DS Forums

 
 

4K Tv


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 30-06-2016, 10:33
GDK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
Again, Full HD had nothing to do with 1080P, Full HD was (and is) 1080i - both of which are of course the same resolution anyway.

Early sets capable of displaying 1080P were labelled Full HD 1080P - and there weren't very many of them.

The HD ready label came about because manufacturers were selling flat screen TV's, mostly Plasma ones, but some LCD as well, as HD when they were only SD screens, or in many cases (with Plasma again) weren't even PAL SD resolution, but were only 480 'lines'.



Almost no sets were ever 720 pixels, there were a tiny few, but it was rare - almost all HD Ready sets were 768 pixel - and a good quality 768 pixel set would give a better picture than a cheap 1080 set, on either SD or HD.



It not only hadn't been decided, it had been decided that there were not going to be any.
BIB: OK. I think that's an irrelevant technical detail because either way, 720 or 768 panels could not display 1080 without scaling down to match the panel, which is the point I was making. You need a 1080 panel to display 1080 without scaling. The TV may have been capable of receiving and scaling a 1080 signal at least via HDMI and later when Freeview HD emerged. Were there any models with 720/768 panel and a Freeview HD Tuner?

That's my understanding of "HD Ready". That label failed to make clear to the masses when a TV was not actually 1080. I bow to your superior knowledge, but I never saw a 1080 panel TV labelled as only "HD Ready".

I still don't understand how you can legitimately claim those labels "had nothing to do with 1080" when it's clear many thought they did (quite rightly IMO), even if you and the industry didn't agree.

Unless you're quibbling over my inclusion of the "p"? The panel is the key point, as you certainly know already. Who's being "misleading" here?

As it happens the (Sony) TV I bought at the time was labelled "Full HD" because it had a 1080 panel and could display in 1080, 1080 sources connected via HDMI. "Full HD" is why I chose it. It only had a Freeview tuner built in though, not Freeview HD, I didn't mind that so much because I also got Sky HD when I got the TV.
GDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 30-06-2016, 10:46
GDK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
As I remember it HD ready had to accept a 720/1080 signal, it didn't necessarily have to display both resolutions, at this particular time native resolutions were mostly made up of 720/768 resolutions. I don't recall any sets not able to tune into 1080i, they just simply downscaled the signal as did my early HD ready TV, I do recall sets not being able to display 1080p/24 though, this was on HD Ready and Full HD resolution TV's. Later they revised the wording to what we basically have today.
I think that is correct, however my own 1080 panel TV only had a Freeview tuner, not Freeview HD.

My own set was one of those not able to do 24p either. That was the following year's innovation.
GDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2016, 11:36
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
BIB: OK. I think that's an irrelevant technical detail because either way, 720 or 768 panels could not display 1080 without scaling down to match the panel, which is the point I was making. You need a 1080 panel to display 1080 without scaling. The TV may have been capable of receiving and scaling a 1080 signal at least via HDMI and later when Freeview HD emerged. Were there any models with 720/768 panel and a Freeview HD Tuner?
By the time Freeview HD appeared HD Ready sets were very much a rarity anyway, but I 'think' the Freeview HD specification calls for a 1080 resolution panel in order to use the Freeview HD logo.

There's nothing technically stopping you having a 768 pixel set with a Freeview HD 'tuner', but you couldn't call it Freeview HD.

Well prior to Freeview HD appearing there were a number of sets that did DTT HD (for the non-UK market), but I've no idea if they had to have 1080 panels?.


Unless you're quibbling over my inclusion of the "p"? The panel is the key point, as you certainly know already. Who's being "misleading" here?
You were, incorrectly specifying 'p'


As it happens the (Sony) TV I bought at the time was labelled "Full HD" because it had a 1080 panel and could display in 1080, 1080 sources connected via HDMI. "Full HD" is why I chose it. It only had a Freeview tuner built in though, not Freeview HD, I didn't mind that so much because I also got Sky HD when I got the TV.
As was clearly obvious when you bought it, it didn't have the Freeview HD logo, so couldn't receive Freeview HD.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2016, 12:41
GDK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
By the time Freeview HD appeared HD Ready sets were very much a rarity anyway, but I 'think' the Freeview HD specification calls for a 1080 resolution panel in order to use the Freeview HD logo.

There's nothing technically stopping you having a 768 pixel set with a Freeview HD 'tuner', but you couldn't call it Freeview HD.

Well prior to Freeview HD appearing there were a number of sets that did DTT HD (for the non-UK market), but I've no idea if they had to have 1080 panels?.



You were, incorrectly specifying 'p'
While you are technically correct, I'm sure you knew what I was getting at.

Despite my slight imprecision there.

As was clearly obvious when you bought it, it didn't have the Freeview HD logo, so couldn't receive Freeview HD.
I've no quibble with that tag. Freeview HD wasn't available at the time I bought and I had a perfectly good workaround. In point of fact I hardly ever used the Freeview tuner, and when I watched the regular terrestrial channels it was via Sky HD almost exclusively.
GDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2016, 20:19
WombatDeath
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,068
I'm thinking of replacing the ancient CRT thing that lurks in the corner of the living room. We don't actually watch much TV but I'd like to watch the snooker on something a bit less 1990s.

I want something that's about 40", because anything bigger will be too big for the room. Viewing distance will be about 9 feet.

I mention all this because I know basically nothing about tellies and I don't know what to get. Is it worth going 4K for a TV of this size, at that viewing distance? Any recommendations for a particular model? I quite like the Bravia we've got in the bedroom so I'm thinking of getting another one for the living room, but I don't really mind.

Any thoughts welcome!
WombatDeath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2016, 20:38
technologist
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 7,514
Given a typical visual accutiy if one minute of arc
A UHD 1 pixel,can be resolved at 1.5 time picture height H away from the screen .
A 40" tv has H of about 2 ft if you're closer than a yard or so you can see the pixels ..
And HD screen has the same "can see the pixels" at 3 H call it say 2 metres .

With a 9 ft viewing distance To see the pixels for a HD screen you would need roughly a 60 inch screen....

You might like to read Katy Noland's BBC r&d white paper
A survey of uk viewing conditions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper287
technologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2016, 20:54
WombatDeath
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,068
That's fantastically helpful, thank you! I'd never heard of the 3H rule before, that's an excellent rule of thumb. Much appreciated.
WombatDeath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2016, 21:27
technologist
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 7,514
That is why the broadcasters are driving for higher dynamic range wider colour gamut higher frame rate and immersive audio all if this you can benefit from at greater than the 1.5H that you have to be close to the screen to see the pixels in uhd1..

Do take time to read her paper and those she references ...
technologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2016, 10:45
GDK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
Fascinating survey. And thanks for the technical detail.
GDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2016, 15:20
mark6226
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 60
I found Netflix to be very poor at 4K. I have a Panasonic 58dx700 that is also HDR and I tried Netflix with the free trial. The 4K demos look absolutely superb but the 4K tv shows leave much to be desired. I have a very fast internet connection so that's not the problem.
I tried the HDR to shows and that wasn't brilliant as well. I am speaking relatively here.
It's not surprising that 4K bluray looks much better than streamed content. Upscaled bluray content looks better than generic 4K on Netflix.
I also play PC games at native 4K through hdmi 2 and they look truly marvellous.
It's early days for 4K and maybe the new Xbox 1 s will be the saviour of 4K bluray.
To be honest the 4K movies released on disc so far are pretty poor. The same mistake was made when bluray was launched.
Let's face it bluray has never caught on. After 10 years it still only has a 20% market share of physical disc sales. DVD is still the dominant format.
I think bluray is suoerb and when decent movies shot on celluloid start to come out on 4K bluray I'll buy a player.
I don't think we will ever really see the full potential of 4K and HDR with streamed content. Only 10% of the U.K has broadband speeds higher than 50mb and I really don't think the majority of people really care about picture quality. Who really wants to stuff like extenders and reality tv at 4K?
So far I've only seen the potential of 4K via demos on Netflix. The picture is truly breathtaking. I really don't think that we will see standard to tv shows that look that good.
I don't know how 4K bluray compared to the demos because I've not got the hardware to play them. The reviews of the Panasonic are outstanding. The Samsung gets bad reviews by comparison. Let's see how the xb1 s shapes up.
But please can we have some decent movies like the African Queen, gone with the wind etc. These movies look astonishingly good at upscaled 4K. I can't wait to see them at proper 4K HDR
mark6226 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2016, 16:06
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,728
Given a typical visual accutiy if one minute of arc
A UHD 1 pixel,can be resolved at 1.5 time picture height H away from the screen .
A 40" tv has H of about 2 ft if you're closer than a yard or so you can see the pixels ..
And HD screen has the same "can see the pixels" at 3 H call it say 2 metres .

With a 9 ft viewing distance To see the pixels for a HD screen you would need roughly a 60 inch screen....

You might like to read Katy Noland's BBC r&d white paper
A survey of uk viewing conditions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper287
It's the exact reason I have stuck with my plasma 50 inch HD Ready set, I sit at 10+ feet like most people in the UK apparently, though it's 42 inch plasma at 9 feet in the bedroom). I have to lean forward to see the pixels so that works well for me.

Maybe I will eventually upgrade to full HD or UHD - but there's no real incentive to do that at the moment so I will probably wait for UHD 1 phase 2 to be available and mature. Maybe in 2020, unless my plasmas fail before then.
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2016, 20:00
Matt35
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,543
Hopefully getting my LG E6 65" tv soon well either that or C6. Im looking at this stand. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mountright-...ords=Tv+stands problem is I don't know if the tv will fit or even how it fits.
Matt35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2016, 13:00
GDK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
I found Netflix to be very poor at 4K. I have a Panasonic 58dx700 that is also HDR and I tried Netflix with the free trial. The 4K demos look absolutely superb but the 4K tv shows leave much to be desired. I have a very fast internet connection so that's not the problem.
I tried the HDR to shows and that wasn't brilliant as well. I am speaking relatively here.
It's not surprising that 4K bluray looks much better than streamed content. Upscaled bluray content looks better than generic 4K on Netflix.
I also play PC games at native 4K through hdmi 2 and they look truly marvellous.
It's early days for 4K and maybe the new Xbox 1 s will be the saviour of 4K bluray.
To be honest the 4K movies released on disc so far are pretty poor. The same mistake was made when bluray was launched.
Let's face it bluray has never caught on. After 10 years it still only has a 20% market share of physical disc sales. DVD is still the dominant format.
I think bluray is suoerb and when decent movies shot on celluloid start to come out on 4K bluray I'll buy a player.
I don't think we will ever really see the full potential of 4K and HDR with streamed content. Only 10% of the U.K has broadband speeds higher than 50mb and I really don't think the majority of people really care about picture quality. Who really wants to stuff like extenders and reality tv at 4K?
So far I've only seen the potential of 4K via demos on Netflix. The picture is truly breathtaking. I really don't think that we will see standard to tv shows that look that good.
I don't know how 4K bluray compared to the demos because I've not got the hardware to play them. The reviews of the Panasonic are outstanding. The Samsung gets bad reviews by comparison. Let's see how the xb1 s shapes up.
But please can we have some decent movies like the African Queen, gone with the wind etc. These movies look astonishingly good at upscaled 4K. I can't wait to see them at proper 4K HDR
I presume your comments about 4K blu ray releases so far refer to the selection on offer and not the picture quality.

Everyone has their personal back catalogue favourites that they'd like to see get a release. I'm still waiting for a few on blu ray "The Dish" (2000) with Sam Neil and "A Matter of Life and Death" (1946) with David Niven, however most of my favourites have now been released on blu ray.

It always takes a long time for the studios to release back catalogue titles - even those rated highly by movie buffs as classics. It's all down to the studios deciding which titles will make them money. Their opinion is brand new titles always have a greater chance of them making money and avoid the format appearing to be niche, with "old fashioned" content.

As for blu ray, while it's not quite mainstream, even after 10 years, the fact that it has a significant %age market penetration and that all the studios continue to support it by releasing new titles and back catalogue titles on the format says it's far from being an abject failure. So it's not exactly niche either.

