4K: What's the attraction?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

KentState

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2001
8,397
393
126
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.

Been multiple articles and videos lately saying the exact opposite of your claims. Yes, studios are using 4k equipment but that's not how they are mastered. Please share the wealth of native 4k releases with us since you seem to be an "expert".
 

LikeLinus

Lifer
Jul 25, 2001
11,518
670
126
Been multiple articles and videos lately saying the exact opposite of your claims. Yes, studios are using 4k equipment but that's not how they are mastered. Please share the wealth of native 4k releases with us since you seem to be an "expert".

https://digiraw.com/4K-UHD-ripping-service/the-real-or-fake-4K-list/

Change the list to show 1000 results and take a look. You will see many, many titles in real 4k. Some studios do choose to upscale from 2k to 4k, even if they are natively shot in 4k or 8k, but the upscaled 2k is still better than 1080p. Claiming nothing is released in real 4k is completely false.

I work in editing and video production.
 
  • Like
Reactions: esquared

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,316
10,814
136
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.


Yeah those old Plasma's really were great.... too bad you they're so hard to come by these days. I had a 42 inch (?) Panasonic plasma that was given to me in my bedroom for a long time. Was able to extend its useful life since I only watched in the dark that way. Sadly it just wasn't bright enough for normal-light level viewing and eventually was even tough to see in dark scenes with all the lights off!


EDIT: And on-topic ... all else being equal a 4k panel looks better then a 1080p/HD panel BUT a top-quality HD panel vs a cheapo 4k the reverse will be true. Resolution is a long way from everything!

I'm sure my next TV will be 4k or higher if it lasts long enough but at the moment I feel zero need for an upgrade.
 
Last edited:

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,745
4,563
136
I'm a PC gamer and I game from the couch on a 65" 4k tv. I can assure you the difference is immediete when I switch resolutions from upscaled 1080p to 4k. Even with all other settings on Ultra.
 

rh71

No Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
52,844
1,049
126
Still waiting for the content. They told me I can swap my set-top boxes to the ones that do 4K for free and I still won't bother (have 4k tvs) since the content is not there.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
You want to see each pube in the porno. Otherwise it's not real enough to be immersive.

/s
 

SKORPI0

Lifer
Jan 18, 2000
18,429
2,357
136
Still waiting for the content. They told me I can swap my set-top boxes to the ones that do 4K for free and I still won't bother (have 4k tvs) since the content is not there.
Are you talking about cable boxes that can stream 4k content? Just a few... namely fifa 2018 men's world cup and 2019 women's world cup where shown via comcast with a compatible samsung/LG 4k uhdtv. Hopefully the 2020 Olympics.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
 

BarkingGhostar

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2009
8,409
1,617
136
I always wondered why people so quickly bought into the 4K game when most often than not those consumers weren't sitting at the sweet spot in the first place to see the resolution they paid for when they got their 1080P displays, and now think they'll be able to see the 4K resolution by not sitting any closer. And while I can agree that you can dither color with four times as many pixels for a given pixel of source information, ask anyone why they are buying 4K and how they plan on benefiting from it beyond the bragging rights (and keeping up with the Joneses).

FWIW, ask yourself this: Where did the original ATSC specification of 1080P/i come from. Think human physiology.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,702
136
Bought three 43" 4K TCL Roku's ~6 months ago. One serves as a TV/monitor and I have a 4K player in box, ready to set up with it. Another serves as a TV/movie screen.

As a monitor, it's pretty cool. Have browser windows less than maximized. Can proportion/size them any way I please. Text is sharp.

As a TV, pretty fantastic. Especially like the support for time shifting. It's not full featured, can't save stuff, but have FF/REW up to 90 minutes using a 16GB flash drive in the USB port. Change channels and it wipes the drive, though.

Honestly, I feel that even BR is usually no big improvement over DVD. The last big resolution improvement was DVD over VHS/SVHS. That was huge.

I have a few 4K discs. I figure to stream "4K" when fiber finally gets here. At least I won't get stuttering video... I HOPE!

$89 for a 43" TCL 4K Roku (expired at Amazon) would be phenomenal! Set your CamelCamelCamel for that one! I paid over $200 at Costco for mine!

Edit: Before buying 4K I took a close look at several of the 4K displays at Costco. You have to be pretty close to them to appreciate the resolution. A lot closer than most people sit when watching their displays, in my experience. Otherwise, I doubt it will look better than 1080P. The color depth: Well, I'm partially color blind and it is probably lost on me, the improvement afforded by 4K in that domain. Res, I get!
 
Last edited:

FeuerFrei

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2005
9,144
929
126
2560x1440 at 60 fps is amazingly real.
Gazing into my monitor, it feels I am like there in the scene looking out a window an arm's length away.
That's displayed at 100% on a 32" monitor with the given resolution - featuring something like 92-96 dot pitch.

I recently upgraded to that monitor from a 23" panel. Didn't get any more image detail due to the new monitor having the same dot pitch as the old -- but, I did add a few inches of room to display on all sides ... so it's more immersive.
 

snoopy7548

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2005
8,126
5,151
146
I always wondered why people so quickly bought into the 4K game when most often than not those consumers weren't sitting at the sweet spot in the first place to see the resolution they paid for when they got their 1080P displays, and now think they'll be able to see the 4K resolution by not sitting any closer. And while I can agree that you can dither color with four times as many pixels for a given pixel of source information, ask anyone why they are buying 4K and how they plan on benefiting from it beyond the bragging rights (and keeping up with the Joneses).

FWIW, ask yourself this: Where did the original ATSC specification of 1080P/i come from. Think human physiology.

I think that's pretty much it for 99% of cases. Everyone buys a 50" 4K TV, hangs it above their fireplace, and puts the couch 14' back.

8K is already here... :p
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
One side benefit is that there have been a number of UHD Blu-ray releases of older movies where the movie has been remastered from its source. My rule is that I normally check sites like HD Digest to see if the UHD Blu-ray release is worth it, which was required during the earlier days of Blu-ray and HD-DVD as well. For example, I recall passing on Law Abiding Citizen on UHD due to a poor score.

For my setup, I use a Sony 930e, which has really good stats for a non-OLED TV. My "watch room" isn't all that huge, so I don't really need a projector or anything like that. So, at this point, the TV works just fine for me. Although, I wouldn't mind going up to a 75" instead. Maybe that'll be in the works when OLED burn-in isn't an issue, or Sony stops using Android TV with low-powered SoCs. I also use a sound system, which I haven't been able to add the speakers to support Atmos just yet, but it's a planned upgrade. So, right now I'm still just 5.2, but I'll hopefully be 5.2.4 in the future.
 

BarkingGhostar

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2009
8,409
1,617
136
In developing the ATSC specification that looked at the resolving limits of the human retina to see how many line-pairs could be effectively resolved. It was determine 1100 line-pairs. That is a pair of lines, one of which has information and the other line a blanking in order for the brain to determine one line of information from the next. These are horizontal lines as the human eye is more sensitive to very resolution than horizontal resolution and why early HD capture using anamorphic 1440 x 1080 resolution.

And then there is the sweet spot, the location from the screen in which you resolve 100% of the image's resolution without seeing pixel (or lines). Simple geometry will tell you that if a constant of your vision (corrected or otherwise perfect 20/20) then you are going to need to sit twice as close for 4K unless you are going to continue to only benefit by bragging rights. But why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

SKORPI0

Lifer
Jan 18, 2000
18,429
2,357
136
8K is already here... :p

Saw a 8K QLED Samsung at Best Buy. Amazing depth and detail on the videos they were showing as expected. I just wonder how a 720p video upscaled to 8K would look like. o_O
I'll get a 65" 8K when the prices go < $2000. Of course pointless for some people here since they can't see the difference between 1080p and 4K on their big screen, so why even bother with 8K? ;)

