Why have we jumped to 4K?

[Tired9]

Still to this day I cannot see a visual difference between a high-end 1080P screen and a 4K one.
the only differences I found were from panel quality and the benefits of colour reproduction, not resolution.

Why are people so hell bent on not accepting a better superior panel instead of more pixels?

I sit at a distance from my TV of 10 feet and this is by no means a long distance. In stores I have to get really close to the TV to make the resolution seem like a jump visually whilst I can instantly see a quality panel from a crap one purely from colour reproduction and response time.

Why are we so accepting of crap technology that only really benefits professional work - loads not the end consumer especially us casuals?

Would it not make sense to push for the best panel quality? Raise prices based on this? rather than trying to push higher res?

This came into my head after putting down money for a 32 inch QHD monitor which will be used with games consoles for media purpose and the odd game or two (XBOX ONE X can push 1440P from the downsampled 4K output).

After looking around...

https://www.avforums.com/threads/is-there-any-point-in-4k.2251217/

 

[Tired9]

Reading through this...

https://www.avsforum.com/threads/is-netflix-ultra-hd-on-non-4k-tv-pointless.3094766/

You most definitely will benefit from a UHD stream vs a HD one even on a 1080P screen, the far higher bit rate delivers even more visual data, you also gain audio chops and other features.
For video, the resolution is just a container, the data rate is the amount of data filling the container and most streams are still pretty crap with a lot of loss of quality, UHD streams at 1080P will look closer to BluRay than the standard HD stream will.

Up your container, the more data rate we need for a quality output, making 4K streaming just a bandwidth hog rather than a perceivable quality upgrade.

I am not sure there are any HD HDR panels, but if you do have one.. HDR too.

 

[Tired9]

Both are important. If you don't see a difference in the resolution from 1080p to 4K then you're either sitting too far away for the screen size or you need glasses.

I would need to sit so close that my knee's would be barely 1 foot apart from the TV stand and the sofa is literally hogging all floor space.

The gains you see in video games are due to the way games are rendered, resolution impact is a side product of this.
Higher resolution with gaming and some post prcoess AA and the jaggies are for the most part fixed.

I have 20/20 vision.

 

[Tired9]

You will get mixed replies on this subject as some are very invested into the format.

Personally I can tell the difference only when the picture has been stopped and you show a comparison side by side, then yeah you can see it. During an actual movie or something with the screen moving, no I can't really notice anything of any significance. Some times of films show it worse than others. HDR however makes a big difference in certain types of movies and scenes. Once your screen size gets massive though (above 65) you can more easily spot it, but its not something that would pull me out of a movie. I'm sure some 4K presentations are more impressive than others however and show of the format.

Once you switch to games however there is a big jump due to way things are rendered its 100% worth it on the gaming side of things.

I agree with you, I have personally took up 1440P as my go-to for now on, for my PC usage it is perfect and is a big upgrade from 1080P, because I sit up to the monitor like I think the majority of PC users do. Happens to be 170hz and also 0.5ms and also does way above average contrast for an IPS panel, yes resolution here makes a difference, but the accompanying benefits of a higher quality panel make this a bigger upgrade than what the resolution can deliver alone.

Now if I were to use this from around 5 feet away, at 27 inches I would not see a difference other than smaller stuff on screen when using 100% scaling rather than 125 or higher.

The TV makes no sense and is why I never moved from 1080P with it, plus you get older standards such as component which means hooking up that bad boy PS2 or OG XBOX, though you can now buy HDMI convertors.
I now have a PC that can emulate 100% most of what I play and is now slowly taking over the PS2 era stuff, I still need it for some games though.

Watch this video full screen.. even at 1440P on the 4K setting there is massive visual degradation yet people on 1080P think it is a massive upgrade, yes because their container resolution is now getting a far higher data rate.. the visual clarity and benefit is not from resolution here.

The live footage in the 2nd sample has over-sharpening applied to counter for the low bit rate which is obvious too.

 

[Tired9]

If that is true then you need glasses, and I mean that genuinely. You should absolutely be able to resolve finer detail difference between 4K & 1080p on a normal TV at a normal viewing distance (e.g. 55" at ~1.6m away for mixed content).
Ideally the best way to test this is with video games because you can have the same content but scaled to different resolutions, though it would also require the TVs to be of different resolutions at the same size, which is rare to find today. But then especially the difference should be even more obvious because the pixel per inch disparity is monstrous (at 55" it's 40 PPI for 1080p, or 80 PPI for 4K; to put into monitor context it would take a 720p monitor of 36" or 800x600 25"!!! to have such low PPI).



It is a very long distance, in fact, for TVs <75". And depending on the content even for 75" (i.e. not a big deal for close-ups of a person's face taking up most of the screen, but much more important for small details; compare how easy it is to resolve detail for the face vs the rocks in the image).





Who says both aren't being done? In reality the jump up in resolution incurs a very minor cost to production, that's why it's being done, and also why you see 8K starting to be pushed. Easy to do, and easy to market. The other things you mention are much more difficult to achieve and go into the realm of diminishing returns, absent actual new technologies as we see being pushed with QD-OLED for this year - but guess what, how happy will you be to pay $5000 for a 55"? Never mind the tech that's really being chased, microLED, which actually goes into the six-figures realm.

The reality is that every improvement that's noticeable and cheap to do has been done; for bigger leaps it's all up to the R&D Gods now, unless you want to pay many times more for a panel that's slightly better than one a tier or two below what's sold to the mass market - in which case look up Sony's Master series of TVs or Panasonic's highest end OLED model (usually ending in Z2000).

1.6 meters is just a little over 5 feet, I sit at 10 foot distance, 5 foot away from a TV is more like 2-3 foot space between sofa and your TV stand or wall which is no room at all, that's a smaller width than a tight corridor. Your ass is not on the edge of your sofa, it is sat back in it.. so add the sofa's girth...

Your math is incredibly bad.

Spacial awareness makes math work, practical application.

 

[Tired9]

Try watching say some of https://www.youtube.com/c/EnesYilmazer/videos at 4K and 1080p and tell me you don't see a massive difference.

There is a lot of media, especially streaming which even 720p would be being generous but there is a fair bit of decent 4K media out there as well.

If I lower it from 4K to anything lower I just see less data being displayed to my 1440P monitor.

At 4K there is colour banding and many blocking artifacts. I clicked his latest video the "Touring a $48,000,000 LA Hillside Mansion with the BEST VIEWS OF LOS ANGELES"

And lets get real here if this is the content we have to watch to get even close to good 4K then.. it's a joke. This barely just fills out 1440P, this must look much worse on native 4K.

Fast moving content will be even worse too.

The colour banding may not be noticeable to all, not everyone has a high colour gamut display.

 

[Tired9]

4K isn't easily divisible into 1440p so it will have to do "rounding" when it downscales to 1440p, and I'm pretty sure Youtube's video player won't be using a great downscaling algorithm.

There is no downscaling happening, the video just plays at a certain data rate, it has no hand-shake which HDCP complient devices require which is properiety to Sony and BluRay content.
It just sets to a container resolution then applies more data per resolution container on YouTube, you are not inherently getting any different picture in any shape or form.

The processing that goes on is merely the data that is being fed into that container.
Inherently a larger container requires more data to fill out and present it's true capability.

A 1440P display will be better filled out natively than a 4K one and this trickles down to 1080P where you get superior image quality and it is noticeable regardless of the container size.

This is not the same as a video game being downsampled as you are rendering the output regardless then squashing it down or not.

 

[Tired9]

If the selected quality doesn't match your monitors resolution then it will be scaling. Even if you select the 1440p quality option there will still be downscaling since the video was shot natively in 4K, only it will be done by Youtube's encoder instead of your computer. If you get better quality from selecting the higher resolution then it's because Youtube's encoding used worse compression for the lower resolutions.

Native for video is data rate compliant, it is impossible to truly output RAW 4K video, we still don't truly have the hardware at least cheaply to even watch RAW 4K.
Youtube's 8K setting is closer to what you would see in a BluRay but still off by a country mile.

Even BluRays are encoded from RAW, it's just not feesible at all in any case to see RAW output, heck HD 1080P is still a lot RAW. It's why we still don't even have content over air that looks good at 1080P until we hit the 4K era and now 4K is filling out 1080P, we are back to crap quality but now it is at 4K instead of which most of us do not benefit from. Most being 99.9% of us.

There is no downsampling happening.
My monitor is 1440P native. If I set the video to 4K, I just see a higher Data Rate being displayed which is the limit of what YouTube does for 4K video with it's encoder, the final output is limited by your monitor, you can have an 8K screen and you will just see crap 4K encoded YouTube video in a larger container in 8K, it is technically upscaling but it definitely is not at all, it's just that the data rate of the video is nowhere close to high enough to look good at 8K as 8K needs so so so much more data.

