Not for me. Quite happy living in the house of today thank you very much. We have enough trouble fighting against all these Mini-Holland cycling schemes which cost millions and nobody wants, without smart fridges that talk to the internet, and beds that report back. We don't have to use technology for it's own sake, just because it's there.
That is why we are all buying 4K TV sets but there no 4K TV transmissions. Always sheeple about with money to burn.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
That is why we are all buying 4K TV sets but there no 4K TV transmissions.
+1
doesn't youtube provide a selection of 4K content for your viewing pleasure? granted it is not a 4K realtime stream of our wonderful major TV networks, but ask yourself this: would watching the major tv shows as currently crafted make them any more palatable in 4K, i.e., garbage at any resolution is still, well, garbage.
To be fair there is an advantage to watching standard HD transmissions on a 4K set, because you will get a better picture, but unless it is a dedicated 4k program you won't get the best out of it. I don't know about Youtube, but there is very little 4K DVD's to buy.
TV manufacturers are flogging technology that the TV networks can't match. That is what I mean by using technology for it's own sake. We have a smart TV but it is only HD, and only a small 40". Our living room isn't big enough for these 55-60" ones neither is our eyesight bad enough. And we don't need to impress the family, friends, or neighbours.
8K TV sets will be out early next year, let's see who rushes to buy them ......
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
Then do tell me what the advantage is of upscaled content instead of watching it on is intended resolution. Personally I am having trouble seeing the difference between 720p and 1080p.
That is, when I comfortably sit at a reasonable distance from my TV. You all must have extremely sharp eyes to see a difference between 1080p and more unless you practically watch from inside your TV. I call it a big waste of money, and anyone buying it a fool for believing marketing.
When I watch 1440p content and compare it to 1080p content on the same screen with the same settings, I can only tell the difference when I am real close to it.
In stores they use other techniques to make a screen appear sharper then it's competition that have nothing to do with actual sharpness or resolution. Compare the same video on the same TV with the same settings on different resolutions and then see from what distance you can tell a difference. Then ask yourself if you will ever get that close to it to watch anything.
But perhaps that is just me having less then a 50 inch TV.
For large computer monitors you can benefit from higher resolutions as you tend to be much closer to those when using them.
High dynamic range, that I do notice, also a higher framerate would be nice so motion becomes smooth. 4k or more is nice when watching a movie alone and close to a big TV, else I won't notice.
However nice that is, it does not factor in where the signal originates. If you are watching a cable signal, the cable company has already made the picture worse. They have turned the screw to far over compress the signal using lossy compression so they are able to send you more channels down the wire. The same happens if you get your signal by satellite, but in different degrees. Over the air signals are also compressed, but much less so than cable of satellite signals. Until you have had the pleasure of watching uncompressed video, you will not know how much you are missing.
A few years ago at CES I had the opportunity to watch some uncompressed 8K video. NHK had set up a wall of 16 HDTV screens (4x4) to display it. No 8K displays were available, so each 1K monitor displayed 1/16 of the 8K signal. Watching some of what they shot was almost painful given the detail. They had one shot using a normal length lens, not a telephoto, shot down the length of a pitch of the action at the far end. The players names on their jerseys were clearly legible from over 100 meters. Better than most human eyeballs.
Very little of what I watch is new anyway, so I don't even see the need for a 1080. At this moment, I'm watching ST:TNG on a Sharp CRT TV that is doing surprisingly well for its age (other than needing to be adjusted for bleeding off the edges of the screen; there's no such setting in the menu and I'm not able to easily check the back for any physical adjustments). If it ever dies, I have my father's tube lurking in the basement. The LCDs in the kitchen and my bedroom are 720s. And I don't want to pay the higher charge for HD on my cable.
David
Miserable old git
Patiently waiting for the asteroid with my name on it.
Firstly, 50 years ago houses were designed with the central feature of a living room/lounge being the fireplace. Modern houses tend not to have fireplaces because of central heating, so the TV has taken its place as the central feature.
We have a 40" Samsung LED smart TV, model UE40H6400AK which is 3 years old now, so by today's standards pretty old hat. Butat the time it was a Which? best buy. But I ain't buying a new 4K one thank you very much! The difference between BBC 1 in SD and BBC 101 in HD is quite discernible. I have seen 4K sets and the picture is again better for the same HD transmissions, as you would expect. As always modern TV's have crap sound, so the first thing we did was buy a Yamaha YAS-93 sound bar, which makes a phenomenal difference.
In terms of viewing distance I don't take any notice of these so called charts as they are generally rubbish, and don't take into account ambience or lighting levels, or peoples individual eyesight.
I've just done some measurements of our living room which is 10ft 6" x 15ft 6". Yes it is small by many standards but we live in a typical 1908 terrace house. Anything bigger than a 40" set in that room would be simply too overpowering. We sit in the middle of one long wall, and the TV is on the other long wall. The viewing distance from eyeball to screen is 7 feet. That distance is just about right for that size of set, I could sit closer or further from it by a couple of feet without any loss of viewing pleasure,.
Also, and just as important, We have the set on a base unit not on the original stand. The top of the screen is 3ft 3" from the floor. That gives a viewing angle of about 9 degrees downwards to the centre of the screen from an armchair. I used to be our Divisional rep for COSHH and the DSE regulations and they are quite strict about viewing angles to avoid eye strain and neck strain when using computer monitors. They recommend 15 degrees downwards which is about what I have on my computer screen, and which most computer tables are designed for.
We have family that have a living room not that much bigger than ours maybe 12ft x 18ft and they have this massive 55" flat screen jobby on the wall about five feet high. Sit on their settee and you are craning your neck upwards to watch it comfortably. Totally wrong and an overkill for the room, but it is their house so their choice.
Now if we sat at one end of our room and the TV was at the other end we probably could get a 55" set, but the damn thing would totally dominate the room. If I want the full experience I'll go to a cinema, I don't want to convert my living room into a home cinema!!
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
Not for me. Quite happy
Not for me. Quite happy living in the house of today thank you very much. We have enough trouble fighting against all these Mini-Holland cycling schemes which cost millions and nobody wants, without smart fridges that talk to the internet, and beds that report back. We don't have to use technology for it's own sake, just because it's there.
That is why we are all buying 4K TV sets but there no 4K TV transmissions. Always sheeple about with money to burn.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
That is why we are all buying
That is why we are all buying 4K TV sets but there no 4K TV transmissions.
+1
No 4K TVs in my house. I do
No 4K TVs in my house. I do admit to a SmartTV with Amazon Video and a couple other apps.
WINNING by not burning any money.
Seti Classic Final Total: 11446 WU.
Betreger wrote:That is why we
doesn't youtube provide a selection of 4K content for your viewing pleasure? granted it is not a 4K realtime stream of our wonderful major TV networks, but ask yourself this: would watching the major tv shows as currently crafted make them any more palatable in 4K, i.e., garbage at any resolution is still, well, garbage.
To be fair there is an
To be fair there is an advantage to watching standard HD transmissions on a 4K set, because you will get a better picture, but unless it is a dedicated 4k program you won't get the best out of it. I don't know about Youtube, but there is very little 4K DVD's to buy.
TV manufacturers are flogging technology that the TV networks can't match. That is what I mean by using technology for it's own sake. We have a smart TV but it is only HD, and only a small 40". Our living room isn't big enough for these 55-60" ones neither is our eyesight bad enough. And we don't need to impress the family, friends, or neighbours.
8K TV sets will be out early next year, let's see who rushes to buy them ......
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
Chris S_2 wrote: 8K TV sets
good news in that arena also. youtube provides 8K content although it looks a lot like 4K. hmm!?
Then do tell me what the
Then do tell me what the advantage is of upscaled content instead of watching it on is intended resolution. Personally I am having trouble seeing the difference between 720p and 1080p.
That is, when I comfortably sit at a reasonable distance from my TV. You all must have extremely sharp eyes to see a difference between 1080p and more unless you practically watch from inside your TV. I call it a big waste of money, and anyone buying it a fool for believing marketing.
When I watch 1440p content and compare it to 1080p content on the same screen with the same settings, I can only tell the difference when I am real close to it.
In stores they use other techniques to make a screen appear sharper then it's competition that have nothing to do with actual sharpness or resolution. Compare the same video on the same TV with the same settings on different resolutions and then see from what distance you can tell a difference. Then ask yourself if you will ever get that close to it to watch anything.
But perhaps that is just me having less then a 50 inch TV.
For large computer monitors you can benefit from higher resolutions as you tend to be much closer to those when using them.
High dynamic range, that I do notice, also a higher framerate would be nice so motion becomes smooth. 4k or more is nice when watching a movie alone and close to a big TV, else I won't notice.
However nice that is, it does
However nice that is, it does not factor in where the signal originates. If you are watching a cable signal, the cable company has already made the picture worse. They have turned the screw to far over compress the signal using lossy compression so they are able to send you more channels down the wire. The same happens if you get your signal by satellite, but in different degrees. Over the air signals are also compressed, but much less so than cable of satellite signals. Until you have had the pleasure of watching uncompressed video, you will not know how much you are missing.
A few years ago at CES I had the opportunity to watch some uncompressed 8K video. NHK had set up a wall of 16 HDTV screens (4x4) to display it. No 8K displays were available, so each 1K monitor displayed 1/16 of the 8K signal. Watching some of what they shot was almost painful given the detail. They had one shot using a normal length lens, not a telephoto, shot down the length of a pitch of the action at the far end. The players names on their jerseys were clearly legible from over 100 meters. Better than most human eyeballs.
Very little of what I watch
Very little of what I watch is new anyway, so I don't even see the need for a 1080. At this moment, I'm watching ST:TNG on a Sharp CRT TV that is doing surprisingly well for its age (other than needing to be adjusted for bleeding off the edges of the screen; there's no such setting in the menu and I'm not able to easily check the back for any physical adjustments). If it ever dies, I have my father's tube lurking in the basement. The LCDs in the kitchen and my bedroom are 720s. And I don't want to pay the higher charge for HD on my cable.
David
Miserable old git
Patiently waiting for the asteroid with my name on it.
Firstly, 50 years ago houses
Firstly, 50 years ago houses were designed with the central feature of a living room/lounge being the fireplace. Modern houses tend not to have fireplaces because of central heating, so the TV has taken its place as the central feature.
We have a 40" Samsung LED smart TV, model UE40H6400AK which is 3 years old now, so by today's standards pretty old hat. Butat the time it was a Which? best buy. But I ain't buying a new 4K one thank you very much! The difference between BBC 1 in SD and BBC 101 in HD is quite discernible. I have seen 4K sets and the picture is again better for the same HD transmissions, as you would expect. As always modern TV's have crap sound, so the first thing we did was buy a Yamaha YAS-93 sound bar, which makes a phenomenal difference.
In terms of viewing distance I don't take any notice of these so called charts as they are generally rubbish, and don't take into account ambience or lighting levels, or peoples individual eyesight.
I've just done some measurements of our living room which is 10ft 6" x 15ft 6". Yes it is small by many standards but we live in a typical 1908 terrace house. Anything bigger than a 40" set in that room would be simply too overpowering. We sit in the middle of one long wall, and the TV is on the other long wall. The viewing distance from eyeball to screen is 7 feet. That distance is just about right for that size of set, I could sit closer or further from it by a couple of feet without any loss of viewing pleasure,.
Also, and just as important, We have the set on a base unit not on the original stand. The top of the screen is 3ft 3" from the floor. That gives a viewing angle of about 9 degrees downwards to the centre of the screen from an armchair. I used to be our Divisional rep for COSHH and the DSE regulations and they are quite strict about viewing angles to avoid eye strain and neck strain when using computer monitors. They recommend 15 degrees downwards which is about what I have on my computer screen, and which most computer tables are designed for.
We have family that have a living room not that much bigger than ours maybe 12ft x 18ft and they have this massive 55" flat screen jobby on the wall about five feet high. Sit on their settee and you are craning your neck upwards to watch it comfortably. Totally wrong and an overkill for the room, but it is their house so their choice.
Now if we sat at one end of our room and the TV was at the other end we probably could get a 55" set, but the damn thing would totally dominate the room. If I want the full experience I'll go to a cinema, I don't want to convert my living room into a home cinema!!
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now