I think its a question of 'stretch' ben, stretch the source material a little and it looks ok, stretch it too far and the cracks start to show - SD content stretched to a large UHD screen that SD content was never designed for will not look as good as SD content on a native SD resolution screen
Lounge: Panasonic TX-P60ZT65B (calibrated), Pioneer SC-LX75, Denon DPB-2012, Sky-HD1TB, PS4, Xbox 360, Apple-TV, Atacama Equinox AV stand, Monitor Audio Silver RX8, RXC, RX-FX, RXW-12. Kitchen: Pioneer XC-HM81, Monitor Audio Bronze BX2. Bedroom: Samsung UE37D6510, Samsung BD-C5900, Sky-HD, Pioneer N-50, Rotel RC-03 (pre-amp), Rotel RB-9708X (power-amp), Mordaunt-Short MS914
what about SD content on a small 4K screen as sony are rumoured to be releasing a 30" 4K Tv in 2014 to kick start the 4K to smaller screens,
Suspect SD content upscaled on a 30" UHD screen would look fine, as SD content looks fine anyway on screens up to 32". Think the bigger question here would be, what's the point of a 30" UHD screen? Probably great if your viewing it from 3 feet away, but at normal viewing distance are you really going to see the difference even if you could find some native 4k content?
Not trying to be negative here, just genuinely think there's little point in paying an "early adopter" premium for a 4k display until there's a decent amount of native 4k content to watch on it - hold on to your money, if the technology takes hold then the content will come (probably be another 2-3 years) and by then the screens will have halved in cost and improved in quality.
is says it on the s790 review that it takes sd or hi def material and upscales it to uhd quality with a compatible screen.
Remove the word "quality" from that sentence and it starts to make sense. The statement sounds like Sony marketing rhetoric.
The suggestion is that the S790 can make sd material look like native 4k content. Anyone that's watched SD material upscaled to 1080p knows that can't be true.
Hardware: Panasonic TX-P50VT65B (calibrated); Cambridge Audio Azur 651BD; Yamaha RX-A810; Teac PD-H600; PS3; B&W 601 & 600LCR (series 3); Q Acoustics QAV (rear)
Furniture and Accessories: BLOK Classix 3000 Oak AV Cabinet; Atacama Nexus 6 (atabite metal filled); 3D3 A1112
I asked earlier in this thread about minumum viewing distances, and minimum screen sizes, for the difference between Full HD and 4K to be noticeable. I'll be amazed if a 4K screen as small as 30" will show the difference between genuine 4K source material (which certainly doesn't yet exist on Blu-Ray or other disc) going to the 4K screen and normal Full HD material going to an equivalent Full HD 30" screen. 3D looks more effective the bigger the screen, and I would imagine that the same is true of 4K.
Others have said that the more upscaling that has to be done, the worse the results will be. Please understand that you will not be getting a true 4K experience unless and until there is 4K source material!!! But if you want to be one of the first people to buy a 4K TV even without there being any 4K discs, you are quite free to do so and the TV companies will be very pleased, and possibly more than a trifle surprised, to separate you for your considerable amount of money for a device that will, initially at least, not be being used to its full potential. For instance, the only reason that I have 3D TVs is because 3D came built-in the TVs, not because I wanted 3D, a feature which I never use. I will most certainly be waiting for more - sorry, any - 4K source material and a demonstration that, at a screen size that I could consider buying, that 4K looked noticeably better than ordinary Full HD.
Click here to read about my system
Effective upscaling will likely render SD content watchable on a 4K display that's not too huge, but as we all know, it's not going to look like native 4k content; and it's not going to look any better than SD content upscaled to 1080p.
I agree that there's no point whatsoever in a 4k 30" TV. I wouldn't consider 1080p necessary on a screen that size.
I agree with that, but as with the question about a small 4k TV, isn't the problem screen size rather than number of pixels? If using blu rays then 100% a 1920 x 1080 screen should be best. But if upscaling from sd, why would a 60" (or 32") 4k TV look any worse than a 60" (or 32") HD TV?
HiFi / A/V / Bedroom
Ontheline, if your still not convinced then here's a simple test - you've probably got an HD TV? If so then it will have a video scaler built in. If upscaling gives the same quality as HD source material then you should see no difference flicking between BBC1 and BBC1HD; so start watching a programme and then switch between the two channels every few minutes, and see if you can see a difference. Have a go and see what you think?
Good question! Logically I'd say its because the upscaling software is having to extrapolate (ie 'guess') four times as many 'missing' pixels in the source data (or plug four times as many gaps), but would be interesting to see the two side by side to find out.
That's a test that I often do to show people how much better BBC1 HD is than ordinary standard definition BBC1. Excellent reasoning, Mr Malarky!
Agreed. The upscaling software has to "guess" the picture to fill in the extra pixels. More pixels means more guesswork.
My Home Cinema Pioneer KRP 500A, Yamaha RX-V1900, MA Radius R225HD LCR, R90HD rears, AW12 sub, Panasonic BD60, PS3, Boxee Box, Sky HD, Boxee Box, Logitech Harmony One, Logitech PS3 Adapter, Sonos ZP90
Bedroom Samsung UE32C6510, PS3 slim white, Apple TV, Sonos S5, Sonos ZP90, Audioengine 2, Oppo OPDV971H
Miscellaneous: Synology DS212J + 2 X WD Red 2TB drives, WD 1TB NAS, Sonos ZoneBridge, BT HH3 as modem & AirPort Extreme router
like probaly many others i can't wait to get my hands on Sony's new 65'' 4K 3D TV.
Not quite sure who or where these "many others" are, but by now you'll have seen that they are definitely not the people who have responded in this thread! Most of us can certainly wait.
like probaly many others i can't wait to get my hands on Sony's new 65'' 4K 3D TV. I have already pre ordered mine
Hmmm, this thread has been quiet for about six weeks. You said that you had pre-ordered your 65" Sony 4K television. You will have read the What Hi-Fi review, maybe the relevant three pages in the August 2013 issue of the physical magazine or online, here http://www.whathifi.com/review/sony-kd-65x9005a
I'm assuming that your lelevision, having been pre-ordered, has now arrived. Is it as good (especially with non-4K source material) as you had hoped? Maybe you can convert the sceptics , including me, who have taken part in this thread!
The 4k blu ray release as What Hi fi have also commented on will have implied improved colour reproduction; and beyond the Rec 709 mastering standard threshold. If you play the 4k mastering disk on your Sony player you'll have the best of the 'high resolution' and the colour as the new x9 set also have the wide colour gamut trilumious thing. Sony's x reality pro engine have been reported as very good at the upscale department with any bluray.
You suppose to see the colours on the 4k disk as good as the digital sourced mastering of the film. But how close or good we'll have to see no one has seen it yet? Maybe you want to wait till someone reviews it.
I happened to see the 65" Sony 4K television in my local Sony Centre today. It was showing true 4K source material. I must be honest, it looked good, very good indeed, but, for me, not quite the "Wow!" factor that I had been expecting from the reviews. Maybe if I hadn't been watching my Blu-Ray of "Drive" last night on my 64" Samsung plasma I might have been more impressed. I don't often get the chance to watch Blu-Rays in my parlour, so last night I was thinking that the picture from Drive looked pretty good. The 65" 4K Sony television showing 4K material today looked as good, but not, to my middle-aged eyes, noticeably better than Blu-Rays on my Samsung.
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing