Random Thoughts Thread

[RCBH928]

Is it true that the sharper the picture the better?
People are already talking about 4K movies and I wonder, maybe sharper is not better. I once heard that the beauty of films is the "soft" picture whatever that means.

I really remember watching movies on VHS and I wasn't upset although I do like the better quality DVD and mind-blowing Bluray(not internet HD) movies (Only good transfers).

[jp1]

Is it true that the sharper the picture the better?
People are already talking about 4K movies and I wonder, maybe sharper is not better. I once heard that the beauty of films is the "soft" picture whatever that means.

I really remember watching movies on VHS and I wasn't upset although I do like the better quality DVD and mind-blowing Bluray(not internet HD) movies (Only good transfers).

It's subjective. Resolution has a big link with screen size and distance from the screen. 4k is not useful for me as a resolution because I sit 8 feet from my set and my screen size wont be approaching 70" or larger in the near future.

On the other hand 4k does have Bette color reproduction, so there is still some benefit in smaller screen size at 4k.

For me Bluray is vastly superior in every way to VHS. Especially in sound quality. I don't think those who "don't care" are wrong though. Some people just want to watch the movie and the quality of the presentation makes little difference. It's all about preference.

[Luke]

Is it true that the sharper the picture the better?

It's subjective. ... It's all about preference.

Actually, a little bit of "yes" but a lot more "no".

Although jp1 did hint at how close to the screen you are makes the ultimate difference, it doesn't really matter as our brains can't tell the difference. I'm serious, YOUR EYES CAN"T TELL THE DIFFERENCE. It's all marketing that ultimately leads to nothing.

Think I'm being silly? Then google "Why 4k is stupid" or "why 4k is dumb" or "can I see in 4k".

[dsheinem]

it doesn't really matter as our brains can't tell the difference. I'm serious, YOUR EYES CAN"T TELL THE DIFFERENCE. It's all marketing that ultimately leads to nothing.

I can tell the difference in a 4K vs a 1080p TV when I compare them in the store...

A CNET article explains that the biggest relevant math factor in the shift to 4K would be the proximity you sit to the screen so that the ability of your eyes to resolve pixels would actually benefit from the upgrade . I sit about 4-5 feet from the 55" TV in my game room (GunstarGreen can attest to this), which is certainly within the distance where a 4K upgrade would be noticeable. Assuming my current TV can carry me through a good chunk of this generation, I was actually thinking of getting a 4K TV next...hopefully new consoles will support that resolution (as PC games have begun to).

[jp1]

With something huge at a close distance it would reduce pixel visibility, and as I said color reproduction is improved. In fact, we are both right in a way. In nearly all household applications 4k doesn't give substantial benefit. And until 4k content is available, it gives no benefit.

People will still buy it anyway, same as those who purchase a 1080p 32" tv and sit 10 feet from it. It's "better" because it says it's better.

I'd much rather see new technologies like Oled being pushed out than another round of LCD TVs that have so many inherent flaws in the tech itself.

My current set is 60" and it wouldn't benefit from 4k, so I agree with you in most cases. Just saying there are some (few) instances where it will make a difference.

[Luke]

I can tell the difference in a 4K vs a 1080p TV when I compare them in the store...

A CNET article explains that the biggest relevant math factor in the shift to 4K would be the proximity you sit to the screen so that the ability of your eyes to resolve pixels would actually benefit from the upgrade . I sit about 4-5 feet from the 55" TV in my game room (GunstarGreen can attest to this), which is certainly within the distance where a 4K upgrade would be noticeable. Assuming my current TV can carry me through a good chunk of this generation, I was actually thinking of getting a 4K TV next...hopefully new consoles will support that resolution (as PC game have begun to).

CNET...Lots of tv ads on their site

I know you know this, but stores totally manipulate their floor models.

And you may think you can tell a difference in clarity, but a little research on what your eyes are capable of seeing will let you know most of HD stuff is just that...stuff.

[dsheinem]

I can tell the difference in a 4K vs a 1080p TV when I compare them in the store...

A CNET article explains that the biggest relevant math factor in the shift to 4K would be the proximity you sit to the screen so that the ability of your eyes to resolve pixels would actually benefit from the upgrade . I sit about 4-5 feet from the 55" TV in my game room (GunstarGreen can attest to this), which is certainly within the distance where a 4K upgrade would be noticeable. Assuming my current TV can carry me through a good chunk of this generation, I was actually thinking of getting a 4K TV next...hopefully new consoles will support that resolution (as PC game have begun to).

CNET...Lots of tv ads on their site

I know you know this, but stores totally manipulate their floor models.

And you may think you can tell a difference in clarity, but a little research on what your eyes are capable of seeing will let you know most of HD stuff is just that...stuff.

Did you read the article? It is generally an argument against 4K TV, ads be damned.

Did you read the article? It is a difference that the human eye can see up close (e.g. in a store, in a game room, etc.)

Did you read the article? It says:

But with televisions, 4K is stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. For every one of you thinking you'll rearrange your living room to sit closer to the screen, I'm positive there are thousands of others who wouldn't (or wouldn't be allowed to). Sure screen sizes are going up, but how many of you are really going to put an 85-inch screen in your home, and sit close enough to it for 4K to matter? Don't believe me? Get a chair, and sit close enough to your TV so you can just see the pixel structure. Now watch an entire TV show like that. Now convince your family to do the same.

That person with a room arranged where it would make a difference? That's me.

[isiolia]

Is it true that the sharper the picture the better?
People are already talking about 4K movies and I wonder, maybe sharper is not better. I once heard that the beauty of films is the "soft" picture whatever that means.

Higher resolution is at least useful for being able to store something approaching the full level of detail that physical film stock can capture. In turn, that'd depend on the actual film size. 70mm film contains a lot more information than 35mm does, etc.
Film itself can capture very fine details that can take better and better scanners to fully capture into a computer. It's not always recorded at 100% clarity, or projected that way, but the medium itself isn't inherently soft.

I think it's a different thing from what's good enough for a particular viewing setup.

I agree though, I'd rather see a push for better quality in other ways right now. Pretty much any tech out there has compromises to make. For TVs at least. Looking at Retina Macbook screens or similar PCs, there's an immediate and obvious difference, just like there are with high PPI phones.

[Luke]

Why read the article when the url says it all?

And why read anything on cnet? They are the buzzfeed of technology.

4k is as dumb as 3d tv.

[Exhuminator]

I can tell the difference in a 4K vs a 1080p TV when I compare them in the store.

Wow I finally agree with you about something.