Is 4K really better than HD TV or Blu-ray video?

[Rupert]

There's been a great deal of build up to the latest high definition viewing experience called variously Ultra HD or 4K.

I'm curous to know how much better can it be than HD TV or Blu-ray video?

My new Panasonic HD TV reveals every stray hair, every skin pore and every fabric thread in HD broadcasts. Similarly, since buying a new Panasonic Blu-ray disc player, I've replaced a few of my favourite DVDs with Blu-ray discs and the difference there is quite startling (e.g. Blade Runner - The Final Cut and Avatar ).

So, if what I currently see in HD and Blu-ray quality is already totally brilliant, how on earth does 4K 'improve' on that .. or am I missing some stuff that's got nothing to do with what I can actually see and more to do with how many techy wizzbangs go on inside the equipment boxes themselves?

 

[Leeps]

There's been a great deal of build up to the latest high definition viewing experience called variously Ultra HD or 4K.

I'm curous to know how much better can it be than HD TV or Blu-ray video?

My new Panasonic HD TV reveals every stray hair, every skin pore and every fabric thread in HD broadcasts. Similarly, since buying a new Panasonic Blu-ray disc player, I've replaced a few of my favourite DVDs with Blu-ray discs and the difference there is quite startling (e.g. Blade Runner - The Final Cut and Avatar ).

So, if what I currently see in HD and Blu-ray quality is already totally brilliant, how on earth does 4K 'improve' on that .. or am I missing some stuff that's got nothing to do with what I can actually see and more to do with how many techy wizzbangs go on inside the equipment boxes themselves?

I see where you're coming from and totally agree. Let's face it, 3D was a flop, so how are the TV manufacturers going to pay their employees and keep their businesses running if they don't sell us new stuff, particularly if we're really happy with our old stuff? (Built-in obsolescence and all that).

Much of it is down to the industry wanting it for us than us really needing it. I have a 42" plasma. It's my own preference, but I've not seen a picture that gets as close to it, particularly in its natural colouring. And when fed a well-mastered Bluray, it's as stunning as I'd ever want.

4K really comes into its own at 50-55" and above, so is more relevant for projectors and very large TV's. Really 4K is of more benefit to real home cinema buffs with their dedicated cinema rooms. To those of us who want their front room to look like one, it's less relevant. The other benefit is its frames per second, potentially offering a smoother picture, but in reality again, I'm perfectly happy with my plasma's efforts in this respect. For me, particularly with movies, sound is just as, if not more important than the picture in re-creating genuine atmosphere.

The caveat to all this is how soon it becomes the new industry standard, so presumably at some point "old fashioned HD" will become obsolete. But considering we're still paying extra for HD channels over SD, (and how long has HD been around?) I'm in no hurry to adopt the new format, particularly as in my case it means a new TV, AV receiver and source of some kind.

All the adverts I've seen for 4K 40" TV's just make me laugh frankly.

 

[simonlewis]

You might find this read interesting about the 4K BT box. http://www.whathifi.com/news/5-things-we-learned-watching-bt-sport-ultra-hd

 

[bigboss]

In my opinion, there are 2 significant advantages:

1) The viewing distance will get much closer with the picture remaining razor sharp, so the TV will fill your field of vision more, giving you that immersive experience.

2) HDR can be a potential game changer with the right material and will enhance viewing experience immensely.

Yes, you really need larger screens to appreciate 4K, minimum 65 inches.

1080p is excellent already, so I'm in no hurry to switch to 4K.

 

[Deleted member 116933]

Im one of the people that have actually bought a set out nessessity as my tv broke down last year and didnt see the point of buying twice. I did my research long and hard and the only thing mine can't do is HDR which im not really to conserned about.

Because unless it implemented properly it will be a pile of poo. This really needs to be an auto setting taking control of the tv and setting it correctly.

Samsung guessed right with the specs though.

You don't need 65inch to see the benifits either (sorry big boss i completly dissagree). People contradict themselves with this all the time.

