The image on a panel is much, much brighter for a start. Everything looks clearer. Everything also looks more processed and a little unrealistic in comparison - I've yet to see an image on an LED, plasma or OLED that looks as natural as on a projector. As long as you can't see the pixel structure I find a pj image more forgiving, more film-like. More analogue. Can't explain it any better. Try sitting closer to a panel so the ratio of screen size to viewing distance is the same as with your pj and you might see what I mean.
Is HDR more relevant than 4K?
- Thread starter Faustus
- Start date
The image on a panel is much, much brighter for a start. Everything looks clearer. Everything also looks more processed and a little unrealistic in comparison - I've yet to see an image on an LED, plasma or OLED that looks as natural as on a projector. As long as you can't see the pixel structure I find a pj image more forgiving, more film-like. More analogue. Can't explain it any better. Try sitting closer to a panel so the ratio of screen size to viewing distance is the same as with your pj and you might see what I mean.
I've just recently got my self a LG 55inch C7 TV which is a upgrade from my old Sony 50inch.
The 4K is good but just only a bit better than 1080P. The only time I feel when it shines is when you are playing something that is either HDR or has Dolby Vision like some of the Netflix shows.
I think however if you where to have a larger screen say a 65inch then the 4K would be massively noticeable.
The 4K is good but just only a bit better than 1080P. The only time I feel when it shines is when you are playing something that is either HDR or has Dolby Vision like some of the Netflix shows.
I think however if you where to have a larger screen say a 65inch then the 4K would be massively noticeable.
Isn't this the real issue though i.e. the laws of diminishing returns. To get the real benefit of 4K you have to sit at an unrealistic and uncomfortable (for me) distance from the TV. HDR in comparison makes the pictures 'pop' without having to sit on top of the TV.
One thing that does finally appear to be consigned to the tech waste bin is 3D. I was ridiculed by many at the time when I said it was a dead medium for consumer TVs. The glasses that came with my TV are still in their packaging.
Trying to tell the difference between a 1080p or 4K Bluray is next to impossible for me, probably only be able to tell the difference with both side by side at the same time and even then I'd have to get uncomfortably close to spot the difference as you mentioned.
A good quality 1080p source is more than good enough even for large TV's, 4K for streaming is a waste of bandwidth imo.
along with curved TV
It a lot to do with how good the 4K source is and of cause how big your TV is and viewing distance
I find 1080 on sky looks no better then a good DVD picture
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,674
Well it should do, a PAL DVD is 414,720 pixels and 1080i on Sky HD is 2,073,600 pixels (Or 1,036,800 pixels, every 60th of a second)
I believe Sony has abandoned 3D completely from it's new line-up of TVs and the other manufactures will likely follow suite.
Surely though distance is the key? From where we sit in our lounge I often struggle with SD and HD. That's a 47" TV at a viewing distance of 13 feet, which we need to have due to lounge constraints.
Yes, at 13 feet for that size you would struggle to see the benefit of 720p, never-mind 1080p or 4K.
Panasonic have said no more i think
Very true, though at the end of the day you have to put the TV where it best fits (usually in the corner, which it is in our lounge). Once you put a large sofa in there, plus a coffee table, fireplace etc. then your options for sitting closer start to get limited. We have one chair just a few feet from the TV and when it's displaying SD it's only then that I can see 'mush'. Move away and you would be hard pressed to know if it's SD or HD from 13 feet.
One exception being Blu-Ray. When I put a Blu-Ray DVD on, then I can see a noticeable difference in PQ.