Ultra HD 4K

MikePJB · 30-11-2015, 19:14

Hey guys I just had some questions.

I bought a new Sony Ultra HD 4K the other day. I know there isn't much 4K content out there, but for what there is on Youtube it looks amazing on my TV.

What I more wanted to know about was the Ultra HD part. On Sky the HD channels look really good, so much better than on my standard HD TV before it, but I just wondered, is it normal that the standard non HD channels don't look great / maybe worse than before? I'm basing this on the music channels on Sky. I mean I'm not expecting them to look as good, but I noticed a bit of blurryness in one of the music videos I was watching when someone was moving about in one part. Wasn't all the time, just maybe every now and then.

Also, may seem like silly question, but would stuff shot in HD, say this year, look better than stuff shot say 4-5 years ago? I was watching a music video on MTV HD of a song that came out about 4 years ago and it looked good, but then the next song was one that was released a about a week ago and the picture looked comparable to the 4K content I'd seen. Such a difference, I though maybe because it was newer it looked better?

I just wondered because I don't want to be blaming the TV for something when it may have been the cameras used at the time and how it was shot etc. Just a little paranoid as I spent £649 on it and want to make sure there's no problems with it.

anthony david · 30-11-2015, 19:57

How big is your screen and how far are you sitting from it?

technologist · 30-11-2015, 20:10

A lot of high end material is shot using camera with greater than HD resolution .... And thus has no high spatial frequency roll off like those with just 1920 by 1080 sensors.
( that is why SD got better once HD became the norm)!
If you saw the BBC Attenborough "the hunt" you will see what I mean,

You might like to read Katy Nolands paper http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper287
On how far away people view to .. And why SD looks dreadful on greater than 55" screens.

But seeing something in HDR see http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper309
And the full BT 2020 colour gamut is a lot better than just more 8 bit pixels ...

Those working in film and tv may like this SMPTE meeting

MikePJB · 30-11-2015, 20:11

It's 43 inches and I'm about 3 meters away from it.

The horror channel on Sky I feel is a really poor quality channel. Films made this year look like they were filmed 15 years ago. I guess with a channel like that no matter if you have ultra hd the channel will still look crap.

technologist · 30-11-2015, 20:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikePJB

It's 43 inches and I'm about 3 meters away from it.

The horror channel on Sky I feel is a really poor quality channel. Films made this year look like they were filmed 15 years ago. I guess with a channel like that no matter if you have ultra hd the channel will still look crap.

Well you cannot resolve UHD 1 at that distance and it is is getting marginal for you to see individual HD pixels see Katy's paper .....

HDR and WCG can been seen a lot further away than that ... Say across a shop . And HFR and immersive audio as well

What makes horror look bad??

MikePJB · 30-11-2015, 20:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by technologist

Well you cannot resolve UHD 1 at that distance and it is is getting marginal for you to see individual HD pixels see Katy's paper .....

HDR and WCG can been seen a lot further away than that ... Say across a shop . And HFR and immersive audio as well

What makes horror look bad??

Thanks for the info.

It's the horror channel of sky. It's just always been a bad quality channel. Films made even in 2014 look like how films from 1990's.

Deacon1972 · 30-11-2015, 21:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikePJB

Hey guys I just had some questions.

I bought a new Sony Ultra HD 4K the other day. I know there isn't much 4K content out there, but for what there is on Youtube it looks amazing on my TV.

What I more wanted to know about was the Ultra HD part. On Sky the HD channels look really good, so much better than on my standard HD TV before it, but I just wondered, is it normal that the standard non HD channels don't look great / maybe worse than before? I'm basing this on the music channels on Sky. I mean I'm not expecting them to look as good, but I noticed a bit of blurryness in one of the music videos I was watching when someone was moving about in one part. Wasn't all the time, just maybe every now and then.

Also, may seem like silly question, but would stuff shot in HD, say this year, look better than stuff shot say 4-5 years ago? I was watching a music video on MTV HD of a song that came out about 4 years ago and it looked good, but then the next song was one that was released a about a week ago and the picture looked comparable to the 4K content I'd seen. Such a difference, I though maybe because it was newer it looked better?

I just wondered because I don't want to be blaming the TV for something when it may have been the cameras used at the time and how it was shot etc. Just a little paranoid as I spent £649 on it and want to make sure there's no problems with it.

You are seeing what most 4k owners have reported, 4k is amazing, good sourced HD looks better upscaled than on Full HD and some SD can look worse than it does on Full HD.

Less worring, just sit back and enjoy your purchase.

MikePJB · 30-11-2015, 23:42

Thanks for the responses guys, I appreciate it.

I also have another little problem if anyone has experienced the same thing.

I only got this TV yesterday and never had the problem, but I've noticed when switching channels, the sound of the channel I land on crackles/shudders for a second. I know it's only a small problem but it's irritating.

I've gone on to the sound settings and tested everything out to see what it could be but nothing seems to work.

I had a Samsung TV before, now got a Sony, and the sound system is from Creative (basically more like PC speakers but this does the job well for my room).

I'm not great with all the technical talk so sorry if I haven't given much info.

lemoncurd · 03-12-2015, 18:16

Pah. 4K is so last year. It's all about 8Kp60 these days.

SnrDev · 07-12-2015, 01:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthony david

How big is your screen and how far are you sitting from it?

I do wish punters would give up on this distance to screen obsession. It plays a part but it's nowhere near to being the sole defining characteristic of uhd picture quality.

I was in John Lewis on Saturday watching the football scores come in. There are four lines of tv's, I'm in front of bank 1 watching Final Score on a couple of them, both in line 2. One of them isn't set up too well but the other is, then on line 3 highlights of the Villa Liverpool FA Cup semi final from April starts up on a uhd tv. This is the first time I've seen real tv on a uhd set, as opposed to the slow dreamy high contrast high colour demo loops they show, so I watch it with a greater critical standpoint. Even though it's a good 4 or 5 feet further back it's blindingly obvious that the picture is head & shoulders better than HD, which I can see on the tvs closer to me and which is all I watch at home on a properly set-up tv. You don't need to be close to a 4k tv to see the difference.

I can have my wife hold up Private Eye and The Sunday Times mag at the other end of the dining room, and it's pretty obvious which one is printed on recycled bog paper and which one is a glossy mag full of good photography. We can do the same with Cycling Weekly replacing the Eye, and it's still obvious which has the better picture quality. Distance from screen is only part of the equation. Don't be misled by this distance to screen nonsense.

d'@ve · 07-12-2015, 02:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikePJB

I also have another little problem if anyone has experienced the same thing.

I only got this TV yesterday and never had the problem, but I've noticed when switching channels, the sound of the channel I land on crackles/shudders for a second. I know it's only a small problem but it's irritating.

I've gone on to the sound settings and tested everything out to see what it could be but nothing seems to work.

Take it back for exchange - that is almost certainly a fault. Should be muted while that's going on.

anthony david · 07-12-2015, 11:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnrDev

I do wish punters would give up on this distance to screen obsession. It plays a part but it's nowhere near to being the sole defining characteristic of uhd picture quality. .

The query was about SD quality on Sky's music channels, not UHD. SD viewed from a short distance on a large TV is pretty dire and he wondered if using a set that has to upscale from SD to UHD makes things worse.

technologist · 07-12-2015, 12:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnrDev

I do wish punters would give up on this distance to screen obsession. It plays a part but it's nowhere near to being the sole defining characteristic of uhd picture quality.

I was in John Lewis on Saturday watching the football scores come in. There are four lines of tv's, I'm in front of bank 1 watching Final Score on a couple of them, both in line 2. One of them isn't set up too well but the other is, then on line 3 highlights of the Villa Liverpool FA Cup semi final from April starts up on a uhd tv. This is the first time I've seen real tv on a uhd set, as opposed to the slow dreamy high contrast high colour demo loops they show, so I watch it with a greater critical standpoint. Even though it's a good 4 or 5 feet further back it's blindingly obvious that the picture is head & shoulders better than HD, which I can see on the tvs closer to me and which is all I watch at home on a properly set-up tv. You don't need to be close to a 4k tv to see the difference.

I can have my wife hold up Private Eye and The Sunday Times mag at the other end of the dining room, and it's pretty obvious which one is printed on recycled bog paper and which one is a glossy mag full of good photography. We can do the same with Cycling Weekly replacing the Eye, and it's still obvious which has the better picture quality. Distance from screen is only part of the equation. Don't be misled by this distance to screen nonsense.

Were the two TV set up with the same white and black levels ....
A brighter TV always looks better (which is where HDR comes in and to some extent WCG )
The viewing distances are based on average visual acuity....
You cannot see the pixels in the 2160 lines at more than 1.5 screen height ....

Your print comparison is not based in pixel counts but different pixels....
Which is why HDR WCG HFR make the difference all of which are distance independent
Plus immersive audio where you don't even want to see the screen.

I did a similar thing in Peter Jones a year ago .. And I set the blacks and whites as same as I could ...... And no one could see the difference across the store
But an bright oled screen looked a lot better !!!!!

Technically HDR WCG HFR can be in any resolution of display.
Commercially HDR WCG HFR need to be on UHD screens and in transmissions to give product differentiation.

SnrDev · 07-12-2015, 14:44

Well done techo on writing a meaningless post. It's ok to use words instead of acronyms that we have to go and look up, but hey ho.

Read what I wrote. I established that the HD set was on a par with mine at home, which is good. If your approach is a mix of belittling opinions by use of meaningless acronyms and a glib 'it must have been brighter, brighter pictures always impress the proles', suit yourself.

No the picture wasn't brighter, in fact if it were mine I'd have made it a tad brighter and given it a little bit more contrast. What stood out was the clarity of the picture, the smoothness of the moving image (football yh?) and the range and depth of colour for both long shots of the match and close-ups of the crowd & the managers. Skin tones especially were v good. The HD set was also good, but there was clear benefit to the UHD set, even when it was another row of tv further back.

Maybe... I should... have written... in a language... you can grasp... and thrown in... a stack of hieroglyphics.

skinj · 07-12-2015, 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnrDev

Well done techo on writing a meaningless post. It's ok to use words instead of acronyms that we have to go and look up, but hey ho.

Read what I wrote. I established that the HD set was on a par with mine at home, which is good. If your approach is a mix of belittling opinions by use of meaningless acronyms and a glib 'it must have been brighter, brighter pictures always impress the proles', suit yourself.

No the picture wasn't brighter, in fact if it were mine I'd have made it a tad brighter and given it a little bit more contrast. What stood out was the clarity of the picture, the smoothness of the moving image (football yh?) and the range and depth of colour for both long shots of the match and close-ups of the crowd & the managers. Skin tones especially were v good. The HD set was also good, but there was clear benefit to the UHD set, even when it was another row of tv further back.

Maybe... I should... have written... in a language... you can grasp... and thrown in... a stack of hieroglyphics.

Out of interest, how much was the 4K set compared to the FullHD sets? I only ask as the 4k set's can be significantly more expensive than FullHD and are also likely to house higher end screens and higher end picture processing too.
In much the same way that 18 months ago a top-end FullHD tv would easily out perform a budget Full HD TV, the same is now true when looking at comparable price ranges.
In our shop we have 2 40" sets both running with the same picture settings on the same Freeview HD station (price difference is about 80%). Thus far, not one person has been in to the store and categorically been able to say which is the 4K set at a normal viewing distance. I then show them the top-end 4K TV and they are able to say which one has the better picture without any hesitation. This however is nothing to do with the 4K but the quality of the screen and processing.

Winston_1 · 07-12-2015, 18:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinj

Out of interest, how much was the 4K set compared to the FullHD sets? I only ask as the 4k set's can be significantly more expensive than FullHD and are also likely to house higher end screens and higher end picture processing too.
In much the same way that 18 months ago a top-end FullHD tv would easily out perform a budget Full HD TV, the same is now true when looking at comparable price ranges.
In our shop we have 2 40" sets both running with the same picture settings on the same Freeview HD station (price difference is about 80%). Thus far, not one person has been in to the store and categorically been able to say which is the 4K set at a normal viewing distance. I then show them the top-end 4K TV and they are able to say which one has the better picture without any hesitation. This however is nothing to do with the 4K but the quality of the screen and processing.

But as the broadcasts are not 4K how would there be any difference? Upscaling cannot generate what is not there.

technologist · 07-12-2015, 19:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnrDev

Well done techo on writing a meaningless post. It's ok to use words instead of acronyms that we have to go and look up, but hey ho.

Read what I wrote. I established that the HD set was on a par with mine at home, which is good. If your approach is a mix of belittling opinions by use of meaningless acronyms and a glib 'it must have been brighter, brighter pictures always impress the proles', suit yourself.

No the picture wasn't brighter, in fact if it were mine I'd have made it a tad brighter and given it a little bit more contrast. What stood out was the clarity of the picture, the smoothness of the moving image (football yh?) and the range and depth of colour for both long shots of the match and close-ups of the crowd & the managers. Skin tones especially were v good. The HD set was also good, but there was clear benefit to the UHD set, even when it was another row of tv further back.

Maybe... I should... have written... in a language... you can grasp... and thrown in... a stack of hieroglyphics.

But the fact remains that you cannot see pixels much smaller than your visual accuity .
If the 4K to looked better for you .. That's great ..
But you were not seeing extra pixels if you are more than1.5 Picture heights from the screen.

It is all the other things which you can see or hear not it being UHD resolution ..
Which is what I pointed out. ..

The abbreviation I and others use have appeared so often in this board that I did not put them in in full.... ..

skinj · 07-12-2015, 19:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winston_1

But as the broadcasts are not 4K how would there be any difference? Upscaling cannot generate what is not there.

It's quite simple Winston. A TV with a higher quality, newer screen, that has better picture processing, upscaling, motion handling and colour representation will result in a better end picture than one with an older screen, designed some years ago that now provides a value/budget option at the lower end of the market paired with more basic processing.

You might as well ask why a BMW is better than a Kia, or why a low yield Trappist monk ale is better than the value 4-packs in Tesco. 2 are both cars so why is there a difference, 2 are both ales so why is there a difference?

bobcar · 08-12-2015, 00:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winston_1

But as the broadcasts are not 4K how would there be any difference? Upscaling cannot generate what is not there.

It cannot generate what is not there but much of the information needed to create the higher resolution is there. As a really simple example consider a diagonal line; it is relatively easy to smooth out the line and remove jags.

Obviously native 4K is better but it is not correct to say that upscaling the picture cannot improve it.

Winston_1 · 08-12-2015, 00:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinj

It's quite simple Winston. A TV with a higher quality, newer screen, that has better picture processing, upscaling, motion handling and colour representation will result in a better end picture than one with an older screen, designed some years ago that now provides a value/budget option at the lower end of the market paired with more basic processing.

I thought we were comparing 2 new TVs, not one new 4K type with an older HD type.

skinj · 08-12-2015, 20:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winston_1

I thought we were comparing 2 new TVs, not one new 4K type with an older HD type.

Go into any high st shop and there will be new TV's that are 4K, Full HD and still HD ready models on the shop floor being demonstrated. The post you replied to me about was in reply to someone comparing sets in a shop but they made no observations about relative prices, sizes or screen res when they made the views on the pq.
Even if all the sets being discussed are 4K, the statement I made about what makes one set better than another still stands.
Budget 4K sets will be using older, cheeper, slower refreshing screens than the top end sets. This makes a huge difference even if both are "new" TVs.

charliesays · 09-12-2015, 08:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnrDev

Well done techo on writing a meaningless post. It's ok to use words instead of acronyms that we have to go and look up, but hey ho.

Read what I wrote. I established that the HD set was on a par with mine at home, which is good. If your approach is a mix of belittling opinions by use of meaningless acronyms and a glib 'it must have been brighter, brighter pictures always impress the proles', suit yourself.

No the picture wasn't brighter, in fact if it were mine I'd have made it a tad brighter and given it a little bit more contrast. What stood out was the clarity of the picture, the smoothness of the moving image (football yh?) and the range and depth of colour for both long shots of the match and close-ups of the crowd & the managers. Skin tones especially were v good. The HD set was also good, but there was clear benefit to the UHD set, even when it was another row of tv further back.

Maybe... I should... have written... in a language... you can grasp... and thrown in... a stack of hieroglyphics.

Nice to see the belittler feel belittled for once...though you reverted to type in your last paragraph.

Difference being technologist writes from a position of specialist knowledge, and you rubbish commonly known issues with UHD from a position of standing in a John Lewis television Department, and a game of magazine eyesight test with your missus.

SnrDev · 09-12-2015, 10:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by charliesays

Nice to see the belittler feel belittled for once...though you reverted to type in your last paragraph.

Difference being technologist writes from a position of specialist knowledge, and you rubbish commonly known issues with UHD from a position of standing in a John Lewis television Department, and a game of magazine eyesight test with your missus.

Sorry mate, I don't. I see time & time again references to distance from screen as the sole factor of whether a HD / UHD picture looks good, when the reality is that there's much more to it than that and that anyone with a half-decently set up tv can spot HD v SD at much bigger distances than the suggested optimum, and UHD has a similarly easy-to-spot benefit over HD at greater than optimum viewing distance. If you can't deal with that, and can't even see a simple analogy, that's your loss not mine.

I mentioned his writing style as it is at times unreadable, with every sentence broken up with an ellipsis. Full stops, commas, semi-colons & colons all exist for a purpose and work best when used sparingly. Having... an... ellipsis... every few... words is both an annoying affectation and detracts from the valid and useful posts that he makes. It reads like listening those people who speak in half sentences with long pauses for dramatic effect at the end of each one. If you can be bothered to search, you'll see it was picked up on the Trivial Things That Annoy You thread not so long ago.

Have a nice day.

30-11-2015, 19:14	#1
MikePJB Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 5,469	Ultra HD 4K Hey guys I just had some questions. I bought a new Sony Ultra HD 4K the other day. I know there isn't much 4K content out there, but for what there is on Youtube it looks amazing on my TV. What I more wanted to know about was the Ultra HD part. On Sky the HD channels look really good, so much better than on my standard HD TV before it, but I just wondered, is it normal that the standard non HD channels don't look great / maybe worse than before? I'm basing this on the music channels on Sky. I mean I'm not expecting them to look as good, but I noticed a bit of blurryness in one of the music videos I was watching when someone was moving about in one part. Wasn't all the time, just maybe every now and then. Also, may seem like silly question, but would stuff shot in HD, say this year, look better than stuff shot say 4-5 years ago? I was watching a music video on MTV HD of a song that came out about 4 years ago and it looked good, but then the next song was one that was released a about a week ago and the picture looked comparable to the 4K content I'd seen. Such a difference, I though maybe because it was newer it looked better? I just wondered because I don't want to be blaming the TV for something when it may have been the cameras used at the time and how it was shot etc. Just a little paranoid as I spent £649 on it and want to make sure there's no problems with it.

07-12-2015, 12:39	#13
technologist Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: London Posts: 7,519	P Quote: Originally Posted by SnrDev I do wish punters would give up on this distance to screen obsession. It plays a part but it's nowhere near to being the sole defining characteristic of uhd picture quality. I was in John Lewis on Saturday watching the football scores come in. There are four lines of tv's, I'm in front of bank 1 watching Final Score on a couple of them, both in line 2. One of them isn't set up too well but the other is, then on line 3 highlights of the Villa Liverpool FA Cup semi final from April starts up on a uhd tv. This is the first time I've seen real tv on a uhd set, as opposed to the slow dreamy high contrast high colour demo loops they show, so I watch it with a greater critical standpoint. Even though it's a good 4 or 5 feet further back it's blindingly obvious that the picture is head & shoulders better than HD, which I can see on the tvs closer to me and which is all I watch at home on a properly set-up tv. You don't need to be close to a 4k tv to see the difference. I can have my wife hold up Private Eye and The Sunday Times mag at the other end of the dining room, and it's pretty obvious which one is printed on recycled bog paper and which one is a glossy mag full of good photography. We can do the same with Cycling Weekly replacing the Eye, and it's still obvious which has the better picture quality. Distance from screen is only part of the equation. Don't be misled by this distance to screen nonsense. Were the two TV set up with the same white and black levels .... A brighter TV always looks better (which is where HDR comes in and to some extent WCG ) The viewing distances are based on average visual acuity.... You cannot see the pixels in the 2160 lines at more than 1.5 screen height .... Your print comparison is not based in pixel counts but different pixels.... Which is why HDR WCG HFR make the difference all of which are distance independent Plus immersive audio where you don't even want to see the screen. I did a similar thing in Peter Jones a year ago .. And I set the blacks and whites as same as I could ...... And no one could see the difference across the store But an bright oled screen looked a lot better !!!!! Technically HDR WCG HFR can be in any resolution of display. Commercially HDR WCG HFR need to be on UHD screens and in transmissions to give product differentiation.

30-11-2015, 19:57	#2
anthony david Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 3,469	How big is your screen and how far are you sitting from it?

30-11-2015, 20:10	#3
technologist Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: London Posts: 7,519	A lot of high end material is shot using camera with greater than HD resolution .... And thus has no high spatial frequency roll off like those with just 1920 by 1080 sensors. ( that is why SD got better once HD became the norm)! If you saw the BBC Attenborough "the hunt" you will see what I mean, You might like to read Katy Nolands paper http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper287 On how far away people view to .. And why SD looks dreadful on greater than 55" screens. But seeing something in HDR see http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper309 And the full BT 2020 colour gamut is a lot better than just more 8 bit pixels ... Those working in film and tv may like this SMPTE meeting

30-11-2015, 20:11	#4
MikePJB Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 5,469	It's 43 inches and I'm about 3 meters away from it. The horror channel on Sky I feel is a really poor quality channel. Films made this year look like they were filmed 15 years ago. I guess with a channel like that no matter if you have ultra hd the channel will still look crap.

30-11-2015, 20:16	#5
technologist Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: London Posts: 7,519	Quote: Originally Posted by MikePJB It's 43 inches and I'm about 3 meters away from it. The horror channel on Sky I feel is a really poor quality channel. Films made this year look like they were filmed 15 years ago. I guess with a channel like that no matter if you have ultra hd the channel will still look crap. Well you cannot resolve UHD 1 at that distance and it is is getting marginal for you to see individual HD pixels see Katy's paper ..... HDR and WCG can been seen a lot further away than that ... Say across a shop . And HFR and immersive audio as well What makes horror look bad??

30-11-2015, 20:32	#6
MikePJB Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 5,469	Quote: Originally Posted by technologist Well you cannot resolve UHD 1 at that distance and it is is getting marginal for you to see individual HD pixels see Katy's paper ..... HDR and WCG can been seen a lot further away than that ... Say across a shop . And HFR and immersive audio as well What makes horror look bad?? Thanks for the info. It's the horror channel of sky. It's just always been a bad quality channel. Films made even in 2014 look like how films from 1990's.

30-11-2015, 21:00	#7
Deacon1972 Guest Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,103	Quote: Originally Posted by MikePJB Hey guys I just had some questions. I bought a new Sony Ultra HD 4K the other day. I know there isn't much 4K content out there, but for what there is on Youtube it looks amazing on my TV. What I more wanted to know about was the Ultra HD part. On Sky the HD channels look really good, so much better than on my standard HD TV before it, but I just wondered, is it normal that the standard non HD channels don't look great / maybe worse than before? I'm basing this on the music channels on Sky. I mean I'm not expecting them to look as good, but I noticed a bit of blurryness in one of the music videos I was watching when someone was moving about in one part. Wasn't all the time, just maybe every now and then. Also, may seem like silly question, but would stuff shot in HD, say this year, look better than stuff shot say 4-5 years ago? I was watching a music video on MTV HD of a song that came out about 4 years ago and it looked good, but then the next song was one that was released a about a week ago and the picture looked comparable to the 4K content I'd seen. Such a difference, I though maybe because it was newer it looked better? I just wondered because I don't want to be blaming the TV for something when it may have been the cameras used at the time and how it was shot etc. Just a little paranoid as I spent £649 on it and want to make sure there's no problems with it. You are seeing what most 4k owners have reported, 4k is amazing, good sourced HD looks better upscaled than on Full HD and some SD can look worse than it does on Full HD. Less worring, just sit back and enjoy your purchase.

30-11-2015, 23:42	#8
MikePJB Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 5,469	Thanks for the responses guys, I appreciate it. I also have another little problem if anyone has experienced the same thing. I only got this TV yesterday and never had the problem, but I've noticed when switching channels, the sound of the channel I land on crackles/shudders for a second. I know it's only a small problem but it's irritating. I've gone on to the sound settings and tested everything out to see what it could be but nothing seems to work. I had a Samsung TV before, now got a Sony, and the sound system is from Creative (basically more like PC speakers but this does the job well for my room). I'm not great with all the technical talk so sorry if I haven't given much info.

03-12-2015, 18:16	#9
lemoncurd Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Bristol Posts: 46,988	Pah. 4K is so last year. It's all about 8Kp60 these days.

07-12-2015, 01:01	#10
SnrDev Inactive Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 5,981	Quote: Originally Posted by anthony david How big is your screen and how far are you sitting from it? I do wish punters would give up on this distance to screen obsession. It plays a part but it's nowhere near to being the sole defining characteristic of uhd picture quality. I was in John Lewis on Saturday watching the football scores come in. There are four lines of tv's, I'm in front of bank 1 watching Final Score on a couple of them, both in line 2. One of them isn't set up too well but the other is, then on line 3 highlights of the Villa Liverpool FA Cup semi final from April starts up on a uhd tv. This is the first time I've seen real tv on a uhd set, as opposed to the slow dreamy high contrast high colour demo loops they show, so I watch it with a greater critical standpoint. Even though it's a good 4 or 5 feet further back it's blindingly obvious that the picture is head & shoulders better than HD, which I can see on the tvs closer to me and which is all I watch at home on a properly set-up tv. You don't need to be close to a 4k tv to see the difference. I can have my wife hold up Private Eye and The Sunday Times mag at the other end of the dining room, and it's pretty obvious which one is printed on recycled bog paper and which one is a glossy mag full of good photography. We can do the same with Cycling Weekly replacing the Eye, and it's still obvious which has the better picture quality. Distance from screen is only part of the equation. Don't be misled by this distance to screen nonsense.

07-12-2015, 02:17	#11
d'@ve Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Darn Sarf Posts: 28,743	Quote: Originally Posted by MikePJB I also have another little problem if anyone has experienced the same thing. I only got this TV yesterday and never had the problem, but I've noticed when switching channels, the sound of the channel I land on crackles/shudders for a second. I know it's only a small problem but it's irritating. I've gone on to the sound settings and tested everything out to see what it could be but nothing seems to work. Take it back for exchange - that is almost certainly a fault. Should be muted while that's going on.

07-12-2015, 11:54	#12
anthony david Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 3,469	Quote: Originally Posted by SnrDev I do wish punters would give up on this distance to screen obsession. It plays a part but it's nowhere near to being the sole defining characteristic of uhd picture quality. . The query was about SD quality on Sky's music channels, not UHD. SD viewed from a short distance on a large TV is pretty dire and he wondered if using a set that has to upscale from SD to UHD makes things worse.

07-12-2015, 14:44	#14
SnrDev Inactive Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 5,981	Well done techo on writing a meaningless post. It's ok to use words instead of acronyms that we have to go and look up, but hey ho. Read what I wrote. I established that the HD set was on a par with mine at home, which is good. If your approach is a mix of belittling opinions by use of meaningless acronyms and a glib 'it must have been brighter, brighter pictures always impress the proles', suit yourself. No the picture wasn't brighter, in fact if it were mine I'd have made it a tad brighter and given it a little bit more contrast. What stood out was the clarity of the picture, the smoothness of the moving image (football yh?) and the range and depth of colour for both long shots of the match and close-ups of the crowd & the managers. Skin tones especially were v good. The HD set was also good, but there was clear benefit to the UHD set, even when it was another row of tv further back. Maybe... I should... have written... in a language... you can grasp... and thrown in... a stack of hieroglyphics.

07-12-2015, 15:32	#15
skinj Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 3,206	Quote: Originally Posted by SnrDev Well done techo on writing a meaningless post. It's ok to use words instead of acronyms that we have to go and look up, but hey ho. Read what I wrote. I established that the HD set was on a par with mine at home, which is good. If your approach is a mix of belittling opinions by use of meaningless acronyms and a glib 'it must have been brighter, brighter pictures always impress the proles', suit yourself. No the picture wasn't brighter, in fact if it were mine I'd have made it a tad brighter and given it a little bit more contrast. What stood out was the clarity of the picture, the smoothness of the moving image (football yh?) and the range and depth of colour for both long shots of the match and close-ups of the crowd & the managers. Skin tones especially were v good. The HD set was also good, but there was clear benefit to the UHD set, even when it was another row of tv further back. Maybe... I should... have written... in a language... you can grasp... and thrown in... a stack of hieroglyphics. Out of interest, how much was the 4K set compared to the FullHD sets? I only ask as the 4k set's can be significantly more expensive than FullHD and are also likely to house higher end screens and higher end picture processing too. In much the same way that 18 months ago a top-end FullHD tv would easily out perform a budget Full HD TV, the same is now true when looking at comparable price ranges. In our shop we have 2 40" sets both running with the same picture settings on the same Freeview HD station (price difference is about 80%). Thus far, not one person has been in to the store and categorically been able to say which is the 4K set at a normal viewing distance. I then show them the top-end 4K TV and they are able to say which one has the better picture without any hesitation. This however is nothing to do with the 4K but the quality of the screen and processing.

07-12-2015, 18:21	#16
Winston_1 Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,008	Quote: Originally Posted by skinj Out of interest, how much was the 4K set compared to the FullHD sets? I only ask as the 4k set's can be significantly more expensive than FullHD and are also likely to house higher end screens and higher end picture processing too. In much the same way that 18 months ago a top-end FullHD tv would easily out perform a budget Full HD TV, the same is now true when looking at comparable price ranges. In our shop we have 2 40" sets both running with the same picture settings on the same Freeview HD station (price difference is about 80%). Thus far, not one person has been in to the store and categorically been able to say which is the 4K set at a normal viewing distance. I then show them the top-end 4K TV and they are able to say which one has the better picture without any hesitation. This however is nothing to do with the 4K but the quality of the screen and processing. But as the broadcasts are not 4K how would there be any difference? Upscaling cannot generate what is not there.

07-12-2015, 19:50	#17
technologist Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: London Posts: 7,519	Quote: Originally Posted by SnrDev Well done techo on writing a meaningless post. It's ok to use words instead of acronyms that we have to go and look up, but hey ho. Read what I wrote. I established that the HD set was on a par with mine at home, which is good. If your approach is a mix of belittling opinions by use of meaningless acronyms and a glib 'it must have been brighter, brighter pictures always impress the proles', suit yourself. No the picture wasn't brighter, in fact if it were mine I'd have made it a tad brighter and given it a little bit more contrast. What stood out was the clarity of the picture, the smoothness of the moving image (football yh?) and the range and depth of colour for both long shots of the match and close-ups of the crowd & the managers. Skin tones especially were v good. The HD set was also good, but there was clear benefit to the UHD set, even when it was another row of tv further back. Maybe... I should... have written... in a language... you can grasp... and thrown in... a stack of hieroglyphics. But the fact remains that you cannot see pixels much smaller than your visual accuity . If the 4K to looked better for you .. That's great .. But you were not seeing extra pixels if you are more than1.5 Picture heights from the screen. It is all the other things which you can see or hear not it being UHD resolution .. Which is what I pointed out. .. The abbreviation I and others use have appeared so often in this board that I did not put them in in full.... ..

