4k

GoodbyeGoodbye Time out Posts: 336
Roy.
Is it true that to get the benefit of 4k TV it has to be viewed on a 50" screen at least, anything smaller and you won't notice any difference between it and HD. 

Comments

  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,002 ✭✭✭
    Goodbye said:
    Roy.
    Is it true that to get the benefit of 4k TV it has to be viewed on a 50" screen at least, anything smaller and you won't notice any difference between it and HD. 
    No. Sony do 4K YouView Sets with 43in and 49in screens, and they must think them worthwhile.

    And indeed, if you sit 9 feet from a 55in 4K screen, as we do, then a 49in 4K screen at 8 feet, or a 43in 4K screen at 7 feet, would subtend exactly the same angle at the eye for the identical viewing experience.

    The only question then to be resolved is whether, at these distances, you can tell 4K from HD. And using my reference Planet Earth II UHD Blu-ray, which also comes with the same material on HD Blu-Ray, the answer is, unquestionably, yes.
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • alal Member, Super User Posts: 1,333 ✭✭✭
    There's more to 4k than the resolution; the colours, the contrast, framerate etc. It also annoys many people by showing the extent of grainy film that wasn't resolved in lower definition. It all depends on the source which can vary immensely which is a shame. I have seen a few proper 8k demos on a 75" screen and they have been outstanding but as we are on a youview forum we shouldn't really expect anything more than SD.
  • GoodbyeGoodbye Time out Posts: 336
    That will come as a bitter blow for all those in possession of the T4000 box. 
  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,002 ✭✭✭
    Goodbye said:
    That will come as a bitter blow for all those in possession of the T4000 box. 
    @Goodbye @al

    It would come as a bitter blow for those in possession of any YouView box, given that we have been promised they would all do HD  :p 
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • skillerskiller Member Posts: 297 ✭✭
    Roy said:

    And indeed, if you sit 9 feet from a 55in 4K screen, as we do, then a 49in 4K screen at 8 feet, or a 43in 4K screen at 7 feet, would subtend exactly the same angle at the eye for the identical viewing experience.
    Not identical at all - unless you actually did only have the one eye. ;)
  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,002 ✭✭✭
    edited 6 May 2019, 7:57AM
    skiller said:
    Roy said:

    And indeed, if you sit 9 feet from a 55in 4K screen, as we do, then a 49in 4K screen at 8 feet, or a 43in 4K screen at 7 feet, would subtend exactly the same angle at the eye for the identical viewing experience.
    Not identical at all - unless you actually did only have the one eye. ;)
    Entirely identical, unless your brain refuses to fuse the image from each eye into a single perception   B)

    The effect that any person has a fixed IPD, or an IPD at all, is vanishing small at these distances. It’s true that for 3D, you would need to configure each set for its individual screen size to get the same 3D viewing experience on each, but you would do that anyway, wouldn’t you?

    And you might be thinking parallax effect, but line up some such TVs and try it; it’s infinitesimal.

    But let’s not split hairs; try it again, with the three TVs positioned, still at the same distances, but moved in an arc so they don’t overlap, and Father Dougal in a swivel chair so Father Ted can rotate him to still be at 90 degrees to each one in turn.

    He would see exactly the same sized cow, made up of pixels perceived as of exactly the same size, on each   o:)

    @al

    Yes, there are lots of things that make UHD difficult to compare with HD, of which colour gamut and HDR are two. Indeed, it has been argued that HDR is more of a differentiator for UHD than resolution is. Fortunately, it is possible to use good quality Netflix material on a YouView T4000 box to make such a comparison without the distractions of HDR  >:)
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • VisionmanVisionman Member, Super User Posts: 10,170 ✭✭✭
    I just like watching a bit of telly.  :)
    I'm now happy with the disagree icon, because its gone.
  • GoodbyeGoodbye Time out Posts: 336
    Me and the wife watched 3 dvds back to back last night, luckily I was the one facing the telly. 
  • VisionmanVisionman Member, Super User Posts: 10,170 ✭✭✭
    Oh no. My comment wasn't a joke but thankfully neither was yours.  :D
    I'm now happy with the disagree icon, because its gone.
  • GoodbyeGoodbye Time out Posts: 336
    Two TV antennas got married, the wedding was ok but the reception was terrible 
  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,002 ✭✭✭
    edited 6 May 2019, 7:57AM
    “Doctor, doctor, I think I’m turning into a YouView box”

    “Don’t be silly man, whatever makes you think that?”

    ‘Well, my thumbnails have gone all black.....”
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • skillerskiller Member Posts: 297 ✭✭
    Roy said:

    But let’s not split hairs; try it again, with the three TVs positioned, still at the same distances, but moved in an arc so they don’t overlap, and Father Dougal in a swivel chair so Father Ted can rotate him to still be at 90 degrees to each one in turn.

    He would see exactly the same sized cow, made up of pixels perceived as of exactly the same size, on each   o:)
    Yes, I knew what you were trying to say and I agree to an extent, but when Dougal looks at the pixels on the smaller, closer cow, his eyeballs would be more crossed - and, when taken to the extreme, a very small, very close cow would cause quite a bit of pain.

    I was just being flippant really, hence the winky smiley (which served a double purpose on this occasion!).
  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,002 ✭✭✭
    edited 6 May 2019, 7:59AM
    @skiller

    Hence my light-hearted choice of viewer in the experiment  :D

    But crossing your eyes doesn’t hurt. I am one of those people who can look at stereoscopic pairs without equipment, simply by crossing my eyes.

