Event demonstrating 4k & 1080p difference

[JohnSutton]

Anyone going to this? Looks interesting: Richer Sounds is going to demonstrate if you can see difference between 4k and 1080p:

http://www.richersounds.com/information/showcase

 

[Pindi]

I would've been nice to see a couple of flagship plasmas there, too.

 

[Son_of_SJ]

So, did anyone attend this event on Sunday?

 

[strapped for cash]

So, did anyone attend this event on Sunday?

I had no idea it was happening; but I attended the last Leicester event at the same location.

4K content was compared with 1080p content; and while you could see some advantages up close, the 4K LED TV had noticeably inferior contrast performance compared with the various plasma televisions on display. All televisions were professionally calibrated, so were performing optimally.

I concluded that I'd rather have a 1080p plasma than a 4K LED TV. (That's before we consider the dearth of 4K content and the mammoth scaling required to display standard definition content on 4K televisions.)

 

[Frank Harvey]

I concluded that I'd rather have a 1080p plasma than a 4K LED TV.

...quite possible because...

the 4K LED TV had noticeably inferior contrast performance compared with the various plasma televisions on display.

?

All televisions were professionally calibrated, so were performing optimally.

Either, all weren't professionally calibrated (not to their ultimate, anyway), or the sets used had differing capabilities, making the test useless.

As mentioned before, the difference between 1080p and 4K will depend on the size of screen being used (and the distance viewed from, obviously). I still see 4K as a format for projectors, not TV's (although the Sony at Bristol Show looked stunning). I'm sure if everyone popped along to their cinema to watch a film in 4K, suddenly had the resolution dropped to 1080 half way through, people would notice.

Textures are far more realistic at 4K.

 

[strapped for cash]

I concluded that I'd rather have a 1080p plasma than a 4K LED TV.

...quite possible because...

the 4K LED TV had noticeably inferior contrast performance compared with the various plasma televisions on display.

?

Yes. My comments weren't deceptive. All 1080p plasmas on display produced a better image than the comparably sized 4K LED TV. (There was only one 4K LED on display.)

All televisions were professionally calibrated, so were performing optimally.

Either, all weren't professionally calibrated (not to their ultimate, anyway), or the sets used had differing capabilities, making the test useless.

Sorry David. I don't understand what you're getting at here. Of course the sets had different capabilities. The whole point of calibrating them was to make these differences apparent.

As mentioned before, the difference between 1080p and 4K will depend on the size of screen being used (and the distance viewed from, obviously). I still see 4K as a format for projectors, not TV's (although the Sony at Bristol Show looked stunning). I'm sure if everyone popped along to their cinema to watch a film in 4K, suddenly had the resolution dropped to 1080 half way through, people would notice.

Textures are far more realistic at 4K.

I'm certain that a 4K projector will outperform a 1080p projector. However, there were no projectors on display at the event, only different flatscreen televisions.

Overall, I wasn't arguing that there's never any benefit to superior resolution. (That'd be an untenable position.)

Rather, I was observing that, of the different televisions on display, the 1080p plasmas produced a better picture than the comparably sized 4K LED television. (That's taking all aspects of picture performance into account, and not just resolution.)

 

[strapped for cash]

I concluded that I'd rather have a 1080p plasma than a 4K LED TV.

...quite possible because...

the 4K LED TV had noticeably inferior contrast performance compared with the various plasma televisions on display.

?

Yes. My comments weren't deceptive. All 1080p plasmas on display produced a better image than the comparably sized 4K LED TV. (There was only one 4K LED on display.) This was certainly down to the differences between technologies.

All televisions were professionally calibrated, so were performing optimally.

Either, all weren't professionally calibrated (not to their ultimate, anyway), or the sets used had differing capabilities, making the test useless.

Sorry David. I don't understand what you're getting at here. Of course the sets had different capabilities. The whole point of calibrating them was to make these differences apparent.

As mentioned before, the difference between 1080p and 4K will depend on the size of screen being used (and the distance viewed from, obviously). I still see 4K as a format for projectors, not TV's (although the Sony at Bristol Show looked stunning). I'm sure if everyone popped along to their cinema to watch a film in 4K, suddenly had the resolution dropped to 1080 half way through, people would notice.

Textures are far more realistic at 4K.

I'm certain that a 4K projector will outperform a 1080p projector. However, there were no projectors on display at the event, only different flatscreen televisions.

Overall, I wasn't arguing that there's never any benefit to superior resolution. (That'd be an untenable position.)

Rather, I was observing that, of the different televisions on display, the 1080p plasmas produced a better picture than the comparably sized 4K LED television. (That's taking all aspects of picture performance into account, and not just resolution.)

 

[strapped for cash]

I concluded that I'd rather have a 1080p plasma than a 4K LED TV.

...quite possible because...

the 4K LED TV had noticeably inferior contrast performance compared with the various plasma televisions on display.

?

Yes. My comments weren't deceptive. All 1080p plasmas on display produced a better image than the comparably sized 4K LED TV. (There was only one 4K LED on display.) This was undoubtedly down to differences between technologies.

All televisions were professionally calibrated, so were performing optimally.

Either, all weren't professionally calibrated (not to their ultimate, anyway), or the sets used had differing capabilities, making the test useless.

Sorry David. I don't understand what you're getting at here. Of course the sets had different capabilities. The whole point of calibrating them was to make these differences apparent.

As mentioned before, the difference between 1080p and 4K will depend on the size of screen being used (and the distance viewed from, obviously). I still see 4K as a format for projectors, not TV's (although the Sony at Bristol Show looked stunning). I'm sure if everyone popped along to their cinema to watch a film in 4K, suddenly had the resolution dropped to 1080 half way through, people would notice.

Textures are far more realistic at 4K.

I'm certain that a 4K projector will outperform a 1080p projector. However, there were no projectors on display at the event, only different flatscreen televisions.

Overall, I wasn't arguing that there's never any benefit to superior resolution. (That'd be an untenable position.)

Rather, I was observing that, of the different televisions on display, the 1080p plasmas produced a better picture than the comparably sized 4K LED television. (That's taking all aspects of picture performance into account, and not just resolution.)

 

[Stuart.W.D]

In my local store X9 was compared to F8000 both sets had the same football game on, from the naked eye X9 looked that bit more sharper & colour had that bit more pop to X9 over F8000. All that been said i still expected the X9 to be more than what it was!! :?