Personally, I love owning my own copy on various silver discs, but I think that in the future streaming will dominate. That's still a few years away yet though.
GDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2016, 22:12
PinSarla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3,937
I got a 55'' Samsung 4k tv a week ago, even just watching 4k vids on YouTube has me salivating, and they probably aren't even that good. Can't wait for the Xbox One S to come out so that I can try some UHD content from a better source than YouTube.
PinSarla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2016, 20:11
Matt35
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,543
I got LG oled C6 65" Arrives tomorrow. It was that or E6 but in the end decided on C6. Can't wait to get it set up and see what its like especially when football season starts in UHD. Also shows on amazon like man in the high castle in HDR.
Matt35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2016, 09:36
joshua_welby
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 7,582

If anyone is thinking of buying a new TV make sure it has the UHD Premium label on it
because that is the latest spec at the moment - it includes stuff like HDR and HFR and HVEC
joshua_welby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2016, 12:29
JARV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 237
I got a 55'' Samsung 4k tv a week ago, even just watching 4k vids on YouTube has me salivating, anvd they probably aren't even that good. Can't wait for the Xbox One S to come out so that I can try some UHD content from a better source than YouTube.
Same here, pre-ordered the One S mainly for the 4K Bluray support, got three 4K movies all ready to go
JARV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2016, 12:51
gds1972
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,515
If anyone is thinking of buying a new TV make sure it has the UHD Premium label on it
because that is the latest spec at the moment - it includes stuff like HDR and HFR and HVEC
I agree with this completely and I think this years Samsung certified SUHD TV's all look very good.

http://www.whathifi.com/advice/ultra...tvs-support-it
gds1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2016, 14:14
Matt35
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,543
My C6 65" tv arrived this morning. Box was massive but tv is so beautiful. People who said the curve is barely noticeable are absolutely right. Tried a 3D film and it was absolutely breathtaking. Bigger is definitely better especially for 3D.cannot wait to watch UHD programmes when they arrive.
Matt35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2016, 15:04
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,728
If anyone is thinking of buying a new TV make sure it has the UHD Premium label on it
because that is the latest spec at the moment - it includes stuff like HDR and HFR and HVEC
It doesn't include HFR (High Frame Rate), the hardware to handle that just isn't commercially available yet. But yes, UHD Premium TVs will be future proof for a few years anyway, until HFR comes along. As an aside, the 60 fps of UHD TVs isn't HFR.
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2016, 00:49
Winston_1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,007

There's nothing technically stopping you having a 768 pixel set with a Freeview HD 'tuner', but you couldn't call it Freeview HD.


.
This one calls it Freeview HD.

http://www.tesco.com/direct/blaupunk...?source=others
Winston_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2016, 08:51
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
You mean Tesco call it Freeview HD

About the level of Tesco selling electronics
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2016, 08:55
GDK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
You mean Tesco call it Freeview HD

About the level of Tesco selling electronics
Are you saying it doesn't have a Freeview HD tuner? Assuming it does, it also has a better than 720 panel, which makes it by definition "HD" as it meets or exceeds the minimum requirements defined for "HD" (though not "Full HD" which would need a 1080 panel).

OTOH, if Tesco's published information is not correct, then they would potentially be in trouble for not accurately describing the item.
GDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2016, 09:11
GDK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
It doesn't include HFR (High Frame Rate), the hardware to handle that just isn't commercially available yet. But yes, UHD Premium TVs will be future proof for a few years anyway, until HFR comes along. As an aside, the 60 fps of UHD TVs isn't HFR.
I'm not so sure HFR is even desirable. Maybe it's due to how we've all become conditioned to the way traditional 24fps cinema looks, but it just doesn't look right.

I saw the first Hobbit film at the cinema in HFR and it made it look like it was shot on video. A version of the "soap opera effect".

Theoretically it should improve the realism of image, making it feel more like you're actually there, but for film I found it didn't work.

I expect higher frame rates improves the realism of VR though.
GDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2016, 13:07
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
Are you saying it doesn't have a Freeview HD tuner? Assuming it does, it also has a better than 720 panel, which makes it by definition "HD" as it meets or exceeds the minimum requirements defined for "HD" (though not "Full HD" which would need a 1080 panel).
As far as I'm aware, to use the 'Freeview HD' logo, the set needs to be Full HD - just having a 'tuner' doesn't allow use of the logo.


OTOH, if Tesco's published information is not correct, then they would potentially be in trouble for not accurately describing the item.
You seem to have amazing confidence in people who sell baked beans understanding anything at all about electronics

But quite often, even the manufacturers websites get the details incorrect as well
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:16.