 

[Tired9]

You're confusing compression with scaling. There's no way to view the whole 4k image on your 1440p screen without downscaling, and as 4K and 1440p aren't easily divisible it will likely reduce the image quality.

Your answer is an answer for video gaming not video.
Yes 1080P fits nicely into 4K!
But video is completely limited by how it is mastered, a video game is not, a video game is given a set resolution (Console) And told to render at that res... so for a console dividing 1080P x4 makes it look better!
Video does not do this, video is far more fluid in how it works.
Data Rate is like water filling a container.. the more water, the more full it is.
Video encoding technology is also highly intelligent and will adjust to the scene, using less data to get a similar image in scenes that really don't require it. Very efficient.

 

[Tired9]

If you won't take it from me, take it from a pro.
https://filmora.wondershare.com/video-editing-tips/what-is-video-bitrate.html

8K video... look how stunning it looks!

Sexy ASF on 1440P!

Buys 8K screen, sit's 50mm from the screen.. macroblocking everywhere!

RIP all content you are watching... you literally gain nothing from it at any normal viewing distances.

 

[Tired9]

I run a 27" 1440P 170hz monitor and no it would not be a significant upgrade at all as I do no real critical work, but I enjoy the panel technology as I enjoy visual quality.
An RTX 3070 is also not a great card for 4K.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/gigabyte/m27q

The other 32" monitor is VA and is for distant use not sat right at it hence why I chose VA for deeper blacks, it won't be great at pixel response.

The U32E2N isn’t a model I’ve received much direct feedback on, but it essentially uses the flat version of the panel used in the Philips 328E1CA we’ve reviewed and recommend. I can’t argue with the price of the U32E2N and I’ve actually been keen to review it, but unfortunately it isn’t currently available in the US where the bulk of users who support our work are located. I rate that panel above most other competing VA models of the resolution which use an Innolux panel that I consider inferior. AOC tends to calibrate their monitors pretty well and give important adjustments including gamma settings. So I’m sure it’s a good product. The screen surface is less grainy than the BOE WQHD panel as well.

If you consider your work to be colour-critical or this is a key focus or concern for you, I’d generally recommend sticking to IPS-type panels. But the U32E2N will be a good choice as far as VA models go and if it’s mainly for mixed usage and you don’t really consider colour consistency of vital importance then you may find it absolutely fine. And as a final point, please avoid using the term ‘2K’ to describe the WQHD or 1440p resolution. Especially when used in the context of ‘4K’ (which is the intended context), it undersells the resolution and is misleading and inaccurate. Nothing personal, I point this out to everyone who uses the term on the forum.

https://forum.pcmonitors.info/topic/would-you-recommend-the-aoc-u32e2n-or-the-q32e2n/

 

[Tired9]

I can notice a difference between 1080p and 4k on my oled. Sitting around 2m away. It's noticeable in movies and sport. Hugely noticeable BT Sport Vs BT sport ultimate with the football.

BT Sport is not 1080P and Ultimate is also not 4K, you just get the container, not the data rate, if you are used to crap visuals then anything is an upgrade and ultimate is "4K".

Almost forgot to say, there is zero harm in this either as it don't effect me and you are getting nice visuals for your money, be happy is what I say

 

[Tired9]

uhd footy vs hd footy. It is no contest. It is completely apparent imo.

Correct because the data rate on 4K is higher but you also gain HDR.

I mean it's not at all because it is UHD but purely because you are being given a better quality data rate to the image with the HDR option to boot which is a panel feature not resolution.
It is apparent, but when we break it down you are not gaining from 4K.

HD and UHD format both have a crap tonne of macroblocking but when viewed at a normal distance, because the HD stream has a data rate so sub par 4K looks like a night and day difference.

The difference between a 1080P BluRay and a 4K BluRay is mostly colour grading and dependant on how the films were mastered to the discs.

A top quality 1080P to a top quality 4K BluRay will show no major advantage other than far better colours and HDR plus the factt that if you sit close enough you won't see pixels on the 4K screen which you may want to ask your 4 year old if they want square eyes by the time they are 30.

 

[Tired9]

Right...

Go find any evidence for the reverse of what I said and we shall all wait.

*Calmly chewing intensifies*.

Maybe this guy can help you.. oh it's on my side.. damn.

