Is 4K worth it
- Thread starter MatthewB
- Start date
I agree with Flint. It is not the resolution so much as the impact the resolution has on color reproduction, even with non-HDR content. It is noticeable. When I watch my 75" 4K set from ten feet away, it is not the added sharpness that differentiates the picture between the sources. It is the color rendition, contrast and lighting. That is even true with non-HDR content. There are some amazingly beautiful non-HDR nature videos on Netflix that blew me out of my seat.
yeah... I think people are looking at these 4K televisions and trying to see more detail and discovering the added pixels don't necessarily improve the "detail" and "sharpness" in the same way going from 720P to 1080P did show a difference. However, I don't think our brains have learned to really appreciate color depth and banding and as such those improvements are not recognized immediately. I can remember complaining very loudly about banding issues with my 1080P TV when I installed it, but that was attributed to the compression in streaming video reducing the color gamut to cut the data rate. Many didn't understand what I was complaining about because they either never realized what they were seeing, or they just assumed the banding was supposed to be there.
The big fight the TV manufacturers need to make now is educating people on color gamut, which we address with HDR capabilities.
The big fight the TV manufacturers need to make now is educating people on color gamut, which we address with HDR capabilities.
Yes, those are examples of bad banding versus not so bad banding (the second image shows some banding, but it not as obvious).
Banding is obvious because the shade are all the same, but when looking at an image with more colors and details, the benefits of the tech that reduced that obvious banding improves the image overall.
Banding is obvious because the shade are all the same, but when looking at an image with more colors and details, the benefits of the tech that reduced that obvious banding improves the image overall.
Deerhunter
Well-Known Member
Me still using my 720p Panasonic plasma. I would like to replace it on day. I would like to use my x box and have a even nicer picture.
Since my wife gave away my Sony trinitron (sp) CRT I no longer have a TV I can use my x box on.
Since my wife gave away my Sony trinitron (sp) CRT I no longer have a TV I can use my x box on.
Not sure about compression as each movie file is between 45GB and 55GB depending on the length of the movie and that's pretty much what a standard UHD movie has. The hard drive is a 1 TB hard drive and I'd say about 65% is filled up which coincides with the ten movies and 30 documentaries (some documentaries are just short under five minute clips). So not sure about compression issues.
It costs roughly $6.75 to store one UHD movie on a NAS, so I probably wouldn't rip those discs even if I could. Estimate based on eight 8TB hard drives on an $1100 8-Bay NAS configured in a RAID 6 array, factoring in formatting and a max capacity of 75%. Assumes 55GB per movie.
Because OLED is currently the technology leader? Why price it like LCD (which I'm guessing you meant) if the industry doesn't yet have to? And correct me if mistaken but I thought the reason OLED took so long to be made in larger sizes initially was due to the difficulty of manufacturing. Maybe I'm thinking of something else?
Last edited:
You're not. Matt is wrong. OLED yields are significantly lower thus It costs more to have to repair thousands of defective OLED pixels in a panel with millions of pixels. Also, the equipment to produce LED costs only a fraction of the equipment required for OLEDs.