|
Post by 509Paul on Feb 17, 2016 12:31:06 GMT -5
I suppose one arguement for higher resolutions is looking at Apples Retina displays compared to the past displays they made. After using the Retina display I refuse to go back to the standard resolution of old iPads.
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Feb 17, 2016 12:58:00 GMT -5
Saying you won't upgrade from 1080p is like saying you won't upgrade your computer or computer software. I wish you the best of luck with that I'd assume that when someone, me included, says they will not upgrade from 1080P to 4K they mean they won't purchase simply for the upgrade. Sooner or later we will all need new TVs. So eventually we'll have 4k, or maybe 8k, or maybe better, depending on the time till upgrade. I certainly won't get rid of my 1080P until I need a new TV. Heck, I rarely watch TV as it is. My stereo is on several hours everyday though...
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Feb 17, 2016 13:23:56 GMT -5
Saying you won't upgrade from 1080p is like saying you won't upgrade your computer or computer software. I wish you the best of luck with that I'd assume that when someone, me included, says they will not upgrade from 1080P to 4K they mean they won't purchase simply for the upgrade. Sooner or later we will all need new TVs. So eventually we'll have 4k, or maybe 8k, or maybe better, depending on the time till upgrade. I certainly won't get rid of my 1080P until I need a new TV. Heck, I rarely watch TV as it is. My stereo is on several hours everyday though... That's possible, but that sort of assumes that no other advances in TV's will be made either. When I look at that curved LG OLED 4k, it's possible there are multiple things contributing to the stunningness of it, but does it really matter? The difference b/n it any my current 1080p display (which is a computer screen btw, and is ultra clear and much clearer than a lot of 1080p tvs) is very noticable, giving me that urge to upgrade. That's sort of my point, TV's will continue to advance with new lighting tech and / or resolution, and saying you wont' upgrade "until your current tv breaks" ... well, not going to say you will, but just be open to the possibility that you just might. I'm sort of suggesting that you can't separate 4k from the other new advances that are coming down the pipe, they come packaged together (you won't find any curved + oled + 720p displays, for example, you want curved and oled then you get 4k too), and eventually all that new tech will make you look at your old tv and go "hmm, time for an upgrade".
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"We made too many of the wrong mistakes." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,916
|
Post by cawgijoe on Feb 17, 2016 14:11:33 GMT -5
Those who think you can't see the difference in quality between 1080p and a native 4K source from 10-12 feet away from a 65" screen are completely wrong. So all the professionally trained experts and scientific people and eye professionals are all wrong, and you are right? We are to listen to some Joe on an internet forum instead of known professionals? You guys go your way, and I'll go mine. You don't have to do anything you don't want to do and I really don't care if you buy it or not. I personally don't understand how someone can't see the difference. I just don't get that. I think copperpipe is correct in saying that it may be a combination of factors and not just better resolution that contributes to the stunning, sharp picture of 4K at native resolution.
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Feb 17, 2016 14:39:30 GMT -5
I'd assume that when someone, me included, says they will not upgrade from 1080P to 4K they mean they won't purchase simply for the upgrade. Sooner or later we will all need new TVs. So eventually we'll have 4k, or maybe 8k, or maybe better, depending on the time till upgrade. I certainly won't get rid of my 1080P until I need a new TV. Heck, I rarely watch TV as it is. My stereo is on several hours everyday though... That's possible, but that sort of assumes that no other advances in TV's will be made either. When I look at that curved LG OLED 4k, it's possible there are multiple things contributing to the stunningness of it, but does it really matter? The difference b/n it any my current 1080p display (which is a computer screen btw, and is ultra clear and much clearer than a lot of 1080p tvs) is very noticable, giving me that urge to upgrade. That's sort of my point, TV's will continue to advance with new lighting tech and / or resolution, and saying you wont' upgrade "until your current tv breaks" ... well, not going to say you will, but just be open to the possibility that you just might. I'm sort of suggesting that you can't separate 4k from the other new advances that are coming down the pipe, they come packaged together (you won't find any curved + oled + 720p displays, for example, you want curved and oled then you get 4k too), and eventually all that new tech will make you look at your old tv and go "hmm, time for an upgrade". Actually, I think the curved screens are stupid. But that is coming from a guy who seriously doesn't give a crap about TV. No, I won't upgrade. I'll get a new TV when my old one dies.
