4k tv

[C1]

Was into COSCO & there was this 4K large screen display showing a motion picture of a railroad scene (eg, front of train view zipping down the tracks showing a scenery depth of perhaps a mile).

The pix actually was obnoxious in the sense that it is TOO sharp/detailed. Why do people want this? 4K looks like something that should be used for scientific or medical use, not casual viewing.

Anybody who does photo work understands about "over sharpening". The fact is most photos simply have most appeal when they are slightly unsharpened. (Dont believe me, then post a totally sharp pix of say a lovely model on a photo site & read the viewer comments.)

I dont get it. The over sharp COSCO display is actually a visual irritant.

I suppose an argument is that the display looks okay farther back, but jeeze, what a bad cost/benefit.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Actually the selling point is it looks better closer up at larger sizes.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Was into COSCO & there was this 4K large screen display showing a motion picture of a railroad scene (eg, front of train view zipping down the tracks showing a scenery depth of perhaps a mile).

The pix actually was obnoxious in the sense that it is TOO sharp/detailed. Why do people want this? 4K looks like something that should be used for scientific or medical use, not casual viewing.

Anybody who does photo work understands about "over sharpening". The fact is most photos simply have most appeal when they are slightly unsharpened. (Dont believe me, then post a totally sharp pix of say a lovely model on a photo site & read the viewer comments.)

I dont get it. The over sharp COSCO display is actually a visual irritant.

I suppose an argument is that the display looks okay farther back, but jeeze, what a bad cost/benefit.

1) It likely wasn't calibrated or set up correctly
2) It probably wasn't even a 4k source
3) The point of 4k and for that matter HDR is to make the picture look closer to what you would see if you were there for real. You get a cleaner and more well defined picture on screen than with previous TVs. Whether you take advantage of that or not is up to the individual.

Where to get 4k TV series source?

What do you mean? Right now most 4k content is streaming. Amazon Instant Video has a lot of their original series' in Ultra HD with HDR. There are also some series on Netflix that stream in 4k (no HDR). Some 4k streams are better than others. Then for movies you have both Netflix and Amazon with a few titles. Vudu has some 4k movies with 10bit color on the Roku 4, Ultraflix offers 4k movie streaming as does MGo on Samsung TVs. MGo also allows you to download entire movies to a USB drive to play back that way with HDR(only fox movies so far). The files are around 35GB each so I assume it's the same video we would see from Ultra HD Blu-Ray next year. The audio is just DTS though with no lossless audio provided. In fact none of the streams will do lossless audio from any service offered.

There are some studios working on providing 4k programming. One of the first will be from Rogers cable broadcasting all the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey games in 4k + HDR starting in january. Supposedly the Blue Jays will also have their games in 4k too. I also hear that Dish Network will be offering a 4k channel at some point. ESPN is rumored to be broadcasting the NFL game from London next year to their studio as a test of their equipment setup. I assume this is in anticipation of turning on a 4k sports channel. So it appears that studios will be skipping 1080p and going right to 4k programming.

 

[Chedda7]

The pix actually was obnoxious in the sense that it is TOO sharp/detailed. Why do people want this? 4K looks like something that should be used for scientific or medical use, not casual viewing.
.

I can't believe I am reading this on a computer hardware forum.

 

[Luddite]

I'm in the market for a 32" TV. I am trying to decide whether to hold off until 4K comes to the 32" size, or just buy a 1080p 32" now (which are now quite cheap).

I guess my question is: How long do you think it will be before they start making 32" 4K TVs in the price ranges we now see for 32" 1080p TVs?

 

[giantpandaman2]

I'm in the market for a 32" TV. I am trying to decide whether to hold off until 4K comes to the 32" size, or just buy a 1080p 32" now (which are now quite cheap).

I guess my question is: How long do you think it will be before they start making 32" 4K TVs in the price ranges we now see for 32" 1080p TVs?

Unless you sit 2 feet from the TV (IE-Use it as a monitor) there's no reason to get a 32" 4k TV. Just too small to see the difference.

 

[Luddite]

Unless you sit 2 feet from the TV (IE-Use it as a monitor) there's no reason to get a 32" 4k TV. Just too small to see the difference.

The TV will be sitting on my computer desk, and I'll be approx 30"-36" from it. So yes, I will be able to tell the difference, it won't be a huge difference I realize that. Besides, people are buying 4K and even 5K computer monitors. I don't want to buy a separate larger TV for my living room, as I'd rather have a screen dedicated to movie watching on my desk that I can sit close enough to and be big enough for an immersive experience. that's basically the reason.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The TV will be sitting on my computer desk, and I'll be approx 30"-36" from it. So yes, I will be able to tell the difference, it won't be a huge difference I realize that. Besides, people are buying 4K and even 5K computer monitors. I don't want to buy a separate larger TV for my living room, as I'd rather have a screen dedicated to movie watching on my desk that I can sit close enough to and be big enough for an immersive experience. that's basically the reason.

