4K: What's the attraction?

[mikeymikec]

I'm just wondering if my usage scenario makes me not really its intended audience. While I do appreciate good quality audio/video, I currently have:

32" wide-screen LCD TV, 1080p
PC: 22" wide-screen LCD monitor, DVD drive
BR player, no hi-def consoles

The only films I've bought on BR are ones where the transfer to DVD wasn't very good (e.g. Aliens, Bladerunner, both had lots of visual noise. Unforgiven and Heat are both on my list to be replaced at some point), and when I'm buying more movies I'm tending to think compatibility with my PC, and the apparent difficulties of watching BRs on the PC make me shy away from buying a BR drive (though logically I'd make it a writer since I sometimes burn DVDs and why not up the capacity).

Watching a DVD that was a decent transfer (or remastered, like the Matrix remastered DVD trilogy I bought solely because the first movie's initial DVD transfer was pretty rubbish) looks pretty decent to me at a sensible watching distance on the 32" TV. I've watched decent BRs on it as well but they make me think "that's what I expect a DVD to be" (yes, I realise that BRs are typically 1080p native whereas DVD has half the vertical resolution). I'm just not sure whether even vaguely considering 4K is worthwhile for me.

Thoughts? Assuming that there is even a 4K 32" TV, is one likely to notice the difference between 1080p and 4K for such a screen size without scrutinising the screen at short range?

 

[spacejamz]

4K is more than just resolution..the color depth is better/deeper as well but that is only as good as the display you are watching on..even if you might notice a difference, it probably isn't worth the cost unless you jump up to a bigger screen...

 

[Kaido]

They have 32" 4K monitors, but lately the smallest 4K TV I've been seeing is 43". This is my setup right now:

• 32" 2.5K monitor
• 65" 4K TV
• 135" 1080p projector

32" sounds pretty large for monitor, but in-person, it's actually not all that big. In fact, I feel it's the perfect size for people like me who have a single-monitor setup...37" would be a little too big, out of your eyeline, and 27" could be a little bigger. The 2.5K resolution is nice because the text is sharp & crisp, but not huge & oversized, but also not ridiculously tiny like it would be on a 4K 32" screen.

The 65" 4K TV is fantastic. It's a budget Hisense model from Sam's Club with a built-in Roku player. Really phenomenal picture. I thought a lot about going OLED this time around, but as picky as I am about picture-quality, I've been very happy with 4K on a standard, budget LED set overall. With 1080p, there was a huge range of quality...you could have really muddy black levels & poor picture quality on a 1080p screen, but pretty much every single 4K screen I've seen has been pretty dang good because there are 4x more pixels per inch than 1080p sets, which means even on cheapo screens, you're still getting a fairly decent picture. Side note, my Hisense model is on sale for $399 at Best Buy:

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/hisens...d-tv-with-hdr-roku-tv/6265176.p?skuId=6265176

I'm still running 1080p on my projector. Modern projectors are amazing & 1080p looks great on them. I just got my first hands-on with a 4K projector a couple months ago & wasn't overly impressed, but most projectors are using faux 4K & have .47 DMD's, so...meh. I will definitely upgrade to 4K down the road, but as much as I enjoy 4K on my 65", I haven't felt an overly-strong need to go 4K on the projection system just yet. I average 2 or 3 home theater install projects on the side per month, so I'll be interested in seeing more 4K projectors down the road this year & next year as I get to play with them!

In terms of your situation...yes, viewing distance does make a big difference. Moreso on projectors than screens, I would say. If you think you could handle going to a 43" TV, then I would say yes, jump to a 4K model. TCL has a 43" 4K Roku TV on sale for an amazing $89 shipped today: (edit: sale is over!)

https://www.amazon.com/TCL-43S425-Inch-Ultra-Smart/dp/B07DK5PZFY/

Depends on how picky you want to get. I love good PQ, but I also feel like the law of diminishing returns applies here. I install a lot of computer screens, televisions, and projectors in businesses & for friend's living rooms & home theaters, and I've been perfectly happy with my basic 60hz set with a built-in Roku. It's not 120/240hz, it doesn't have HDR, no OLED or Quantum LED's, but to me, it still looks ridiculously fantastic.

Also keep in mind that monitors & television sets have different pixel densities. That's why text looks crummy on most TV sets...they have a very large pixel pitch, versus a monitor or Retina-quality phone, which have much higher PPI/DPI's. So if you're looking for a replacement monitor, that's going to be a slightly different research project than a television set.

 

[Rifter]

HDR, HDR is the attraction.

 

[BD231]

13 you ..... 16 4k

 

[purbeast0]

Just keep in mind, most of the 4k content out there is not "real" 4k with thins such as Netflix. It's compressed to shit. Real 4k is on the 4k blurays and to my knowledge is the only source of "real" 4k, unless you are pirating or possibly downloading a true 4k version.

But streaming? Not a chance in shit you are seeing real 4k on anything claiming to stream 4k content.

I have a 120" screen I watch blurays on and they look fantastic at 1080p. I have no desire to upgrade anything I own to 4k. I just had to buy a new TV since my son broke my plasma (RIP) and 4k seems to now be a standard if you want a decent TV.

 

[quikah]

Smaller monitors will not see much of an impact for video. I would say you need at least a 60-65" TV to notice. Even then other things like HDR make more of an impact than the resolution bump. There is a huge difference in computing between a 1080 and a 4K monitor though even at smaller sizes since you are sitting so close.

 

[Red Squirrel]

More real estate is the main attraction. 4k is like having 4 HD monitors, without needing a video card with 4 outputs. At work we have 3x 4k 27" and 1 HD as primary. We used to have like 7+ HD (some were not even full HD) and it was a pain trying to fit all our stuff. Had to overlap windows etc.

I still have a triple monitor setup at home with 3 HD, the 2 side ones are on Raspberry Pis though since I hate how programs open on whatever monitor they feel like so this keeps programs on their own monitor. I eventually want to switch out this setup for a single 32" 4k though, but they are still very expensive. I don't know why 4k monitors are so expensive when they are practically giving away 4k TVs. I don't really want to use a TV as it would be too big. 4k for TV is not as beneficial as it is for monitors.

 

[mindless1]

Just keep in mind, most of the 4k content out there is not "real" 4k with thins such as Netflix. It's compressed to shit. Real 4k is on the 4k blurays and to my knowledge is the only source of "real" 4k, unless you are pirating or possibly downloading a true 4k version.

But streaming? Not a chance in shit you are seeing real 4k on anything claiming to stream 4k content.

I have a 120" screen I watch blurays on and they look fantastic at 1080p. I have no desire to upgrade anything I own to 4k. I just had to buy a new TV since my son broke my plasma (RIP) and 4k seems to now be a standard if you want a decent TV.

Compressed or not, you still get more detail from 2K or 4K, even on youtube. "Real" is not relevant, rather the end result is.

If you are sitting far enough away that you can't see the extra detail, that's a different matter.

 

[LikeLinus]

Just keep in mind, most of the 4k content out there is not "real" 4k with thins such as Netflix. It's compressed to shit. Real 4k is on the 4k blurays and to my knowledge is the only source of "real" 4k, unless you are pirating or possibly downloading a true 4k version.

But streaming? Not a chance in shit you are seeing real 4k on anything claiming to stream 4k content.

I have a 120" screen I watch blurays on and they look fantastic at 1080p. I have no desire to upgrade anything I own to 4k. I just had to buy a new TV since my son broke my plasma (RIP) and 4k seems to now be a standard if you want a decent TV.

You forgot that streaming services are now offering movies in Dolby Vision, HDR and better audio options. Some movies are now streaming with Atmos. There is no reason not to get 4K. While it may be compressed, the clarity is better and will only continue to get better.

 

[purbeast0]

Compressed or not, you still get more detail from 2K or 4K, even on youtube. "Real" is not relevant, rather the end result is.

If you are sitting far enough away that you can't see the extra detail, that's a different matter.

Yeah I'm sure the "real" 4k version of the battle against the white walkers in Game of Thrones final season will look as terrible on UHD bluray as it did streaming in 4k due to the compression.

 

[Kaido]

More real estate is the main attraction. 4k is like having 4 HD monitors, without needing a video card with 4 outputs. At work we have 3x 4k 27" and 1 HD as primary. We used to have like 7+ HD (some were not even full HD) and it was a pain trying to fit all our stuff. Had to overlap windows etc.

I still have a triple monitor setup at home with 3 HD, the 2 side ones are on Raspberry Pis though since I hate how programs open on whatever monitor they feel like so this keeps programs on their own monitor. I eventually want to switch out this setup for a single 32" 4k though, but they are still very expensive. I don't know why 4k monitors are so expensive when they are practically giving away 4k TVs. I don't really want to use a TV as it would be too big. 4k for TV is not as beneficial as it is for monitors.

Are you using Synergy or something to move the mouse & keyboard between screens & devices?

 

[ctbaars]

Diagonal dimension = Pinis length
Resolution = Pinis girth
Contrast Ratio = Pinile skill set. Inconsistent measurement across manufacturers.

Get good sound. Sounding good goes a long way at excusing small Pinis.

 

[SKORPI0]

Yeah I'm sure the "real" 4k version of the battle against the white walkers in Game of Thrones final season will look as terrible on UHD bluray as it did streaming in 4k due to the compression.

I wasn't aware that GoT season 1-8 was shown/streamed in 4K at HBO. Season 1 video and audio quality is a lot better than what was shown in HBO. 😵
4K Streaming <<<<< UHD disc, Everyone know this. 🙄🙄🙄

Game Of Thrones' Season One 4K Blu-ray Review: Stark Difference[/url]
[url=https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Game-of-Thrones-4K-The-Complete-First-Season-Blu-ray/202472/]Game of Thrones 4K: The Complete First Season
Game of Thrones: 4k blu ray vs HBO streaming?




https://www.blu-ray.com/Game-of-Thrones/34893/[/url]

 

[ultimatebob]

I'd imagine that the resolution difference between 1080p and 4K is much more noticeable once you get up to 60+ inch screens.

On a 32" screen from a 12 foot viewing distance? Not so much.

 

[dasherHampton]

I watch two different TVs on a regular basis: a 55" 4K Sony X930D and a 64" 1080p Samsung F8500 plasma. I watch them both from about 8-10 ft away.

Although the Sony was marketed as a fairly high-end TV the Samsung is so superior to the Sony in every way that they're not really comparable. I own both the BR and 4k discs of Oblivion and I've watched them back to back on both sets.

As most plasma die-hards say: you'll have to pry the F8500 from my cold dead hands.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Are you using Synergy or something to move the mouse & keyboard between screens & devices?

Yeah using Synergy right now.

Main issue with this setup though is it crashes all the time. Have to do a kill -9 to get rid of the crashed process since it does not actually terminate. Makes it very hard to write a script to automate restarting it each time as there is no way to verify if it crashed. If I'm moving the mouse a lot between the screens or accidentally use copy/paste on the side ones, it is bound to crash.

I just wish OSes would handle multi screens better then I'd just do a standard multi screen setup, but having apps, dialogs, even drop down menus opening wherever the hell they feel like it annoys me to no end. Wish stuff would stay on the screen it was opened from. Each app treats it differently too, there's no consistency. I had tried using different X sessions for each screen but even then you get stuff that opens on the wrong one sometimes. Windows and Linux are both horrible at handling this. At work it's not as much an issue since once our stuff is open, it just stays open, we're not opening and closing stuff often.

 

[purbeast0]

I'd imagine that the resolution difference between 1080p and 4K is much more noticeable once you get up to 60+ inch screens.

On a 32" screen from a 12 foot viewing distance? Not so much.

Probably. But like I said, watching a 1080p bluray (or gaming) on my 120" screen looks fantastic. I have no intention of ever upgrading to 4k projectors even when the price comes down because it looks fantastic as is, and there is hardly any 4k content anyways.

 

[ultimatebob]

I watch two different TVs on a regular basis: a 55" 4K Sony X930D and a 64" 1080p Samsung F8500 plasma. I watch them both from about 8-10 ft away.

Although the Sony was marketed as a fairly high-end TV the Samsung is so superior to the Sony in every way that they're not really comparable. I own both the BR and 4k discs of Oblivion and I've watched them back to back on both sets.

As most plasma die-hards say: you'll have to pry the F8500 from my cold dead hands.

Yeah, I like my older 50" Panasonic 1080p plasma TV. It's starting to dim a bit, though, and I need to crank up the brightness to the maximum for it the picture to look correct. Perhaps it's due for a replacement come Christmas time.

 

[snoopy7548]

I've had a 1080p 61" DLP (LED, not color wheel) for 11 years and if I upgrade it'll be to a 1080p projector, or likely a 4k pixel-shifting projector, but I'm completely happy with it and it's still going strong. I don't have any 4k content, nor do I game on new consoles, so I really don't care - 1080p is fine for me.

For a 32" TV, I wouldn't bother unless the price difference was small.

 

[Kaido]

Yeah using Synergy right now.

Main issue with this setup though is it crashes all the time. Have to do a kill -9 to get rid of the crashed process since it does not actually terminate. Makes it very hard to write a script to automate restarting it each time as there is no way to verify if it crashed. If I'm moving the mouse a lot between the screens or accidentally use copy/paste on the side ones, it is bound to crash.

I just wish OSes would handle multi screens better then I'd just do a standard multi screen setup, but having apps, dialogs, even drop down menus opening wherever the hell they feel like it annoys me to no end. Wish stuff would stay on the screen it was opened from. Each app treats it differently too, there's no consistency. I had tried using different X sessions for each screen but even then you get stuff that opens on the wrong one sometimes. Windows and Linux are both horrible at handling this. At work it's not as much an issue since once our stuff is open, it just stays open, we're not opening and closing stuff often.

Have you tried Display Fusion for Windows? It has some pretty good window management functions:

https://www.displayfusion.com/Features/WindowManagement/

 

[Red Squirrel]

Have you tried Display Fusion for Windows? It has some pretty good window management functions:

https://www.displayfusion.com/Features/WindowManagement/

I'm on Linux so anything windows only won't work. Don't want to mess with trying to emulate etc either, too much of a hassle. Ultimately I will just replace all of this setup with a single 4k. I'll probably use the other screens for display stuff that I don't really need to access often and then just VNC to it.

I had actually found a solution that used the VNC protocol, it basically did the mouse/keyboard portions only. For some reason though it was bloody slow and choppy.

I eventually want to look into what it would take to make a hardware version of synergy. Almost like a KVM but without the video portion, and with some extra configuration options and daisy chaining. You'd have to press a button to switch between monitors though so not as seamless.

 

[purbeast0]

Yeah, I like my older 50" Panasonic 1080p plasma TV. It's starting to dim a bit, though, and I need to crank up the brightness to the maximum for it the picture to look correct. Perhaps it's due for a replacement come Christmas time.

My son broke my ST50 like a month ago and I was heartbroken.

I ended up getting a Samsung and the blacks on the new TV's aren't comparable, unless you go super high end for OLED, which I wasn't doing since I really only watch TV on this TV. I watch movies, sports, and game in my HT.

The viewing angle is also not even comparable. It looks so washed out from the sides, which isn't much of an issue but still very noticeable when walking into the room

I will say though the new TV puts out WAY less heat lol, but that is expected.

 

[KentState]

Just keep in mind, most of the 4k content out there is not "real" 4k with thins such as Netflix. It's compressed to shit. Real 4k is on the 4k blurays and to my knowledge is the only source of "real" 4k, unless you are pirating or possibly downloading a true 4k version.

But streaming? Not a chance in shit you are seeing real 4k on anything claiming to stream 4k content.

I have a 120" screen I watch blurays on and they look fantastic at 1080p. I have no desire to upgrade anything I own to 4k. I just had to buy a new TV since my son broke my plasma (RIP) and 4k seems to now be a standard if you want a decent TV.

And even the UHD discs are only showing a converted version of 2k content. Yes, the studios have much better equipment to do the conversion, but video games are the only thing that truly is 4k besides a few niche offerings. The biggest thing you get is Atmos/DTS:X with most new releases and the top variances of HDR.

 

[LikeLinus]

And even the UHD discs are only showing a converted version of 2k content. Yes, the studios have much better equipment to do the conversion, but video games are the only thing that truly is 4k besides a few niche offerings. The biggest thing you get is Atmos/DTS:X with most new releases and the top variances of HDR.

That is totally not true for most UHD. They are only upscale if they were actually shot in 2k. A lot of older movies were shot on film which has resolution high enough for 4k transfers. Now most studios are using Arri, Red and other cameras that are native 4k.

Please don't spread FUD that you know nothing about.