    Here’s one to try  :p



    Doesn’t work on 3D TVs, alas B)  
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • Jeffuk1Jeffuk1 Member Posts: 53
    I think several issues seem to have conflated and might therefore mislead.  New Sony 4K TV's - apart from offering 4K from 4k sources and a Youview GIU also do an excellent job at upscaling HD broadcast content and the output from Youview STB boxes.  Owners of older TV's will therefore likely be suprised at how much better non-4k content is.
  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,002 ✭✭✭
    Jeffuk1 said:
    I think several issues seem to have conflated and might therefore mislead.  New Sony 4K TV's - apart from offering 4K from 4k sources and a Youview GIU also do an excellent job at upscaling HD broadcast content and the output from Youview STB boxes.  Owners of older TV's will therefore likely be surprised at how much better non-4k content is.
    Thanks @Jeffuk1

    You have reminded me that when I said:-

    The only question then to be resolved is whether, at these distances, you can tell 4K from HD. And using my reference Planet Earth II UHD Blu-ray, which also comes with the same material on HD Blu-Ray, the answer is, unquestionably, yes.

    I was of course not really watching HD, but watching HD upscaled to 4K, with  three out of every four pixels invented by the TV.

    But that is arguably suggesting that real 4K is visibly better not just than HD, but than 4K upscaled from HD.

    I wish 4K sets had an extra option where they would upscale HD not by interpolation, but by replicating each pixel four times. Then we could do a real 4K versus HD comparison.
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • Jeffuk1Jeffuk1 Member Posts: 53
    Hi Roy,

    I upgraded my 42" Pio to a 65" Sony AF9 which has been calibrated.  Our viewing distance at around 10 feet'ish remains the same. Our only 4K sources are streaming.  Although 4K was a big leap - what really I hadn't expected was how well the new tech with decent chips in them upscale.  That was a shock.  And of course at my viewing distance it gives a "4K impression" of HD. I think many peeople that are considering upgrading from old tech possibly underestimate what a leap it is.

  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,002 ✭✭✭
    Hi @Jeffuk1

    I’ve seen a lot of 4K streaming, and often had to press Info to convince myself that I really was watching 4K.

    Nothing seems to compare with a UHD BluRay, and with players starting at £109 for a Panny - though I would go for the Sony X500 at £139 if buying today - you owe it to yourself to watch something like Planet Earth II on your 65in screen, and see it truly done justice.
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • Jeffuk1Jeffuk1 Member Posts: 53
    I think my barrier (all in the mind) is that I never watch anything twice so being stingey, paying for BluRays cuts against the grain.  :(
  • skillerskiller Member Posts: 297 ✭✭
    Roy said:
    @skiller
    But crossing your eyes doesn’t hurt.
    How on Earth do you think you know that to be true, when it isn't?
  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,002 ✭✭✭
    skiller said:
    Roy said:
    @skiller
    But crossing your eyes doesn’t hurt.
    How on Earth do you think you know that to be true, when it isn't?
    Sorry - yes, it may well not be true for you.

    So I will rephrase it as crossing my eyes doesn’t hurt for me.

    As to the rest of the human race, we can only speculate, or start a straw poll, perhaps.

    But it seems unlikely to me that the descriptions of crossing your eyes to see stereoscopic pairs would gain much currency if this was painful for the majority of people.

    However, it’s also worth noting that even for the closest of immersive stereoscopic experiences - like my Oculus Go VR headset, where the screen distance from the eyes is measured in millimetres - you don’t actually have to cross your eyes.
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • GoodbyeGoodbye Time out Posts: 336
    You're both totally wrong' even I know you cross your T's and dot your I's
  • skillerskiller Member Posts: 297 ✭✭
    Roy said:
    Sorry - yes, it may well not be true for you

    So I will rephrase it as crossing my eyes doesn’t hurt for me.

    As to the rest of the human race, we can only speculate, or start a straw poll, perhaps.

    But it seems unlikely to me that the descriptions of crossing your eyes to see stereoscopic pairs would gain much currency if this was painful for the majority of people.

    However, it’s also worth noting that even for the closest of immersive stereoscopic experiences - like my Oculus Go VR headset, where the screen distance from the eyes is measured in millimetres - you don’t actually have to cross your eyes.
    Hmm... I genuinely thought crossing one's eyes is as painful to others as it is to me. Not excruciating pain, but the sort likened to a mild headache. The more cross-eyed, the more painful it gets.

    I fail to see where your "stereoscopic pairs" comes into this discussion. I thought we were talking about focussing on a 2D image.


  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,002 ✭✭✭
    skiller said:
    Roy said:
    Sorry - yes, it may well not be true for you

    So I will rephrase it as crossing my eyes doesn’t hurt for me.

    As to the rest of the human race, we can only speculate, or start a straw poll, perhaps.

    But it seems unlikely to me that the descriptions of crossing your eyes to see stereoscopic pairs would gain much currency if this was painful for the majority of people.

    However, it’s also worth noting that even for the closest of immersive stereoscopic experiences - like my Oculus Go VR headset, where the screen distance from the eyes is measured in millimetres - you don’t actually have to cross your eyes.
    Hmm... I genuinely thought crossing one's eyes is as painful to others as it is to me. Not excruciating pain, but the sort likened to a mild headache. The more cross-eyed, the more painful it gets.

    I fail to see where your "stereoscopic pairs" comes into this discussion. I thought we were talking about focussing on a 2D image.


    Even for the closest 2D image, or even 3D VR, you never have to cross your eyes.

    Hence, crossing your eyes, a topic you raised, is only applicable to stereoscopic pairs (and the finger sausage thing of course).
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
Sign In or Register to comment.