07-12-2015, 19:50	#18
skinj Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 3,206	Quote: Originally Posted by Winston_1 But as the broadcasts are not 4K how would there be any difference? Upscaling cannot generate what is not there. It's quite simple Winston. A TV with a higher quality, newer screen, that has better picture processing, upscaling, motion handling and colour representation will result in a better end picture than one with an older screen, designed some years ago that now provides a value/budget option at the lower end of the market paired with more basic processing. You might as well ask why a BMW is better than a Kia, or why a low yield Trappist monk ale is better than the value 4-packs in Tesco. 2 are both cars so why is there a difference, 2 are both ales so why is there a difference?

08-12-2015, 00:40	#19
bobcar Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 14,718	Quote: Originally Posted by Winston_1 But as the broadcasts are not 4K how would there be any difference? Upscaling cannot generate what is not there. It cannot generate what is not there but much of the information needed to create the higher resolution is there. As a really simple example consider a diagonal line; it is relatively easy to smooth out the line and remove jags. Obviously native 4K is better but it is not correct to say that upscaling the picture cannot improve it.

08-12-2015, 00:55	#20
Winston_1 Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,008	Quote: Originally Posted by skinj It's quite simple Winston. A TV with a higher quality, newer screen, that has better picture processing, upscaling, motion handling and colour representation will result in a better end picture than one with an older screen, designed some years ago that now provides a value/budget option at the lower end of the market paired with more basic processing. I thought we were comparing 2 new TVs, not one new 4K type with an older HD type.

08-12-2015, 20:48	#21
skinj Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 3,206	Quote: Originally Posted by Winston_1 I thought we were comparing 2 new TVs, not one new 4K type with an older HD type. Go into any high st shop and there will be new TV's that are 4K, Full HD and still HD ready models on the shop floor being demonstrated. The post you replied to me about was in reply to someone comparing sets in a shop but they made no observations about relative prices, sizes or screen res when they made the views on the pq. Even if all the sets being discussed are 4K, the statement I made about what makes one set better than another still stands. Budget 4K sets will be using older, cheeper, slower refreshing screens than the top end sets. This makes a huge difference even if both are "new" TVs.

09-12-2015, 08:33	#22
charliesays Inactive Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,336	Quote: Originally Posted by SnrDev Well done techo on writing a meaningless post. It's ok to use words instead of acronyms that we have to go and look up, but hey ho. Read what I wrote. I established that the HD set was on a par with mine at home, which is good. If your approach is a mix of belittling opinions by use of meaningless acronyms and a glib 'it must have been brighter, brighter pictures always impress the proles', suit yourself. No the picture wasn't brighter, in fact if it were mine I'd have made it a tad brighter and given it a little bit more contrast. What stood out was the clarity of the picture, the smoothness of the moving image (football yh?) and the range and depth of colour for both long shots of the match and close-ups of the crowd & the managers. Skin tones especially were v good. The HD set was also good, but there was clear benefit to the UHD set, even when it was another row of tv further back. Maybe... I should... have written... in a language... you can grasp... and thrown in... a stack of hieroglyphics. Nice to see the belittler feel belittled for once...though you reverted to type in your last paragraph. Difference being technologist writes from a position of specialist knowledge, and you rubbish commonly known issues with UHD from a position of standing in a John Lewis television Department, and a game of magazine eyesight test with your missus.

DS Forums

Ultra HD 4K

09-12-2015, 10:35	#23
SnrDev Inactive Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 5,981	Quote: Originally Posted by charliesays Nice to see the belittler feel belittled for once...though you reverted to type in your last paragraph. Difference being technologist writes from a position of specialist knowledge, and you rubbish commonly known issues with UHD from a position of standing in a John Lewis television Department, and a game of magazine eyesight test with your missus. Sorry mate, I don't. I see time & time again references to distance from screen as the sole factor of whether a HD / UHD picture looks good, when the reality is that there's much more to it than that and that anyone with a half-decently set up tv can spot HD v SD at much bigger distances than the suggested optimum, and UHD has a similarly easy-to-spot benefit over HD at greater than optimum viewing distance. If you can't deal with that, and can't even see a simple analogy, that's your loss not mine. I mentioned his writing style as it is at times unreadable, with every sentence broken up with an ellipsis. Full stops, commas, semi-colons & colons all exist for a purpose and work best when used sparingly. Having... an... ellipsis... every few... words is both an annoying affectation and detracts from the valid and useful posts that he makes. It reads like listening those people who speak in half sentences with long pauses for dramatic effect at the end of each one. If you can be bothered to search, you'll see it was picked up on the Trivial Things That Annoy You thread not so long ago. Have a nice day.