|
|
|
This thread is locked; no one can reply to it.
|
1
2
|
| There's no 4K content they said. |
|
bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
 |
I'm watching Star Trek: TNG on Netflix which is in 4:3 format, standard definition I suppose. I have a ~5 year old 40" Samsung 1080p TV. I zoom in to fill the screen with the 4:3 format, cutting off the top and bottom because it's more annoying have the black bars. It doesn't bother me at all. I don't feel like I'm missing anything, nor do I feel like the quality sucks. Anybody saying they can tell the difference must be watching shitty content that needs it. -- acc.js | al4anim - Allegro 4 Animation library | Allegro 5 VS/NuGet Guide | Allegro.cc Mockup | Allegro.cc <code> Tag | Allegro 4 Timer Example (w/ Semaphores) | Allegro 5 "Winpkg" (MSVC readme) | Bambot | Blog | C++ STL Container Flowchart | Castopulence Software | Check Return Values | Derail? | Is This A Discussion? Flow Chart | Filesystem Hierarchy Standard | Clean Code Talks - Global State and Singletons | How To Use Header Files | GNU/Linux (Debian, Fedora, Gentoo) | rot (rot13, rot47, rotN) | Streaming |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
 |
I think you've got it backwards.. You can't get greater picture out of a bad source (ie: SD content like TNG). You absolutely need high res content to be able to tell the difference. Compare a modern bluray movie at 1080p against that TNG episode and get back to us. -- |
|
bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
|
You're missing the point entirely. If I enjoy watching TNG stretched then why the fuck would I need to spend $$$$ to buy a TV that can do many times more? I don't need it. I have watched DVDs, Blu-Rays in 720P and 1080P, and obviously played PS3 games in 1080P. I haven't really noticed any real differences. The cell phones in GTA IV were basically unreadable at 720P, IIRC, but I think that's more of a bug than a problem with the display format. -- acc.js | al4anim - Allegro 4 Animation library | Allegro 5 VS/NuGet Guide | Allegro.cc Mockup | Allegro.cc <code> Tag | Allegro 4 Timer Example (w/ Semaphores) | Allegro 5 "Winpkg" (MSVC readme) | Bambot | Blog | C++ STL Container Flowchart | Castopulence Software | Check Return Values | Derail? | Is This A Discussion? Flow Chart | Filesystem Hierarchy Standard | Clean Code Talks - Global State and Singletons | How To Use Header Files | GNU/Linux (Debian, Fedora, Gentoo) | rot (rot13, rot47, rotN) | Streaming |
|
StevenVI
Member #562
July 2000
 |
Thomas Fjellstrom said: SD content like TNG They actually remastered it from the original film sources, which is I believe what is on Netflix. So it actually is HD content, and not a proper argument to say that SD content from the 90's looks fine. Though it is proper to say that scaled HD content looks fine on your 1080p TV. And that's basically the same thing I said earlier as well. To me a DVD looks just as good as a Blu-ray the way I watch TV. Perhaps "kids" these days sit close enough to their screens so that it encompasses their entire field of view. But that's not me. ...actually, I have to tell my kids to take a few steps back from the TV pretty much all day long, as my parents did to me when I was growing up. __________________________________________________ |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
HD implies 720p minimum. TNG is not 720p StevenVI said: And that's basically the same thing I said earlier as well. To me a DVD looks just as good as a Blu-ray the way I watch TV. Perhaps "kids" these days sit close enough to their screens so that it encompasses their entire field of view. But that's not me. Is 12 feet away "too close"? I can see the difference between DVD and HD from this distance. I can even tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. bamccaig said: You're missing the point entirely. If I enjoy watching TNG stretched then why the fuck would I need to spend $$$$ to buy a TV that can do many times more? I don't need it. That's just a stubborn preference you currently have, unless your sight is also pretty bad. I bet you COULD tell the difference if you actually tried to compare SD with full HD content. And you may even come to prefer full HD if you used it often enough. I know I do. that's not to say I can't enjoy SD or lower content. I love me some M.A.S.H., but if it were remastered into SD at the very least, I would love it even more (even the DVDs seem to have been scanned from the master they created for TV, so it's pretty craptacular) Basically what a full HD remaster would do is remove the graininess, and increase the resolution to increase detail and reduce blockyness when shown at 1080p. -- |
|
bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
|
I'm not at all against HD content. I think it's great. I will obviously choose HD when available and supported. However, I don't require it, and so I'm not going to spend lots of money to get it. HD is still relatively young in itself. Maybe 15 years old. Considering latest technology TVs when they're brand new are somewhere between $500 and $1000, at best, this is not the kind of technology that you upgrade every couple of years unless you're making much better money than I. As with your gaming console, your PC, etc., you probably will wait until the price is right for your circumstance, and after buying it you won't upgrade again for the better part of a decade at best. I think I bought my TV around 2007. That's almost 10 years after HD was introduced to the consumer market according to some Google searches. It has only been about 7 years since then. According to a few minutes of research on 4K, 4K TVs have only been available for about 2 or 3 years. I will hold out several more years before upgrading my TV unless forced to do so. It works fine as it is. According to Wikipedia, they changed the dimension that they use to name the specification. 4K sounds like it would be 4x bigger than 1080P, but it's not true: 4K UHDTV would be equivalent to 2160p.
It's only about twice as good. For reference, 1080P is about 3 times bigger than DVD quality according to the graphic on that same page (720P is about double; I waited until 1080P was affordable to me before upgrading). Perhaps in a few years time there will be a 6K or something and everybody that jumped on the 4K bandwagon will have to upgrade prematurely again. -- acc.js | al4anim - Allegro 4 Animation library | Allegro 5 VS/NuGet Guide | Allegro.cc Mockup | Allegro.cc <code> Tag | Allegro 4 Timer Example (w/ Semaphores) | Allegro 5 "Winpkg" (MSVC readme) | Bambot | Blog | C++ STL Container Flowchart | Castopulence Software | Check Return Values | Derail? | Is This A Discussion? Flow Chart | Filesystem Hierarchy Standard | Clean Code Talks - Global State and Singletons | How To Use Header Files | GNU/Linux (Debian, Fedora, Gentoo) | rot (rot13, rot47, rotN) | Streaming |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
bamccaig said: I will hold out several more years before upgrading my TV unless forced to do so. Me too. I will probably keep mine till it breaks. and only consider a 4k if there's enough reason to, as by then, HD tvs will be even more dirt cheap. Quote: According to Wikipedia, they changed the dimension that they use to name the specification. 4K sounds like it would be 4x bigger than 1080P, but it's not true: It is technically 4x the pixels, but the K nomenclature relates to the width iirc (which is close to 4000 in 4K), where as Xp uses the height. It's a bit confusing. Quote: Perhaps in a few years time there will be a 6K or something and everybody that jumped on the 4K bandwagon will have to upgrade prematurely again. They are already working on 8k I didn't upgrade to a big ass LCD till Smart 3D tv's were out and sold for a while. It made getting a GOOD (Samsung UN55EH6000F) 55" LCD pretty inexpensive compared to what it was only a couple years earlier. It's also a dumb tv. Sadly its hard to get plain old dumb tvs these days. I hope they allow you to turn off the smart tv bullshit when you don't need it (some companies are adding ADs to your tv directly, which makes me think they probably won't be letting you turn off the smart tv features). -- |
|
StevenVI
Member #562
July 2000
|
Thomas Fjellstrom said: makes me think they probably won't be letting you turn off the smart tv features This is an (irrational) fear I've been having lately, for whenever I need to buy my next TV. I imagine that by the time I have to buy another TV, "IoT" devices will be using cell phone towers to transmit data, bypassing any blocking performed by the user. Which reminds me, I need to go buy a new router that I can install custom firmware on. Too many devices in my house are wasting my time by communicating with servers I don't want them to talk to. __________________________________________________ |
|
LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
 |
Thomas Fjellstrom said: It made getting a GOOD (Samsung UN55EH6000F) 55" LCD pretty inexpensive compared to what it was only a couple years earlier. That TV has surprisingly few inputs. We have an older 32" Series 6 Samsung TV, and it has 4 HDMI inputs and 2 USB inputs.
|
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
LennyLen said: That TV has surprisingly few inputs. We have an older 32" Series 6 Samsung TV, and it has 4 HDMI inputs and 2 USB inputs. Bare Bones "CostCo" model. There's a reason i got it for so cheap -- |
|
Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001
|
No matter how high HD they sell to us, the bandwidths will always be less than optimal and we're left with crap. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest. |
|
|
1
2
|
Or Hell, maybe your TV just looks better than mine (mine is certainly not top of the line, but nor was it cheap at the time), but it doesn't bother me at all. I grew up in the 90s. This TV is several times bigger and better than the TVs I grew up watching. I have no immediate need for "4K" (nor "3D" for that matter).
But I didn't need nor want a super number of inputs or features. I have a receiver that does my video/audio switching. I basically just want a dumb screen.
