4K restoration on Star Wars — Page 82

TV's Frink said:

Ronster said:

What you need to bear in mind is that there really is little or no point having a 32" 4k resolution screen.

It's only when you get to larger screen sizes such as 50" / 65" / 80" / 103" / Edge Blended projection / Large Video walls and LED walls that 4k resolution comes in to play and really does add a noticeable difference.

I've just recently (as in the last few weeks) realized that I will be in the market for a new tv soon.  Up until now, I hadn't even bothered thinking too much about 4k as a practical thing, but now I'm thinking....hmmmm.

So let's split the difference between the 32" and 50" sizes you mentioned above.   Here's a Vizio 43" for $600.

http://www.amazon.com/VIZIO-M43-C1-43-Inch-Ultra-Smart/dp/B00T63YUTE/ref=sr_1_1?s=tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1432392483&sr=1-1

A comparable Vizio 42" 1080p set is only $150 less.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JJNA10I/ref=psdc_6459737011_t1_B00T63YUTE

I'm not being my usual snarky self, but asking honestly - wouldn't it make sense at such a small price difference to go with the 4k set?

 I would go to a show room and see how you feel about it. But don't be afraid to ask them to show you a normal blu ray on a 4k set. Often they have these 4K CGI demo reels which is really not what you are going to be watching.

If you want my advice I would go for a OLED full HD set if your size that suits your space is in the 40's Inches range. And with the left over cash get a nice speaker system to go with it even if it's only a 2:1 system you will be really happy.

Ronster said:

If you want my advice I would go for a OLED full HD set if your size that suits your space is in the 40's Inches range. And with the left over cash get a nice speaker system to go with it even if it's only a 2:1 system you will be really happy.

 I'm not seeing much OLED in the 40" range and what I see isn't really saving any money.  And I've got a perfectly nice 5.1 system.

Yes OLED is expensive and still needs time for competition to settle... But I think this is the real leap forward away from the LCD era  but it's not quite mature enough or affordable enough yet. And I don't really see them very often to be honest and I know a lot of different models of various sets because I put them up regularly.

Just get an LED lit LCD display like the ones you posted then. it's still much better than standard LCD which is side lit.

I have come across a 80" sharp that melted in a container whilst shipping that looked like one of those new curved OLED screens :) Still worked too even though it was shaped a bit like a banana.

how is it lit though?

Are they both LED Lit?

Your 4k screen is probably LED lit right (even if it's upscaling) the lighting of the LCD panel is really where the enhancement comes.

And of course if you have 4K content then you really will notice the difference then but it really only works with Larger screens effectively.

But if you are just watching Standard HD upscaled then it's really not the same. or even terrestrial tv signals. So it all depends on what you are using it for.

For what you are doing Ady the 4K tv is a great choice, but you are not the average consumer

I think the best way to put it is if you are using high end visual apps or Gaming it's definitely a good choice but if you are watching Blu rays or TV or even current generation gaming  a standard LED lit LCD delivers in a living room environment and is a Good Purchase.

There is still such a glut of content for home consumption it's a bit "iffy" even 4K streaming video is not 4K really. It all depends on what you want to use it for.

I think in reality the buck stops with I still do may projection jobs that desire VGA signal and not only that, that people still, even if they have a wide screen to project on to put their content in 4:3... yes there is a wide screen and the content is 4:3 it is extremely common place and a stark reality that people cannot keep up with change even if for the better or that it is alien to them.

Technology is moving so fast it's very hard to gauge what exactly will come next but as long as you stay behind you are safe.

It is both frustrating and admirable but at the very least it all does not weigh as much as it used to in terms of kilograms!!! :)

well you have a very good point there especially about the "crappy print scans" and difference between blu-ray and dvd and how bigger difference it actually is in terms of "Real Size" for 4K

It's not really about what we  can appreciate in terms of superior visual quality, it really is boiling down to a reality of what people can keep up with not only in terms of price but also being able to wrap their head around something as simple as aspect ratios which unfortunately most people won't and don't care to grasp so how on earth do we expect the same people today who cannot grasp aspect ratios to begin to grasp the difference between  resolution.

I remember when people used to want to increase resolution even though it would mean text size would become smaller in fact so small at the expense of people not being able to read it in a larger audience at the back just because they thought higher resolution was better. (that is without knowledge of consideration of text format)

It's such a misunderstood medium to the masses and even if people are sold new "toys" they will be simply lost in a wilderness of new technology before they even properly understood the last wave of technology they experienced.

I suppose it's like buying a Ferrari Car but with a limit to how fast you can actually go (at present) unless you are using it for high end apps or gaming but perhaps not as expensive. It's all so misleading and I think most people will be disillusioned by their purchase of 4K sets at this time but many will just lay out the money without really understanding what they are buying just because they were sold it.

But if you take yourself out of the domestic market and into the commercial market look at the prices of DVI fiber or 6 core or 4 core or 2 core fibre kits over even 20 meter lengths with transmitters and receivers. It's by no means cheap and you also have HDCP shit issues that potentially need to be overcome. depending on the display and the content a scaler would perhaps be required... All in all not very user friendly, with hurdles like this even currently for 1080P HD 4K is far too premature. Oh yeah forgot to mention also what the content will be playing on and what system that would use perhaps a media server or Brightsign or watchout system now it starts to get even more expensive...

Another argument against 4K tv's (at least for right now) is that the video standards for 4K are only just now being agreed upon industry wide, from what I understand. The new 4K standard will have a wider color gamut to better recreate the range of color the human eye can actually see, as well as much higher contrast ratios among other things. It's not JUST about higher resolution. But since these things are just now becoming standardized, current 4K tv's don't have these features and won't be able to take advantage of them when they are available in the (probably very near) future.

AntcuFaalb said:

>8-bit

 I am unfamiliar with this particular emoticon.

^It's of a frowning guy with a harmonica resting under his chin blowing a raspberry.

Harmy,

Can you comment on the 4k clip we sent you. You seem to be the only one that can play it at full resolution.

Also, some monitors support 10 bit color, however very few applications support it. You need the right cable, and OS support also.

Team Negative1

adywan said:

team_negative1 said:

Harmy,

Can you comment on the 4k clip we sent you. You seem to be the only one that can play it at full resolution.

 Erm, are all of you sure about that? ;)

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/4K-restoration-on-Star-Wars/post/771936/#TopicPost771936

 Fixed.

TV's Frink said:

adywan said:

team_negative1 said:

Harmy,

Can you comment on the 4k clip we sent you. You seem to be the only one that can play it at full resolution.

 Erm, are all of you sure about that? ;)

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/4K-restoration-on-Star-Wars/post/771936/#TopicPost771936

KFTFY

 KFTFY

FLOL

I think I have only ever wall mounted one 4k screen and it was perhaps the end of last year. It was a Samsung it had this on it to connect to the screen.

Hmmm, I thought although this was nice in a way.. There was no VGA connectivity and although you can just use an adaptor connection for DVI to HDMI  You cannot do that for Analogue RGB. Whilst they serve component and composite sources as Video standards backwards compatible. you can get an external active powered box to convert to HDMI from VGA probably a Analgue to digital convertor chip.

VGA is definitely being dropped from the market place when many people still use it and don't want the extra costs.

I Had to put the screen on the wall but you can imagine all the mess behind the screen that was visible from this thing all stuffed up behind as the TV has no inputs on it!!!

So who has the HDMI 2.0 connection on there 4K set and who does not? and who has a Full HD set with a HDMI 2.0 sockit and who does not?

Here is a snippet from an article.

First, here's where we are now. The until-now most recent version of the HDMI specification was version 1.4. It specified a number of things, like 4,096x2,160-pixel resolution up to 24 frames per second, or 3,820x2,160 up to 30fps. If you've bought any gear with an HDMI connector in the past few years, it's probably version 1.4. It carried over all the features and support from previous versions, plus added 3D , Audio Return Channel, and so on.

2.0 for 4K
With the TV industry moving inexorably toward Ultra HD "4K," it was clear there needed to be more bandwidth in the connection to handle the future's higher resolutions and frame rates. On that front, HDMI 2.0 delivers, supporting "4K" (2160p by the Forum's explanation) up to 60fps. This allows for full-resolution 4K 3D, along with higher-frame-rate 2D content, like (potentially) home videos and computer games (PC, not PS4/Xbox One). Since almost all movies are shot at 24fps , this increase is less important for feature films or scripted TV shows.

_________________________________________________

Also don't get me started on all the stupid flimsy graphics Adaptors on Laptops now and everything is becoming out board connections that easily break or get lost or the cable is damaged or the end on the laptop plug shears off. It's yet another minefield of problems.

Anyway if I connected a 4k blu ray player to a full HD set would it just pump out full HD down a normal HDMI and down scale or would I have to have gear that was HDMI 2.0 compliant for it  it to work at all?

I have never tried it so I don't know.. I guess we will find out.

yours sounds More Work Monitor than for Living Room TV Harmy...

Nothing wrong with that. Can you get full HD on a normal HDMI cable through your HDMI 2.0 port?

Ok I just see this...

Don’t throw away your HDMI cables

As mentioned above, HDMI 2.0a changes nothing about the size, shape, or wiring of HDMI cables. Should you wind up getting devices that are HDMI 2.0a compliant, your existing cables will work just fine. And since HDMI 2.0a is backward compatible with older HDMI versions, you’ll be able to connect your old Blu-ray player and/or AV receiver to a brand new HDMI 2.0a-equipped 4K Ultra HD TV with absolutely no problem.

Ronster said:

Don’t throw away your HDMI cables

 But we should throw away our periods? :p