In the space of a short time and you speaking from your butt on things you have no clue about.. I found videos.
I can find articles in my favor far more easier with real evidence than you can in favor of 4K.

 

[Tired9]

My own eyes… already won… what’s next?

Trolls gotta give up when they’re noticed…

I have 20/10 vision and sit 5m from my screen… I can tell the difference in 4 bitrate… so someone is full of ****… and I know it’s not me

From my butt on things I have no clue about… Eurgh… childish reply much? Grow up..

At no point have you made any non-canned reply to a post I. This thread that demonstrates your own opinion… only a failure of comprehension and demonstration that your not in the target demongraphic that you wish you were.

You have become jaded and poor… either you cannot notice the difference and cannot find a good quality optician to give you the right glasses… or your ability to process data has gone beyond what you wish you admit and you prefer to push the issue onto everyone who isn’t you… maybe you simply can’t afford a good quality OLED 4k display, not everyone can… it’s ok, you just got to admit it to yourself.

You’re hear on this forum, actively creating unnecessary drama as a way to validate what you can’t admit to yourself.

It’s understandable, it’s also manageable… but attacking others in the process pushes your situation into unsociable. Get a grip man, seriously…

For a start you are highly narcissistic, you project what you are onto me because you need to validate yourself in light of knowing you may come off as inferior if you conform to giving evidence which applies to a normal debate or discussion where evidence would be a good way for all involved to gain specific knowledge in the face of argumentation or questions.

I am not attacking you, this is a turning point if you want it to be, if you are in control of yourself, which narcissistic people normally are not, they try to control others rather.


You are not only basically saying "Because I said so" you are also placing yourself above qualified practicioners of eye sight but also most likely people who you look down upon who have far more knowledge than you do too.

Everything inbetween written as some kind of psuedo-intellectual analysis on my behavior is merely you not wanting to come off as too arrogant, but end up being completely arrogant as you also lack self awareness which is also a problem with narcissistic people.

If you would like more information on this issue, I can give you detailed and backed studies on such a thing.

At this point, I do care about you or I would not be accurately displaying what is really going on, I also care for others to gain the correct information.

For what it is worth in light of this subject, I have given evidence to back all of my claims and one or two have added some more detail to that too.

 

[Tired9]

Such ******** requires some form of scientific justification. It is clearly subjective and not objective… I’ve been 5m (17ish ft) from my 77” OLED since 2018

By your graph I shouldn’t be able to notice any benefit beyond 720p! That’s hilarious!!!

I doubt even the trolling OP would agree with that…

That graph is a complete joke and not related to the direct experience of anyone who doesn’t need glasses, it’s truly a pathetic scale and completely fictional.

The only way I could try to justify that graph, as it’s so bad… is to say it’s a way to calculate if someone can identify a specific individual pixel from that distance… as in, identify it specifically unique on a static image from its neighbour pixel… beyond that… it’s crazy to assert those figures, not real world viewing experience

That graph is a little different to the one I posted but ends up being close if not the same.

The website is here: https://carltonbale.com/

He seems competent in his ability to create a website that is approachable which means he would be good at navigating incoming trends; smart people who have great fluid intelligence adapt well to situations.
Clearly shown here by the way he has progressively changed his website.

But also he has a very broad range of interests with a lot of detail in each which would suggest a person with again a capability of storing a lot of information accurately with good working memory.

His resume also backs this up.

https://carltonbale.com/about-me/resume/

 

[Tired9]

If that was the case my friend, you have totally proven what I typed correct...
"We project who we are onto others"

It is funny how that came to be when I was was the one delivering the point that you were projecting.
So you now know you are fully everything you called me?

I did say you have no self awareness, well done in also evidencing this yourself.

I did say you could take this point as a turning point.. you fell onto your own sword.
You may be so far gone or incapable of actually intellectually seeing this.

 

[Tired9]

Backed facts disagree, my own experience was merely an opener.

 

[Tired9]

Balance, reality and perspective, as well as understanding content management delivery would be a fair starting point… OP is just trying to find external validation for buying a 70” entry level TV instead of a 55” OLED for the same budget because it’s all he could do… then attacking anyone who doesn’t validate his needs… really pathetic tbh

I have a 43" Plasma but you still keep projecting and trying to prove me to others as something I am not.

Edited put my numbers back to front.

 

[Tired9]

My eyes mean more to me than your bull****, simple as that…

What is my BS?
Or is that everyone else's BS too as it is you vs a number of sources here not just me.