Ultra HD

#26
#26
720p is used by sports networks because interlacing (480i, 1080i, etc.) blurs fast moving objects slightly more than still and slow movement. Your flat screen automatically up-converts to fit your 1920x1080 screen.

1080i - Standard HD broadcasting and fits the resolution of your 1920x1080 panel without any up-scale, but it's really just 540 pixel images interlaced. A still image looks fine, but fast action motion can get blurry and pixeled, especially with higher compressed codecs. Not the greatest for sports as explained above.

1080p or Full resolution 1920x1080 video. This is your Blu-ray quality video. Yeah, it would be nice if this could become standard for broadcasting with improved bandwidth for codecs with a higher bitrate. This would allow for improved action/sports picture quality and fast motion without all that pixelated jazz.

4k or 4k2k is just short for twice the resolution of 1080p. The video really isn't 4,000 pixels. It's 3840 x 2160. This is just a dream for broadcasting. The bandwidth required for codecs is not very realistic right now due to existing infrastructure. This is merely a play land for recent blu-ray and gaming media. But I must say, you really need a large panel (55+) to visually see the difference with your eyes. Small 4k panels don't really make sense to me unless you're sitting absurdly close to the monitor. Still images are stunning. Minimal compression is even more stunning.

As stated previously, the quality of components in your flat screen is vital. The components on the board, processor and processing software is just as important as the signal resolution being received. A crap 4k panel with crap components won't necessarily look better than a 1920x1080 panel. In fact, from my own experience, there are high quality 1080p Panasonic plasma panels that still outperform some of the new 4k LCD panels. But that's my subjective opinion.
 
Last edited:
#27
#27
Ultra Plinian said:
720p is used by sports networks because interlacing (480i, 1080i, etc.) blurs fast moving objects slightly more than still and slow movement. Your flat screen automatically up-converts to fit your 1920x1080 screen.

1080i - Standard HD broadcasting and fits the resolution of your 1920x1080 panel without any up-scale, but it's really just 540 pixel images interlaced. A still image looks fine, but fast action motion can get blurry and pixeled, especially with higher compressed codecs. Not the greatest for sports as explained above.

1080p or Full resolution 1920x1080 video. This is your Blu-ray quality video. Yeah, it would be nice if this could become standard for broadcasting with improved bandwidth for codecs with a higher bitrate. This would allow for improved action/sports picture quality and fast motion without all that pixelated jazz.

4k or 4k2k is just short for twice the resolution of 1080p. The video really isn't 4,000 pixels. It's 3840 x 2160. This is just a dream for broadcasting. The bandwidth required for codecs is not very realistic right now due to existing infrastructure. This is merely a play land for recent blu-ray and gaming media. But I must say, you really need a large panel (55+) to visually see the difference with your eyes. Small 4k panels don't really make sense to me unless you're sitting absurdly close to the monitor. Still images are stunning. Minimal compression is even more stunning.

As stated previously, the quality of components in your flat screen is vital. The components on the board, processor and processing software is just as important as the signal resolution being received. A crap 4k panel with crap components won't necessarily look better than a 1920x1080 panel. In fact, from my own experience, there are high quality 1080p Panasonic plasma panels that still outperform some of the new 4k LCD panels. But that's my subjective opinion.
Click to expand...

Good info.

I've had two Panasonic Plasma's and live them. It's a shame theyvare discontinued.

End of the day, the average consumer cares more about getting a good price on a TV than the picture quality.
 
#28
#28
burntorangeVOLffle said:
Good info.

I've had two Panasonic Plasma's and live them. It's a shame theyvare discontinued.

End of the day, the average consumer cares more about getting a good price on a TV than the picture quality.
Click to expand...

if you like the color levels on plasma you need to check out the OLED. Same color as plasma but LED efficiency & thickness. .17 inches thick at spots. Yes its pricey but the colors are fantastic!!
 
#29
#29
VolnTitan said:
Essentially "compressed" refers to type of codec and then stuff like bit rate etc.

All TV signals are compress, including over the air. Nobody is broadcasting a "uncompressed" signal. Over the air looks better because there are less levels of compression, so to speak. With directv, they receive the signal from the networks, recompress it to mpeg4 and then send it out. With cable it gets redo pressed more I believe. I know more about what is delivered to the networks from us, but we try to deliver as good of quality as we can. Right now we "master" most stuff to prores hq, which is compressed, but very high level compression.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation. This makes sense to me.
 
#30
#30
burntorangeVOLffle said:
Wouldn't you have to see it in 4k to tell the difference?


I will say the 5K iMac is beautiful. Text and photos are so crisp it's amazing. If I could justify upgrading my late 2011 iMac to the wife I would already have it.
Click to expand...

The first part of my post was about SD vs HD.

The side by sides on youtube, yes. But once you see it, there's no doubt about the difference in the detail.

For perspective though, my grandparents had a 25" console with an antenna on the roof. A big screen of any HD resolution is a big improvement. :)
 
#31
#31
I bought a Samsung 50" 4K for $799 right before Thanksgiving. Part of the reason I got it was because my Daughter wanted a HDTV for her bedroom so I was going to have to spend around $200 for a 32" anyway so I decided to give her my practically new 32" from my bedroom and move my 46" from the living room to the bedroom and put the 4K in the living room. If I hadnt got it for such a good price I might have regretted buying it in light of this info about the 4K content or lack thereof that they dont tell you about at the store. They are working on 4K blu-ray players but the price is going to be outrageous when they first hit the market. I saw where some cable providers might have 4k by the end of the year. Unless your TV just died or you can find one rediculously cheap I would recommend waiting till more 4K content is available.
 
Last edited:
#32
#32
gobravesvols16 said:
I bought a Samsung 50" 4K for $799 right before Thanksgiving. Part of the reason I got it was because my Daughter wanted a HDTV for her bedroom so I was going to have to spend around $200 for a 32" anyway so I decided to give her my practically new 32" from my bedroom and move my 46" from the living room to the bedroom and put the 4K in the living room. If I hadnt got it for such a good price I might have regretted buying it in light of this info about the 4K content or lack thereof that they dont tell you about at the store. They are working on 4K blu-ray players but the price is going to be outrageous when they first hit the market. I saw where some cable providers might have 4k by the end of the year. Unless your TV just died or you can find one rediculously cheap I would recommend waiting till more 4K content is available.
Click to expand...

there is a Samsung 4K blue ray player for under $150.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top