Reply

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

Sound Designer
Posts: 69
Post 1 of 222
6,795 Views

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

Posted about this is another thread, but thought I'd create a new topic to see what other's opinions are on this.

 

We upgraded to Sky Q back in mid-September (2TB box), and with that our subscription also includes Sky Sports/Cinema. With a new Samsung 55" UHD TV (UE55MU7000), the difference between HD and 4K/UHD is so negligible it's practicallly unnoticeable and totally not worth it. 

 

Watching football in HD and UHD, to me there is no difference at all, regardless of how close or far away from the TV I am.

 

Obviously if you have a mammoth-sized TV (65" or higher) and sit a lot closer then you might see a more noticeable difference.

 

But for a 55" tv or smaller its not worth it at all. What is the point of 40" 4K TVs or smaller?!

All Replies
Reply
Sound Supervisor
Posts: 161
Post 2 of 222
6,787 Views

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

The point is marketting Smiley Happy

 

We've got a 49" UHD TV - I can tell there is a difference with 4k content vs. FullHD, though it can depend on that content - some 4K YouTube videos look stunning, though the difference between FullHD and 4K is nothing like the difference between SD and FullHD/1080p...

 

Because 4K is a full 4x the pixel resolution of FullHD (1920x1080 pixels), FullHD upscales onto a 4K TV perfectly with no quality issues usually, so the picture stays pin sharp.  SD upscaled to FullHD mostly results in a slightly less than perfect picture as there is no exact upscale for pixels.

Executive Producer
Posts: 3,783
Post 3 of 222
6,780 Views

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


@bicameralmind wrote:

Posted about this is another thread, but thought I'd create a new topic to see what other's opinions are on this.

 

We upgraded to Sky Q back in mid-September (2TB box), and with that our subscription also includes Sky Sports/Cinema. With a new Samsung 55" UHD TV (UE55MU7000), the difference between HD and 4K/UHD is so negligible it's practicallly unnoticeable and totally not worth it. 

 

Watching football in HD and UHD, to me there is no difference at all, regardless of how close or far away from the TV I am.

 

Obviously if you have a mammoth-sized TV (65" or higher) and sit a lot closer then you might see a more noticeable difference.

 

But for a 55" tv or smaller its not worth it at all. What is the point of 40" 4K TVs or smaller?!


I have thought that for a long time and there are many of us that would not have room to put a large enough TV without redesigning the whole room.

It is the same with people who want the mini box to support 4K, how many people have two rooms large enough for two 55" + TVs.

Perhaps HDR will make a difference with smaller sets when/if it is available. However I wonder if 4K is something that will just fade away until the next new idea to sell more TVs comes out.

 

Sound Supervisor
Posts: 161
Post 4 of 222
6,776 Views

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

I suspect 4K is here to stay unlike 3D....cinema content is being presented in 4K and has been for a while, so it would be easier to keep that setup and port to suitable media like Sky, Netflix etc.

 

Saying that, whilst it is better than it used to be, I guess many TV's are still poorly calibrated out of the box - calibration can improve the picture drastically in some situations - our Samsung came calibrated with a custom spec sheet of settings that were applied, didn't need changed much at all.

Editor
Posts: 661
Post 5 of 222
6,747 Views

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

I agree. If you buy a good set the difference is negligible. My view is that it's more the TVs doing a good upscaling the HD to a level thats almost UHD. So it's not so much the UHD is not good but actually that you get a better HD image.

 

i do find the uhd picture provided by Netflix and amazon better than the sky offering. Colours are more vivid and I don't have an HDR TV to explain it. 

 

 

Sky Q
Camera Operator
Posts: 271
Post 6 of 222
6,725 Views

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

My 55" OLED TV cost me a silly amount of money but does deliver a superb picture. It has been calibrated. I do see a difference in upscaled HD and UHD but it is much less pronounced than SD-HD.

 

Live broadcasts provide the best pictures but I have to say that Lawrence of Arabia has the best PQ of the UHD films available. Probably because it was shot on 70mm film and not upscaled from a 2K Digital Intermediate like so many modern films are.

 

There is a chart on the internet that shows the ideal distance to sit from a UHD TV to see full detail. For a 55" it's around 5 - 7.5ft. I sit 8ft so just outside the ideal distance but still see a great picture. Finally, Sky do compress the UHD signal. The best pictures will always be from physical media such as 4K Blu-ray DVDs.

Loewe Bild 7.55 OLED TV; Sky Q 2Gb; Yamaha RX-A3010 AVR; B&W CM2 / CMC / 702 speakers.
Boom Operator
Posts: 39
Post 7 of 222
6,483 Views

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

The “wow” factor will only be seen when HDR is introduced on  sky q, if you have a good internet connection (in excess of 35mbps), YouTube “4k hdr” and see for yourself..! particularly a short video  on newyork city..simply stunning!!

