- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Have you upgraded to a 4K TV yet?
Posted on 8/16/15 at 10:59 am to GRTiger
Posted on 8/16/15 at 10:59 am to GRTiger
quote:
can't belive 6 people hated this post enough to down vote
Poors are out in full force in this thread, passive-aggressively voicing their disdain for those with enough disposable income to contemplate/buy expensive TV's by down voting
2
Posted on 8/16/15 at 11:42 am to Tigerfan56
Bought the Samsung 55 inch 4k 2 weeks ago
Less than 1100
Worth it
Less than 1100
Worth it
Posted on 8/16/15 at 11:46 am to RummelTiger
quote:
I don't know, but I found myself in Best Buy the other day by the TV's and I stood there and watched one of those videos that they play (it was all in India) that are in ultra HD for like 10 minutes. It was incredible. Seriously was trying to rationalize the 6k+ spend...
I did this the other day as well. I couldn't justify the purchase, but they had one of those flyover nature videos on repeat that you're talking about. They are fvcking incredible.
Posted on 8/16/15 at 11:47 am to Tigerfan56
This,though I didn't think the poors would be ridiculous enough to come in here and claim 4k is a "gimmick" or isn't noticeable. 
Posted on 8/16/15 at 11:50 am to tLSU
Not a gimmick, but not necessarily noticeable if you're still sizing your TV for 1080P.
Posted on 8/16/15 at 11:58 am to ILikeLSUToo
4k is absolutely noticeable. If you can watch the intro to House of Cards in 1080 and then in 4k and not see a difference, you should go have your vision checked. There's a reason why you see people staring at the 4k content in Best Buy, and they aren't doing it from 4 feet away.
Everyone remembers people saying the same thing about 720 vs 1080, so it's no surprise. The only difference is that this is an increase in resolution on the scale of 480 to 1080.
Everyone remembers people saying the same thing about 720 vs 1080, so it's no surprise. The only difference is that this is an increase in resolution on the scale of 480 to 1080.
This post was edited on 8/16/15 at 12:09 pm
Posted on 8/16/15 at 12:41 pm to tLSU
Yes, here's when 4K is noticeable.
quote:
There's a reason why you see people staring at the 4k content in Best Buy, and they aren't doing it from 4 feet away.
Full-bitrate 4K content is beautiful indeed. I notice that Best Buy doesn't put the best 1080P TVs next to the flagship TVs running the 4K loops. I also notice that pretty much anyone in a store looking at TVs seems to underestimate their home viewing distance, and it's often because there are display racks/shelves that tend to guide the customer to a certain view distance, maybe unintentionally.
Posted on 8/16/15 at 12:55 pm to ILikeLSUToo
There's just no content. What does Netflix have ? 8 shows? 4k blu Rays? Where are those at? And the stuff you see OTA is still in 720p, nfl games etc. then there's also bandwidth concerns with how providers today actually cap you
I'll say it again. Staring at still photos is fine and all but once motion and black levels come into play today's sets aren't delivering. My fathers 4K p series has uniformity issues and in dark scenes it looks absolutely horrendous. But in best buy you wouldn't notice since it's all bright lights and fluorescents overhead. I've also recently seen the 4K Samsung j series in a living room. It too looks fine and dandy but dark scenes have backlight bleeding.
But like I said , if my tv did shite out on me, 4K would be forced on me. Anything near $2000 today SHOULD have it. But that doesn't mean I'm a believer that it'll ever be adapted mainstream
Isn't there already 8K?
Anybody have a OLED set?
Specifically this one LG EG9600 OLED
I'll say it again. Staring at still photos is fine and all but once motion and black levels come into play today's sets aren't delivering. My fathers 4K p series has uniformity issues and in dark scenes it looks absolutely horrendous. But in best buy you wouldn't notice since it's all bright lights and fluorescents overhead. I've also recently seen the 4K Samsung j series in a living room. It too looks fine and dandy but dark scenes have backlight bleeding.
But like I said , if my tv did shite out on me, 4K would be forced on me. Anything near $2000 today SHOULD have it. But that doesn't mean I'm a believer that it'll ever be adapted mainstream
Isn't there already 8K?
Anybody have a OLED set?
Specifically this one LG EG9600 OLED
This post was edited on 8/16/15 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 8/16/15 at 1:08 pm to ILikeLSUToo
You may want to check your sources. In the same blog in which Carlton Bale revealed that idiotic chart, it was mathematically proven that the entire chart was wrong by a factor of two based upon his ignorance of sampling and how many pixels per line pair are needed to resolve an image.
In other words, if you multiply every distance in that chart by two, you may be getting close to reality. Then again, everyone who has watched the content already knows this .
In other words, if you multiply every distance in that chart by two, you may be getting close to reality. Then again, everyone who has watched the content already knows this .
This post was edited on 8/16/15 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 8/16/15 at 1:09 pm to tLSU
Good read. 4K vs 1080p
You won't be able to tell if the TV does this at best buy but in a dark room and dark scene movie, this makes my skin crawl.
This post was edited on 8/16/15 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 8/16/15 at 1:15 pm to markasaurus
quote:
Anybody have a OLED set?
Not me, but I'm holding out for OLED to mature before upgrading my main TV. LED backlit LCD's just dont do it for me, although if I NEEDED a tv now I woud buy one
Posted on 8/16/15 at 1:53 pm to RedRifle
Not necessarily upgrading. Just graduated and have been using a 32 inch my whole life. Decided I wanted a 50 inch. So I got a 50 inch 4k Vizio for $799
Posted on 8/16/15 at 2:14 pm to RedRifle
First purchase after I graduate
Posted on 8/16/15 at 2:15 pm to markasaurus
That TV needs the back light bumped down to setting six
Posted on 8/16/15 at 2:25 pm to markasaurus
Yes, if my main flat screen crapped out, I would buy a 4K IF it was within my budget. I would not go overspend just to get it. I also would not buy one for kids' room, bedroom, etc.
Curved TV is a way bigger gimmick.
The next sorta, semi big thing is the extremely thin OLEDs. They are already out but way too high of a price for most people to upgrade. Get a 55" inch one down into the $1,500 to $2000 price range and it will be on for most people.
Curved TV is a way bigger gimmick.
The next sorta, semi big thing is the extremely thin OLEDs. They are already out but way too high of a price for most people to upgrade. Get a 55" inch one down into the $1,500 to $2000 price range and it will be on for most people.
Posted on 8/16/15 at 2:26 pm to NC17
quote:
So I guess it's time to throw out the 3D TV then.
It's ok, I bought one too when one of my LEDs went out.
Posted on 8/16/15 at 2:32 pm to RedRifle
I just got 1080.
Posted on 8/16/15 at 2:42 pm to tLSU
quote:
You may want to check your sources. In the same blog in which Carlton Bale revealed that idiotic chart, it was mathematically proven that the entire chart was wrong by a factor of two based upon his ignorance of sampling and how many pixels per line pair are needed to resolve an image.
In other words, if you multiply every distance in that chart by two, you may be getting close to reality. Then again, everyone who has watched the content already knows this .
Resolving line pairs would only apply to a pixel-perfect still image that doesn't use adjacent pixels to account for reduced motion resolution, would it not? I suppose the view distance chart would be off by a factor of two if pixel response times weren't in the 6ms+ range, and we were watching higher-framerate 4K content (on a higher refresh rate panel, sans motion interpolation). But hey, provide a technical explanation of it if you understand it. I am open to being wrong, as long as I'm actually wrong. The only practical methodology I've used to verify the chart is by my own A/B tests. Yes, I've seen the content. I've seen the full bit-rate 4K loops. I've seen the compressed 4K streams. I've seen upscaled 1080p on 4K displays. There are certainly conflicting charts out there (none off by a full 100% though, which wouldn't be accounting for horizontal viewing angle or focal length anyway), and many are based on human trials as well.
If you're referring to software-based sampling, that's simply a method of correcting motion resolution and compression artifacting, and why the compressed 4K stream of House of Cards looks better on your 4K TV than it should. It's why a full bitrate 1080p video looks better on a 4K TV but is indistinguishable from the 4K House of Cards stream quality on the same TV at the same distance. Basically, software-based sampling (what you'd get on a TV, rather than hardware-based sampling from a PC GPU) makes the difference between pixel perfect 1080p (even on a 1080p panel) and compressed 4K close to nil. More important than the human eye resolving pixels is how much data (or efficiency of compression) those pixels represent.
This post was edited on 8/16/15 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 8/16/15 at 3:00 pm to RedRifle
Yes, this is the only answer you need to know.
4K Ultra HD 120HZ Curve Smart TV is the Mack daddy...
It's the F-22 of its world.
It even makes TD threads better!
4K Ultra HD 120HZ Curve Smart TV is the Mack daddy...
It's the F-22 of its world.
It even makes TD threads better!
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News