How much difference in 4K?

Am I the only one here who doesn't see a world of difference between 1080p and 4K on a large television set? I went over to Best Buy and had them play a 4K disc I was buying (The Dark Knight Rises). The TV I think was a 70" Sony. I honestly didn't see a huge difference. Is anybody else staying with 1080p? At my viewing distance (around 8 feet), I don't think it's worth it for me.

 

Not only am I on a fixed pension, but at nearly 60 years old, I still clearly remember 3 channels, black and white, with the pair of pliers atop the set, for changing channels, because the plastic knob broke off.
1979, when I was the first person in my town to buy a VCR. RCA Top Loader, VHS, $1,000.00 +
DVDs in the 90s, Blu ray in 2009, with a powerful 5.1 sound setup.
Still too appreciative, and thankful for home video as is.
No new TV, no new 4k player, and esp. no replacing over 1600 titles in my collection.
Done for the rest of my life.

 

I have a 65" LG OLED and there's a clear difference between 1080p and 4K - on some titles.

I would never base any viewpoints on how the material looks on a TV at Best Buy or any other retailer. They have the picture settings all screwed up so viewings in that setting become meaningless, IMO.

"Rises" looks great on 4K. It already looked great on BD, but the 4K makes it even better - especially on the IMAX scenes!

 

How are you measuring whether there is a difference or not? If you're looking at the 4k screen and doing a mental comparison to what you'd seen elsewhere at 1080p, then that's about the worst possible thing you could do. Relying on prior mental impressions is so subjective to be worthless.

You'd have to compare two same model & size TVs side by side with the same settings, one with a 4k feed and the other with a HD feed, playing from the same timecode.

Also, The Dark Knight Rises is a pretty dark/shadowy film which is not necessarily the best content to pick out details in the picture. But, if the 4k feed also has HDR, then the visual difference would be totally noticeable.

There is no question that 4k UHD TVs with HDR (especially OLEDs) with matching content, offer a visibly superior picture to plain HD.

 

Regular 1080p is about the limit for human eyeballs on household TVs

HDR/DolbyVision provide more benefit than doubling the resolution to 4K.

4K is great, and makes perfect sense with a front projector setup.

4K at 60”? Meh. 4K at 120”? Oh baby!

 

I disagree that "Rises" isn't a good movie to use to judge pic quality/details. The fact so much of it was shot "real IMAX" makes it a great movie for those purposes!

And there are plenty of "non-murky" scenes anyway...

 

I bought my 4K set for the HDR/Dolby Vision

That makes a bigger difference to me than the resolution.

 

4K sets are best when it is HDR/Dolby Vision and 4K to begin with. Native resolution beats upscaled. Cable and Satellite are very downrezzed. Which leaves us Blu-Ray.

 

Sorted !

 

Vhs to DVD = 20 times better
DVD to Blu Ray = 5 times better
Blu Ray to 4K UHD = ?

 

The amazing thing with VHS player was you could record tv shows, absolutely brilliant at the time.

 

What's the difference - if any - between 4K and 4K UHD...?

 

Believe 4K is just a advertising blurb.
4K UHD is the real thing.

 

Huge difference. The quality of the pixels is higher with UHD due to wider color gamut and high dynamic range capability. These help to raise the picture quality closer to what the eye can see.

 

I still have a 540p 32" TV and at 10 feet it still looks great.

However, this Xmas I'm treating myself to a 43" 4K HDR set as I have a 4K capable FireTV box. In this instance I think I should notice a difference.

 

I have fairly inexpensive Samsung 4k TV and player and the experience has been hit and miss for me. I think it must depend somewhat on the way the DVD was created. Some 4k movies I can't really tell much difference from the Blu-Ray and some Blu-Rays look spectacular when played on my 4k set up. I recently watched my Blade Runner Blu and I couldn't get over how amazing it looked. It does a nice job upconverting my standard DVD's also. It's the new movies though that I think make the most use of the 4k format. Titles like Valerian and Guardians 2 look pretty spectacular.

 

In all honesty, as crazy as I am about music and sound, I'm actually quite indifferent when it comes to video. Don't get me wrong, as long as I can get a nice clean and detailed picture with 1080 I'm fine with that. Most of my viewing is from cable tv, Netflix, or CraveTV so I'm not sure how much I'd benefit from 4K. That said, I have two higher end fairly new Sony panels at home and I have no inclination to spend more $$$ to move to 4K - especially since I could use that money to buy more vinyl and audio gear lol. My preference but YMMV

 

In a living room, where you're probably watching something 40-60" from 8-12' away, 4K is pointless.

True. IMO, you shouldn't even bother comparing what one set at Best Buy looks like to another. You just need to go there with an idea of what you want when it's on sale and get it.

Good chart!

One's eyesight is never irrelevant either -- the third dimension.

 

8 feet away 65" 4K UHD must have fantastic detail ?

 

Also consider I have never seen another person with a properly calibrated TV in their house. Ever. ‘High Dynamic Range’ doesn’t really apply if you leave your TV on SPORTS setting 24/7

 

The increase in video and sound quality in home entertainment is inversely proportional to my ability to see and hear clearly as I age.
Do I need to keep investing in improved equipment just to keep my viewing/listening quality on an even keel?