Is there any point in 4K?

televisionuser

Active Member
Six months ago I bought a B8 LG Oled. After years of waiting I was so excited to finally get an Oled as an upgrade from my Panasonic plasma. However, despite experiencing 4K HDR, every time I switch on the plasma I'm still deeply impressed. Of course the oled wipes the floor with LCD, I really can't say the same when compared to the plasma. The plasma is only 720p and yet still the contrast and motion is so impressive. When comparing the two I cannot honestly see the point of 4K unless you have a screen bigger than 70 inches. Even digital foundry recently did a feature where they admitted that a CRT from 2002 running at 1080p looks better for gaming compared to any of the more recent technology running at 4K. I think OLED HDR is great but really to my eyes the plasma at 720p still looks fantastic.
 

zeppelino

Well-known Member
4K itself, not so much but the HDR and WCG are far more impressive than the resolution.

That's on a decent 65" TV.
Disagree re size. Hdr is not in any way linked to size, same goes for WCG. Only thing linked to size is 4K/uhd resolution.
 

Sloppy Bob

Distinguished Member
I think you misunderstood my intention, or I didn't explain myself well enough.

Even on a 65" TV the resolution bump from 1080p to 4K is barely noticeable, whereas HDR and WCG really show off the benefits of the UHD standard far more than the resolution.
And they'll do that more on a smaller screen as with the resolution bump to 4K it's even less noticeable compared to a 65".
 

swiftpete

Well-known Member
I’m running a 130 inch screen, some 1080p stuff still looks really great but good 4K hdr stuff looks awesome.
 

mtenga

Distinguished Member
I left my VT65 plasma for OLED about five years ago. Whilst HDR can most of the time elevate the PQ I watch very little of the material. The news is not in HDR, Man City - Everton was not in HDR and watching Project Blue Book last night was not in HDR. The occasional film is. So given less than 5% of my movie collection is HDR I’m not all that better off. OLED is thinner and not an energy hog though.
 

allanp

Active Member
Having just switched to a 65" OLED 4K TV I would say that the majority of the time I'm hard pushed to see the difference between 1080p and 2160p from a resolution stand point. What does make a difference though is HDR etc. The difference in colours is quite striking from the more vivid "in your face colours" to the better shadows etc.
 

howieeb

Active Member
I'm not so bothered about 4k at normal panel sizes, but HDR is nice. It's the black levels OLED bring that i'm most happy with tho. As good as plasma were, the blacks were dark grey. The phosphor lag also bothered me.
 

allanp

Active Member
A lot of what you see at the cinema is still 2K and looks perfectly fine. I think 4K is a bit of a fad (not quite the right word, but it's just not enough better than 1080p to justify the extra storage space and processing power required to show it).
 

televisionuser

Active Member
Recently I noticed Samsung advertising their new 8K TVs? I mean is this a complete joke? I can understand higher resolutions for computer monitors but I just cannot understand the point of an 8K TV. The big sticking point with the latest technology seems to be motion resolution and surely that's where they should be trying to improve new tech. I mean how is it possible that at the end of the year 2019 an old quality CRT or plasma can still handle motion better than most of the latest tech? My B8 LG OLED has 120hz but to me it's absolutely useless without black frame insertion. I just feel that TV's are becoming large digital photo frames to show off static images rather than focusing on what they are meant for which is smooth fluid looking video.
 

allanp

Active Member
I would rather high bitrates at 1080p than ever increasing resolution. Take the BBC for example. I would much rather see 20mbit/sec 1080p than 4k.
 

zeppelino

Well-known Member
Recently I noticed Samsung advertising their new 8K TVs? I mean is this a complete joke? I can understand higher resolutions for computer monitors but I just cannot understand the point of an 8K TV. The big sticking point with the latest technology seems to be motion resolution and surely that's where they should be trying to improve new tech. I mean how is it possible that at the end of the year 2019 an old quality CRT or plasma can still handle motion better than most of the latest tech? My B8 LG OLED has 120hz but to me it's absolutely useless without black frame insertion. I just feel that TV's are becoming large digital photo frames to show off static images rather than focusing on what they are meant for which is smooth fluid looking video.
For £30k LG will provide you with an 88” 8K oled.
 

televisionuser

Active Member
I would rather high bitrates at 1080p than ever increasing resolution. Take the BBC for example. I would much rather see 20mbit/sec 1080p than 4k.
Exactly. I watched Wimbledon 4K on iplayer and while impressive the high compression algorithm makes the image look rather static.
I can imagine at some point in the future we'll have 4K broadcasts with ridiculously high compression just so that they can say it's 4K.
 

Ragnarok

Active Member
I still quite enjoy watching the football in 4k, but it's not a huge difference between top notch HD and 4k.

If anything the 4k production in recent years has improved HD pictures dramatically.
 

Over by there

Well-known Member
Size is not an issue for me (snigger). 55" and I can see 4k just fine at my viewing distance. I prefer Apple over Netflix as a source and the BBC do a very good rate up around 30mb/s I believe? It is a superb feed when they deliver one. Compression done well can deliver.

4k rugby on BT is superb. I consider HDR etc. an add on but not essential, I like the detail 4k brings.

Source is very important though.glass to glass it is superb.
 

marc5701

Active Member
I believe well mastered 1080p still looks amazing and there's no need for 4k HDR which uses more power anyway. I watched Trumbo yesterday on my LG55E7 upscaled from BBC 2 HD and it was a beautiful print. The only issues I have are blockiness from compression and posterization in the sky and on walls. I think better quality broadcast in 1080p is all that is needed. Blu ray is good enough for me and I won't be upgrading to Ultra HD.
 

allanp

Active Member
Likewise, as nice as HDR is a well compressed bluray still looks amazing to me. If I could "upgrade" all of my blurays to 4k for a tiny amount, say £1 per disc then I would but there's no way I'm buying 4K versions of all of my blurays unless they're under a fiver a disc.
 

martinthorn1

Active Member
"When comparing the two I cannot honestly see the point of 4K unless you have a screen bigger than 70 inches "

I'd only agree with this statement if you have a 70" screen AND were sitting closer than 2 metres from the screen AND you had perfect vision. Otherwise there's still little point to 4K as we're limited by our eyes' pupils. With a projector there may be some sense to having 4k.

As others have said, fullHD with higher bitrate (lower compression) would be preferable to me than 4K with higher compression. Higher bitrates will improve 'busy' moving scenes that have lots of detail.

I'll not comment too much on the CRT article.. there are so many disadvantages to CRT technology now (flicker, alignment, weight, power, resolution, trinitron alignment wires, 4:3, light reflections etc. etc.) with only motion being a possible small advantage - but not over plasma..

"but really to my eyes the plasma at 720p still looks fantastic "

I went from a 43" 720p plasma to a 55" OLED. The OLED is better in all respects - in theory the motion response is worse but I don't notice it.
 

Venomx999

Active Member
43" no, 55" no, 65" yes.

Think the bigger the better ( in my experience )
 

Over by there

Well-known Member
I think the viewers eyes also play a big part. 55 is fine for me, though I should have gone 65. Next one, who knows.

edit. usual caveat that it is a comfortable viewing distance.
 

aoaaron

Well-known Member
In tv and films I barely notice resolution at all.

In gaming I do a lot though.
 

martinthorn1

Active Member
I think the viewers eyes also play a big part.
I should hope so given that's how we see :)

It's possible to work it out almost scientifically making assumptions about pupil size (diffraction limiting of angular resolution), visual acuity (e g. 20/20) and lit pixel size(vs. area of pixel not lit).

I have a spreadsheet with these parameters that reckons 4k is pointless for a 55" unless for example sitting about 1m away gaming..
 

aoaaron

Well-known Member
I should hope so given that's how we see :)

It's possible to work it out almost scientifically making assumptions about pupil size (diffraction limiting of angular resolution), visual acuity (e g. 20/20) and lit pixel size(vs. area of pixel not lit).