This July 2012 article says 8K good enough for a large screen (30'-70') at the correct viewing distance.
https://wolfcrow.com/notes-by-dr-optoglass-the-resolution-of-the-human-eye/
 
Last edited:

killster1

Banned
Mar 15, 2007
6,205
475
126
Saw a 8K QLED Samsung at Best Buy. Amazing depth and detail on the videos they were showing as expected. I just wonder how a 720p video upscaled to 8K would look like. o_O
I'll get a 65" 8K when the prices go < $2000. Of course pointless for some people here since they can't see the difference between 1080p and 4K on their big screen, so why even bother with 8K? ;)


OK the issue with 4k is the cables right now.. cant even do 120fps with 4k @ 4:4:4. hdmi2.1 graphics cards will solve that but when do they come out!? I love my nu8000 65" 4k monitors i use hehe, everything looks great. usually view 30-80gb uhd h265 movies.
 

killster1

Banned
Mar 15, 2007
6,205
475
126
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.

samsung. 6 series? 7 series? 8 series?
 

LikeLinus

Lifer
Jul 25, 2001
11,518
670
126
OK the issue with 4k is the cables right now.. cant even do 120fps with 4k @ 4:4:4. hdmi2.1 graphics cards will solve that but when do they come out!? I love my nu8000 65" 4k monitors i use hehe, everything looks great. usually view 30-80gb uhd h265 movies.

How are cables the issue?

https://www.amazon.com/Cable-Matters-48Gbps-Ultra-Support/dp/B07MZ9BB3P

Video Resolution up to 8K @ 120fps
  • 8K - 7680x4320, 10-bit color, RGB 4:4:4, HDR
You can get many cables that support those specs you mentioned.
 

killster1

Banned
Mar 15, 2007
6,205
475
126
Last years 8 series model. Got a killer deal on a floor model from Best Buy.
yea i have purchased 2 to hold me off till hdmi2.1 cards are out. i grabbed open box's off ebay for less than 700 each i was impressed with your deal i think i saw in the movie recommend thread now that i think of it.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
53,024
5,905
126
yea i have purchased 2 to hold me off till hdmi2.1 cards are out. i grabbed open box's off ebay for less than 700 each i was impressed with your deal i think i saw in the movie recommend thread now that i think of it.
Yeah it was $675 out the door. This years models are like $1050 "on sale" but that is their regular price from what I saw. After I researched both too, it seems that last years model is actually slightly better. I just noticed the one I got when I first walked in though, it had the best picture IMO of the non OLED 65" TVs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: killster1

LikeLinus

Lifer
Jul 25, 2001
11,518
670
126
OK and plug the cable to what graphics card smart guy?

its laughable how many cables claim to perform 8k@120fps but many do not.

LOL, you are completely inept. You said cables were the issue. I was just pointing out your stupid comment.
 

killster1

Banned
Mar 15, 2007
6,205
475
126
LOL, you are completely inept. You said cables were the issue. I was just pointing out your stupid comment.

yea the cables currently on the cards dont work! and 8k cables rarely work at the spec as you think.. i guess you just dont have much knowledge of 8k@120 do you. You do sure like me.. just had to reply my comment hahahahaha.
 

LikeLinus

Lifer
Jul 25, 2001
11,518
670
126
yea the cables currently on the cards dont work! and 8k cables rarely work at the spec as you think.. i guess you just dont have much knowledge of 8k@120 do you. You do sure like me.. just had to reply my comment hahahahaha.

Your comment makes no sense. You say there isn't currently a way to use cables that are rated at 8k. But you then go on to say that they rarely work? lol Honestly, I didn't even notice your name when I replied. It was just a silly comment and has nothing to do with the actual topic. No one is producing content at those resolutions and color depth for consumers.

But to answer your question, we don't use HDMI for 8k content. We use DP 1.4 with Quadro cards for production.

LOL, giving the down votes again. Didn't you just get 2 weeks vacation for that? Quit acting like a child.