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Feb 17, 2016 14:40:46 GMT -5
I think copperpipe is correct in saying that it may be a combination of factors and not just better resolution that contributes to the stunning, sharp picture of 4K at native resolution. I think that is what Bonzo is saying also.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Feb 17, 2016 14:44:38 GMT -5
I think copperpipe is correct in saying that it may be a combination of factors and not just better resolution that contributes to the stunning, sharp picture of 4K at native resolution. Um, I'm the one saying this. copperpipe is following me saying he doesn't really know, but that 4K TV's just look better. I'm saying the resolution by itself itself plays a very minority role in what you are seeing. Could it also be possible that neither of you have actually seen a really nice properly adjusted and ISF calibrated 1080p TV? [Or that until now you really haven't seen a good high end TV period? Sounds like copperpipe most definitely has not. You can't really compare a $700 Best Buy house brand to a nice $2500 Samsung. But heck, even within Samsung there are different levels of performance. Perhaps you never go to see one of those?] When pros like Thomas Norton do their head to head comparisons, they do it only after the TV's have been properly adjusted/calibrated. So far, he has not ranked any 4K TV he's tested higher than (or even with actually) my 1080 ZT, mainly for black levels. That could very well change when he reviews the LG OLED.
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"We made too many of the wrong mistakes." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,916
|
Post by cawgijoe on Feb 17, 2016 15:27:12 GMT -5
I think copperpipe is correct in saying that it may be a combination of factors and not just better resolution that contributes to the stunning, sharp picture of 4K at native resolution. Um, I'm the one saying this. copperpipe is following me saying he doesn't really know, but that 4K TV's just look better. I'm saying the resolution by itself itself plays a very minority role in what you are seeing. Could it also be possible that neither of you have actually seen a really nice properly adjusted and ISF calibrated 1080p TV? [Or that until now you really haven't seen a good high end TV period? Sounds like copperpipe most definitely has not. You can't really compare a $700 Best Buy house brand to a nice $2500 Samsung. But heck, even within Samsung there are different levels of performance. Perhaps you never go to see one of those?] When pros like Thomas Norton do their head to head comparisons, they do it only after the TV's have been properly adjusted/calibrated. So far, he has not ranked any 4K TV he's tested higher than (or even with actually) my 1080 ZT, mainly for black levels. That could very well change when he reviews the LG OLED. Yes, I have. None of this is new to me. This stuff has been one of my main hobbies from the early 80's. I'm not a newbie. A properly calibrated TV whether 1080p or 4K looks awesome. I'm still telling you that you will notice a difference between a standard HD display and a 4K with native content displayed on each. Tom Norton is one of my favorite reviewers by the way and I have met him at a Stereophile show years ago in NYC. If he says that you cannot tell the difference between a 1080p set and a 4K set, I will have to disagree. As to TV's, there is no doubt that top of the line plasmas whether from Pioneer or Panasonic have superb black levels that still are hard to match with today's LCD sets. LCD sets have weaknesses when if comes to black levels and off-axis viewing. OLED is a game changer. If you love plasma, you will love OLED. Problem for me now is cost, only one current manufacturer(LG), and questions about it's longevity.
