|
||||||||
Is 4k worth the upgrade? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,046
|
Quote:
most viewers choose channels by the programme content rather than appearance.
Quote:
Nail right on the head sir. People obsessed with pixels are the type of people who watch things because its made with more lines even though the actual product is crap.
I use freesat and when I I walk in and sit on couch 6 feet from 42" telly I have no idea if they have a HD channel on or not, and I don't care, can't see any difference between BBC HD channels, channel 4 HD, ITV HD and the SD equivalents, its all smoke and mirrors by TV manufacturers. Gotta say though, if you're watching a 42" TV from six foot away and you can't tell the difference between HD and SD, then either something is seriously wrong with your setup/feed or your eyesight isn't too great. I often visit my inlaws to find them watching an SD programme when the HD equivalent is available - I notice almost immediately that it's not in HD....and that when I'm approx. 12ft away from a 48" screen. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wolf359
Posts: 96,734
|
Quote:
I am fussy about PQ and one of my bug bears over the years has been black level, and the inability of LCD screens to display true black. I recognise that most people are not that interested in PQ, but it's a personal choice of mine.
I can't stand motion blur, so like a TV that can display action scenes as crisp as possible. Although I don't turn on motion processing as the filmic effect is too artificial for my liking. My TV doesn't have the black levels of an OLED TV but the HDR (8bit) certainly helps. IMO HDR is as big an improvement from 1080p TVs, as going from a CRT to a HD ready LCD TV was. I like that newer TVs are even able to add HDR to non HDR transmissions. |
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 2,129
|
Personally I'd say yes. Recently bought a 4K HDR tv - and it's only 43" too
We sit 10 feet away from it so was advised that we wouldn't notice the difference - but we really do. It's so clean and sharp. The jump doesn't seem as massive from SD to HD was - but we can really tell the difference. Definitely recommend HDR too! |
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
Nail right on the head sir. People obsessed with pixels are the type of people who watch things because its made with more lines even though the actual product is crap.
I use freesat and when I I walk in and sit on couch 6 feet from 42" telly I have no idea if they have a HD channel on or not, and I don't care, can't see any difference between BBC HD channels, channel 4 HD, ITV HD and the SD equivalents, its all smoke and mirrors by TV manufacturers. Is your Freesat via an external box? If so, have you checked the output is set correctly? |
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 212
|
Quote:
With all due respect, if you can't tell the difference between SD and HD on a 42" screen at 6ft, then either something is wrong with your setup, or you need to get your eyes checked. My last set was a 42" full HD and the difference between HD and SD on various channels was as clear as night and day.
Is your Freesat via an external box? If so, have you checked the output is set correctly? |
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
Samsung TV internal built in freesat , BBC SD channels are perfect, can't tell the difference even on "planet earth 2" , channel 4 is 104, channel 4 HD is 126 so 104 is mostly used, perfect picture on 104 channel 4 .
Is it possible the TV is automatically mapping equivalent HD channels, where available, to the numbers used for SD? So that you are really watching HD and when choosing, say CH4, you get CH4 HD? Actually the presence or absence of the DOG (logo in the corner) is a giveaway too. The logo is absent in SD on the 5 terrestrial channels. If you have any doubt, the easiest way to tell whether you're watching BBC One HD or the local version (which will definitely be in SD) is to switch between them while a local BBC programme is on, say after the 6 O'clock News. When you're on BBC One HD you will get the red background screens or random clips or national sports news. When you're on your local BBC One (SD) feed it will be the appropriate local news. Also, I don't see any regional variation channels on the Freesat lineup? On Sky your local channel is mapped on to channel 1 (BBC1 NW in my case) but the other regions are available with a high channel number. Maybe the arrangement is different on Freesat? I'm far from sure as I'm not a Freesat user - just terrestrial (Freeview HD) and Sky HD. Do you have the model number of your TV? Otherwise I can't think of a technical reason why you're not seeing the difference between SD and HD - unless it really is your eyesight. Sorry!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,289
|
Quote:
Well, I'm not really familiar with Freesat's channel lineup, though I have just looked it up and the channel numbers you gave are correct.
Is it possible the TV is automatically mapping equivalent HD channels, where available, to the numbers used for SD? So that you are really watching HD and when choosing, say CH4, you get CH4 HD? Actually the presence or absence of the DOG (logo in the corner) is a giveaway too. The logo is absent in SD on the 5 terrestrial channels. If you have any doubt, the easiest way to tell whether you're watching BBC One HD or the local version (which will definitely be in SD) is to switch between them while a local BBC programme is on, say after the 6 O'clock News. When you're on BBC One HD you will get the red background screens or random clips or national sports news. When you're on your local BBC One (SD) feed it will be the appropriate local news. Also, I don't see any regional variation channels on the Freesat lineup? On Sky your local channel is mapped on to channel 1 (BBC1 NW in my case) but the other regions are available with a high channel number. Maybe the arrangement is different on Freesat? I'm far from sure as I'm not a Freesat user - just terrestrial (Freeview HD) and Sky HD. Do you have the model number of your TV? Otherwise I can't think of a technical reason why you're not seeing the difference between SD and HD - unless it really is your eyesight. Sorry! ![]() On a HD box 105 Channel 5 HD replaces Channel 5 SD so you can't watch Channel 5 in SD on a HD Freesat box. The same applies to 209 NHK WORLD TV HD channels 102 BBC Two HD 105 Channel 5 HD 106 BBC One HD 107 BBC Four HD 111 ITV HD 120 S4C HD 126 Channel 4 HD 200 BBC NEWS HD 206 RT HD 209 NHK WORLD HD 600 CBBC HD 601 CBeebies HD 691 DAYSTAR TV HD 972 BBC ONE HD (England) 973 BBC 1 Scot HD 976 BBC 1 Wales HD 978 BBC 1 NI HD Regional Channels 950 BBC 1 London 951 BBC 1 CI 952 BBC 1 E Mids 953 BBC 1 East (E) 954 BBC 1 East (W) 955 BBC 1 N West 956 BBC 1 NE & C 957 BBC 1 NI 958 BBC 1 Oxford 959 BBC 1 S East 960 BBC 1 Scotland 961 BBC 1 South 962 BBC 1 S West 963 BBC 1 W Mids 964 BBC 1 Wales 965 BBC 1 West 966 BBC 1 Yorks 967 BBC 1 EYrks&L 968 BBC 2 England 969 BBC 2 NI 970 BBC 2 Scotland 971 BBC 2 Wales 972 BBC ONE HD (England) 973 BBC 1 Scot HD 974 Channel 4 975 Channel 4 + 1 976 BBC 1 Wales HD 977 ITV LONDON 978 BBC 1 NI HD |
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 8,079
|
Quote:
Permissable regional channels are also on the Freesat epg (Like Sky you only have two ITV SD your local regional one and London (due to AD being only available on the London Variant).
On a HD box 105 Channel 5 HD replaces Channel 5 SD so you can't watch Channel 5 in SD on a HD Freesat box. The same applies to 209 NHK WORLD TV HD channels 102 BBC Two HD 106 BBC One HD There the 'local' BBC 1 is available in HD, so that takes 101, but because there are local versions of BBC 2, but not in HD, the SD version takes 102, so I think BBC 2 HD (which is the England version) is on 106. Also I think UTV HD takes 103 ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 443
|
As usual we have a string of posters in defence of buying the latest, most expensive TV tech now - this time it is 4K, HDR, OLED, .... Sadly they simply don't get the point.
The point is not whether they notice the difference made by the latest tech or whether anyone could see it if they look carefully. The real point is that most users simply don't care. In this case provided the picture looks good to them they sit back and enjoy the programme. If they enjoy watching a modest screen size at a distance which is comfortable in their room there is no reason to worry whether it is SD or HD although as I pointed out earlier the vast majority of UK FTA output is still not on an HD channel. There will always be those obsessed with having state of the art tech at almost any price and good luck to them, especially if the rest of us can have the benefit later. But they should accept that they are the minority, not the main stream - and that the rest of us are normal, not too incompetent, lazy or sad to recognise the wonders we are missing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,046
|
Quote:
As usual we have a string of posters in defence of buying the latest, most expensive TV tech now - this time it is 4K, HDR, OLED, .... Sadly they simply don't get the point.
The point is not whether they notice the difference made by the latest tech or whether anyone could see it if they look carefully. The real point is that most users simply don't care. In this case provided the picture looks good to them they sit back and enjoy the programme. If they enjoy watching a modest screen size at a distance which is comfortable in their room there is no reason to worry whether it is SD or HD although as I pointed out earlier the vast majority of UK FTA output is still not on an HD channel. There will always be those obsessed with having state of the art tech at almost any price and good luck to them, especially if the rest of us can have the benefit later. But they should accept that they are the minority, not the main stream - and that the rest of us are normal, not too incompetent, lazy or sad to recognise the wonders we are missing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
As usual we have a string of posters in defence of buying the latest, most expensive TV tech now - this time it is 4K, HDR, OLED, .... Sadly they simply don't get the point.
The point is not whether they notice the difference made by the latest tech or whether anyone could see it if they look carefully. The real point is that most users simply don't care. In this case provided the picture looks good to them they sit back and enjoy the programme. If they enjoy watching a modest screen size at a distance which is comfortable in their room there is no reason to worry whether it is SD or HD although as I pointed out earlier the vast majority of UK FTA output is still not on an HD channel. There will always be those obsessed with having state of the art tech at almost any price and good luck to them, especially if the rest of us can have the benefit later. But they should accept that they are the minority, not the main stream - and that the rest of us are normal, not too incompetent, lazy or sad to recognise the wonders we are missing. I'm also not trying to persuade anyone that being an early adopter is the right thing to do, only trying to explain my reasons for my choice. Each to their own. I already understand and accept your "real" point, but sadly you seem to have completely missed my point. I'm at a loss to understand who your rant is aimed at on this forum. You seem to be defending (in quite a disparaging and insulting manner) where no attack was made as far as I'm concerned. Whether or not to adopt early is a decision purely for the individual and a personal choice. There is no choice that's right for everyone, only what's right for that person. To belittle others simply for having a different opinion or interest is wrong in my book. |
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,450
|
Yesterday I installed a Sony 65XD9305 4K/UHD HDR TV and I couldn't be more underwhelmed if I tried. £2000 TV this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: South London
Posts: 5,108
|
Quote:
Yesterday I installed a Sony 65XD9305 4K/UHD HDR TV and I couldn't be more underwhelmed if I tried. £2000 TV this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
Yesterday I installed a Sony 65XD9305 4K/UHD HDR TV and I couldn't be more underwhelmed if I tried. £2000 TV this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
You'd see no improvement if the source is only HD (or not setup correctly).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,457
|
Just out of interest Nigel and knowing that Sony have a good reputation for upscaling, in your opinion does a normal Freeview HD broadcast picture look any better upscaled to 4K as opposed to being viewed on a convention HD one? There is of course no genuine extra detail but does Sony's upscaling process give a pleasing impression that there is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
Just out of interest Nigel and knowing that Sony have a good reputation for upscaling, in your opinion does a normal Freeview HD broadcast picture look any better upscaled to 4K as opposed to being viewed on a convention HD one? There is of course no genuine extra detail but does Sony's upscaling process give a pleasing impression that there is?
4K sets don't enthuse me , but they look pretty good on HD because they are good sets, not because it's a 4K screen. A cheap 4K set gives a far inferior picture to a decent 2K set.Even on the exceptionally good 4K demo signals you can't really see any improvement over a decent 2K set with them actually side by side - at any remotely reasonable viewing distance (and by 'remotely reasonable' I actually include far too close to be 'reasonable'!). |
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,457
|
Quote:
Upscaling merely makes the picture fit the screen, it doesn't give you more resolution - but a good scaler (as used in Sony sets) makes a better job of it than a poor scaler.
4K sets don't enthuse me , but they look pretty good on HD because they are good sets, not because it's a 4K screen. A cheap 4K set gives a far inferior picture to a decent 2K set.Even on the exceptionally good 4K demo signals you can't really see any improvement over a decent 2K set with them actually side by side - at any remotely reasonable viewing distance (and by 'remotely reasonable' I actually include far too close to be 'reasonable'!). Upscaling will never make SD look like HD or HD look like 4K but just as many films are still only available in DVD format, it is unlikely that much will be available in 4K for the foreseeable future so anything that appears to make an image look better, even if it is just an illusion, is always of interest. In this case it seems that any improvement is either none or negligible. |
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Richmond, Surrey.
Posts: 13,814
|
Quote:
You need to see the difference between early adopters who foolishly fall for the latest ploy to sell more kit with unwanted and unnecessary "upgrades" and trailing edgers who recognise real advances and sensibly wait for the price to come down before purchasing.
The UK's trailing edgers recognised real advances and could not get them fast enough once the price was reasonable: TV over wireless, colour over B&W, flat screen over CRT, larger (but still comfortable in a UK room) screens over the old 21" standard, etc. 4K will persist simply because it will become the norm at a normal price but why early adopt? We have large numbers of FTA commercial channels which don't even make use of current HD capability but they survive because the picture is viewable and most viewers choose channels by the programme content rather than appearance. Some on here would have us believe trailing edgers are sad folk easily pleased. Actually they are the normal, sensible ones. Now I just wait. If something becomes the industry standard with all the associated software and programmes to go with it, I'll take the plunge. So I'm grateful to all the early adaptors, they pay for all the advancements in technology that I get to enjoy later. On the 4k debate, I just don't think there's enough content around at the moment to justify the outlay. It might be different if I was desperate for a new TV, but my current Panasonic seems almost indestructible, even if it's small (37") by current standards. And let's face, what do most of us watch 80% of the time ? Do we really need massive tv's and 4k unless it's for sport or movies ? |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:07.



, but they look pretty good on HD because they are good sets, not because it's a 4K screen. A cheap 4K set gives a far inferior picture to a decent 2K set.