HDTVs

Deathwing_sl said:

You shouldn't be sitting close enough to a TV to see the difference between 1080p and 4k.

Click to expand...

Pretty much this. For optimal viewing distances on your average 50-60 inch HDTV there's dick all difference between the two resolutions and you have to sit closer than you should to be able to see it. For 50 inch 1080p TVs you want to be at about 6 feet and for 60 inches you want to be at about 8 feet and you have to be much closer than that to see 4k on those.

4k is basically snake oil for TVs. It's good for large (27-30 inch) desktop monitors and 100+ inch projection screens and that's about it.

Noodleface_sl said:

My fiance was still watching VHS and DVDs when we met. She thinks blu-rays look the same as DVDs. I assume the average consumer has the same reaction. They won't give a shit about 4k for a very long time. Meanwhile nerds like me will pay extra for it.

Click to expand...

This. I'll be gaming on a 27-30" 4K monitor long before I have a 4K TV

Something doesn't add up here:

TCL Announces 50-Inch 4K HDTV for $999

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2422232,00.asp

The TCL 4K HDTV features LED edge lighting for its LCD screen, a 120 Hz refresh rate, and four HDMI ports, which is notable when many budget HDTVs, including the SE50UY04, have only three. One is an MHL (Mobile High-Definition Link) HDMI port, which can power certain devices connected to the HDTV.

Click to expand...

How do they claim to be 120hz refresh rate, which isn't currently possibly via HDMI 1.4? Hrmmmmmm

120hz when it comes to TVs is a big giant lie, there isn't a single TV out there that accepts a signal higher than 60 fps from HDMI, they just interpolate the input signal and make up new frames to splice in and try to smooth out, and thats where the extra 60, 180, etc frames come in per second.

You usually can't even get 120hz on true 120 hz computer monitors with HDMI, you have to use DVI-D connections afaik.

Its really bad with 4k because HDMI 1.4 doesn't allow more than 30 fps output at 4k so every 4k TV that does HDMI will do 1080p at 60 fps input and 4k at 30 fps input. Thats why the 4k 30" computer monitor displays are so expensive ($3k?), they take DVI-D as inputs. Probably in a year or so time HDMI will update and new TVs will come out that allow you to drive 4k at 60 fps, but we probably won't ever see higher than 60 fps since blurays and cable inputs never go higher. Most movies are actually 24 fps and interpolated to 60fps on bluray transfer, the Hobbit recently was a high frame movie release however (60fps? dunno)

spronk_sl said:

120hz when it comes to TVs is a big giant lie, there isn't a single TV out there that accepts a signal higher than 60 fps from HDMI, they just interpolate the input signal and make up new frames to splice in and try to smooth out, and thats where the extra 60, 180, etc frames come in per second.

You usually can't even get 120hz on true 120 hz computer monitors with HDMI, you have to use DVI-D connections afaik.

Its really bad with 4k because HDMI 1.4 doesn't allow more than 30 fps output at 4k so every 4k TV that does HDMI will do 1080p at 60 fps input and 4k at 30 fps input. Thats why the 4k 30" computer monitor displays are so expensive ($3k?), they take DVI-D as inputs. Probably in a year or so time HDMI will update and new TVs will come out that allow you to drive 4k at 60 fps, but we probably won't ever see higher than 60 fps since blurays and cable inputs never go higher. Most movies are actually 24 fps and interpolated to 60fps on bluray transfer, the Hobbit recently was a high frame movie release however (60fps? dunno)

Click to expand...

Hobbit was 48fps

BrutulTM_sl said:

Have you guys that are giving us the facts about 4K and viewing distances actually seen a 4K TV? I hear nerds say this all the time but the HD reporters I have heard from that have actually seen the TVs say it's a very noticeable difference if your TV is over about 55".

Click to expand...

Again, it's all dependent on viewing distance as well as screen size. And really it comes down to math. The eye can only perceive so much detail at a given distance.

It's probably a noticeable difference when the TV is on display and you are 12 inches from the screen. Then yeah, I'm sure 4k is vastly superior. I have a hard time distinguishing 720 and 1080 screens across a living room sometimes, so the average viewing distance isn't anywhere close enough to distinguish between 1080 and 4k

Sean_sl said:

Pretty much this. For optimal viewing distances on your average 50-60 inch HDTV there's dick all difference between the two resolutions and you have to sit closer than you should to be able to see it. For 50 inch 1080p TVs you want to be at about 6 feet and for 60 inches you want to be at about 8 feet and you have to be much closer than that to see 4k on those.

4k is basically snake oil for TVs. It's good for large (27-30 inch) desktop monitors and 100+ inch projection screens and that's about it.

Click to expand...

Go readOptimum HDTV viewing distance, unless you're accepting the pessimistic view on human eye resolution from over a hundred years ago combined with the further recommended sitting distances its pretty evident that 4k offers advantages. Sure, if you have a 50' TV on the other side of the basement it isn't going to matter, but if you're sitting ~6 feet away its something you'll notice.

6 feet away from a 50 inch TV??? At that distance you tactically have to turn your head to see the corners of the screen

So there I was itching to buy a 55" Sony or Samy, and then I saw it... An 80" 4k, I went back and looked at the 55s and I think I will be waiting for prices to drop on the 4ks.

This 4k vs 1080p / viewing distance argument sounds EXACTLY like the old 480 / 720 / 1080 arguments verbatim. 4K is the future and it has a significantly bigger impact than you think. I have seen both the Sony and Samsung versions in person and they are jaw dropping. (Coming from a guy with a 75" Samsung 9000 Series)

We're still 2 years away from where 4k will make sense at home. No good input source, HDMI isn't really spec'd for 4k yet (1.4 is 30 fps at 4k), etc. So buy a cheaper 1080p set and plan on replacing it in 2-3 years and you will be happy. I'm going to replace the aging 55" connected to my PC this fall, Samsung's seem to be a pretty good bet right now with price/performance.

I'd guess CES 2014 we'll start seeing full end to end 4k 60fps, and CES 2015 will see second gen of it all with prices being more realistic.

They can show them all the want at trade shows. Until Comcast and direct tv start sending down 4k I could give a shit less. They are already streaming hd lite because of bandwidth issues so I'm not terribly impressed with 4k knowing they can't even give me 1080p yet.

spronk_sl said:

We're still 2 years away from where 4k will make sense at home. No good input source, HDMI isn't really spec'd for 4k yet (1.4 is 30 fps at 4k), etc. So buy a cheaper 1080p set and plan on replacing it in 2-3 years and you will be happy. I'm going to replace the aging 55" connected to my PC this fall, Samsung's seem to be a pretty good bet right now with price/performance.

I'd guess CES 2014 we'll start seeing full end to end 4k 60fps, and CES 2015 will see second gen of it all with prices being more realistic.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure my 2013 Panasonic 60" ST60 will last me a good 8 years. The image quality is just about as good as you can get and any 4k that would match it in image quality would likely be extremely expensive. Better to buy a high quality Plasma now than a "budget" 4k TV that won't match the image quality and not have content for at least half a decade (if not longer due to shitty infrastructure).

S60 or ST60? I'm surprised you opted for the ST60, its input lag is a lot higher than the S60, at a measure 73ms for ST60 and 34ms for S60. It gets even worse in 3D mode (which admittedly is a horrible way to play). My reaction times are shit so input lag is nothing compared to my slow ass brain, but since I game on my PC mostly having a slower input lag TV like that kinda sucks when just displaying general shit on the TV.

I currently use a LG LCD 55" that is rated at 30ms, hoping to get something similar with a backlit LED Samsung (which has a better PQ) like the 8000 or 6030 series. My first big screen was plasma and loved it, I just like the thinner profiles of LED to be honest.

references:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1166196/th...put-lag-thread
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1467481/of...lag-thread/840

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1131464/in...-for-reference

database of latencies:
http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/

I've played just about every genre on it sans fighting games and I have yet to notice the input lag on the ST60. Tried 30 fps games and 60 fps games and never have felt unresponsive or sluggish on it. When I press shoot, guns shoot. I posted a few times in that input lag thread on AVS and kept up on it and most of the people who actually own the set do not notice it at all. Most of the complaining in that thread was from one guy who owned it all of a day and continued to post non-stop about how horrible the lag was long after he had taken it back.

It's pretty much probably only really noticeable in fighting games for players who count frames and shit, but those people likely have a smaller dedicated low ms gaming monitor for playing those games to begin with and not a big HDTV.

I played through the entire Uncharted series + The Last of Us on it and did not notice any lag in the shooting from the display. I played a few action games like Metal Gear Rising and Deadpool and they were all perfectly responsive as well. I've also used it as a second monitor (it's always hooked up to my PC for anime/movies/tv shows) and played FF14 on it (which was gorgeous). The thread there is pretty overblown.

Guys stop fighting...

the important question is: will there be 4k porn? If yes, the format will take off.

In other news, once the attic is done I'll need a big fucking ass tv for a viewing distance of roughly 7-8 meters. Wife is not amused.