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Feb 17, 2016 15:37:24 GMT -5
I think copperpipe is correct in saying that it may be a combination of factors and not just better resolution that contributes to the stunning, sharp picture of 4K at native resolution. Um, I'm the one saying this. copperpipe is following me saying he doesn't really know, but that 4K TV's just look better. I'm saying the resolution by itself itself plays a very minority role in what you are seeing. Could it also be possible that neither of you have actually seen a really nice properly adjusted and ISF calibrated 1080p TV? [Or that until now you really haven't seen a good high end TV period? Sounds like copperpipe most definitely has not. You can't really compare a $700 Best Buy house brand to a nice $2500 Samsung. But heck, even within Samsung there are different levels of performance. Perhaps you never go to see one of those?] When pros like Thomas Norton do their head to head comparisons, they do it only after the TV's have been properly adjusted/calibrated. So far, he has not ranked any 4K TV he's tested higher than (or even with actually) my 1080 ZT, mainly for black levels. That could very well change when he reviews the LG OLED. Did you not read that link I posted where they calibrate two samsung's, "remove" the borders (so you can't tell from looking at them which one is which), and show viewers who are then able to very reliably detect the 4k vs the 1080p? Personally I really don't care what "pros" say in this case. A) There is a definite physical difference b/n 1080p vs 4k (so it's not like 4k is "snakeoil"), and B) I can view the difference b/n a number of TV's that I viewed. You can argue that it wasn't just the 4k (and I happen to think the 4k is the main reason), but who cares? The exact reason is academic; if TV's sporting the 4k label look better than their 1080p counter parts, who cares whether it's the resolution or some other combination of factors? Better looking is better looking, that's a reason to upgrade. Why don't you review a good 4k display with good / native 4k material yourself instead of jumping when Thomas Norton says Jump? You might just decide 4K is worth it after all
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Feb 17, 2016 15:41:42 GMT -5
Problem for me now is cost, only one current manufacturer(LG), and questions about it's longevity. +1. I also don't like the current curved screen trend. Give me an 85" flat screen OLED for $3000 and I'll be good to go.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Feb 17, 2016 16:04:17 GMT -5
Personally I really don't care what "pros" say in this case. When it comes to TV's, that's probably one of the most useful places professionals are very useful in this hobby, and very often dead on. Speakers and the like, no way. But displays, yes sir. If 10 pros say it's a great TV, then it is. You are doing yourself a disservice. Just because it's there doesn't mean you can physically see it. Science is science, and the human eye can't see it. If they make a 16K screen for a 5" smart phone, you will NOT be able to see it. But I guess you will since it has more pixels it must be better. You would be wrong but I'm done. Leave your head buried in the sand. Don't learn something new today. Because just saying it's 4K doesn't make it better. It's a sales misnomer and you are buying the jargon. You don't think there are crappy 4K TV's and crappy 4K native signals? I guarantee my ZT beats many of the 4K TV's out there (probably most of them so far). Will 4K TV's get better and better? You bet. Will they beat my ZT? Absolutely. But that will be for other reasons besides 4K resolution. I have seen a lot of them in the crappy Best Buy environment you talk about and it's not really worth looking at. To date I have only seen it twice properly calibrated in a properly lit room, and here's what I can say: On a huge projector it was sweet. That's where 4K will shine, on huge screens. On what I recall was a 75" screen, it looked no better than my Panny ZT. When I stuck my nose 3 inches from the screen it did, but not from 10 feet away it did not. Actually, my Panny had better blacks and more natural color saturation, so it looked better. Thomas Norton (and others like Geoffery Morrison etc) certainly know a hell of lot more than you do about it. When it comes to TV's, I will forever take those professional views over some internent forum person's any day any where. Nuff said. I can't say anymore.
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Feb 17, 2016 17:06:46 GMT -5
Personally I really don't care what "pros" say in this case. When it comes to TV's, that's probably one of the most useful places professionals are very useful in this hobby, and very often dead on. Speakers and the like, no way. But displays, yes sir. If 10 pros say it's a great TV, then it is. You are doing yourself a disservice. Just because it's there doesn't mean you can physically see it. Science is science, and the human eye can't see it. If they make a 16K screen for a 5" smart phone, you will NOT be able to see it. But I guess you will since it has more pixels it must be better. You would be wrong but I'm done. Leave your head buried in the sand. Don't learn something new today. Because just saying it's 4K doesn't make it better. It's a sales misnomer and you are buying the jargon. You don't think there are crappy 4K TV's and crappy 4K native signals? I guarantee my ZT beats many of the 4K TV's out there (probably most of them so far). Will 4K TV's get better and better? You bet. Will they beat my ZT? Absolutely. But that will be for other reasons besides 4K resolution. I have seen a lot of them in the crappy Best Buy environment you talk about and it's not really worth looking at. To date I have only seen it twice properly calibrated in a properly lit room, and here's what I can say: On a huge projector it was sweet. That's where 4K will shine, on huge screens. On what I recall was a 75" screen, it looked no better than my Panny ZT. When I stuck my nose 3 inches from the screen it did, but not from 10 feet away it did not. Actually, my Panny had better blacks and more natural color saturation, so it looked better. Thomas Norton (and others like Geoffery Morrison etc) certainly know a hell of lot more than you do about it. When it comes to TV's, I will forever take those professional views over some internent forum person's any day any where. Nuff said. I can't say anymore. As I said before, many of the calculations for when 4k becomes detectable by the human eye is based on 20/20 vision (for example when steve jobs brought out the retina display). That's not the limit of the eye, that's 20/20 vision only. I never once said that purchasing a 4k TV automatically means it's better than every 1080p. I would never claim that as there is more to a TV than resolution; no argument from me there. But I DO claim that 4k ALLOWS the manufacturer to build better displaying TV's, it gives them that extra tech that goes beyond the limits of 1080p. Obviously other factors determine total picture quality otherwise all 1080p displays at the same screen size would look the same (which they clearly don't). Yup, I agree there are crappy 4k signals. I specifically mentioned good 4k content. Nope, I'm not talking smart phones, please don't exaggerate my claims. You seem to think I'm one of these guys that hears "4k" and then runs out to buy one based on that label alone. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression, but nothing is farther from the truth. I read reviews, try to understand what exactly the "buzzword of the month" means, and rarely listen to salesman. I just really really happen to like the few 4k displays I've seen, especially the curved oled from LG. Part of the beauty of that monitor is the oled tech, no doubt about it. But when the sales guy switched from bluray input to the native 4k "demo content" the difference was still quite visible. So what would that same oled tv look like, if it was identical in every way except it was a 1080p display showing 1080p content instead of a 4k display upscaling 1080p content? I don't know, maybe the native 1080p would look better than a 4k upscaling 1080p. That's part of the problem, when looking at tv's I've never had the opportunity to compare "identical" models with just 1080 vs 4k as the difference. Anyway I'm open to having my mind changed on the subject, and I did like the discussion here, but at this point I'm still targeting that lovely LG.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Feb 17, 2016 17:42:48 GMT -5
but at this point I'm still targeting that lovely LG. You lose me with the curved screen. I'm not a fan at all. I find it very distracting. Otherwise it's a very nice TV. I'd still wait until next year unless I had to buy now though. Too many details floating around and this year is only the beginning of price drops. By the way, until this year OLED TV's were just 1080p. It's possible you may still find one around somewhere just to see how it looks. The problem is that most normal people do in fact that, see the words 4K and run like lemmings to the cliffs because it has MORE resolution, so it MUST be better. The opposite can hold true also. The main reason superior plasmas lost to inferior LCDs with the public majority was because of Best Buy sales people using the highly overrated buzz words, "BURN IN." VHS mainly won over Beta with the public at large because it could potentially hold 2 more hours of video (at way lower quality), even though Beta was superior. You say you aren't one of those people then I'll believe you.
|
|
|
Post by 509Paul on Feb 17, 2016 17:56:25 GMT -5
The Best Buy burger flippers kept telling me over and over I didn't want a plasma because they always have burn in problems so I left and bought my plasma at a small local store and have loved it. I think Best Buy single handily made plasma TVs seem inferior and killed sales because of their uneducated sales force that only pushed lcd panels.
|
|
guitarforlife
Sensei
Just another busy day in Northern Wisconsin.
Posts: 947
|
Post by guitarforlife on Feb 17, 2016 17:57:23 GMT -5
The Best Buy burger flippers kept telling me over and over I didn't want a plasma because they always have burn in problems so I left and bought my plasma at a small local store and have loved it. I think Best Buy single handily made plasma TVs seem inferior and killed sales because of their uneducated sales force that only pushed lcd panels. Best Buy needs to go away.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Feb 17, 2016 18:02:14 GMT -5
but at this point I'm still targeting that lovely LG. You lose me with the curved screen. I'm not a fan at all. I find it very distracting. Otherwise it's a very nice TV. I'd still wait until next year unless I had to buy now though. Too many details floating around and this year is only the beginning of price drops. By the way, until this year OLED TV's were just 1080p. It's possible you may still find one around somewhere just to see how it looks. The problem is that most normal people do in fact that, see the words 4K and run like lemmings to the cliffs because it has MORE resolution, so it MUST be better. The opposite can hold true also. The main reason superior plasmas lost to inferior LCDs with the public majority was because of Best Buy sales people using the highly overrated buzz words, "BURN IN." VHS mainly won over Beta with the public at large because it could potentially hold 2 more hours of video (at way lower quality), even though Beta was superior. You say you aren't one of those people then I'll believe you. This reminds me about a little story people saying transistor will replace tubes because transistors are more accurate and have less distortion...
