4K ?ha don't belive the hype - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

4K ?ha don't belive the hype

£0.00 @ Hype
if your like me and like reading up on tech this was a great read about 4k on TV screens ... I knew about distance from screens but this was a suprise . http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurnane/… Read More
ashmac Avatar
9m, 1w agoPosted 9 months, 1 week ago
if your like me and like reading up on tech this was a great read about 4k on TV screens ...

I knew about distance from screens but this was a suprise .

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurnane/2016/08/11/4k-resolution-rules-tv-screens-but-look-the-emperor-has-no-clothes/#1fdd09ab6390
Tags:
Other Links From Hype:
ashmac Avatar
9m, 1w agoPosted 9 months, 1 week ago
Options

All Comments

(37) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#2
I sit around 7 feet away from my 60" screen. Looks like 4k will have some benefit for me.
Edit ignore that I was reading wrong! looks like full 1080p is enough, i'd have to sit 6 feet away max to notice apparently



Edited By: Deaa on Aug 12, 2016 14:22
2 Likes #3
You can definitely tell when gaming... Sitting 2 feet away....
#4
Rubbish article with few correct facts but loads of wrong opinions
The future is better resolution and sharper more vivid or life like pictures
My 58" Panasonic beats most as it's 4K content can easily be noticed by people with poorer eyesight and this is what makes sport and wildlife so exciting to watch
1 Like #5
Was never convinced by 4k anyway as it seems like a needless step up from 1080 TVs.

I'll hold off until my TV actually needs upgrading due to unmissable tech trends
5 Likes #6
I knew before clicking that it'd have something to do with that stupid flippin graph by Carlton Bale. Honestly, one man on the internet makes a bloody graph and that's all it takes to make the whole world that little bit dumber.

That graph is based upon the Snellen chart used by opticians, all it actually tells you is at what distance you will be able to read text rendered at the smallest size the screen allows. By all means, you are free to follow this man and leap to the idiotic conclusion that this translates directly to the distance at which you are no longer able to benefit from viewing moving full-colour images at a higher resolution. Don't bother finding out for yourself with your own eyes and ignore the actual double-blind test results, because Carlton Bale sounds as if he probably knows what he's talking about and knows how to use Microsoft Excel.
#7
Rubbish article. They could/should have said the same thing when the 1080 HD resolution came out. All the advertising and video demos showed how detailed the pictures were going to be, but most people probably never noticed the blades in the grass and the article puts it.
3 Likes #8
I can understand young people buying 4k TV's but once you're a little older and relying on prescription eyesight are you really going to notice. As TV's get even bigger maybe, but not at present. Bit like someone's comment I heard the other day about a colleague who spends thousands on audio equipment but now wears hearing aids.
#9
What a dismal read that was. Yes the benefits of 2160p are reduced relative to viewing distance, but people will have different sweet spots. Your eyes will likely fail to resolve the full 4K image but your visual limit could sit anywhere in-between (1080p and 2160p). If you can't see any difference at all perhaps it's time to visit an optician?

Quadrupling the number of pixels was also a smart move as it's better for scaling your existing material and devices. Thank goodness 1440p wasn't selected as an interim standard.

Edited By: MBeeching on Aug 12, 2016 23:13: typo
#10
Needed a good laugh
#11
That article is correct, all obvious stuff really, just like 4K 8K etc will all look like old vhs the farther you get away.
1 Like #12
Daytrader
That article is correct, all obvious stuff really, just like 4K 8K etc will all look like old vhs the farther you get away.
No, I've seen VHS lately it's fugly.... So damn fugly oO
#13
4K TVs offer is bit more than screen resolution though. Better Contrast, Luminance, Colour, Sharper images. Unless you have some major eye issues then you should be able to notice how the flower looks more vibrant on the 4K TV compared to the old clunky PAL TV.

Edited By: kester76 on Aug 12, 2016 23:43: grammar...
#14
sowotsdis
people with poorer eyesight... sport and wildlife... exciting to watch
;)
1 Like #15
I'm getting really tired of people assuming the way they use a TV is the way everyone else uses it.
#16
What do you mean ? :)
#17
kester76
What do you mean ? :)

Do you really want me to go there again? Really?X)
#18
i just bought a new tv yesterday as my 8 year old 480p tv started to get lines down the screen...it is definitely better than my old one i can say...new one is LG 49UH770V super UHD with HDR 4K with dolby vision
1 Like #19
moneysavingkitten
kester76
What do you mean ? :)

Do you really want me to go there again? Really?X)


Part of me says no but other other half says bring it on ;) lol
#20
superspeedy
i just bought a new tv yesterday as my 8 year old 480p tv started to get lines down the screen...it is definitely better than my old one i can say...new one is LG 49UH770V super UHD with HDR 4K with dolby vision


Had to look up 480p, can only remember EDTV on the Wii.
#21
4K is a resolution increase, there is no hype to that..

Its very simple, this graph shows how that as the resolution increases, the larger the surface area and more pixel woudl be need to fill it, as such you get a high density of pixels and in turn a better quality of detail. doesnt matter if your sat 2 feet away or 20 you will see a difference, in large scale pixel differences.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Vector_Video_Standards8.svg/2880px-Vector_Video_Standards8.svg.png

the problem you get is the larger the physical screen size becomes then the less pixel density you have, thats why it will always evolve to higher resolutions to improve larger screen quality.

its more likely you wont see as much difference on smaller screens, but as they tend to be in laptops etc, you are sat far closer and can pick up on the density again easier.

Edited By: haritori on Aug 13, 2016 00:12
#22
haritori
4K is a resolution increase, there is no hype to that..

Its very simple, this graph shows how that as the resolution increases, the larger the surface area and more pixel woudl be need to fill it, as such you get a high density of pixels and in turn a better quality of detail. doesnt matter if your sat 2 feet away or 20 you will see a difference, in large scale pixel differences.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Vector_Video_Standards8.svg/2880px-Vector_Video_Standards8.svg.png

480x640


Everything about that statement confuses me...
#23
I think that diagram shows the history of screen resolutions vs aspect ratios.
#24
So the article is saying to make full use of uhd you have to sit closely to the screen, it doesn't mean to say that it will project the same as 1080p. It will still give a better picture than your 1080p irregardless of the distance.
#25
MR1123
So the article is saying to make full use of uhd you have to sit closely to the screen, it doesn't mean to say that it will project the same as 1080p. It will still give a better picture than your 1080p irregardless of the distance.


I think what it means is that your ability to see fine detail diminishes over distance. This doesn't affect any of the other features such as HDR, contrast etc. 4K is a screen resolution but when referring to 4K TVs then it's a whole package.

To be honest average 4K set should be around 55-60" for the average person. Smaller sets are being miss sold but the same happened with 32" 1080p sets. People tend not to notice because most broadcasts aren't 1080p.
#26
MR1123
So the article is saying to make full use of uhd you have to sit closely to the screen, it doesn't mean to say that it will project the same as 1080p. It will still give a better picture than your 1080p irregardless of the distance.


irregardless?
#27
craigstephens
MR1123
So the article is saying to make full use of uhd you have to sit closely to the screen, it doesn't mean to say that it will project the same as 1080p. It will still give a better picture than your 1080p irregardless of the distance.
irregardless?
Im guessing you haven't seen the film Duff. :)Irregardless
1 Like #28
shabbird
craigstephens
MR1123
So the article is saying to make full use of uhd you have to sit closely to the screen, it doesn't mean to say that it will project the same as 1080p. It will still give a better picture than your 1080p irregardless of the distance.
irregardless?
Im guessing you haven't seen the film Duff. :)Irregardless
Result.. Just saved two letters, it's amazing how we pick up bad habbits. I had to do a several searches earlier Grammar vs Grammer and Affect vs Effect :) Unfortunately I'd probably forget this after a couple of days so I'm better off bookmarking it :|
1 Like #29
kester76
shabbird
craigstephens
MR1123
So the article is saying to make full use of uhd you have to sit closely to the screen, it doesn't mean to say that it will project the same as 1080p. It will still give a better picture than your 1080p irregardless of the distance.
irregardless?
Im guessing you haven't seen the film Duff. :)Irregardless
Result.. Just saved two letters, it's amazing how we pick up bad habbits. I had to do a several searches earlier Grammar vs Grammer and Affect vs Effect :) Unfortunately I'd probably forget this after a couple of days so I'm better off bookmarking it :|

lol I gave up after trying to understand the text generation with m8/sic/dope. I like to drive everyone made with definate ( I know how its spelt) but I will always spell it my way lol.

Edited By: shabbird on Aug 13, 2016 09:49
#30
haritori
4K is a resolution increase, there is no hype to that..
Its very simple, this graph shows how that as the resolution increases, the larger the surface area and more pixel woudl be need to fill it, as such you get a high density of pixels and in turn a better quality of detail. doesnt matter if your sat 2 feet away or 20 you will see a difference, in large scale pixel differences.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Vector_Video_Standards8.svg/2880px-Vector_Video_Standards8.svg.png
the problem you get is the larger the physical screen size becomes then the less pixel density you have, thats why it will always evolve to higher resolutions to improve larger screen quality.
its more likely you wont see as much difference on smaller screens, but as they tend to be in laptops etc, you are sat far closer and can pick up on the density again easier.
Completely wrong, the original article is correct, its all about the distance from where you are watching from.
#31
Daytrader
haritori
4K is a resolution increase, there is no hype to that..
Its very simple, this graph shows how that as the resolution increases, the larger the surface area and more pixel woudl be need to fill it, as such you get a high density of pixels and in turn a better quality of detail. doesnt matter if your sat 2 feet away or 20 you will see a difference, in large scale pixel differences.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Vector_Video_Standards8.svg/2880px-Vector_Video_Standards8.svg.png
the problem you get is the larger the physical screen size becomes then the less pixel density you have, thats why it will always evolve to higher resolutions to improve larger screen quality.
its more likely you wont see as much difference on smaller screens, but as they tend to be in laptops etc, you are sat far closer and can pick up on the density again easier.
Completely wrong, the original article is correct, its all about the distance from where you are watching from.
No, the original article is retarded. Seriously, look at what it's based on, a graph by "Carlton Bale". Go to his website and look at his Home Theatre Calculator spreadsheet, he explains his working there.

Is it based upon scientific double-blind tests? No, it's based upon a blogger taking a crude 19th century eye test and applying it to televisions.

The worst thing is, the blogger probably found out years ago that he's wrong (why else would he write pieces about 4k?) but he's making too much money from these clickbait articles to admit it.
1 Like #32
Rubisco
Daytrader
haritori
4K is a resolution increase, there is no hype to that..
Its very simple, this graph shows how that as the resolution increases, the larger the surface area and more pixel woudl be need to fill it, as such you get a high density of pixels and in turn a better quality of detail. doesnt matter if your sat 2 feet away or 20 you will see a difference, in large scale pixel differences.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Vector_Video_Standards8.svg/2880px-Vector_Video_Standards8.svg.png
the problem you get is the larger the physical screen size becomes then the less pixel density you have, thats why it will always evolve to higher resolutions to improve larger screen quality.
its more likely you wont see as much difference on smaller screens, but as they tend to be in laptops etc, you are sat far closer and can pick up on the density again easier.
Completely wrong, the original article is correct, its all about the distance from where you are watching from.
No, the original article is retarded. Seriously, look at what it's based on, a graph by "Carlton Bale". Go to his website and look at his Home Theatre Calculator spreadsheet, he explains his working there.
Is it based upon scientific double-blind tests? No, it's based upon a blogger taking a crude 19th century eye test and applying it to televisions.
The worst thing is, the blogger probably found out years ago that he's wrong (why else would he write pieces about 4k?) but he's making too much money from these clickbait articles to admit it.
Nope, i been into av stuff for like 30 years, and read 100's articles, its so obvious thou, just use your own eyes, lets say, you have 4k picture on a 55", your 4 feet away and see all the glorious detail(meaning every pixel detail) now sit 12 feet away, your see no pixels (meaning no detail) same goes for photos/posters etc, have you not ever blown up a jpeg photo on your pc/laptop until you see it pix elate, exactly the same thing really, closer you get you see the detail, further away less detail, so obvious, why do you think all these PC gamers buy new screens 1080P, 2K, 4K etc but still stay the same distance away from them, i rest my case.
Edit: the original article is 100% correct period.


Edited By: Daytrader on Aug 13, 2016 12:12
#33
Daytrader
Rubisco
Daytrader
haritori
4K is a resolution increase, there is no hype to that..
Its very simple, this graph shows how that as the resolution increases, the larger the surface area and more pixel woudl be need to fill it, as such you get a high density of pixels and in turn a better quality of detail. doesnt matter if your sat 2 feet away or 20 you will see a difference, in large scale pixel differences.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Vector_Video_Standards8.svg/2880px-Vector_Video_Standards8.svg.png
the problem you get is the larger the physical screen size becomes then the less pixel density you have, thats why it will always evolve to higher resolutions to improve larger screen quality.
its more likely you wont see as much difference on smaller screens, but as they tend to be in laptops etc, you are sat far closer and can pick up on the density again easier.
Completely wrong, the original article is correct, its all about the distance from where you are watching from.
No, the original article is retarded. Seriously, look at what it's based on, a graph by "Carlton Bale". Go to his website and look at his Home Theatre Calculator spreadsheet, he explains his working there.
Is it based upon scientific double-blind tests? No, it's based upon a blogger taking a crude 19th century eye test and applying it to televisions.
The worst thing is, the blogger probably found out years ago that he's wrong (why else would he write pieces about 4k?) but he's making too much money from these clickbait articles to admit it.
Nope, i been into av stuff for like 30 years, and read 100's articles, its so obvious thou, just use your own eyes, lets say, you have 4k picture on a 55", your 4 feet away and see all the glorious detail(meaning every pixel detail) now sit 12 feet away, your see no pixels (meaning no detail) same goes for photos/posters etc, have you not ever blown up a jpeg photo on your pc/laptop until you see it pix elate, exactly the same thing really, closer you get you see the detail, further away less detail, so obvious, why do you think all these PC gamers buy new screens 1080P, 2K, 4K etc but still stay the same distance away from them, i rest my case.
Edit: the original article is 100% correct period.
+1

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/
#34
superspeedy
i just bought a new tv yesterday as my 8 year old 480p tv started to get lines down the screen...it is definitely better than my old one i can say...new one is LG 49UH770V super UHD with HDR 4K with dolby vision

How are you finding it? I liked the look of that one a lot on paper, but read local dimming and banding wasn't great.
1 Like #35
Daytrader
Rubisco
Daytrader
haritori
4K is a resolution increase, there is no hype to that..
Its very simple, this graph shows how that as the resolution increases, the larger the surface area and more pixel woudl be need to fill it, as such you get a high density of pixels and in turn a better quality of detail. doesnt matter if your sat 2 feet away or 20 you will see a difference, in large scale pixel differences.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Vector_Video_Standards8.svg/2880px-Vector_Video_Standards8.svg.png
the problem you get is the larger the physical screen size becomes then the less pixel density you have, thats why it will always evolve to higher resolutions to improve larger screen quality.
its more likely you wont see as much difference on smaller screens, but as they tend to be in laptops etc, you are sat far closer and can pick up on the density again easier.
Completely wrong, the original article is correct, its all about the distance from where you are watching from.
No, the original article is retarded. Seriously, look at what it's based on, a graph by "Carlton Bale". Go to his website and look at his Home Theatre Calculator spreadsheet, he explains his working there.
Is it based upon scientific double-blind tests? No, it's based upon a blogger taking a crude 19th century eye test and applying it to televisions.
The worst thing is, the blogger probably found out years ago that he's wrong (why else would he write pieces about 4k?) but he's making too much money from these clickbait articles to admit it.
Nope, i been into av stuff for like 30 years, and read 100's articles, its so obvious thou, just use your own eyes, lets say, you have 4k picture on a 55", your 4 feet away and see all the glorious detail(meaning every pixel detail) now sit 12 feet away, your see no pixels (meaning no detail) same goes for photos/posters etc, have you not ever blown up a jpeg photo on your pc/laptop until you see it pix elate, exactly the same thing really, closer you get you see the detail, further away less detail, so obvious, why do you think all these PC gamers buy new screens 1080P, 2K, 4K etc but still stay the same distance away from them, i rest my case.
Edit: the original article is 100% correct period.

I think the problem is with your title. Many people do sit close to their tv's. I sit less than five feet from mine. Then by your own admission 4k is not hype.

Also looking at 4k in isolation seems odd. It's far from the only thing modern tv's have done to improve picture quality.

Edited By: moneysavingkitten on Aug 13, 2016 15:59: autocorrect
#36
Rubisco
I knew before clicking that it'd have something to do with that stupid flippin graph by Carlton Bale. Honestly, one man on the internet makes a bloody graph and that's all it takes to make the whole world that little bit dumber.
That graph is based upon the Snellen chart used by opticians, all it actually tells you is at what distance you will be able to read text rendered at the smallest size the screen allows. By all means, you are free to follow this man and leap to the idiotic conclusion that this translates directly to the distance at which you are no longer able to benefit from viewing moving full-colour images at a higher resolution. Don't bother finding out for yourself with your own eyes and ignore the actual double-blind test results, because Carlton Bale sounds as if he probably knows what he's talking about and knows how to use Microsoft Excel.

I had the very same thought.

Carlton Bale knows nothing. He's just a bedroom enthusiast who runs a blog. He has no qualifications or experience, just some half baked theory that he drew up in Excel 2003 when Excel 2003 was still the current version, which caught on because people like to act like they know better, especially because it meant they could use it to justify cheaping out in a 720p set, back in the days when fHD was a few hundred £ more.

The chart itself is completely bunk because, on top of the point you raised, it makes no account for the viewer's eyesight or the type of content being viewed. Try playing vector-based Wii games at native 480 res on a TV his chart tells you should look fine, and see how good it looks.
#37
dxx
Rubisco
I knew before clicking that it'd have something to do with that stupid flippin graph by Carlton Bale. Honestly, one man on the internet makes a bloody graph and that's all it takes to make the whole world that little bit dumber.
That graph is based upon the Snellen chart used by opticians, all it actually tells you is at what distance you will be able to read text rendered at the smallest size the screen allows. By all means, you are free to follow this man and leap to the idiotic conclusion that this translates directly to the distance at which you are no longer able to benefit from viewing moving full-colour images at a higher resolution. Don't bother finding out for yourself with your own eyes and ignore the actual double-blind test results, because Carlton Bale sounds as if he probably knows what he's talking about and knows how to use Microsoft Excel.
I had the very same thought.
Carlton Bale knows nothing. He's just a bedroom enthusiast who runs a blog. He has no qualifications or experience, just some half baked theory that he drew up in Excel 2003 when Excel 2003 was still the current version, which caught on because people like to act like they know better, especially because it meant they could use it to justify cheaping out in a 720p set, back in the days when fHD was a few hundred £ more.
The chart itself is completely bunk because, on top of the point you raised, it makes no account for the viewer's eyesight or the type of content being viewed. Try playing vector-based Wii games at native 480 res on a TV his chart tells you should look fine, and see how good it looks.
I think it's reasonably fair as most of us are average people with average vision. The sweet spot for 4K @ 65" is around 5 to 6ft for me. This is why these TVs are shown in narrow aisle so you can't stand that far away from them. Clarity/detail will decline/diminish due to eyesight and lighting over distance as this is normal. I've a 42" TV and struggle with the standard windows font at 1080p at 6 foot.

Obviously if you're this guy then the rules don't apply to you....
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g264/ichigowife/thundercats/liono3.png

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!