While that is not a bad idea in theory, where the it falls apart in reality is that 30-36" sets (even the most expensive 4K one you can fine unless it's really a monitor) aren't that good compared to 50"+ sets. The way the TV markets work is that anything under 50 inches is seen as a "secondary" TV, and therefore lacks the quality of 50+ inch models. 4K or not it will always be that way.

I don't know of a single FLAD LED or OLED TV that is that size for example, and none of the major models that you can read reviews about on CNET have a model that size. You can't even use AVS forums for comparison because no one treats TVs that small seriously (unless they are a CRT nut or something). Of course if you aren't picky like most people they are good enough, but if you weren't picky you wouldn't be asking for a 4K version.

If you want a desk-sized 32 inch 4k screen worth a damn that is a $800+ monitor, not a TV.

 

[cmdrdredd]

While that is not a bad idea in theory, where the it falls apart in reality is that 30-36" sets (even the most expensive 4K one you can fine unless it's really a monitor) aren't that good compared to 50"+ sets. The way the TV markets work is that anything under 50 inches is seen as a "secondary" TV, and therefore lacks the quality of 50+ inch models. 4K or not it will always be that way.

I don't know of a single FLAD LED or OLED TV that is that size for example, and none of the major models that you can read reviews about on CNET have a model that size. You can't even use AVS forums for comparison because no one treats TVs that small seriously (unless they are a CRT nut or something). Of course if you aren't picky like most people they are good enough, but if you weren't picky you wouldn't be asking for a 4K version.

If you want a desk-sized 32 inch 4k screen worth a damn that is a $800+ monitor, not a TV.

This is the sad truth. They start skimping on all kinds of things in the sub 50" size range. Most of the higher end sets don't go below 55" for example.

 

[Luddite]

While that is not a bad idea in theory, where the it falls apart in reality is that 30-36" sets (even the most expensive 4K one you can fine unless it's really a monitor) aren't that good compared to 50"+ sets. The way the TV markets work is that anything under 50 inches is seen as a "secondary" TV, and therefore lacks the quality of 50+ inch models. 4K or not it will always be that way.

I don't know of a single FLAD LED or OLED TV that is that size for example, and none of the major models that you can read reviews about on CNET have a model that size. You can't even use AVS forums for comparison because no one treats TVs that small seriously (unless they are a CRT nut or something). Of course if you aren't picky like most people they are good enough, but if you weren't picky you wouldn't be asking for a 4K version.

If you want a desk-sized 32 inch 4k screen worth a damn that is a $800+ monitor, not a TV.

LED... http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/categor...spx?path=f37fcd75de4afad8b34d2daf56e341cden01

Reviews of best 32" TVs:

http://lcdtvbuyingguide.com/32-lcd-tv.html

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/television/tv/10-best-32-inch-tvs-in-the-world-today-655660

http://www.smartreview.com/best-32-inch-lcd-and-led-tvs-reviews

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/32-inch/best

You are right that the 32" size does not represent the best features or even quality, but 4K TVs in general have other benefits besides resolution that they bring such as improved contrast, color and compression artifacts, picture uniformity, refresh rates, etc. not because they are 4K, but because they are just generally newer televisions with updated hardware, and manufacturers are always improving things. Of course, not all 4K TVs will necessarily be better.

I don't know what 'FLAD' is.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Oops, I meant FALD.

 

[LoveMachine]

My guess regarding the "too sharp" perception, it might have actually been the frame interpolation "240Hz" (intentionally sarcastic quotes for effect) Motion Engine(TM) soap-opera feature. If it was displaying a static 4K image, I'm willing to bet no one would say it was Too Sharp.

 

[spacejamz]

The TV will be sitting on my computer desk, and I'll be approx 30"-36" from it. So yes, I will be able to tell the difference, it won't be a huge difference I realize that. Besides, people are buying 4K and even 5K computer monitors. I don't want to buy a separate larger TV for my living room, as I'd rather have a screen dedicated to movie watching on my desk that I can sit close enough to and be big enough for an immersive experience. that's basically the reason.

I am using a Samsung 40" 4k set for my main monitor...you definitely need to get a video card with HDMI 2.0 so you can get the 60hz refresh rate...the 30hz refresh rate might drive you crazy with the mouse delay....

this is so better than the 39" class 1080p monitor I switched from...

 

[spacejamz]

If you want a desk-sized 32 inch 4k screen worth a damn that is a $800+ monitor, not a TV.

I got my samsung 40" 4k set in Nov 2014 as Black Friday deal for $699 (reg price was $899)...

extremely happy with the PQ when using it as monitor...what would a true 4k monitor have that makes it better?