4K Shmore K

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Rob37, Oct 30, 2016.

  1. Nov 6, 2016 #61 of 119
    peds48

    peds48 Genius.

    20,073
    1,075
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    again, you are full of it! So you are saying when I step further when doing my eye exam and I cant see that very last line but yet if I move closer I could, distance is not the issue, you are really funny. Really....

    Furthermore, you said,

    Pixel density remains the same. Strike two.....

    Or step further back. Strike three...... you are out!


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  2. Nov 6, 2016 #62 of 119
    peds48

    peds48 Genius.

    20,073
    1,075
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    Right I knew that, I was trying to look for something good in 4K. While clarity or sharpness is not a quality, color may one day be


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  3. Nov 6, 2016 #63 of 119
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,091
    1,583
    Nov 13, 2006
    If what I was saying was how you interpret it you'd be right.

    But you are wrong.

    Your first statement has zero to do with anything I have been saying. Zero. This shows you don't get what im explains at all.

    Second there are a lot more pixels per panel of the same size on a 4K vs a 1080 so I don't know why you think that is wrong. Not even sure what your thinking there.

    And your third argument helps prove my point. You don't need to step back further to get the benefit.

    You just can't seem to understand what I am explaining. I think you've got this useless graph so far ingrained in your beliefs to understand what I am explaining. You keep looking at everything as a still image at any one given point in time. And that's not how tv works. Lines change angles across a screen constantly. And things disappear if you have a higher pixel density to get rid of your ability to see the jaggedness of these lines. Higher density means you can have a smoother line at all times as it moves across the screen. With lower density the pixels especially on converted material can get further away from true and it shows in jaggedness.

    Maybe that's something else you don't get. When your converting things and dealing with so much compression tvs are "guessing" where some pixels go. With more pixels to chose from it will be less. Provable and they will be closer to where they should be.

    Anyway I doubt you'll ever get it at this point because you are to stuck on what some graph says about still images.
     
  4. Nov 6, 2016 #64 of 119
    peds48

    peds48 Genius.

    20,073
    1,075
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    again, you are wrong still

    Pixel density is fixed, while is true that the higher the density the sharper the image is, but this is up to a certain distance. Once you step back, the human eye can only see so much detail. At 15 feet you 4K looks like a 1080p TV. Which is OK if your 1080 TV was that much further way to begging with. But if you truly want to see all the "Magic" that 4K brings, the facts, proven by science is that you must sit no more than 6 feet on a 6o inch screen.

    I will make a bet, I will believe once you provide with the facts that back up your theory. Until then my facts have been proven by science . Take a look at the graph as a start.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  5. Nov 7, 2016 #65 of 119
    Rich

    Rich DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    36,294
    2,077
    Feb 22, 2007
    Piscataway, NJ
    You mean like posting negatively about 4K sets when you don't own one?
     
  6. Nov 7, 2016 #66 of 119
    Rich

    Rich DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    36,294
    2,077
    Feb 22, 2007
    Piscataway, NJ
    This will be my last response to your negative posts about 4K sets. That's just wrong.
     
  7. Nov 7, 2016 #67 of 119
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,991
    1,643
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    This is a pointless argument. There's a difference between an HDTV viewing HD pictures, a 4K TV viewing HD pictures, and a 4K TV viewing 4K pictures. That some people see a value in viewing content in 4K is not in disupte - that doesn't matter whether others believe it is real, think it is only due to people sitting closer than typical, or is in their heads. That some people would be willing to pay more, or switch providers, to get cable/OTA programming in 4K is not in dispute.

    What is in dispute, because it can only be guessed at, is the number of people who would be willing to pay more or switch providers to get it. The number of those people will be what determines whether ultimately only a handful of channels go 4K or a hundred do. It wouldn't matter if every viewer had a quality 4K TV, if most of them would be unwilling to pay more or switch providers to get 4K / more 4K, it simply won't happen the way it did for HD. There are real costs to delivering 4K instead of HD, even if the content is already being produced in 4K, and those investments will only made if there's a belief that there will be a return on that investment.
     
    2 people like this.
  8. Nov 7, 2016 #68 of 119
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,770
    697
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    Going forward whether or not a provider does more 4K is as you say, but part of the problem for the providers is that for much of their content, old movies, weekly shows and such, doing them in 4K just doesn't bring much to the table. Yeah the picture would be better, but as some of us have commented about, upscaled 1080i/p is more than good enough for the majority of content provided.

    Most sports, blockbuster movies and other fast action stuff really gains a lot when done in 4K, as does 'nature' type videos. But for the cop/medical dramas, sitcoms and such, not much gained by doing them in 4K.

    All of that leads me to believe that most TV will remain not in 4K for quite some time, possibly only changing as equipment used ages out and gets replaced. I look at just today, 4K source material is some BluRay, some streaming and a smidgen of 'broadcast'. All together they are a small piece of the video puzzle and frankly the differences between the offerings in 4K of Dish and Direct are not enough different to make 4K a real consideration when deciding between the two.
     
    2 people like this.
  9. Nov 7, 2016 #69 of 119
    patmurphey

    patmurphey Godfather

    1,035
    90
    Dec 21, 2006
    To 4k skeptics - Sorry! Your loss...


    (Sent from my 4k HP All-in-one.)
     
    3 people like this.
  10. Nov 7, 2016 #70 of 119
    Rich

    Rich DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    36,294
    2,077
    Feb 22, 2007
    Piscataway, NJ
    Not only is it pointless it's redundant. All that's been said in this thread has been said before.

    I'll agree with your last paragraph above. I'm not sure I'd pay for the 4K content or the equipment associated with it. I'm deeply impressed with the upscaled PQ I get even with 1080i and 720p content on D*. It's simply a better picture than I get on any of my plasmas. That's all I really wanted when I bought the 4K set, a good replacement for a failed plasma. I never thought the PQ would be this good. I'm watching last night's Raiders game and the picture is...great.

    Rich
     
  11. Nov 7, 2016 #71 of 119
    Rich

    Rich DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    36,294
    2,077
    Feb 22, 2007
    Piscataway, NJ
    Exactly! Well said.

    Rich
     
  12. Nov 7, 2016 #72 of 119
    peds48

    peds48 Genius.

    20,073
    1,075
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    I don't need to own one to see the difference. I see 4K TVs of all kind almost everyday.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  13. Nov 7, 2016 #73 of 119
    peds48

    peds48 Genius.

    20,073
    1,075
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    you don't need to reply to my posts. I will promise I won't miss your responses.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  14. Nov 7, 2016 #74 of 119
    peds48

    peds48 Genius.

    20,073
    1,075
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    of course the picture is better at the same distance. That was stated on on of my post above. I said if you had a 1080 TV and sat at 15, the 4K will look better at the same distance. However you will loss some of try 4K " magic" at that distance. 4K and its benefits have to do with how far or close you sit from your display.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  15. Nov 10, 2016 #75 of 119
    thyname

    thyname Member

    331
    23
    May 9, 2015
    United States
    I just got a Samsung 65" KS8500 and could not be happier with it. Stunning. The best part: the price. $1,250 from Samsung EPP.

    I come from a 65" Sony x850c I bought last year.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  16. Nov 10, 2016 #76 of 119
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,091
    1,583
    Nov 13, 2006
    You still don't get it... Its not just about still images.
     
  17. Nov 11, 2016 #77 of 119
    peds48

    peds48 Genius.

    20,073
    1,075
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    you are the one not to understand. Pixel density does not change in moving images. I never mentioned still images, you brought that point.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  18. Nov 11, 2016 #78 of 119
    loudo

    loudo Well-Known Member

    4,778
    60
    Mar 24, 2005
    Central Maine
    I have 2 4K sets and enjoy the upgraded video, when it is available. There is a lot of content becoming available via Roku, as well as the DirecTV 4K channels.
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. Nov 11, 2016 #79 of 119
    Rich

    Rich DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    36,294
    2,077
    Feb 22, 2007
    Piscataway, NJ
    So, you're an employee of Samsung? That's a great price for a great set!

    Rich
     
  20. Nov 11, 2016 #80 of 119
    MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    10,804
    1,574
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    Received a BJ's flyer this week. They're offering a Samsung 65" UN65KU6290 for $899.99.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements