Reply

4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

Reply
Camera Operator
Posts: 376
Post 46 of 222
1,124 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

Prior to my install I threw over £1100 @ my new set-up to ensure I would notice the difference between HD & UHD, glad I did because it's so obvious in F1 qually and the race when they flip between the 2.

=========================
Samsung UE49MU7070 - HDR/HLG
Samsung HW-MS550 2.0 Soundbar
SKY 2Tb V1 Multiscreen 2160P 10bit
BT Hub 6 75Mb/19Mb, ethernet only
Researcher
Posts: 8
Post 47 of 222
1,081 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

Yeah was watching F1 today love the new UHD version my set up you aren’t getting much change from 4 grand sounds amazing with DTX sound and UHD picture.

Sky Q 2TB
Samsung 65” curved 9 series SUHD
Av Yamaha 7.1 DTX, Atmos running through Acoustics 3050 speakers
Sky fibre Pro 72MB
Camera Assistant
Posts: 433
Post 48 of 222
1,034 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

I have an LG 4K TV 55 inch and the difference is nothing really.

 

It's slightly more brighter I feel but If I had HD on instead it's not something I would really notice to be honest.

 

It's why I was going to cancel multiroom but was offered it for £6 a month for 6 months so kept it for now

What I have- Sky Q 2TB box, Multi Screen,, box sets, cinema and sports HD pack, two sky Q mini Boxes, on Sky Fibre Max Broadband, LG 4K 55 inch TV
Sound Designer
Posts: 105
Post 49 of 222
1,017 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

It boggles my mind how some folks claim little to no difference between the HD and UHD broadcasts of football or F1. The difference is absolutely night and day for me. HD broadcasts are noticably better when it's being downscaled from source (so Premier League football and F1) but even then, the difference is enormous. UHD brings with it much crisper graphics, superior colours, more detail and no artefacts.

 

Is it the picture settings? Eye sight? A budget TV? 

 

I don't know, but I for one am glad I'm not in the "I can't tell the difference" camp!

Camera Assistant
Posts: 433
Post 50 of 222
1,001 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.


@Nevlolwrote:

It boggles my mind how some folks claim little to no difference between the HD and UHD broadcasts of football or F1. The difference is absolutely night and day for me. HD broadcasts are noticably better when it's being downscaled from source (so Premier League football and F1) but even then, the difference is enormous. UHD brings with it much crisper graphics, superior colours, more detail and no artefacts.

 

Is it the picture settings? Eye sight? A budget TV? 

 

I don't know, but I for one am glad I'm not in the "I can't tell the difference" camp!


If people are saying there isn't much difference that tells you how good their TVs are. new 4K TVs make it much harder to see the difference.

What I have- Sky Q 2TB box, Multi Screen,, box sets, cinema and sports HD pack, two sky Q mini Boxes, on Sky Fibre Max Broadband, LG 4K 55 inch TV
Sound Designer
Posts: 105
Post 51 of 222
994 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

You can't get blood from a stone. That is to say no amount of upscaling will make HD broadcasts as good as the real deal. In 2018 any TV from a respectable manufacterer will competently upscale and the differences between the upscaling on my Sony XE90 and a lower end TV are trivial or nonexistent. The technology is just maturer now.

 

Good 1080p material may be difficult to discern easily, but good material Sky is not.

 

In the end I suppose there are too many variables in play to really know. It could be expectation, it could be something objective.

Boom Operator
Posts: 81
Post 52 of 222
979 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

I previously had a 50” Panasonic Plasma. Now got an LG OLED C7 65”. There is obviously a difference between HD and UHD broadcasts, but I’d liken the 65” UHD to 50” 1080p. 

 

Premier League football is the good one, as you get SD, HD, UHD all to compare. When I used to have early Sky HD, people’s minds were blown. Now they can’t tell anything is different, until I switch back to HD. When I switch to SD, they can’t believe that people used to watch TV like that! I tell them that people didn’t generally have 65” TV’s when SD was the only thing available.

Runner
Posts: 4
Post 53 of 222
857 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

I wholeheartedly agree with you

First Assistant Director
Posts: 3,385
Post 54 of 222
838 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

You can see the difference - but the SkyUHD football quality looks quite poor when compared to the short football sequences shown on the Astra UHD promo which could be added to the SkyQ box for a short time.

UHD can be miles better than HD - but I think Sky are using too much compression on all their channels - from SD to UHD.


@andybarneswrote:

I previously had a 50” Panasonic Plasma. Now got an LG OLED C7 65”. There is obviously a difference between HD and UHD broadcasts, but I’d liken the 65” UHD to 50” 1080p. 

 

Premier League football is the good one, as you get SD, HD, UHD all to compare. When I used to have early Sky HD, people’s minds were blown. Now they can’t tell anything is different, until I switch back to HD. When I switch to SD, they can’t believe that people used to watch TV like that! I tell them that people didn’t generally have 65” TV’s when SD was the only thing available.


 

================================================
SkyQ Silver bundle (V2 with UHD + two minis) using VirginMedia Vivid 350 (350/20mb).

Oracle
Posts: 38,553
Post 55 of 222
805 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

I agree, @ozsat, UHD is good, and yes, there's a noticeable difference, but it could be stunning and it's not. That's a shame.

Camera Operator
Posts: 376
Post 56 of 222
798 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

We await the HDR roll-out. 


=========================
Samsung UE49MU7070 - HDR/HLG
Samsung HW-MS550 2.0 Soundbar
SKY 2Tb V1 Multiscreen 2160P 10bit
BT Hub 6 75Mb/19Mb, ethernet only
Editor
Posts: 532
Post 57 of 222
787 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.


@Ecossewrote:

We await the HDR roll-out. 


I look forward to the “HDR/HLG really isn’t much better than SDR” thread. 😉

================================
Panasonic DX902 65”; Panasonic VT50 Plasma
Pioneer SC-LX901 11.2 Receiver, 7.2.4 setup
KEF 2xQ750, Q650C, 4xT101 surround, 4xCi160QR and Velodyne SPL1200 Ultra ; REL t7/i subwoofers
Apple TV 4K, Oppo 203 Ultra blu-ray player
Camera Operator
Posts: 376
Post 58 of 222
781 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

Some shoulda gone to Specsavers 😉


=========================
Samsung UE49MU7070 - HDR/HLG
Samsung HW-MS550 2.0 Soundbar
SKY 2Tb V1 Multiscreen 2160P 10bit
BT Hub 6 75Mb/19Mb, ethernet only
Sound Designer
Posts: 105
Post 59 of 222
768 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

"The HDR mode on my TV is so good that I can't tell the difference"

Researcher
Posts: 8
Post 60 of 222
683 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

It’s usually that people don’t seem to set their tv settings right don’t just stick to basic setup there’s a whole new world out there than just basic setting people should explore. Some  channels i.e the BT sport HD all the sky sports HD are Great on UHD but some people are never satisfied.   I also think that a lot of people expect everything they watch every channel every program to be 4K just not the case but when you do watch something in 4K say Discovery Channel Program “there’s your sign”  your UHD TV at its best.

Sky Q 2TB
Samsung 65” curved 9 series SUHD
Av Yamaha 7.1 DTX, Atmos running through Acoustics 3050 speakers
Sky fibre Pro 72MB
Reply