I have a spreadsheet with these parameters that reckons 4k is pointless for a 55" unless for example sitting about 1m away gaming..
I would strongly disagree. As a pc gamer, I’m able to easily distinguish between 1080p and 4k easily. Like it’s night and day and I wish it wasn’t.
 

martinthorn1

Active Member
I would strongly disagree. As a pc gamer, I’m able to easily distinguish between 1080p and 4k easily. Like it’s night and day and I wish it wasn’t.
How close do you sit.. I know when I play a game I sit a lot closer (cross-legged right in front of the 55" OLED!) than when sitting on the sofa watching a film. If this is the same for you I completely understand if you are able tell the difference between 1080p upscaled and 4k.
 
Last edited:

Over by there

Well-known Member
I should hope so given that's how we see :)

It's possible to work it out almost scientifically making assumptions about pupil size (diffraction limiting of angular resolution), visual acuity (e g. 20/20) and lit pixel size(vs. area of pixel not lit).

I have a spreadsheet with these parameters that reckons 4k is pointless for a 55" unless for example sitting about 1m away gaming..
I have seen the guides that tell me what I can and cannot see then I let my peepers take over and they tell the guides they are in the right area, but not bang on and can be wrong. My eyes I trust.

Interestingly sometimes you need to point out to people what they are looking for. I go for detail that the pixels can form and how well I discern those details, it is what I am keyed in for. Others just want to watch a film and don't care if it is SD or PAL or whatever. They are not looking for it.

Seen some cracking 4k on smaller monitors and larger distance than I sit with my 55. The brain is also part of the eye and that is often forgotten.
 

aoaaron

Well-known Member
How close do you sit.. I know when I play a game I sit a lot closer (cross-legged right in front of the 55" OLED!) than when sitting on the sofa watching a film. If this is the same for you I completely understand if you are able tell the difference between 1080p upscaled and 4k.
Monitor and 3m away from a 65 inch tv
 

martinthorn1

Active Member
Monitor and 3m away from a 65 inch tv
Bigger screen. So many factors to consider: could be for example your TV is great at 4k native, but less good at upscaling 1080p to 4k making it more obviously worse. Could be you have better than 20/20 vision (with/without glasses). Could even be my pupil diffraction limit + visual acuity spreadsheet is slightly wrong :)
 

martinthorn1

Active Member
I have seen the guides that tell me what I can and cannot see then I let my peepers take over and they tell the guides they are in the right area, but not bang on and can be wrong. My eyes I trust.

Interestingly sometimes you need to point out to people what they are looking for. I go for detail that the pixels can form and how well I discern those details, it is what I am keyed in for. Others just want to watch a film and don't care if it is SD or PAL or whatever. They are not looking for it.

Seen some cracking 4k on smaller monitors and larger distance than I sit with my 55. The brain is also part of the eye and that is often forgotten.
Fair enough, if your eyes are happy with the picture then that's the test that really matters! So many factors involved that the guides about viewing distance vs. resolution are exactly that, guides not hard and fast rules!
 

aoaaron

Well-known Member
Bigger screen. So many factors to consider: could be for example your TV is great at 4k native, but less good at upscaling 1080p to 4k making it more obviously worse. Could be you have better than 20/20 vision (with/without glasses). Could even be my pupil diffraction limit + visual acuity spreadsheet is slightly wrong :)
Hahaha somehow I think the spreadsheet might be a bit off.. and the 1080p scaler isn’t the greatest !
 

Over by there

Well-known Member
Fair enough, if your eyes are happy with the picture then that's the test that really matters! So many factors involved that the guides about viewing distance vs. resolution are exactly that, guides not hard and fast rules!
Ultimately the viewer is to decide. After seeing 8k demo, I am waiting to see which direction that will eventually go (not no obviously but in a few years).
 

Trending threads

Latest news

Netflix reveals how viewing metrics determines a show's success
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Discovery launches dplay AVOD service in UK and Ireland
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Cyrus announces ONE Cast Smart Audio System
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Chord Electronics debuts ULTIMA 3 power amp at UK Hi-Fi Show Live
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Virgin Media unleashes Gig1 home broadband in Manchester
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom