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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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!).
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
Comments
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.
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
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
@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
“Don’t be silly man, whatever makes you think that?”
‘Well, my thumbnails have gone all black.....”
I was just being flippant really, hence the winky smiley (which served a double purpose on this occasion!).
Hence my light-hearted choice of viewer in the experiment
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
Doesn’t work on 3D TVs, alas
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.
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.
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.
I fail to see where your "stereoscopic pairs" comes into this discussion. I thought we were talking about focussing on a 2D image.
Hence, crossing your eyes, a topic you raised, is only applicable to stereoscopic pairs (and the finger sausage thing of course).