Camera Operator
Posts: 376
Post 8 of 222
6,435 Views

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


 

Because 4K is a full 4x the pixel resolution of FullHD (1920x1080 pixels)


You may want to check those numbers??

 

Ultra HD. 4K UHD (2160p) a resolution of 3840 pixels× 2160 lines (8.3 megapixels, aspect ratio 16:9) and the other being 8K UHD which is 7680 pixels × 4320 lines (33.2 megapixels).


=========================
Samsung UE49MU7070 - HDR/HLG
Samsung HW-MS550 2.0 Soundbar
SKY 2Tb V1 Multiscreen 2160P 10bit
BT Hub 6 75Mb/19Mb, ethernet only
First Assistant Director
Posts: 2,032
Post 9 of 222
6,425 Views

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


@Ecosse wrote:

 

Because 4K is a full 4x the pixel resolution of FullHD (1920x1080 pixels)


You may want to check those numbers??

 

Ultra HD. 4K UHD (2160p) a resolution of 3840 pixels× 2160 lines (8.3 megapixels, aspect ratio 16:9) and the other being 8K UHD which is 7680 pixels × 4320 lines (33.2 megapixels).


Erm... that looks right to me...

1920x1080 = 2073600

3840×2160 = 8294400

 

8294400/2073600 = 4

 

Yup the maths checks out! Smiley Happy



SkyQ 2TB 2160P 10Bit - Samsung UE40JU6400
Q Mini 1080p - Samsung LE40A656
All wireless connection, Box Sets Bundle with Sky Cinema and Sky Sports. BT Home Hub 6 with 52Mb fibre.
Camera Operator
Posts: 376
Post 10 of 222
6,420 Views

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


@manualoverride wrote:

@Ecosse wrote:

 

Because 4K is a full 4x the pixel resolution of FullHD (1920x1080 pixels)


You may want to check those numbers??

 

Ultra HD. 4K UHD (2160p) a resolution of 3840 pixels× 2160 lines (8.3 megapixels, aspect ratio 16:9) and the other being 8K UHD which is 7680 pixels × 4320 lines (33.2 megapixels).


Erm... that looks right to me...

1920x1080 = 2073600

3840×2160 = 8294400

 

8294400/2073600 = 4

 

Yup the maths checks out! Smiley Happy


Thanks Crunchie for th@, lost my calc.exe  ;-)


=========================
Samsung UE49MU7070 - HDR/HLG
Samsung HW-MS550 2.0 Soundbar
SKY 2Tb V1 Multiscreen 2160P 10bit
BT Hub 6 75Mb/19Mb, ethernet only
First Assistant Director
Posts: 2,032
Post 11 of 222
6,409 Views

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

I totally checked that in Microsoft Calc Smiley Happy

 

On the topic at hand... I have a 40" TV and notice the difference... although it's only a clear difference when I excitedly jump up of the sofa and stand less than a metre in front of the TV urging Hamilton to pass.



SkyQ 2TB 2160P 10Bit - Samsung UE40JU6400
Q Mini 1080p - Samsung LE40A656
All wireless connection, Box Sets Bundle with Sky Cinema and Sky Sports. BT Home Hub 6 with 52Mb fibre.
Camera Operator
Posts: 376
Post 12 of 222
6,404 Views

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

Getting mine installed next Friday.  Samsung 49" UE49MU7070 HDR which is already showing near 4K quality from a Sky+HD box.

 

Where I "hear" the difference is the spacial sound on 4K/HDR movies on Netflix/Amazon, amazing, the beginning of the movie Life really shows off the Samsung soundbar.

 

Looking fwd to the world of Sky Q.


=========================
Samsung UE49MU7070 - HDR/HLG
Samsung HW-MS550 2.0 Soundbar
SKY 2Tb V1 Multiscreen 2160P 10bit
BT Hub 6 75Mb/19Mb, ethernet only
Oracle
Posts: 7,889
Post 13 of 222
6,309 Views

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


@Ecosse wrote:

Getting mine installed next Friday.  Samsung 49" UE49MU7070 HDR which is already showing near 4K quality from a Sky+HD box.

 

Where I "hear" the difference is the spacial sound on 4K/HDR movies on Netflix/Amazon, amazing, the beginning of the movie Life really shows off the Samsung soundbar.

 

Looking fwd to the world of Sky Q.


Hi @Ecosse You have a reasonably good tv so the upscaling engine will be good within and should do a pretty good job of upscaling your HD picture to UHD. 

My Opinions Are My Own And Do Not Reflect Those Of Sky.
Editor
Posts: 511
Post 14 of 222
6,219 Views

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

Initial tests with radio linked true 4K cameras appear to be progressing well.

 

http://www.televisual.com/news-detail/BSI-live-tests-4K-wireless-camera-system_nid-6852.html

 

Godfrey.

Researcher
Posts: 31
Post 15 of 222
5,705 Views

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

Time to go to Specsavers.

Reply