somebody misled you on that one. Another tip here...next time don't buy a TV with blurry glass. Might help out, ALOT !

[Auditor55]

''When it comes to televisions touting new 4K technology, "a regular human isn't going to see a difference," said Raymond Soneira, head of display-testing firm DisplayMate."

"Well, maybe Superman should get a 4K TV. Those TVs have about four times as many pixels as regular HD TVs. But a professor of ophthalmology tells NBC the human eye has limits, and those pixels just won't be perceived."


"There’s going to be some density beyond which you can’t do any better because of the limits of your eye,” said Don Hood, a Columbia University professor of ophthalmology – the branch of medicine which specializes in the human eye."

Dr. Raymond Soneira

Dr. Raymond Soneira is President of DisplayMate Technologies Corporation of Amherst, New Hampshire, which produces display calibration, evaluation, and diagnostic products for consumers, technicians, and manufacturers. See http://www.displaymate.com. He is a research scientist with a career that spans physics, computer science, and television system design. Dr. Soneira obtained his Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics from Princeton University, spent 5 years as a Long-Term Member of the world famous Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, another 5 years as a Principal Investigator in the Computer Systems Research Laboratory at AT&T Bell Laboratories, and has also designed, tested, and installed color television broadcast equipment for the CBS Television Network Engineering and Development Department. He has authored over 35 research articles in scientific journals in physics and computer science, including Scientific American.

In light of the foregoing, I guess we should just reject all the science, expert opinion and objective test results. Just because some of us want to feel good about a purchasing decision. Sometimes something we might perceive as the latest and greatest, that might make us feel good about ourselves, upon further view and examination, it really isn't the latest and greatest.

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

''When it comes to televisions touting new 4K technology, "a regular human isn't going to see a difference," said Raymond Soneira, head of display-testing firm DisplayMate."

"Well, maybe Superman should get a 4K TV. Those TVs have about four times as many pixels as regular HD TVs. But a professor of ophthalmology tells NBC the human eye has limits, and those pixels just won't be perceived."


"There’s going to be some density beyond which you can’t do any better because of the limits of your eye,” said Don Hood, a Columbia University professor of ophthalmology – the branch of medicine which specializes in the human eye."

Dr. Raymond Soneira

Dr. Raymond Soneira is President of DisplayMate Technologies Corporation of Amherst, New Hampshire, which produces display calibration, evaluation, and diagnostic products for consumers, technicians, and manufacturers. See http://www.displaymate.com. He is a research scientist with a career that spans physics, computer science, and television system design. Dr. Soneira obtained his Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics from Princeton University, spent 5 years as a Long-Term Member of the world famous Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, another 5 years as a Principal Investigator in the Computer Systems Research Laboratory at AT&T Bell Laboratories, and has also designed, tested, and installed color television broadcast equipment for the CBS Television Network Engineering and Development Department. He has authored over 35 research articles in scientific journals in physics and computer science, including Scientific American.

In light of the foregoing, I guess we should just reject all the science, expert opinion and objective test results. Just because some of us want to feel good about a purchasing decision. Sometimes something we might perceive as the latest and greatest, that might make us feel good about ourselves, upon further view and examination, it really isn't the latest and greatest.

I tell you something that is fact though!!! it seems you like to argue with any member that has a difference of opinion and its down right rude man!!! You don't have to be condescending to someone to get your point across. Please tone it down, seriously!!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

About half of all American adults don't have the 20/20 vision physicians consider optimal because they are nearsighted, farsighted, or have an irregular corneal curve known as astigmatism, a large, new study reports http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=5559295

In light of the above report, I highly doubt it.

Auditor, first off I don’t think that is a ‘new study’. But more importantly to the point, it evaluated refractive error data, i.e. what was peoples’ visual acuity before, vision correction, be it wearing glasses, contacts or having procedures such as Lasik, not the study participants BCVA (best corrected visual acuity).

Not to mention the fact that it had limitations, e.g. it didn’t include a complete ophthalmic exam and the data was generated simply by the use of an autorefractor.

The point they were making is that many of us need glasses, contacts, etc. in order to see optimally…probably more so than in past decades.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

"There’s going to be some density beyond which you can’t do any better because of the limits of your eye,” said Don Hood, a Columbia University professor of ophthalmology – the branch of medicine which specializes in the human eye."

I agree.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

''When it comes to televisions touting new 4K technology, "a regular human isn't going to see a difference," said Raymond Soneira, head of display-testing firm DisplayMate."

Independent professional lab testing and less scientifically stringent consumer testing has already proven him wrong. I've posted both studies months ago in the 4K Movies Releases thread.

I think that Dr. Soneira tends toward hyperbole at times. Other vision scientists of equal education and background have refuted what he’s said in the past with regards to other matters.

[lamont360]

I'd go for a 4K set that also has HDR (High Dynamic Range) I think that is where the biggest bang for you buck in video improvement is going to be. Getting 4K without it seems a waste.

[batman2000]

Originally Posted by lamont360

I'd go for a 4K set that also has HDR (High Dynamic Range) I think that is where the biggest bang for you buck in video improvement is going to be. Getting 4K without it seems a waste.

also with rec. 2020

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by lamont360

I'd go for a 4K set that also has HDR (High Dynamic Range) I think that is where the biggest bang for you buck in video improvement is going to be. Getting 4K without it seems a waste.

Specific models have been tested for HDR support, one way or another …..others are in the works by manufacturers.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Independent professional lab testing and less scientifically stringent consumer testing has already proven him wrong. I've posted both studies months ago in the 4K Movies Releases thread.

I think that Dr. Soneira tends toward hyperbole at times. Other vision scientists of equal education and background have refuted what he’s said in the past with regards to other matters.

You have to be kidding me!! Please produce that Independent professional lab testing that have proven Dr. Soneira wrong. Also, please produce their resume that would qualify them to attack his analysis.

His findings are consistent with the overwhelming expert view on this subject. He's not some lone quack on this subject, Please!! His resume speaks for its self. The only people that would try to attack him are some subjectivist home theater enthusiast, that reject true, correct, scientific and factual evidence.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

I tell you something that is fact though!!! it seems you like to argue with any member that has a difference of opinion and its down right rude man!!! You don't have to be condescending to someone to get your point across. Please tone it down, seriously!!

Dylan34, I don't mean to rude or condescending at all. I'm just trying to show and prove my statement. Please don't take it personally. I was just responding to the first poster and giving my opinion on the subject, trying to help him make a sound purchasing decision.