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"We made too many of the wrong mistakes." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,916
|
Post by cawgijoe on Feb 17, 2016 18:05:38 GMT -5
but at this point I'm still targeting that lovely LG. You lose me with the curved screen. I'm not a fan at all. I find it very distracting. Otherwise it's a very nice TV. I'd still wait until next year unless I had to buy now though. Too many details floating around and this year is only the beginning of price drops. By the way, until this year OLED TV's were just 1080p. It's possible you may still find one around somewhere just to see how it looks. The problem is that most normal people do in fact that, see the words 4K and run like lemmings to the cliffs because it has MORE resolution, so it MUST be better. The opposite can hold true also. The main reason superior plasmas lost to inferior LCDs with the public majority was because of Best Buy sales people using the highly overrated buzz words, "BURN IN." VHS mainly won over Beta with the public at large because it could potentially hold 2 more hours of video (at way lower quality), even though Beta was superior. You say you aren't one of those people then I'll believe you. Hey! I found something to agree with Bonzo on.....curved screens mean nothing. They are a gimmick.
|
|
guitarforlife
Sensei
Just another busy day in Northern Wisconsin.
Posts: 947
|
Post by guitarforlife on Feb 17, 2016 18:05:54 GMT -5
So all the professionally trained experts and scientific people and eye professionals are all wrong, and you are right? We are to listen to some Joe on an internet forum instead of known professionals? You guys go your way, and I'll go mine. You don't have to do anything you don't want to do and I really don't care if you buy it or not. I personally don't understand how someone can't see the difference. I just don't get that. I think copperpipe is correct in saying that it may be a combination of factors and not just better resolution that contributes to the stunning, sharp picture of 4K at native resolution. The opposition to it in all of my post. Is not the fact I may not be able to tell the difference or not in the 4k. It is for me, does not warrant all the buzz about it. I would much rather but the money into Vintage guitars or more two channel gear. I have way to many other things that would take precedent over some new video format. I still have a few of VHS that is imposable to find and from time to time I hook up the old tape player and they still pass for me. I still get enjoyment out of them. So to me 4K is no biggie.
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Feb 17, 2016 18:07:01 GMT -5
The Best Buy burger flippers kept telling me over and over I didn't want a plasma because they always have burn in problems so I left and bought my plasma at a small local store and have loved it. I think Best Buy single handily made plasma TVs seem inferior and killed sales because of their uneducated sales force that only pushed lcd panels. Best Buy needs to go away. Circuit City is coming back. www.twice.com/news/retail/circuit-city-set-return-spring/60261
|
|
guitarforlife
Sensei
Just another busy day in Northern Wisconsin.
Posts: 947
|
Post by guitarforlife on Feb 17, 2016 18:07:46 GMT -5
You lose me with the curved screen. I'm not a fan at all. I find it very distracting. Otherwise it's a very nice TV. I'd still wait until next year unless I had to buy now though. Too many details floating around and this year is only the beginning of price drops. By the way, until this year OLED TV's were just 1080p. It's possible you may still find one around somewhere just to see how it looks. The problem is that most normal people do in fact that, see the words 4K and run like lemmings to the cliffs because it has MORE resolution, so it MUST be better. The opposite can hold true also. The main reason superior plasmas lost to inferior LCDs with the public majority was because of Best Buy sales people using the highly overrated buzz words, "BURN IN." VHS mainly won over Beta with the public at large because it could potentially hold 2 more hours of video (at way lower quality), even though Beta was superior. You say you aren't one of those people then I'll believe you. This reminds me about a little story people saying transistor will replace tubes because transistors are more accurate and have less distortion... Or Vinyl is the thing of the past.
|
|