Skeptical about 4k content, no difference for some people?

[nugget2014]

for a couple years now i have seen showcase cinema's website have "sony 4k projection" and believed it is an actual 4k image with native 4k content as a lot of films now are recorded in 4k, so read up on it. and yes i know you have to sit as a reasonable distance. someone said you have to be in the first few rows of a cinema to see the difference really of 4k vs 1080p. i sit at the "sweet spots" which are always sold out for major films (at cineworld anyway) bang in the middle basically. and well the image looks good. but i dont really see much difference compared to my TV i just think of it as a top end 1080p projector. i dont feel "wow"

so my theory is if i dont see a reasonable difference between my home cinema and imax 3d (4k i presume) as that's what i watch mainly at the cinema for every film i can. is there any point of me buying a 4k tv? i know theres benefits such as 10 bit color and hdr over my current one. but for the resolution, i am not sure i will see a difference. i have good eyesight (i hope!) i'm only 21. then again i never have been the best at judging picture quality i am more specialised in audio

 

[bigboss]

There's no way you can compare a projector in a cinema with a TV in your house. You need to compare side by side to really appreciate the difference.

 

[nugget2014]

There's no way you can compare a projector in a cinema with a TV in your house. You need to compare side by side to really appreciate the difference.

so is there any way i can reasonably compare side by side 4k vs 1080p TV's? i am guessing they'd have to be around the same model, from the same company so theres no real big differences in the resolution. the only problem is i asked richer sounds to do this in the past and they couldnt. and places like pcworld/john lewis wouldnt do this at all as they just have them on display.

 

[bigboss]

Every few months, there is a TV shootout. Keep a lookout for one. I attended one last year where they compared 6 TVs (4K as well as 1080p, LED, plasma and OLED) and found it very useful.

 

[bigboss]

Here it is. My views on page 4 of the thread.

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/tvs-and-projectors/ultimate-shoot-out

 

[Son_of_SJ]

so is there any way i can reasonably compare side by side 4k vs 1080p TV's? i am guessing they'd have to be around the same model, from the same company so theres no real big differences in the resolution.

Eh???? 4K and 1080p is indeed a big difference in resolution, which is exactly what you'd be comparing!!!

 

[Deleted member 2457]

Basically the bigger the better when it comes to 4K. I will start at 65-inches but I want HDR included too.

 

[Series1boy]

Here it is. My views on page 4 of the thread.

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/tvs-and-projectors/ultimate-shoot-out

i went to the same shootout as BB and I could not see any difference between the then 4k sets and the ZT and OLED 1080p in terms of resolution. The ZT and OLED had the best picture qaulity in terms of colours and deep inky blacks. In fact, the ZT plasma won overall.

Ive not seen the latest lg OLED but all the reviews are giving reference status for these TVs but with hardly any 4k content, then there is no need to worry you are missing anything for now.

the success of ultra HD BD will be the telling point and also 4k is no good at less than 65".

also, you can't compare the cinema to a TV because the environment and conditions are not like for like in my opinion.

 

[nugget2014]

Every few months, there is a TV shootout. Keep a lookout for one. I attended one last year where they compared 6 TVs (4K as well as 1080p, LED, plasma and OLED) and found it very useful.

where was that at?

 

[nugget2014]

Here it is. My views on page 4 of the thread.

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/tvs-and-projectors/ultimate-shoot-out

i went to the same shootout as BB and I could not see any difference between the then 4k sets and the ZT and OLED 1080p in terms of resolution. The ZT and OLED had the best picture qaulity in terms of colours and deep inky blacks. In fact, the ZT plasma won overall.

Ive not seen the latest lg OLED but all the reviews are giving reference status for these TVs but with hardly any 4k content, then there is no need to worry you are missing anything for now.

the success of ultra HD BD will be the telling point and also 4k is no good at less than 65".

also, you can't compare the cinema to a TV because the environment and conditions are not like for like in my opinion.

the screen size part is true in a way. but i would just get 55". i could never afford a 65" 4k tv i dont know why they charge an extra £1000 or so for 10 extra inches of screen! it's like the jump from 47 to 55 back in 2013-2014. a huge price increase which does not make sense.

 

[bigboss]

It's due to 3 reasons:

1) Demand for 55-inch screens is far more than 65-inch ones. More the number they manufacture, cheaper per unit.

2) Wastage is more when making larger screens.

3) Competition is more in the 55-inch sector than 65 inches. Competition keeps prices down.

 

[simonlewis]

Every few months, there is a TV shootout. Keep a lookout for one. I attended one last year where they compared 6 TVs (4K as well as 1080p, LED, plasma and OLED) and found it very useful.

where was that at?

In leeds, if their is one it usually gets mentioned on the forums, you have to apply to go though as it's limited to around thirty-ish people.

 

[Paul.]

Here it is. My views on page 4 of the thread.

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/tvs-and-projectors/ultimate-shoot-out

i went to the same shootout as BB and I could not see any difference between the then 4k sets and the ZT and OLED 1080p in terms of resolution. The ZT and OLED had the best picture qaulity in terms of colours and deep inky blacks. In fact, the ZT plasma won overall.

Ive not seen the latest lg OLED but all the reviews are giving reference status for these TVs but with hardly any 4k content, then there is no need to worry you are missing anything for now.

the success of ultra HD BD will be the telling point and also 4k is no good at less than 65".

also, you can't compare the cinema to a TV because the environment and conditions are not like for like in my opinion.

the screen size part is true in a way. but i would just get 55". i could never afford a 65" 4k tv i dont know why they charge an extra £1000 or so for 10 extra inches of screen! it's like the jump from 47 to 55 back in 2013-2014. a huge price increase which does not make sense.

measured diagonal a 65" is only 18% bigger than a 55". Measured on area however and it is 38% bigger. diagonal measurements are a misleading representation of screen size

 

[Nepheler]

I'll probably not buy a 4K TV unless the 4K Blu-ray take up most of the physical movie release. 1080P just good enough for many of us.

 

[hybridauth_Facebook_100000090351445]

It also depend on your visual acuity....20/20 being normal vision.If you have 20/10....then you can definitely invariably discern the 4k details at most distances.
With 8K there are no qualifiers.
I accept we humans are much more sensitive to brightness variations than sharpness.