You need to work out the distance you sit! If you sit 1m away from a 32inch set then you will see a marked improvement over a 1080p at the same distance and you should be able to go up a size without any problems due to higher pixel densitiy. 4k/UHD isn't all about the clartity which again is lost on some. It about the Smoothness and added frames (though 60fps i think is going to be like watching soup opera. There's a very good reason why 24fps was choosen in the goldern age) not to mention the greater colours avliable all adding to the experance of the newer films.

4k/UHD tv's also upscale 1080p content very well.... but Its going to be a very costly exsisie for some. As leeps said above a new bluray player, new amp, new tv your and new cables your looking at a tidy some of money.

The 55 i have is brill and you can defo see the difference. Its just about how close you sit! as it always been. But for the forseable future unless its broke dont fix it. There not going to kill off 1080p content over night but in terms of screens your looking at year or 2 tops before 1080p screen disapear from the shelves completly.

 

[Rupert]

Interesting replies .. thanks to all who took the trouble.

I've concluded that, like Windows 10, if you don't think you'll derive any benefit from the new technology (and, in the case of W10 I don't, as I have just the one Windows 8.1 desktop computer, no laptop, no tablet, no smartphone, etc.) then there's not a lot of point upgrading everything (and it would mean everything .. recorder and Blu-ray player as well as the TV).

As it happens, the new TV is a 39" set and we sit approximately 12 feet away from it. Although the previous 28" CRT unit gave superb pictures, the added enjoyment derived from HD broadcasts on the new set (to say nothing of the larger screen size of course!) have made the upgrade well worthwhile.

For that 'immersive experience' I usually put the sound through my Marantz PM7200 amplifier and listen on my trusty Sennheiser HD250 headphones, with the lights down really low!

 

[ellisdj]

Its interesting how opposite some people are in terms of setup 39" @ 12 feet.

I am currently 8 feet from 65" considering moving to about 100 inch at about 7 feet.

Still not sure 4K will be the one for this setup - going out demoing soon. I dare say it will be even my phone is better for the higher resolution screen.

 

[Native_bon]

For 1080P it's a no. For 4k its a yes. Especially with HDR content. Also very few content, you may have to watch same rubbish over & over just to watch in 4K. Yes its all about marketing right now. I think two years from now will be about the right time for 4k.

 

[Series1boy]

For 1080P it's a no. For 4k its a yes. Especially with HDR content. Also very few content, you may have to watch same rubbish over & over just to watch in 4K. Yes its all about marketing right now. I think two years from now will be about the right time for 4k.

i couldn't agree more with you. Give it a couple of more years and there will be plenty of more content on all types of media, prices will come down on kit and hopefully there is a choice of manufacturers of OLED TVs...

 

[proffski]

That is exactly the same arguement a friend used twenty odd years ago when we were watching a film on his B&O 28" CRT TV. He now has one of the last Pioneer Kuro 50" Plasma TVs but has an open mind to something better.

There's been a great deal of build up to the latest high definition viewing experience called variously Ultra HD or 4K.

I'm curous to know how much better can it be than HD TV or Blu-ray video?

My new Panasonic HD TV reveals every stray hair, every skin pore and every fabric thread in HD broadcasts. Similarly, since buying a new Panasonic Blu-ray disc player, I've replaced a few of my favourite DVDs with Blu-ray discs and the difference there is quite startling (e.g. Blade Runner - The Final Cut and Avatar ).

So, if what I currently see in HD and Blu-ray quality is already totally brilliant, how on earth does 4K 'improve' on that .. or am I missing some stuff that's got nothing to do with what I can actually see and more to do with how many techy wizzbangs go on inside the equipment boxes themselves?

 

[Alantiggger]

There's been a great deal of build up to the latest high definition viewing experience called variously Ultra HD or 4K.

I'm curous to know how much better can it be than HD TV or Blu-ray video?

My new Panasonic HD TV reveals every stray hair, every skin pore and every fabric thread in HD broadcasts. Similarly, since buying a new Panasonic Blu-ray disc player, I've replaced a few of my favourite DVDs with Blu-ray discs and the difference there is quite startling (e.g. Blade Runner - The Final Cut and Avatar ).

So, if what I currently see in HD and Blu-ray quality is already totally brilliant, how on earth does 4K 'improve' on that .. or am I missing some stuff that's got nothing to do with what I can actually see and more to do with how many techy wizzbangs go on inside the equipment boxes themselves?

I see where you're coming from and totally agree. Let's face it, 3D was a flop, so how are the TV manufacturers going to pay their employees and keep their businesses running if they don't sell us new stuff, particularly if we're really happy with our old stuff? (Built-in obsolescence and all that).

Much of it is down to the industry wanting it for us than us really needing it. I have a 42" plasma. It's my own preference, but I've not seen a picture that gets as close to it, particularly in its natural colouring. And when fed a well-mastered Bluray, it's as stunning as I'd ever want.

4K really comes into its own at 50-55" and above, so is more relevant for projectors and very large TV's. Really 4K is of more benefit to real home cinema buffs with their dedicated cinema rooms. To those of us who want their front room to look like one, it's less relevant. The other benefit is its frames per second, potentially offering a smoother picture, but in reality again, I'm perfectly happy with my plasma's efforts in this respect. For me, particularly with movies, sound is just as, if not more important than the picture in re-creating genuine atmosphere.

The caveat to all this is how soon it becomes the new industry standard, so presumably at some point "old fashioned HD" will become obsolete. But considering we're still paying extra for HD channels over SD, (and how long has HD been around?) I'm in no hurry to adopt the new format, particularly as in my case it means a new TV, AV receiver and source of some kind.

All the adverts I've seen for 4K 40" TV's just make me laugh frankly.

" Let's face it, 3D was a flop "

mmmmmmm...

I have no idea as to what drws a lot of folks to this same conclusion ?

Is it people's eyes or their TV or their 3d blu-ray players ?

I now have over forty 3D titles and they are all superb to watch, so I'm now wondering, where are the others falling down ?

I simply have the Samsung PS51 E6500 Plasma TV, Sony BDP 790 Blu Ray player used with the Yamaha RX V673 amp.

I use Samsung 5100 3D glasses......... the whole 3D experience is Fantastic !

It seems so strange that other folk are not finding this 3D so Great ?

 

[bigboss]

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/01/07/3d-tvs-dead-ces-2015-fight-moving-4k-curved-displays/

http://www.techradar.com/news/home-cinema/what-went-wrong-with-3d--1295453

 

[bigboss]

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/01/07/3d-tvs-dead-ces-2015-fight-movi...

http://www.techradar.com/news/home-cinema/what-went-wrong-with-3d--1295453

Links now clickable, hopefully.

 

[MajorFubar]

There's a very good reason why 24fps was choosen in the goldern age

There is. But do you know what it is, accepting that the internet 'spoils' such trivia questions these days because people can easily Google the question then pretend they already knew the answer.

 

[Deleted member 116933]

There's a very good reason why 24fps was choosen in the goldern age

There is. But do you know what it is, accepting that the internet 'spoils' such trivia questions these days because people can easily Google the question then pretend they already knew the answer.

I do indeed know the answer!! all to well. And know the effects of adding, extending and taking away frames more than most .

As i work/ed within animation and illustration industry, more of the later these days as a concept artist.

Im not here to give it away though

 

[rocketrazor]

There's been a great deal of build up to the latest high definition viewing experience called variously Ultra HD or 4K.

I'm curous to know how much better can it be than HD TV or Blu-ray video?

My new Panasonic HD TV reveals every stray hair, every skin pore and every fabric thread in HD broadcasts. Similarly, since buying a new Panasonic Blu-ray disc player, I've replaced a few of my favourite DVDs with Blu-ray discs and the difference there is quite startling (e.g. Blade Runner - The Final Cut and Avatar ).

So, if what I currently see in HD and Blu-ray quality is already totally brilliant, how on earth does 4K 'improve' on that .. or am I missing some stuff that's got nothing to do with what I can actually see and more to do with how many techy wizzbangs go on inside the equipment boxes themselves?

I see where you're coming from and totally agree. Let's face it, 3D was a flop, so how are the TV manufacturers going to pay their employees and keep their businesses running if they don't sell us new stuff, particularly if we're really happy with our old stuff? (Built-in obsolescence and all that).

Much of it is down to the industry wanting it for us than us really needing it. I have a 42" plasma. It's my own preference, but I've not seen a picture that gets as close to it, particularly in its natural colouring. And when fed a well-mastered Bluray, it's as stunning as I'd ever want.

4K really comes into its own at 50-55" and above, so is more relevant for projectors and very large TV's. Really 4K is of more benefit to real home cinema buffs with their dedicated cinema rooms. To those of us who want their front room to look like one, it's less relevant. The other benefit is its frames per second, potentially offering a smoother picture, but in reality again, I'm perfectly happy with my plasma's efforts in this respect. For me, particularly with movies, sound is just as, if not more important than the picture in re-creating genuine atmosphere.

The caveat to all this is how soon it becomes the new industry standard, so presumably at some point "old fashioned HD" will become obsolete. But considering we're still paying extra for HD channels over SD, (and how long has HD been around?) I'm in no hurry to adopt the new format, particularly as in my case it means a new TV, AV receiver and source of some kind.

All the adverts I've seen for 4K 40" TV's just make me laugh frankly.

" Let's face it, 3D was a flop "

mmmmmmm...

I have no idea as to what drws a lot of folks to this same conclusion ?

Is it people's eyes or their TV or their 3d blu-ray players ?

I now have over forty 3D titles and they are all superb to watch, so I'm now wondering, where are the others falling down ?

I simply have the Samsung PS51 E6500 Plasma TV, Sony BDP 790 Blu Ray player used with the Yamaha RX V673 amp.

I use Samsung 5100 3D glasses......... the whole 3D experience is Fantastic !

It seems so strange that other folk are not finding this 3D so Great ?

Couldn't agree more Alan. I specifically signed up for Amazon Love Film and only hired 3D titles. Love the 3D experience. Mine is pn a 50" Panny GT50 so it's active shutter as well. I really like 3d films and for me it add's a whole new depth to watching films

 

[Son_of_SJ]

I see where you're coming from and totally agree. Let's face it, 3D was a flop, so how are the TV manufacturers going to pay their employees and keep their businesses running if they don't sell us new stuff, particularly if we're really happy with our old stuff? (Built-in obsolescence and all that).

I have to join Alantigger and rocketrazor. Of my 165 Blu-rays and DVDs, nine are 3D, and I have to say that I like them all, so 3D is not a flop, for me. I just hope that we will be able to watch 3D with 4K Blu-ray.

Much of it is down to the industry wanting it for us than us really needing it. I have a 42" plasma. It's my own preference, but I've not seen a picture that gets as close to it, particularly in its natural colouring. And when fed a well-mastered Bluray, it's as stunning as I'd ever want.

4K really comes into its own at 50-55" and above, so is more relevant for projectors and very large TV's. Really 4K is of more benefit to real home cinema buffs with their dedicated cinema rooms. To those of us who want their front room to look like one, it's less relevant. The other benefit is its frames per second, potentially offering a smoother picture, but in reality again, I'm perfectly happy with my plasma's efforts in this respect. For me, particularly with movies, sound is just as, if not more important than the picture in re-creating genuine atmosphere.

The caveat to all this is how soon it becomes the new industry standard, so presumably at some point "old fashioned HD" will become obsolete. But considering we're still paying extra for HD channels over SD, (and how long has HD been around?) I'm in no hurry to adopt the new format, particularly as in my case it means a new TV, AV receiver and source of some kind.

This time I have to agree with Leeps, a good Blu-ray on a calibrated screen is still a highly satisfying experience!

 

[Deleted member 2457]

3D is a flop for me.

 

[Leeps]

Might aswell throw all my cards on the table in one go: I don't like curved TV's either. I suppose they're ok if you don't have ANY friends or even the mildest passing acquaintance who may just pop in and watch TV with you and find their viewing angle less than impressive.

TV's should be 2D, flat and just a very good picture quality. But that's just my preference.

Perhaps my anti-curved stance is somehow linked to my former 70kg behemoth CRT TV that was curved the other way? Somehow curved TV's seem to be taking a step backwards.

Actually my calling 3D TV a flop was more a nod to its commercially short-lived existence (a la Sky and others who've abandoned it not many years after its introduction), although as it happens I don't like 3D anyway. If find it detracts from a film. It's constantly going "hey look at me" (the 3D image), "hey I'm amazing to look at aren't I?" which I find a distraction to a good movie. I personally prefer a nice crisp detailed 2D image.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I agree 3D has, overall, been a flop. Again. If it had been a success, all films being released would be released in 3D, and they're not. That's not to say some people won't enjoy watching 3D as it can be entertaining, but I think if a film needs 3D to be watchable (just like some films need bombastic audio to be watchable), then there's not usually much to be said for the quality of the film. If I choose to go to the cinema, I will always ignore the 3D option, if it is available. I've only seen two well made 3D films - Gravity and Toy Story 3. Toy Story didn't poke stuff at you and say, "look, I'm 3D!", and the whole atmosphere of Gravity was improved by 3D, really giving you a sense of the distance between the subject and Earth. Both gave a sense of depth. I'm more interested in UHD than 3D.

On the subject of whether 4K is better than Bluray, yes, it is. Not that any major differences will make themselves known on the average sized TV screen. I still see UHD as a projector format, giving big improvements for those using (or wanting to use) 9/10ft screens or larger. I'm generalising here, but I think those who buy projectors to view 4K material will want quality, so will stay away from compressed 4K broadcasting, choosing to stick to 4K Bluray - which I think will make the UHD Bluray a niche format, as those who are buying cheap 4K TVs are going to be happy with the numerous upcoming 4K streaming services.

For the record, I haven't seen any UHD broadcasting, but someone I know has and says it looks more like 1080p Bluray due to the compression involved. Hopefully that's not the case.

 

[Son_of_SJ]

I'm grateful to David for all the information in his post number 20 above, even if it's very depressing the UHD broadcasts may be compressed so much that they don't look much better than good old 1080p! About 3D, even my visiting big brother, who isn't interested in televisions at all, was impressed about three months ago when I played a bit of Transformers: Age of Extinction in 3D on my Panasonic 65VT65.

 

[ellisdj]

Play him the first 2 chapters of titanic

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

There's a very good reason why 24fps was choosen in the goldern age

There is. But do you know what it is, accepting that the internet 'spoils' such trivia questions these days because people can easily Google the question then pretend they already knew the answer.

Didn't google it, but a long time ago I was told that it was chosen because the UK mains frequency is 50 Hertz, i.e. 50 cycles a second, so the old CRT televisions were built to scan once every two cycles, 2 x 24 = 48 and reset for the next scan on 49 and 50. It also happened to be about the minimum frequency at which the human eyeball stopped noticing any "steps" in the motion.

Well prepared to be told all of the above is complete ball-cocks, however. If my paternall grandfather had lived longer (he was a BBC chief engineer between 1936 and 1968) I'd have been able to tell you everything you needed to know about televisions, but he died when I was just eleven.

 

[Son_of_SJ]

That's useful stuff, Benedict_Arnold!

 

[Son_of_SJ]

Play him the first 2 chapters of titanic

Not liking the film enough to buy either the 2D or 3D versions, I don't have Titanic!

I'm not sure if you mean that if my big brother saw Titanic in 3D, he would no longer like 3D or do you mean that would be entranced??