Native_bon
Well-known member
Cannot agree more. With upscaled 1080p everything looks artificial. But have to say real 4K HDR10 looks miles better than 1080Pgel said:
I watched both star trek films in 4K UHD this afternoon and have to agree with gel they were no better than 1080p blu-ray.
simonlewis said:
they are 2k upscales, the biggest difference is HDR and WCG. upscaled 2k dont look much better depending on disc. and you're tv isnt hdr or wcg capable..so you won't see the biggest difference.
maybe gel is used to dynamic picture mode? *fool*
i was messing about swapping from movie to standard to natural to dynamic on my tv while watching creed, natural was so dark. darker than movie, while standard seemed a big too bright and unrealistic. and i won't talk about dynamic..but in the end i still preferred movie. maybe try using a different picture mode!
i was messing about swapping from movie to standard to natural to dynamic on my tv while watching creed, natural was so dark. darker than movie, while standard seemed a big too bright and unrealistic. and i won't talk about dynamic..but in the end i still preferred movie. maybe try using a different picture mode!
Yep, I have just been using standard. On HDR it only gives you 3 options though, I guess I will have to put it on movie to start with in the options before HDR kicks in.nugget2014 said:
I watched a 3D blu Ray this afternoon on my TV for the first time and I have to say it was awesome! Not even calibrated either.
Native_bon
Well-known member
4K tv sets actually introduces alot of noise to 1080p material recorded in low bitrate. There is no way round it. I currently got the Sony KD-65XD9035 & the pictures look amazing with Blu-ray & 4k material. Now immediately you watch low bitrate compressed HD off regular tv it can look horrible. Sony has done magic with uniformity on this set. Love it. Nice performance to price ratio.*biggrin*
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
If a TV is upscaling 1080p to 4K, it will depend on the source (as well as the TV's upscaling abilities) as to how good it will look. Higher compression isn't going to give the upscaling a good base to work from. In this respect, upscaled UHD discs have the ability to look better.
One thing is for sure though Gel - other than poor mastering, there is no reason for a genuine UHD disc to not look better than upscaled 1080p. Size of screen/viewing distance will play a large part in this, as well as the quality of the screen itself.
One thing is for sure though Gel - other than poor mastering, there is no reason for a genuine UHD disc to not look better than upscaled 1080p. Size of screen/viewing distance will play a large part in this, as well as the quality of the screen itself.
Native_bon
Well-known member
Travel to the dobly cinema in the Netherlands. See what proper 4k hdr (dolby vision) and wcg can bring! Then you will see it aint bad.
I know that HDR and Dolby Vision brings more brighter colours and I have seen a comparison on my TV that showed the difference and it was big, but when I watch my Blu-Ray's I just prefer them.
bigboss
Moderator
nugget2014 said:
I'd reccomend spending another 300 quid getting the thing calibarated. Except I don't believe in that BS. Just twiddle the knobs as it were.
Sure, i don't think a 2K upscaled to 4K is necessarily going to look better, whether the upscaling is done before the data is put on the disc or created after the data is read by the player. And I've only seen the Martian in upscaled 2K, for example, as I haven't yet bought a 4K player. Only the Samsung is available here at the moment, and I don't like the look of it. I'm waiting for the Panasonic and / or the second generation of UHD players to arrive, probably around Thanksgiving in November (which happens to be around my birthday if Mrs. BA is reading this...)
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
A UHD disc which features a film upscaled from 2K to 4K should look better than the TV or Bluray player upscaling it. Upscaling is one of those things where quality matters, and I'd rather it be done at source where they have quality upscaling (possibly as good as it gets?), rather than relying on circuitry incorporated into a jack of all trades Bluray player or TV. Admittedly, differences won't be as big as the DVD days, and may not be particularly noticeable on an average sized TV, but they'll be more apparent on a projector.
As someone else who has worked on the engineering side of TV for all my working life I have to disagree with you on 3D. Its demise was inevitable yet again as it relies on tricking people's senses and as such works to varying degrees for different people and for many not all. My whole family gave up on 3D at home and at the cinema. We only had a 3D set at home because it was a damn good HD set, the glasses never came out of their packaging.
3D has long been the holy grail of broadcast engineers and is probably still a long way off.
for me jury is out in 4K. Have just bought a set as I needed a new TV and it gave excellent HD pics. 4K sets will predominate a few years time. Why because manufacturers will switch to them to cut down on number of panels they have to make. In exactly the same way as happened with 3D. People bought them because that was what was available even if you didn't want it and they end up not being at a premium price. You only really pay for this technology as an early adopter.
no 4:3 pictures weren't stretched when UK introduced widescreen. Two options available, pillar box with black columns down either side or chop off top and bottom. There were also cut off dates for new material to be delivered in 16:9. Also a lot of material had even shot in 14:9 for a while so difference was negligible. Biggest issue was creative people shooting widescreen and not observing 4:3 safe area so viewers on old set missed key picture content.
3D has long been the holy grail of broadcast engineers and is probably still a long way off.
for me jury is out in 4K. Have just bought a set as I needed a new TV and it gave excellent HD pics. 4K sets will predominate a few years time. Why because manufacturers will switch to them to cut down on number of panels they have to make. In exactly the same way as happened with 3D. People bought them because that was what was available even if you didn't want it and they end up not being at a premium price. You only really pay for this technology as an early adopter.
no 4:3 pictures weren't stretched when UK introduced widescreen. Two options available, pillar box with black columns down either side or chop off top and bottom. There were also cut off dates for new material to be delivered in 16:9. Also a lot of material had even shot in 14:9 for a while so difference was negligible. Biggest issue was creative people shooting widescreen and not observing 4:3 safe area so viewers on old set missed key picture content.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
I’m a wireless headphones expert and there are 6 new pairs I want to see launch in 2025
- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram