|
BonoMan posted:Yeah after my first foray into UHD it became abundantly clear that you want to prioritize HDR and WCG as much as you can. The 4K resolution is nice but not enough to really wow anybody like the SD to HD jump was. That's kinda my feeling, the resolution bump doesn't do anything, but it's worth it for the color, which is why I'm still miffed that there isn't a UHD of Mandy.
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
Also, a ton of movies are coming onto 4K discs/streams via 2K DIs so you're relying on upscaling a lot of the time anyway. If it wasn't for the HDR/WCG element, it'd be the old 28 Days Later on Blu-Ray thing again, essentially.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
I was more amazed by 60 fps porn than 4k porn tbh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
Taima posted:I'm not following, could you elaborate? Pixel resolution is pretty much the least important metric for entertainment displays right now for multiple reasons. Let's look at HDR. Let's say the brightness range is from 1-100 with SDR and 1-1000 with HDR (gross simplification.) Now let's talk about detail. You have a dark scene with a lot of nuance in the shadows with a few bright highlights. On a 4k SDR display, you can resolve more pixel detail, but that becomes useless when the shadows are all averaged out to be 18 IRE. Blob city. But consider the same scene on a 1080p HDR display (or, if you rather, a smaller 4k display at a greater viewing distance). With the higher brightness headroom, those shadows can all have individual levels of brightness with real separation between them. Suddenly, instead of blobs, you are now seeing individual background objects in the scene. So, the lower resolution display actually shows more detail than the higher resolution display. The same goes for WCG, just with color nuance instead of brightness. You have a skyline in a movie. Instead of being made up of 1000 different colors with REC709, it's made up of 100,000 different colors with REC2020. That's resolvable detail. That's all a long winded way of saying that brightness and color are components of detail along with resolution. But then you have to look where that marries with content. WCG has been a film standard for, well, forever. Even the early digital intermediates had a wider color gamut than REC709 because we had the tech to do it then and these edits were going to be printed to film stock which could show it. HDR is newer and has to be graded for specifically, but it's somewhat uncommon (though I wouldn't say super rare) to have a commercial 4k source without HDR. It does happen, but it's getting less and less common. Then there's resolution of the source. Well, this is the thing LEAST likely to be significantly upgraded in a 4k TV/Movie. The vast majority of movies released today are still done with a 2k DI (though 4k is finally becoming more common). Most post-2000 catalog releases are also only 2k DI upscaled, it's exceedingly rare to get a back to film remastering of any movie made in the last 18 years or so. Don't get me wrong, even those see increases in resolvable pixel detail over their 1080p blu-ray releases due to encoding improvements and the fact that you don't lose resolution to black bars with wider than 16:9 masters, but the effect is more subtle. So, given all this, you are going to see the best improvements in detail by having a TV that can effectively render WCG and HDR than by going with something larger but weaker in those areas so that you hit a resolvable detail chart's sweet spot. HDR and WCG should always be prioritized over pure resolution simply because those are the things that are going to bring more detail to the party. The resolution of a display is only as good as its ability for the pixels to differentiate themselves from each other, you just have SO much more range to do that with HDR and WCG. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Sep 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
Ok, I get what you're putting down. Thank you for the elaborate explanation as well! I do agree that HDR and WCG are great. And I do get that many 4K blu rays and 4K sources in general are upscaled from a 2K DI. That being said, I'm just not sure I agree that resolution is irrelevant... which was your direct quote. I have many 4K movies in true 4K which are great, and a 4K gaming PC rig to deliver 4K to my C9, and Netflix which has quite a bit of 4K content. For all of those sources, sitting the appropriate distance to discern 4K resolution is wonderful and I can easily tell the difference, so I'm not clear on the specific point that resolution is irrelevant. That's what was confusing to me. You should play/watch something on my 65 C9 from 6 feet away like Gears 5 at ultra settings/true 4K 60fps , or an incredible 4K transfer like Lucy or Blade Runner/etc. and tell me it's irrelevant. Taima fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Sep 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
For most people, they will sit more than 6 feet away, watching material of which a big percentage had a 2K intermediate somewhere, so the advice not to expect a big difference from the resolution bump is sound advice
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
Taima posted:Could you take a better picture? Your setup looks... not good... no offense... but it's hard to say for sure because we can't see your sitting position. However given the angle and choices being made here, I would put low odds of this setup being good. This graph cracks me up, and I feel truly embodies the neckbearding going on in this the HD TV thread. I just went and measured to the center point on the TV and the furthest viewing angle from the couch is 15' (where I sit). According to ~the chart~ a 720p TV is the only thing "worth it" for me, where I can easily tell when Netflix decides to stream at <1080p on the old Sony TV. I don't know if this is made for people with poor vision or what but it's a joke to me and why I took such a purposefully bad picture after finding that honey video. The picture and sound are noticeably better on this new TV even from across the room. One thing I feel like it leaves out is that most people are streaming from the major players or watching Digital Cable/Satellite TV. Having the option to go up to 2160p "4k" means that they're gaining the advantage of getting basically double the mbps of information to cram into the screen. Netflix was showing me 15mbps for some random show I picked, where I feel like it's under 10mbps for 1080p. That should have a measurable affect on artifacts even if it's not as hot and sexy as it "could" be in perfect conditions. This gives people real world improved experience. I haven't yet fired up a UHD bluray or other "optimal" content that's going to come in over 50mbps or whatever but I assume it will look a lot better even at 15' than its 1080p counterpart. The toddler worry is real. He's bonked the old TV with the stroller before. C'est la vie.  Grabbed a picture of the office TV as well today! (Ignore the furniture, we had someone assemble a ton of ikea crap and haven't moved it into place save for the 5x5. The black drawers are going with matching ones inside.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
The new "Quality Time" Jim Gaffigan special is a great showcase for an OLED tv. I watched it the other day and there are a bunch of near-black crowd shots with spotlights and stuff. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
Taima posted:Ok, I get what you're putting down. Thank you for the elaborate explanation as well! I thought the comment meant "getting something that's NOT 4K isn't really even an option, so no need to discuss it. The selling points of modern TVs are how well they perform with regards to HDR and WCG."
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
Taima posted:
I don't have to because I own those movies and a 65" C6. 6ft viewing distance is kinda unrealistic. I have a tiny rear end living room and I don't even have that distance (it's closer to 10ft) and even I think a TV larger than 65" would totally dominate the space and be out of balance. If you can get the FOV necessary to fully resolve 4k so that it has maximum impact, that's awesome. That's just not going to be the case with the vast majority of setups out there. In those cases, you are really shortchanging the experience if the focus is on resolution over HDR and WCG.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
I wouldn’t imagine Netflix is a great technical example for resolution comparisons, as they starve the bitrate to lower feeds. So yes it looks better, but it’s not purely because you’re getting more pixels, it’s because of a higher bit rate and for 4K a better codec.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
UHD on Amazon has always looked the best compared to Netflix on my OLED.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:If you can get the FOV necessary to fully resolve 4k so that it has maximum impact, that's awesome. That's just not going to be the case with the vast majority of setups out there. In those cases, you are really shortchanging the experience if the focus is on resolution over HDR and WCG. That's fair and a good place to leave the discussion at. Very nice, not required. e: H110Hawk posted:This graph cracks me up, and I feel truly embodies the neckbearding going on in this the HD TV thread. I just went and measured to the center point on the TV and the furthest viewing angle from the couch is 15' (where I sit). 15 feet dang, that be rough dawg, god bless. Gonna leave this one to excellent actor, comedian and real life doctor, Ken Jeong: 
Taima fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Sep 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
LG 55" B8 $999 shipped with code
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
Taima posted:15 feet dang, that be rough dawg, god bless. Gonna leave this one to excellent actor, comedian and real life doctor, Ken Jeong:  That's so racist, just like his character.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
e: whoops. This is embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
You seem cool. Just so you know he's joking about how small the cheat sheet is. It's not a joke about race whatsoever, and I'm kind of sad you perceive it that way. That's my last and only post on that subject. BTW the 65 C9 has dropped to just $1799: https://www.ebay.com/itm/254170006574 What an incredible downslide we've been seeing on the C9. I am ashamed to say that I bought in at $2299 just a few months ago. I don't regret it, as the panel is so great, but it would have been sweet to save $500. It's hard to imagine this will drop much lower, but then again, I've been saying that for months. We're seeing a wholesale re-alignment of OLED prices, it's wild. e: it's worth noting that this is also tax free in most states, and includes shipping which is actually quite good. They lugged it up to my second floor, opened it, turned it on and let me inspect for dead pixels. Would use again. Taima fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Sep 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
What's the C9 like reflecting ambient light? Is it a mirror or a black hole or something in between?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
Taima posted:You seem cool. Just so you know he's joking about how small the cheat sheet is. It's not a joke about race whatsoever, and I'm kind of sad you perceive it that way. I seem to recall his character was subtly racist? But yes I got the joke. It's been years since I've seen Community so I may have mis-remembered. Or he was always calling people out for it? H110Hawk fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Sep 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
H110Hawk posted:I seem to recall his character was subtly racist? But yes I got the joke. It's been years since I've seen Community so I may have mis-remembered. Or he was always calling people out for it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:What's the C9 like reflecting ambient light? Is it a mirror or a black hole or something in between? It's extremely good. The only panel that I'm aware of that's acknowledged as having a better anti-reflective setup is the Q90R, and that's only for direct reflections. The C9 does even better than the Q90R with indirect reflections. For reference, the C9 gets 9.5/10 in anti-reflectivity from RTings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 03:58
|
|
|
Fedule posted:I’ve asked this before but it didn’t go anywhere and I was more curious than anything else but it’s still a problem after a year of firmware updates and now it’s starting to bug me. In an attempt to address this I switched out my coax cable for a shielded version instead of my Robert Dyas kit one - no change at all. I also swapped out my HDMI cable that connects the receiver to the TV for one of the KabelDirekt ones that everyone loves. For reference this is the coax cable I just bought. This is my HDMI cable. Situation remains completely unchanged; COM7 channels get complete signal loss while HDMI is connected. Any other ideas?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
It sounds like some kind of interference or possibly grounding issue. If you wrap the receiver in metal foil (obviously don't permanently block air vents) does it make a difference?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
Better bang for my relatively cheap ($300ish, tops) buck: soundbar or cheap receiver/speaker combo?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
I'd imagine a $300 sound bar would perform better than a $300 receiver, and could also be repurposed if/when you upgrade to a theater setup.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
TCL 65S421 $448 shipped
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
American McGay posted:I'd imagine a $300 sound bar would perform better than a $300 receiver, and could also be repurposed if/when you upgrade to a theater setup. Yeah he can't get any real receiver, he has to get a soundbar at that price point. Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by re-purposing a soundbar? When we upgraded to good sound systems for our two TVs (one in the living room, one in the bedroom) our $400 soundbar/wireless sub became useless and it's still sitting in the corner of our bedroom doing jack poo poo. Thanatosian if you live in the bay area buy my sound bar for cheap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
Taima posted:Yeah he can't get any real receiver, he has to get a soundbar at that price point. I live in the other hyper-expensive West-coast techbro hellscape, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:I live in the other hyper-expensive West-coast techbro hellscape, sorry. Seattle??? I'm staying on Whidbey island in a couple of weeks but I don't know how I would fit a sound bar. It could maybe happen though. e: what about something like this: https://www.amazon.com/Sony-Soundba...tronics&sr=1-28 There's a used, like version listed that has everything but the remote, and you could get a cheap universal remote I assume. Not bad for $100. Taima fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Sep 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
Someone should mention that the "resolution doesn't matter" idea is mostly true for movies/TV but it goes completely out the window if you play video games. The difference between gaming in 1080p and 4K is huge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
Some day I'll just buy a loving TV but for now my questions continue  Samsung QLEDs, though well-reviewed, are apparently beaten in value proposition by other brands at that price. What LED TVs are good for 4K gaming (with respect to low response times) and do decent black levels and HDR? I'm in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so certain brands aren't readily available.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 12:47
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Better bang for my relatively cheap ($300ish, tops) buck: soundbar or cheap receiver/speaker combo? See if you can find the Samsung HW MS650. It's a couple of years old but still the best soundbar for that kind of money; better than the newer models they released to replace it even. I got mine at the end of last year and have been delighted with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 13:06
|
|
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:Some day I'll just buy a loving TV but for now my questions continue Goon recommendations are all incredibly USA specific (Vizio, TCL) so in our case Samsungs are a perfectly viable option. The Sony X900F or whatever it was called in Europe would also be worth looking at, but make sure you do the research on rtings and figure out whatever the corresponding model number is here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 13:12
|
|
|
Butterfly Valley posted:Goon recommendations are all incredibly USA specific (Vizio, TCL) so in our case Samsungs are a perfectly viable option. The Sony X900F or whatever it was called in Europe would also be worth looking at, but make sure you do the research on rtings and figure out whatever the corresponding model number is here. Hmm, 39.3ms input lag at best. I think I'm just gonna risk it and go for the LG C9 and pray I'm being a sperg about burn-in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 13:38
|
|
|
The low range Samsung I have has negligible input lag in game mode, something like 14ms, and I know the higher end ones have as good if not better. It's one thing they do better than pretty much all other manufacturers iirc if that's your main concern
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:Hmm, 39.3ms input lag at best. I think I'm just gonna risk it and go for the LG C9 and pray I'm being a sperg about burn-in. Just don't keep playing the same game for hours every day, day after day, forever... and there shouldn't be issues. The people really suffering from burn-in are the CNN from dawn to dusk people
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
Rastor posted:It sounds like some kind of interference or possibly grounding issue. This didn't make any difference and nor did much other experimentation with foil wrap. I did notice that since the cable switch I did start intermittently getting brief patches of actual signal reception. After giving up on any prospect of success after the last round of foil experimentation I went to disconnect things to put the receiver back in its shelf. I got a bit of signal right when I was about to disconnect. I can't fully account for what put this idea in my head, but I held everything exactly where it was, nose practically up against the screen, and watched BBC News HD uninterrupted for five minutes. Then I let go of the cables, and suddenly my living room is silent again. Right at the Samsung OneConnect box, the coax cable and the HDMI cable leading to the receiver cross over each other, and touch at the cross. When I went to disconnect them, I lifted the HDMI cable off the coax, and the signal came back. I took two sheets of kitchen roll and some foil for good measure, laid them together, and folded them five or so times, and placed it between the two cables where they cross over. I've been revelling in unbiased tales of government competence ever since. I loving love the future. I'll keep any statement of this being finally fixed in check until I go a full week without any more problems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
Amazing. I'm glad you were able to figure that one out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
That's hosed up. I'd have never figured that out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
Haha, of course I spoke too soon. I went to move the receiver back to its shelf (it sits in a relatively snug unit right below the TV) and the signal immediately died again, and nothing I can do brings it back, not even removing the receiver from its shelf and putting it back on the floor. Somehow, there are other factors complicating this. I dimly suspect that the hole at the back of the entertainment stand through which one power, one subwoofer, four HDMI and seven stereo cables pass might be a factor here, since this thing does seem to be related to interference somehow. But as things stand I've temporarily routed the coax cable completely away from any other cable and it's still no signal, so if anything I've now gone backwards in my understanding.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 16:19
|
|