• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Breaking Bad in 4k

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
poofyhairguy said:
But if you want to watch content with fast-paced action, flaws inherent in LCD technology create a situation where the motion resolution is much much lower than 4k unless you enable interpolation which can creates the soap opera effects and artifacts.
Click to expand...

In fast-moving scenes, you can't see much anyway.
 
I went to Frys electronics with a friend and we were looking at the TVs. I showed him the 4K display and compared it with the HD display. I instantly noticed the difference between the two displays but he could not at all. I'm excited for a 4K display as that increases the potential uses for the display like as a computer monitor and for the increase in picture quality.
 
artvscommerce said:
Many people said the exact same thing when HD was a new thing... just sayin!
Click to expand...

Not really- there was gigantic jump from a VCR's 240i output to a DVD's 480i, and another huge jump from 480i to 720p/1080i. After that things started getting questionable, which is why I believe Blu-ray never took off the way DVDs did. When you get above 720p, you begin needed larger TV's to see the difference, and 46+" TV's are just now getting below $500.

1080p is about as realistic as the average person would want, and I don't see gigantic 90" TV's being affordable or practical in the next 5 years to make people scramble for 4K sets.

resolution_chart.jpg
 
Last edited:
purbeast0 said:
i can't stand watching shit in 240hz. that was the first feature i turned off on my tv when i got it. my brother got a new tv and he thought that is just how they were, but i showed him how to turn it off and he was so happy that he wasn't stuck in that mode.

i don't want my shows/movies to look like i'm watching a play on a set. i want it to look like a show/movie.
Click to expand...

yeah, it's ghastly. everyone moves so weird. It actually bothers me that some people don't seem to notice it.
 
Use wifi not data.

What would be the point of watching 4k content on a phone anyway? :awe: Heck most TVs arn't even 4k these days. I think they should concentrate on getting everything at HD, and a freaking standard aspect ratio so we can get rid of black bars once and for all. Once that's done, then maybe look at 4k.

To me the biggest thing is aspect ratio. TV broadcasters/manufacturers, show/movie makers etc really need to get together and agree on a once and for all standard aspect ratio, and stick with it. Just that alone would be a huge improvement.
 
Red Squirrel said:
To me the biggest thing is aspect ratio. TV broadcasters/manufacturers, show/movie makers etc really need to get together and agree on a once and for all standard aspect ratio, and stick with it. Just that alone would be a huge improvement.
Click to expand...

There are standards on that front. Most modern TV shows are 16:9, while most modern movies are 21:9.

The reason they have to be different from each other is target platform- a HDTV has different dimensions than a movie theater screen.

Most movies and TV also have a standard framerate (24fps). Most of this stuff is standardized to the point of stagnation.
 
The whole widescreen thing was just a gimmick from the 50s/60s to differentiate TV from Cinema... Seriously it makes sense why movies used to be 4:3 what with how the film negatives are made. Look at the film negatives and you'll see they just cropped the top and bottoms of the film.
 
regardless of why they went to a different AR, a wider AR is more natural for us to watch compared to 4x3 (wider is easier/more enveloping to watch than taller)
 
tortillasoup said:
The whole widescreen thing was just a gimmick from the 50s/60s to differentiate TV from Cinema... Seriously it makes sense why movies used to be 4:3 what with how the film negatives are made. Look at the film negatives and you'll see they just cropped the top and bottoms of the film.
Click to expand...
Or they just use anamorphic lenses. 🙂
 
first i have heard of this 4K stuff

** just read up on it, so whts the point in offering it when very few people have ultra HD TV's?
 
Last edited:
OutHouse said:
first i have heard of this 4K stuff

** just read up on it, so whts the point in offering it when very few people have ultra HD TV's?
Click to expand...

marketing

pretty powerful tool to be able to boast that you can supply people the "next gen" content when the gold standard BluRay cannot, it won't matter even if the image quality isn't any better (if not worse) due to compression, because hay, it haz moar pixuls!!!
 
qliveur said:
It's just planned obsolescence at its best.

A 4k projector would look awesome, though.
Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking. Higher resolution only really means you can be closer to it, and see more detail rather than pixels. The problem comes in that unless you have a very large screen, 4k for normal viewing (not PC related) becomes less dramatic. Its selling point will probably be projectors in the long run. More and more people are moving to them, and 1080p while nice at 100-120" WILL look better in 4k. I think if the theaters move to 4k that will give them a small boost for awhile...assuming they survive long enough to see it happen.

There is no harm in moving forward, but I see it being a pretty slow adoption with all the other hurdles involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top