General Category > General Discussion
4K TVs.. waste of time?
Einhander:
--- Quote from: marioxb on September 11, 2015, 10:10:15 PM ---But see, that's the thing. I don't want to be "there". I want to be watching the movie, not in it. I cannot stand when it looks so real that you are on set with the actors. Looks sooooo damn fake. Maybe for sports and travel shows, but I don't really watch them. I pretty much only like scripted movies and shows. Sitcoms, cartoons, blockbuster movies. Stuff like that. Don't really care for reality tv, be it sports, news, anything on TLC, etc, don't like any of it. The closest I like to "real life" om TV are game shows like Price is Right or Family Feud.
--- End quote ---
Man now you're starting to act like me. I guess I can see where you're coming from. Change is hard sometimes. But you cannot deny how awesome the 4k TV's look. My suggestion would be to keep your 1080 P for general purposes. But for movies and shows with really good scenery, use your 4k tv. You don't have to watch Seinfeld or Friends in 4k. By the way, this applies to 2 years down the road. Right now nothing is in 4k anyway.
See for me, there's just something magical about CRT's and retro games. Maybe it's nostalgia, but at times I can't place my finger on what it is exactly. Sometimes I feel like modern games look too fake by trying to go for the blockbuster feel. So therefore, I start telling myself that CRT's and retro games have better graphics. But man.... These 4k TV's look way better than any video game. How could it look fake? I mean not when you're watching real things.
wiggy:
--- Quote from: Megatron on September 09, 2015, 12:55:11 AM ---
--- Quote from: marioxb on September 08, 2015, 10:02:34 PM --- Personally, I don't think home TVs should look crisper/ "better" than movie theaters. I think theaters should be the end all, highest quality you can get.
--- End quote ---
For me, theaters have always been crap pictures. The IMAX ones are OK, but theaters are for SOUND. Nothing compares to the epic boom of a good theater sound system, especially for films designed for it like Inception or Jurassic Park.
As for picture, I remember seeing Man of Steel in Imax, NOT Imax 3d, and thinking this would look better on my TV at home. Sure enough, it did.
I like the crystal clear, 260 fps smoothness I get. I like feeling like it's happening right in front of me. That soap opera effect is called Image smoothing or something, and I love it - though that is a matter of taste.
However, for GAMES...I think 4k is a bit much right now until we get some hardware that can actually display it. Now I have heard there are some PC games that do 4k, but I have yet to see anything like that.
--- End quote ---
Funny you would think that, as the films used in movie production have a "resolution" which far exceeds 4K. It's not until movies are made digital that they actually lose a great deal of detail or resolution. That said, a lot of films are shot digitally these days, which is quite sad IMO.
Also, movies are not shot at 260fps. Not even close, so I'm sort of confused as to exactly what you're seeing at 260fps?
Doom:
I've been meaning to do the math on 4K for a few days. There are charts online with arbitrary "optimal distances" for when "4K becomes noticable" -- but I think our knowledge of optics along with math can give a more meaningful answer.
4K TVs are usually paired with the higher standards that come with the spec. HDR (high dynamic range) for example. I want to see a rigorous test comparing 1080p material on a 4K TV with the same content at 4K -- ideally, it would use every feature of 4K TVs except the 4K itself.
In a few years, it won't matter. The reason 4K exists in the first place is that screens are manufactured in sheets. To get a 42 inch 1080p TV, they would actually take a bigger 4K sheet and cut it into fourths. Part of the reason was there was a lot of losses - the sheet couldn't be one giant 4K screen because of imperfections in the process.
Now the process has improved so more and more sheets are usable as one large 4K TV. The process will continue to improve and it will soon be impossible to not get a 4K TV, just as now it's almost impossible to get a 720p TV.
--- Quote from: wiggy on September 12, 2015, 07:44:17 AM ---Also, movies are not shot at 260fps. Not even close, so I'm sort of confused as to exactly what you're seeing at 260fps?
--- End quote ---
Frame interpolation from (probably) 24 fps to 260 fps.
Megatron:
--- Quote from: wiggy on September 12, 2015, 07:44:17 AM ---
Funny you would think that, as the films used in movie production have a "resolution" which far exceeds 4K. It's not until movies are made digital that they actually lose a great deal of detail or resolution. That said, a lot of films are shot digitally these days, which is quite sad IMO.
Also, movies are not shot at 260fps. Not even close, so I'm sort of confused as to exactly what you're seeing at 260fps?
--- End quote ---
Quick note - I meant 240fps, not 260. Typo, my bad...
Anyway...I don't know the specs of film vs digital, nor do I really care. Theaters are big and nice, but when it comes to fine detail (which is important to me) it is severely lacking. So this may be taboo to film "purists", but I prefer the blu ray digital over film.
As for 60fps vs 120 vs 240 - the hardware adds smoothing and motion blur to fill in the gap between frames. In many cases this is the "Soap Opera" effect. A good blu ray to look at is anything with a car chase or something else really fast moving. The Dark Knight (scene where the truck flips) is actually really cool to watch in standard 60fps, then 120 then 240 in succession. And yes, the difference is noticeable. Some don't like it, some do. Different strokes.
Thom Grayson:
--- Quote from: Megatron on September 12, 2015, 04:51:27 PM ---Anyway...I don't know the specs of film vs digital, nor do I really care. Theaters are big and nice, but when it comes to fine detail (which is important to me) it is severely lacking. So this may be taboo to film "purists", but I prefer the blu ray digital over film.
--- End quote ---
I don't think the home video versions are more detailed than the theater versions. I think you are talking about pixel size - which is obviously smaller on a home TV than it is on a massive screen - which can result in things looking sharper even though no detail has actually been added. PPI has more to do with sharpness than resolution does, in many cases.